Why are you so sure Rockefeller would have been the nominee in '72? Hell, it could have been Reagan did. Rocky never won a GOP primary and was forced out of even the VP slot in '76 for a reason you know. He was anathema to the party base. I find it hard to see him being nominated, especially after 1968 when the parties gave more power to the primaries and the base voters in deciding the nominee.
Because the scenario requires Humphrey to win in 1972. I don't think Rockefeller would be the nominee or that Humphrey would win reelection (cue the wall of text, of course).
OK then, why do you think Rockefeller would have been easier for a President Humphrey to beat than Reagan or other Republicans in 1972? Hell, why do you think ANY incumbent would have been disadvantaged in 1972 for that matter against ANY challenger? That flies in the face of conventional wisdom, and is akin to saying Kerry would have been a lock in 2008 if he won in 2004 or if Bush won that any Republican but McCain could have easily won that year, etc. It's a bold, unintuitive claim that requires a lot of explanation to be seriously examined for merit.
There is no wall of text, of course.
