1968 - Nixon vs. Kennedy vs. Wallace

[Keystone Phil]

I had a discussion with a friend of mine just the other day about this scenario. He absolutely despises Nixon and he's pretty liberal in general. He believes that RFK's chances of winning would be just as high as Michael Nutter's when it comes to winning the Philadelphia Mayoral race this year (which is absolutely insane). He also thinks that it wouldn't have even been close. Funny enough, my friend's last name is Kennedy. 

I don't make the argument that Nixon would definetley win but I think a sizable chunk of this country - a "silenty majority" so to speak    - were very wary of people like RFK though he had great crossover appeal.

Anyway, I'd like to know who you think would have won and how close or lopsided the race would have been. Please posts maps.

[Lincoln Republican]

For Vice President, Nixon picks respected Tennessee Senator Howard Baker, Kennedy picks the equally respected Washington Sentaor Henry Jackson.

The campaign is heated and acrimonious.  It turns into a political slug fest,  no holds barred.  Nixon is much better prepared this time for the debates than he was in 1960, and makes sure he looks good on camera.

Kennedy sweeps most of the northeast, with Nixon holding on to the traditionally Republican strongholds in Upper New England.  Nixon and Kennedy battle to a near deadlock in the midwest.  The south is split between Nixon and Wallace.  The very liberal Kennedy is shut out in the south.  The west, with the exception of Washington, goes to Nixon, with Nixon pulling off a narrow win in his home state of California.

The key to the Nixon victory lies in Texas.  With no LBJ this time to save the day for the Democrats, the state goes narrowly to Nixon. 

The key to Nixon's victory turns out to be Texas.   

Nixon/Baker            273 EV    43% PV
Kennedy/Jackson    220 EV    42% PV
Wallace/LeMay          45 EV    15% PV

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Kennedy - 257
Nixon - 236
Wallace - 45

[True Democrat]

I think Kennedy would have been able to swing California, but he would have lost Texas.



287-206-45

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I still think Kennedy would of lost CA and carried TX, but I think that AR would of went to him. AR was still leaning Democratic back then.

[True Democrat]

I still think Kennedy would of lost CA and carried TX, but I think that AR would of went to him. AR was still leaning Democratic back then.

The only reason HHH won Texas is because Johnson got the machine to work for him at the last minute.  I don't think he would have done the same for Kennedy, who he detested.

[johnpressman]

Should SOMEHOW Robert Kennedy had won the 1968 Democratic Nomination, the party would have been so badly split, with the rank-and-file, who controlled the party machinery, sitting on their hands and the Southern Democrats  going for Wallace. It would have been VERY difficult for RFK to win.  While many young people were passionate for him, most of Middle America did not like or trust him.  He had the wrong message for 1968.  What Americans wanted was a return to normalcy.  Race riots, the hippie movement and extremist groups only hardened the hearts of most white voters.  There was not much support for the poor or minorities among average Americans who were basically conservative in 1968.   Also, a majority of Americans did NOT want to pull out of Vietnam in 1968.  Nixon campaigned on the slogan "Peace With Honor".  The thought of America actually losing a war was still a hard one to swallow for the average American.  RFK loses in a landslide with Texas and California going to Nixon.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Kennedy family is the most respected family of America. They are the camolet of America. I think the convention would be split, but the Daleys walked out of the convention, because they despised the Humphreys. Daleys respected the Kennedys and they would not have pulled that political stunt that they did during the Humphrey convention.  I think that Nixon could of still won, but so could Bobby Kennedy. And the Kennedys had a significant cash advantage that the Humphreys didn't.

[True Democrat]

It all matters how Kennedy wins the nomination.

If he enters how he did in OTL, but simply does not die, then somehow wins the nomination (which is a longshot in itself), then the convention will be very split.  Look for the South and labor to rally behind HHH.  McCarthy would drop out after the first ballot (if there's more than one ballot), but his endorsement of RFK was not certain.  He hated RFK and stated multiple times that he preferred HHH.  RFK would leave this convention with a split party.

