|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 08:23:12 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Should've left the Pangolins alone, Apocrypha)
  HHH/RFK in 68
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: HHH/RFK in 68  (Read 5227 times)
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,643
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2013, 03:10:55 am »

JFK had escalted Vietnam as LBJ did, as JFK was the one who actually begun on the American involvement.

However, a HHH/RFK ticket would have been possible. HHH wanted the end the war in 1968, we might have been out there sooner with him. And in domestic terms, both were liberals and would continue and expand the Great Society programs.

Vietnam still would've gone better if Kennedy lived on.
Logged
johnpressman
Rookie
**
Posts: 148
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2013, 02:42:13 pm »

As far as I can determine, this HHH/RFK 1968 scenario supposes that RFK had lived, not JFK.  That being said, it would be virtually impossible for HHH to break with his president's policies on Vietnam.  With LBJ choosing him and virtually handing him the nomination in 1968, a break with the President would be unthinkable.  Humphrey would have been branded a traitor and an ingrate, if not worse, and the rank-and-file Democratic Party would have sat on their hands in the general election.

As for the myth that, had JFK lived, he would have pulled us out of Vietnam, is pure speculation, at best.  While Kennedy did float some trial balloons about abandoning Vietnam after his reelection in 1964, the thought of Kennedy, the ultimate Cold warrior, leaving Southeast Asia to the Communists would cause a national panic.  This was the man who stated in his inaugural address that he  would bear any burden, support any friend, etc. in the name of liberty.  America was a MUCH more conservative nation in 1964.
Logged
TTS1996
Rookie
**
Posts: 100
Australia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2013, 03:40:14 pm »

Those who have put up maps on here need to go back and think if they're looking at this down the end of a 21st Century telescope. For example why's Vermont Democratic? It had a 10% Nixon lead in 1968 IRL and was a GOP stronghold (except 1964). There were 17 other states with a smaller Nixon lead.
Logged
A Brave Old Fuzzy Bear for a Brave New Atlas
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,811
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2013, 09:34:11 pm »

Those who have put up maps on here need to go back and think if they're looking at this down the end of a 21st Century telescope. For example why's Vermont Democratic? It had a 10% Nixon lead in 1968 IRL and was a GOP stronghold (except 1964). There were 17 other states with a smaller Nixon lead.

Very true.

If it was Humphrey/Kennedy vs. Nixon/Agnew with Wallace as a wild card, I believe the following shifts would have happened:

Arkansas from Wallace to Nixon  (Nixon gains 6)
Georgia from Wallace to Nixon (Nixon gains 12)
Illinois from Nixon to Humphrey (Humphrey gains 26/Nixon loses 26)
Wisconsin from Nixon to Humphrey (Humphrey gains 12/Nixon loses 12)
Texas from Humphrey to Nixon (Nixon gains 25/Humphrey loses 25)

It is hard for me to see many more changes.  A lot of people view the map as it is today, but in 1968, Delaware, Vermont, Oregon, and California were far more Republican in the Presidential race than they are today.  Indeed, Illinois and Wisconsin were more Republican then they are today at the Presidential level, so I'm not sure those switches would have happened.

In 1968, America was sick of the Vietnam War, divided on its resolution, apprehensive of the budding social upheavals and fearful of racial integration.  New Jersey, a primarily suburban state in 1968, swung heavily to Nixon.  RFK would not have made that much of a difference.  Humphrey was unpopular because LBJ was unpopular.

Now if RFK had lived and had been the candidate, that might have shaken things up.
Logged
johnpressman
Rookie
**
Posts: 148
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 24, 2013, 12:06:46 am »

Fuzzy Bear, your reasoning is sound.  An HHH-RFK ticket in 1968 is unreasonable, as I have stated in an earlier post.  An RFK headed ticket in 1968 would have probably closely emulated Humphrey's total,  winning Illinois but losing Texas.

