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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Romney in a heartbeat!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Hubert, and he'd likely win. Nixon was a more effective and less gaffe-prone politician, and concerns in the South about Romney's religion would make a Southern Strategy nearly impossible.

Yes, but the Southern strategy had nothing to do with race or religion.  According to Pat Buchanan, it was an attempt to convince Southern moderates who were pro-civil rights to vote Republican as a protest against the segregationists in the Democratic Party.  And besides, even with Nixon on the ticket, a "Southern strategy" based on pandering to racists was impossible because most of tose voters were already supporting George Wallace.  Here are some links on this subject:

http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

http://www.freedomsjournal.net/2011/11/27/urban-legends-the-southern-strategy/#top

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT7pASof8Lc

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100265457/The-Truth-Nixon-s-Southern-Strategy

BTW: What's with all the Humphrey love so early in this thread?  Are you guys just saying he would win and/or you would vote for him because you don't like Mitt Romney as the GOP nominee this year?
And I stand by my answer: I would've voted for Romney, and he would have won.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

When was George Romney ever gaffe-prone?  He couldn't have possibly been worse than Joe Biden.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

Of course the GOP would've coalesced around two civil rights Republicans.  The only major segregationist to switch from Democrat to Republican was Strom Thurmond, and with Wallace in the race, there was no way the segregationists would have gone Republican in the OTL (what does that mean anyway?).  Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights and refused to compromise that position, which is why he immediately conceded the Deep South to Wallace.  And what do you think the map would have looked like without Wallace?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.)

Yeah, but Agnew was a strong supporter of civil rights who had defeated segregationist Democrat George Mahoney for Governor of Maryland in 1966.  Mahoney's slogan had been, "Your home is you castle--protect it!" That same year, Nixon kicked off his comeback with a column ghostwritten by Pat Buchanan which stated that the GOP would leave it to Democrats, "the party of Maddox, Mahoney, and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice." (http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/)  In 1952, 1956, and 1960, Republicans ran presidential nominees on strongly pro-civil rights platforms (Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, Nixon in 1960) and made inroads in the South, while the Democrats ran racist Adlai Stevenson twice (with Southern running mates both times, one of whom was a segregationist) and Kennedy/Johnson in 1960, both of whom opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the latter (LBJ) being a known racist and segregationist who only supported civil rights as president to get ahead politically (much like Kennedy).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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? 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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!"

Yeah, but he probably meant as an Independent.  George Wallace was a Democrat who never became a Republican, even after his supposed change of heart.  Goldwater was anything but a racist, as he was a founding member of the Arizona NAACP and was insturmental in desegregating his family's department stores.