However, Kennedy had another method to winning.  McCarthy, in his memoirs of his campaign a year later, suggested that Kennedy could entered the race over the summer in a "draft" and then won the nomination.  I completely agree with this assessment.  Assuming Johnson still drops out, Kennedy would let HHH and McCarthy duke it out in the primaries, of which McCarthy would probably win most of them.  Then, with the party split between those two, Kennedy would have been "drafted" by McGovern of someone of the like.  RFK would enter the race as the unifying candidate and take McCarthy's anti-war momentum.  This way, RFK also wouldn't have pissed off college students for stealing McCarthy's post-New Hampshire momentum.  With a coalition of minorities, college students, and some bosses like Richard Daley, Kennedy could have won the nomination.

[johnpressman]

It amazes me how many revisionist historians feel that, had RFK lived, he would have won the Democratic nomination in 1968 and gone on to beat Nixon for the presidency.  There is virtually no plausable scenario that could end with RFK winning the nomination, much less the presidency that year.  There were very few primaries in 1968, California being the only significant state with a primary election that year.  President Johnson still controlled the party machinery, the proof is that Humphrey won the nomination without winning or ENTERING a single primary!  RFK and McCarthy battled it out in the primaries while Humphrey sewed up the  nomination behind the scenes, winning on the first ballot.

RFK and McCarthy were outsiders in 1968.  The difference was that LBJ saw McCarthy for a kook, a US Senator who was considered lazy and who had not sponsord a single piece of memorable legislation during his Senate tenure.  LBJ, on the other hand,  HATED Bobby.  There is no way he could have won the nomination in 1968.   I don't know what McCarthy is talking about but RFK was seen as a divisive force, the rank-and-file Dems would have NEVER have accepted him as a compromise candidate.  The election of 1968 was tailor-made for Nixon.  Years of social unrest enabled a backlash candidate to win the presidency.  If you want to add the Wallace vote to the total; 55% of America voted for right wing candidates who vowed to bring the Vietnam war to a sucessful outcome!  While the anti-war movement brought on a lot of media coverage and mobilized the under 21 age group, the vast majority of the American electorate did not want to "cut and run"in 1968!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Humphrey was not a good candidate. Nixon got his political standing from the Eisenhower years. The years budget deficits and slow economny. Yes, people didn't want to cut and run from Vietnam, but if you compare the economics of the Kennedy era and the Eisenhower era, that alone would have worked for Bobby Kennedy. And had Bobby Kennedy won, Nixon couldn't debate that well against JFK, I think that RFK would have won the debate with Nixon.   Lastly, about LBJ not supporting RFK for president, just like Ted Kennedy factions didn't approve of the Carter factions at the conventions, I think he would of supported him at the end. Economy don't always guarentee elections, but it helps.

At any rate I believe that #1 RFK would have saved the country from the Watergate scandle. And #2, had to break into the Democratic national headquaters to secure his reelection for 1972,  it remains to be seen if Nixon could have come out ahead with a quality candidate. Humphrey wasn't a top quality candidate.

[True Democrat]

It amazes me how many revisionist historians feel that, had RFK lived, he would have won the Democratic nomination in 1968 and gone on to beat Nixon for the presidency.  There is virtually no plausable scenario that could end with RFK winning the nomination, much less the presidency that year.  There were very few primaries in 1968, California being the only significant state with a primary election that year.  President Johnson still controlled the party machinery, the proof is that Humphrey won the nomination without winning or ENTERING a single primary!  RFK and McCarthy battled it out in the primaries while Humphrey sewed up the  nomination behind the scenes, winning on the first ballot.

RFK and McCarthy were outsiders in 1968.  The difference was that LBJ saw McCarthy for a kook, a US Senator who was considered lazy and who had not sponsord a single piece of memorable legislation during his Senate tenure.  LBJ, on the other hand,  HATED Bobby.  There is no way he could have won the nomination in 1968.   I don't know what McCarthy is talking about but RFK was seen as a divisive force, the rank-and-file Dems would have NEVER have accepted him as a compromise candidate.  The election of 1968 was tailor-made for Nixon.  Years of social unrest enabled a backlash candidate to win the presidency.  If you want to add the Wallace vote to the total; 55% of America voted for right wing candidates who vowed to bring the Vietnam war to a sucessful outcome!  While the anti-war movement brought on a lot of media coverage and mobilized the under 21 age group, the vast majority of the American electorate did not want to "cut and run"in 1968!

The idea that HHH didn't enter a single primary is a myth.  His name (or the name of a stand-in) was on the ballot in Nebraska, Indiana, Oregon, and California.  In Oregon, he even had the AFL-CIO doing a phone bank for him.

At the time of RFK's death, he was clearly losing to HHH in the delegate totals.  However, the momentum from the California primary would have given him a huge win in the New York (kind of) primary/caucus a week later.  This momentum would have been huge.  As Schlesinger writes in Robert Kennedy and His Times, Kennedy would have been able to create a coalition between Daley and Dellinger (Daley was one of the most committed doves in the nation until the Chicago protests).  Yes, it would have been hard for Kennedy to win the nomination.  The odds were against him of course.  But it is not impossible.  In the end, McCarthy probably would have  thrown his support to RFK, simply because half his organization was going to switch Kennedy after California anyway.  Then, with McCarthy out of the race, Kennedy would have moderated his position on Vietnam and other issues to attract some (though certainly not even close to a majority) of establishment delegates.

With his only major opposition being Kennedy, HHH would have had to move to the left a bit on Vietnam, before the Salt Lake City speech.  McCarthy was seen as a kook, but Kennedy was a serious candidate, and HHH knew that.  To keep control of the party, HHH would have moved to the left of Vietnam.  If this happened, Lester Maddox would probably not have dropped out and received close to 100 delegates on the first ballot, as Maddox would become the Southern, pro-war candidate to replace Johnson (and HHH to an extent).

It would have taken the perfect storm, but Kennedy winning the nomination was not impossible.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The republicans love to call Dems cutting and running, when we say we want to wind down an unpopular war. It may work sometimes but not all the time as history proved in 2004 and 2006. The pro-war Dixiecrats got booted out in 66 by sticking to their guns on Vietnam.  I think that RFK could of offered the voters an alternative to the present course the country was on back in 1968, without appearing being a coward. As you recall Nixon even said he would end the war by the end of his administration, and RFK would have done the same.

[PBrunsel]

Bobby Kennedy, in all honesty, scared the Middle Class of America. He had a fanatical following from racial minorities and the poor, something Nixon could have exploited against him. We must remember, this is Richard Nixon who Bobby Kennedy is opposing, not Kenneth Keating.

Kennedy would have to smash the Democratic establishment in half to win the nomination, and thus we have McGovern four years earlier. Many Democrats in the Humphrey-Jackson-Muskie mode might “hold their nose” and vote for Nixon, like many blue collar Democrats did in 1972. Kennedy also would have selected a fellow progressive, most likely Iowa Governor Harold Hughes

Also, George Wallace’s vote totals would have increased amongst blue collar Democrats. Bobby Kennedy would have had the “New Left” and ethnic minorities, and Nixon would have had nominal Republican voters.

Nixon/Agnew (R): 274 EV
Kennedy/Hughes (D): 211 EV
Wallace/LeMay (AI): 45

In the end the map changes little, but RFK is defeated. 1968 was not going to be a Democratic year no matter who was nominated, too many forces were working against the Democrats. 