You are right in that America in 1968 was tailor made for Nixon's comeback.  Nixon represented the 1950's and the memory of a more peaceful era.  RFK's message appealed to the young and minorities but turned off the voters of that year, 57% voting for Nixon/Wallace.

I am also convinced that had RFK not been assassinated, he would not have won the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968.  Humphrey had a majority of the delegates committed to him, Kennedy and McCarthy's needed to persuade those committed delegates to change their votes in order to prevent a Humphrey victory on the first ballot. With the sitting President working against him behind the scenes, an RFK victory was not in the cards.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,572
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2013, 11:44:56 am »


Vice-President Hubert Humphrey (R-MN)/Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY): 257 Electoral Votes
Former Vice-President Richard Nixon (R-CA)/Governor Spiro Agnew (R-MD): 254 Electoral Votes
Governor George Wallace (AI-AL)/General Curtis LeMay (AI-CA): 27 Electoral Votes

The election would go to the House, where Nixon would likely work out a deal with Wallace in which all of the electors pledged to him would vote for Nixon and in turn, a deal would be made in which the Senate would vote to make Wallace Vice-President.

I think that Robert Kennedy would make a comeback in 1976, in Jimmy Carter's place, ultimately defeating President Wallace, who would become President after Nixon resigned due to Watergate. By 1980 however, due to the mediocre economy and troubles on the world stage, Ronald Reagan would win against Kennedy, just like he did n RL against Jimmy Carter. From that point forward, history would remain the same.
Logged
johnpressman
Rookie
**
Posts: 148
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2013, 06:42:51 pm »

No, there is no possible way that George Wallace would become Vice President with Richard Nixon as President. Wallace was a fringe candidate, a hate monger and segregationist.  He was unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.  Besides, dumping your Vice Presidential candidate after the election in favor of a losing Presidential candidate makes no sense.  Nixon, for all his faults, had no respect for Wallace and their policies had little in common.

As aforementioned, an HHH/RFK candidacy is untenable, given their respective positions and loyalties.  For Humphrey, the sitting Vice President, to turn on LBJ,  his benefactor, and repudiate his policies is a stab in the back of momentous proportions.  Furthermore, to ally with Johnson's sworn enemy, RFK, would cause a political explosion that would have destroyed Humphrey's and maybe, Kennedy's career.

Nixon, the perfect candidate for 1968, wins easily.
Logged
MATTROSE94
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,572
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -6.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2013, 02:06:13 pm »

No, there is no possible way that George Wallace would become Vice President with Richard Nixon as President. Wallace was a fringe candidate, a hate monger and segregationist.  He was unacceptable to the vast majority of the electorate.  Besides, dumping your Vice Presidential candidate after the election in favor of a losing Presidential candidate makes no sense.  Nixon, for all his faults, had no respect for Wallace and their policies had little in common.

As aforementioned, an HHH/RFK candidacy is untenable, given their respective positions and loyalties.  For Humphrey, the sitting Vice President, to turn on LBJ,  his benefactor, and repudiate his policies is a stab in the back of momentous proportions.  Furthermore, to ally with Johnson's sworn enemy, RFK, would cause a political explosion that would have destroyed Humphrey's and maybe, Kennedy's career.

Nixon, the perfect candidate for 1968, wins easily.
My mistake. Then Agnew wins the Senate vote easily.
Logged
johnpressman
Rookie
**
Posts: 148
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2013, 06:55:55 pm »

No, a U.S. Presidential Election, with no candidate recieving a majority of votes in the Electoral College, would be decied in the House of Repreesentatives, no the Senate.

With the Democrats having a 247 to 187 majority in 1968, it would be reasonable to predict that Humphrey would have won.  Of course, my prediction would have been a repeat of the Nixon victory, with the Democrats losing votes in the South with RFK on the ticket.  I do not see any states that voted for Nixon or Wallace switching to the Democrats with the addition of RFK to the ticket as VP.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines