George Romney (R) vs. Hubert Humphrey (D) - 1968

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Had he won the nomination, what stance on Vietnam would he be taking? He was pro, then the brainwashing comment, but if he were to win the nomination, it's likely he would've never made the brain-washing comment. And as for "but if he picks some one from the right as his running mate", he'd have to. There's no way the GOP would be able to coalesce around two liberal Republicans, especially with Strom Thurmond as a powerful figure in the GOP. He'd probably rather support Wallace than two yankee liberal pro-civil rights northerners.

The biggest questions are IL, WI, and OH. Three mid-western states that went to Nixon in OTL. I'm wondering if Romney can manage to hold them, or if there'll be enough conservative bleeding to deliver them to Humphrey.

This gives Humphrey 287.

This however has Romney in the lead but with no majority.

I doubt states like PA and NY would shift from the OTL map. However, you're likely to see changes in TN, SC, NC, MO, FL, IL, OH, MI, CA and WI.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I urge you to read "Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus".

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I urge you to read "Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus".

Who wrote that and what are his/her credentials?  I have evidence from Theodore White, the author of the Making of the President series, who wrote his books as these campaigns unfolded.  But thanks for the recommendation anyway!

Rick Perlstein. He's a liberal, but his books have been praised by people from both ends. On the back one of the quotes about the book is "For a man of the Left, Perlstein does great justice to a tale of the Right" or something of the such. Very interesting story and it shows that even before the 1972 election, the GOP was making great strides in the South and there were a surprising amount of people on the grassroots and such that were willing to ally with Southerners and/or spout segregationist rhetoric. Surprising given the book's events take place between 1959 and 1964.

(Also in RN's auto-biography he admits that Thurmond had a good amount of sway in his own VP choice.)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

We can travel down that road some other time, but what I'm stressing is that by '68, four years after Goldwater's folks had taken control of the party (at least temporarily), the party had a different attitude towards Southern interests than years before. And platforms say little about the way actual elections went. In '52 and '56, the Democrats lost electoral ground in the South, losing states like VA, FL, TX, and TN. In '60, Nixon had won KY, VA, FL, and TN. With Goldwater's people and a Democratic president pushing Civil Rights, the activist conservatives, not the higher ups or establishment types, but the activists had taken on a different tone. Stridently pro-states rights, you had Young Republicans groups even taking racist tones. And while Agnew had a good record on civil rights, he also had a good record on law and order. Were Romney to be paired with a fellow liberal Republican, that would not sit well with many of the grassroots, activist people. You could see things change with people like Jim Martin and Howard Callowayjoining the party.

In 1968, Nixon tried to be the uniter of the GOP's various groups. As well, Agnew represented a cross-section, appealing both to pro-civil rights people as well as pro-law & order folks. He'd been supported by Nelson Rockefeller in the past but had been identified as a moderate or conservative. Romney would have represented only one of the various factions and were he to choose another member of that same faction, it would not bode well for the GOP's chances.

The opposite happened in '64 when Goldwater, offended by the attempts by liberals to deny him the nomination, vetoed the idea of choosing Bill Scranton for VP. (This was after a letter from Scranton's campaign that completely tore down Goldwater in every way imaginable) Instead it was a one-sided ticket and the party's moderates and liberals weren't too happy about it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

What I'm saying is that when Republicans were gaining ground in the South in 1952, 1956, and 1960, they weren't the ones pandering to bigots.  The vast majority of Republicans did not do that, though a few may have.  And also, if Wallace thought that the Republicans were any more friendly to racists than Democrats, then why did he run for president as an Independent rather than a Republican? 

"It should be obvious to a half-blind n who can't see out his good eye that Goldwater and me would make a pretty good ticket!"

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Point I'm trying to get across here is that a Romney/liberal Republican ticket isn't going to bode well for the general election. There were many who hated Rockefeller with a passion in '64 ("...By doing so, Scranton had joined a place reserved in their minds for Nelson Rockefeller and the Soviet Union") and I doubt they'd just disappear and take it four years later.