[johnpressman]

True Democrat, Your argument makes some sense, however, HHH did NOT run in the primaries in 1968.  In several states, the name of a stand-in or "favorite son" supporting him was on the ballot, however, there was virtually NO grass-roots campaign for Humphrey in either the primary or non-primary states in 1968.  The AFL-CIO setting up a phone bank for Humphrey in Oregon is peanuts compared to the high-profile primary campaign between RFK and McCarthy.  Humphrey sewed up a majority of the delegates through LBJ's patronage and behind the scenes arm-twisting.  It is VERY difficult to unseat a President for his party's nomination, whether that President is popular or not.  Look at Ted Kennedy's failed run to unseat Carter in 1980, even after Carter's debacles in Iran, Afghanistan and the terrible state of the economy that year!  Plus, Carter was also an outsider, not in control of the Democratic party machinery, if anything , Ted was more of an "organization guy" than Carter and, with all of those advantages,  he  was still unsuccesful!  I admit that Ted ran a poor campaign that year but it illustrated the difficulty of unseating a sitting President for his party's nomination, even with all the above factors working in his favor.  Also, the political realities of 1968 were a far cry from 1980 or what we see today.     

1968 was a watershed year in American history and politics.  This was the last year of the "old line" Democratic party.  LBJ had the party rank and file firmly in his power.  The vast majority of the Democratic machine, which still controlled the nominating process, were beholden to LBJ and disliked RFK who was seen as an outsider, with little appeal to voters over 30. remember, the voting age was still 21 in those days. 

Daley was not going to abandon the President along with organized labor (which was VERY STRONG in 1968) and switch to RFK.  He was a loyal organization man and one of Humphrey's strongest advocates.  David Dellinger, one of the Chicago Seven, along with Abbie Hoffman, was seen as a unwashed hippie and a dangerous agitator by the rank and file Democrats and the public at large.  His support would be considered a distinct liabilty by any candidiate in 1968 and an alliance between him and Mayor Daley would be unthinkable.

As for McCarthy's supporters abandonng him and switching to Kennedy BEFORE the convention balloting, I think not.  The bad feelings between the two camps ran high.  McCarthy's supporters were generally thought to be idealists, not pragmatists.  They supported Gene without the slightest hope that he would win the Presidency.  They believed in his cause and hated RFK for being an opportunist.  Refusing Allard Lowenstein's offer to run agianst LBJ, only changing his mind after McCarthy's strong showing in the New Hampshire primary.  Should Kennedy have SOMEHOW won the nomination (I admit, nothing is impossible in politics), they would have probably supported him against Nixon and Wallace.  LBJ, however, and the rank and file Democrats would have either sat on their hands or worked behind the scenes for Nixon.  LBJ hated Kennedy and probably would have preferred Nixon over his arch enemy!

So, RFK would not have won the 1968 Democratic Presidential nomination had he lived, Humphrey already had it "in the bag".  If somehow he could have pulled it off, Nixon would have steamrolled him.  Nixon's "secret plan" to end the war including "Peace With Honor" was a FAR cry from the immediate pullout championed by Kennedy.  America was NOT READY to lose it's first war in 1968.  This was a MUCH more conservative nation and electorate in 1968.  It was Nixon's time.

[True Democrat]

I just did an entire research paper on the 1968 election.  I know for a fact that HHH's name was on the ballot in Oregon and Nebraska (as was Johnson's).  As I said before, the AFL-CIO was actually phone banking for HHH in Oregon. Yes, HHH paid little attention to the primaries, but he still paid some attention.   Lynch (HHH's stand-in in California) was at one time polling a close second to RFK, though that went away during the campaign.

As for your assertion on Daley, I completely disagree.  Daley because so disillusioned with HHH by Chicago, that he refused to even commit the Illinois delegates until the day before balloting began, as Daley was holding out for the Ted Kennedy draft that came extremely close to fruition.  Kennedy that was the kind of man who could hold a Daley-Dellinger coalition together.  They wouldn't support each other, but they would support Kennedy.

