1964: Johnson vs Nixon

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Lyndon Johnson/Hubert Humphrey

vs

Richard Nixon/Barry Goldwater

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Well, under this scenario there'd still be a huge primary battle, though Nixon would likely win the California primary, and choose Goldwater to assuage disgruntled conservatives.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

That boom ^^ is what Johnson would've shown if Nixon ran as well.

No, that boom was my head exploding after seeing Yougo's map.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

The north may not have been as democratic then if Goldwater wasn't the nominee. Nixon wasn't a segregation so using a little girl to advance a political and socialist agenda wouldn't have been an option for Kennedy's predecessor.

No way would Nixon win Massachusetts/Rhode Island, if thats what you're referring to.

Johnson was very unlikely to get beat in 1964.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

People would ahve still remmebered Nixon's embarrassments from 1960, even if he would ahve ran a better campaign this time around. Also, NV wasn't that Republican--it voted for Bryan three times, voted for Wilson in 1916, voted for FDR all four times, and voted for Truman. BTW, could you please respond to my 1988 scenario?

Bryan was an authentic Western Democrat - and such scenarios have little bearing on elections decades later. All of the West had voted for FDR - having ill memories of Republican administrations, coupled with farming droughts and Hoovervilles. Not to mention, most of the country had voted for Democrats in those years, against laughable opponents. (Especially Wendell Willkie.)

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

People would ahve still remmebered Nixon's embarrassments from 1960, even if he would ahve ran a better campaign this time around. Also, NV wasn't that Republican--it voted for Bryan three times, voted for Wilson in 1916, voted for FDR all four times, and voted for Truman. BTW, could you please respond to my 1988 scenario?

Bryan was an authentic Western Democrat - and such scenarios have little bearing on elections decades later. All of the West had voted for FDR - having ill memories of Republican administrations, coupled with farming droughts and Hoovervilles. Not to mention, most of the country had voted for Democrats in those years, against laughable opponents. (Especially Wendell Willkie.)

1916 and 1948 were close elections, though, and NV voted for the Dems both times (even though as you mentioned, the Dems won most of the West both those times, so it's less impressive than in 1960, when the GOP won most of the West.) I guess NV just voted Democratic that year due to Large Latino support for the Democratic ticket and Nixon's boringness. Keep in mind that many other Western states were close in 1960 (MT, ID, OR, WA, CA, AK, and HI). JFK just won a little extra votes in NV (and HI) in order to delvier the state for him. The closest equivalent I can think of off the top of my head is Wilson winning NH in 1916 despite the fact that the rest of New England the the Northeast voted for hughes.

Most likely due to JFK's "working man's Democrat" image.

Wilson winning in "Live free or Die" New Hampshire was always a little disappointing to me (coupled with Roosevelt winning it several times.) Oh well.