RFK/Bobby in 1976

[(no subject)]

He would have been the front runner for 1972 once HHH was the nominee but he was smarter then McGovern so he might sit it out and wait for '76.

What does a Bobby Kennedy administration elected in the late seventies *do*? How do they *act*?

[Blair]

so this assumes that Bobby lost the 1968 fight at the convention (which is actually a more realistic option than a lot of people reckon, even if he won Illinois & New York)

I think it's a big unknown how Bobby would survive the 1970s; the issues of crime, busing & abortion are always ones where it's easy to see him deviatating from the democratic line. It's forgotten that Ted was not only the most liberal of the brothers but also kept moving left as he got older.

I think much how JFK's best shot was 1960, Bobby's was always the chaos & uncertainty that 1968 generated.

[brucejoel99]

so this assumes that Bobby lost the 1968 fight at the convention (which is actually a more realistic option than a lot of people reckon, even if he won Illinois & New York)

I don't think it's necessarily an easy assumption that Bobby was destined to lose at the convention or anything, not when Humphrey had soft numbers & Bobby evidently had momentum. Daley was a pragmatist at heart, & would've supported Bobby over Humphrey if/when it came to it.

I think it's a big unknown how Bobby would survive the 1970s; the issues of crime, busing & abortion are always ones where it's easy to see him deviatating from the democratic line. It's forgotten that Ted was not only the most liberal of the brothers but also kept moving left as he got older.

Jumping off of this, I think hypothesizing about a 1976 Bobby campaign is particularly interesting for 2 reasons:

1. It's not certain that Bobby could've beaten Carter in the primaries. Carter had an extremely talented campaign team that understood how the new primary system worked. That's how he was able to beat out more qualified candidates like Mo Udall, Scoop Jackson, Lloyd Bentsen, etc. Bobby would've presumably been more used to the old-school campaign style that he ran for Jack in 1960 & himself in 1968, which wouldn't be sufficient by 1976.

2. With Bobby remaining in the Senate after losing the nomination in 1968, then with his 10+ years of Senate experience, being Jack's Attorney General (& the inherent nepotism thereof), & crusade against the Mob in the 1950s, it'd be easier to paint him as a Washington insider, which - if Watergate still happens as it did in real life - wouldn't exactly be good for him.

All-in-all, I think Bobby could probably still pull it off (especially if he could get himself a seat on the Watergate Committee & play up "ruthless Bobby" in the hearings), but I certainly don't think it'd even be an easy route to the nomination, let alone a coronation or anything.

I think much how JFK's best shot was 1960, Bobby's was always the chaos & uncertainty that 1968 generated.

Yeah, Bobby's appeal stretched to nearly all sectors of American society, he presented the opportunity for change & a reuniting of a divided America, & he carried with him the memories of his brother's presidency & - through them - simpler times. With that in mind, I just don't see how he loses in 1968.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Any RFK or Romney Sr administration would gave averted a Watergate type scenario. Hoover was very much negligent in protecting CR leaders and cozy with the KGB.

That would have been the result of Bobby or Romney Sr Prez

[(no subject)]

Like any average white American at the time, Hoover viewed the Black Panther/Malcolm X types as radicals who were stirring up the blacks. It's the same as how the catchphrase "the police are the only ones rioting!" doesn't cut through to white Americans today - it catches, but it doesn't catch on.