Kennedy did have supporters over 30 years old.  Remember, minorities and   the poor were strongly behind Kennedy, regardless of age.  Also, Catholics, regardless of age, were still a strong force within the party and support RFK.

Yes, I agree McCarthy hated Kennedy, and vice-versa.  However, this hate only grew to its epic proportions because of New Hampshire.  If Kennedy had been "drafted" over the summer, these ill feelings probably would not have existed to the extent they actually did.  Also, in the aftermath of California, a number of campaign staff of McCarthy's had been convinced to join the Kennedy campaign.  Even Lowenstein still held out for Kennedy, even while working for McCarthy.  (As a side note, McCarthy actually hated Lowenstein because he embarrassed him at a convention of Concerned Democrats in Chicago in 1967.  After that appearance, McCarthy said he would never speak on the same stage as Lowenstein again.)

I agree that LBJ would have sat on his hands for Kennedy.  However, the entire Democratic organization would not have.  The unions and bosses wouldn't have done much for Kennedy (with the exception of Daley), but I don't think they would actively work for Nixon.  After Nixon's starts his big lead, I think unions would have lost done a GOTV effort for Democratic candidates in general, if not for Kennedy.  The establishment did not want Democrats down ballot to lose (in what most predicted would be another big congressional pickup for Republicans, which it wasn't), so at least Democrats would have voted (and I suspect that most would hold their nose and vote for Kennedy).

Finally, Kennedy was not in favor of immediate withdrawal.  Starting with the Indiana campaign, Kennedy began to move to the right on Vietnam.  In the debate before with California primary with McCarthy, Kennedy actually criticized McCarthy for a statement in which he said he would force the South Vietnamese goverment to include the Viet Cong in a coalition.  Kennedy knew that immediate withdrawal was not an option, and he continually said this while campaigning.

Either way, if Kennedy had lived, the party would have been ripped apart.  To deny Kennedy the nomination after having such support in the primaries and among many Democrats would have been disastrous.  The Democrats would have seen an exodus many times larger than that of McCarthy supporters.  If Kennedy would have won, obviously Johnson and establishment would have refused to really support him.

[johnpressman]

You are a smart guy, True Democrat.   I believe, however, you are grasping at straws.  Whether Humphrey's name was on the ballot or not, or whether the AFL-CIO had a phone bank for him in Oregon, or whether several stalking-horses stood in for him in other state primaries is not relevant, given the big picture of 1968.  What is relevant is that Hubert Humphrey won the Democratic nomination for president without mounting any significant campaign and was LEADING Kennedy in delegates at the time of RFK's death without winning a single primary!   

The presidential nominating process in 1968 was very different from the one we have had since.   1972 was the watershed year, culminating  with the McGovern victory at the Democratic Convention.   In 1968, however, Mayor Daley was NOT going against the President's wishes and support his arch enemy!  Daley disliked Humphrey personally,  and hoped that either LBJ would jump back in or that Ted Kennedy could unite the party AFTER RFKs death! Daley was the ultimate "machine guy" and was NOT going to lead a revolt against a sitting Democratic President! 

I agree that Kennedy had supporters over 30 years of age, however, every poll taken that year showed Nixon trouncing Kennedy.  McCarthy did better against Nixon, but neither of them did as well against Nixon as Humphrey!  The polls showed that the only Republican candidate that RFK could consistantly win against was Reagan.  A constituency built on the poor and minorities is on a very weak foundation.  Even Catholic voters, nominaly Democrats and strong for the Kennedys, started their defection in 1968.   More ethnic Catholics voted for Nixon and Wallace, representing the beginnings of the neo-conservative backlash. 

I don't agree with you that, had Kennedy lived, the Democratic Party would have been ripped apart.  I believe that, with RFK alive and contesting for the nomination, the situation in the streets of Chicago would have been more tame.  I feel that the anger over the killing of Kennedy and the inevitable triumph of Humphrey (and LBJ) at the convention took the protest to another level.  Humphrey would have won the nomination on the first ballot had Kennedy lived.  With Nixon and Wallace the alternatives, RFK would have supported Humphrey, albeit reluctantly.

