Did Nixon actually underperform in 1968?

[Podgy the Bear]

The Wallace factor makes it really difficult to determine whether a Rockefeller/Romney or a Reagan could have done better than Nixon.  And if the events in Chicago hadn't happened, I doubt that Nixon would have come out with the big lead that he had in September 1968.  I think what's remarkable is how Humphrey performed in October 1968 to come so close to winning.

Nixon knew that he was in for a dogfight right from the start. He was a two-time loser and didn't hold office at the time.  He thought that he would be running against LBJ--and then he thought he would be running against RFK (he noted that in his autobiography on the night of the California primary).  And as noted, the Republican Party was far behind the Democrats in party identification and loyalty.   Finally, he didn't have a very united party behind him (though nothing like the Democrats in 1968).

I doubt that Rockefeller could have done better.  He would have won NY (and probably PA), but he would have trouble holding OH, MO, and perhaps CA--a number of votes would have left the Republicans, moving those states to Humphrey.  And more significant, the states that Nixon won in the peripheral South (FL, NC, SC, TN) would have probably swung to Wallace.

Hard to say how Reagan would have done--in 1968, he was thought to be the Goldwater heir and very conservative but would have done much better than 1964.  But selecting Rockefeller or Reagan as the nominee would have caused another split that the other flank would be unlikely to support.