Should SOMEHOW Kennedy have won the nomination, (I see a dramatic plea to the protestors and the police in Chicago to stop the violence, stampeding the convention!) he would have been soundly defeated in the general election.  Take JFK's 1960 electoral votes, subtract ALL the southern states and forget California, whose economy was heavily defense-oriented in 1968.  As for RFK's backing away from immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, he was PERCEIVED by the public as a "dove" and a "peace-nik" which didn't go down well with the American electorate in 1968.

Please, True Democrat, do not take this as being condescending in any way, as you make learned arguments, but I believe that you are looking back on that time from the perspective of this one.  I too, wrote a paper on the 1968 election.  I wrote it in 1968.  I remember that time well and America was a different place then.  The writers that were close to RFK that are convinced that he would have won the nomination that year either by shaming the convention into voting for the winner of the primaries or by some 11th hour draft are just trying out hypotheticals. 1968 was tailor-made for Nixon.  I saw it coming after the 1966 elections.  The country was angered by hippies, radical minorities and the anti-war movement.   RFK had the WRONG message for 1968.  The idea that he could have won the presidency that year sounds like a possibility in hindsight, but from the perpective OF that year, it was a longshot, at best. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I don't know who would of won the Dem nomination, but riots and protests helped RM Nixon propel him to victory. As RFK was assassinated the left became disillusioned in politics, and refused to come out to vote. The voter turnout was very low in 1968 compared to the previous elections. The right came out and the left didn't vote. This started the downward trend of the american electric from voting. Had there been no assassination, voter turnout might not have been low, and RFK could have won like his brother. As far as the country being center right, doesn't mean it cannot elect Dem presidents, we elected Democratic majorities in last year election do to the low turnout of the right. As far as the polls having Nixon ahead, he was ahead of JFK. As far as CA or TX has been concerned, I think RFK could of won either of the states, his pro immigration stance was very popular with the hispanic population of those two groups. Also, it was the right who was more than happy to have Hubert Humphrey rather than RFK as their political nominee. We don't know who would of won, only history can judge. But RFK's victory in 68 wasn't outside the realm of possibilities, not far fetched as the right seem to believe.

As soon as the left abandoned coming out president like Nixon and Reagan were able to win. Record low turnouts came in 1968, 1980, 1984 were recorded among the left that corresponded to republican presidents. When the left did come out like in 76 and 92 and 96 Democratic presidents would have been elected. And I would have rather had RFK than RM Nixon that would of saved this country a great deal of the Watergate scandle.

[pragmatic liberal]

I'd lean towards Nixon, but keep I do think that RFK had a genuine shot at the nomination and at the general election.

Daley, who was strongly against the war despite his distaste for the New Left, DID indicate to supporters that he would likely defect to RFK at the convention. McCarthy despised Kennedy, but many of his antiwar followers would have been friendlier to Kennedy than either would have been to Humphrey, who was viewed as too closely aligned with the Johnson administration. Humphrey, for his part, held no personal animus towards RFK and would have likely been more supportive, potentially smoothing over a split between the Democratic establishment and RFK.

Kennedy may have more plausibly been able to claim his candidacy represented change, given how fervently he opposed Johnson (including campaigning to the RIGHT of Johnson and Humphrey on issues like welfare and housing).

Assuming Kennedy held the states that Humphrey won (bar Texas), the battle would have been for the "very large state" California, the "large states" of Texas, Illinois and Ohio, and the "medium size states" of Missouri, Wisconsin and New Jersey.

To win outright, Kennedy would have had to win one of the following combinations:

1) California + 2 out of 3 other large states (Texas, Illinois or Ohio) + 1 medium size state (Missouri, Wisconsin or New Jersey)

2) California + 1 out of 3 large states (Texas, Illinois, or Ohio) + all 3 medium size states (Missouri, Wisconsin and New Jersey)

3) Texas, Illinois AND Ohio + New Jersey and either Missouri or Wisconsin.

Perhaps Kennedy's best hope for a victory in November would have been to carry Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin and New Jersey, hope that Nixon didn't win any more Southern states that Wallace won in real life and pray for a victory in the House of Representatives. Even that would have been a battle, though. Many Southern Democrat delegations would have voted for Nixon iin the House and that's assuming that Wallace didn't manage to crack a deal with Nixon prior to the convening of the electoral college, in which Wallace pledged his electors to Nixon in exchange for concessions on desegregation (perhaps agree to a freeze at federal desegregation efforts plus replacing Agnew with a Southern running mate like John Connally or John Tower)

Both California and Ohio were competitive but both leaned slightly Republican in '68. Ohio was dominated by Republicans, with Ohio Gov. James Rhodes a national player. California was likewise dominated by Republicans - both senators were Republicans (though Thomas Kuchel was a liberal who lost his primary that year) and Ronald Reagan was governor. (California did elect the liberal Democrat Alan Cranston to the Senate that year, however.)

Texas was Democratic but conservative. Johnson was a favorite son, but the Kennedys were not popular. Yarborough's popularity was fading and Republicans were ascendant.

The best case scenario for Kennedy would have been naming Texas Sen. Ralph Yarborough (a McCarthy supporter) to his ticket, which might have (a) provided a sop to McCarthy supporters, and (b) strengthened the ticket's position in Texas. But it would still have been a challenge, as Yarborough was hated by many in the South and was despised by Johnson.

Otherwise, Sen. Al Gore, Sr. of Tennessee or Sen. George Smathers of Florida could have been reasonable picks that may have at least prevented further Southern defections (which might have been handy had the election gone to the House and he needed the votes of at least a few Southern delegations). It's possible but unlikely that either would have tipped their home states to Kennedy. (Florida went heavily for Nixon and Tennessee was a fight between Wallace and Nixon in real life; Humphrey came in 3rd in that state.)

I'd say he'd have a chance - remember that Humphrey nearly won, especially following his move "left" on the war and Johnson's bombing halt. But I do agree that Nixon would have been favored.

I'd say a best-case scenario map for RFK would have been this:

Kennedy-Yarborough: 45% PV, 330 EV
Nixon-Agnew: 41% PV, 163 EV
Wallace-LeMay: 13% PV, 45 EV

Far likelier would be a Nixon win:

Nixon-Agnew: 327 EV
Kennedy-Yarbourough: 166 EV
Wallace-LeMay: 45 EV

A more realistic Kennedy win would be this...

Kennedy-Yarborough: 273
Nixon-Agnew: 220
Wallace-LeMay: 45

... OR this, followed by a Kennedy victory in the House of Representatives:

Kennedy-Yarborough: 233
Nixon-Agnew: 260
Wallace-LeMay: 45

I'll also add that one race I'm certain RFK would have lost would have been the '72 race, had RFK failed to get the nomination in '68 and had Humphrey lost, as in real life. Kennedy would probably have been the frontrunner for '72 and though he would have done better than McGovern, he would still have lost heavily. He may have carried a handful of Northeastern states and one or two states in the Midwest. Otherwise, he would have been shut out of the South and both the interior and Pacific West.

Update: On second thought, Kennedy would almost certainly not have carried Maine; it was a Republican state that only voted for the Democratic ticket due to the presence of Ed Muskie. So if Kennedy needed Maine to win some of those scenarios laid out above, he'd probably instead have to carry something like Delaware (3) or Oregon (6).

[johnpressman]

Astute reasoning and  map making, Pragmatic Liberal!  No, RFK would not have won the nomination, much less the election in 1968.  He would have won the nomination in 1972, but would have lost to Nixon.  How about a 1972 RFK vs Nixon map?