If Nixon wins in 1960, who do the Republicans and Democrats nominate in 1968

[josephcaillaux1]

Assuming that LBJ is nominated in 1964, possibly with Humphrey as running mate, and Nixon wins. Would RFK try to run in 1968? John wouldn't have run due to his health, so no Nixonesque comeback for him. The Plan B for the Kennedy's if John were to lose is that RFK would run for Governor of Massachusetts in 1962 although I am not sure if that is accurate.

For the Republicans, would Rockefeller have been the nominee?

 

[Maeglin]

Nixon winning 1960 would likely entrench the notion that Catholics Can't Win. So the Kennedy brothers are buggered. Johnson would not be nominated in 1964 (he's a Southerner, only acceptable as VP material).

 

[josephcaillaux1]

Who would be the Democratic nominee in 1964 and 1968 then? Humphrey i would assume for 1968, but would there be others viable that year

And for the Republicans, Rockefeller is likely as I said but not guaranteed. Although a Republican wouldn't win after 16 years of rule, other candidates could have been Volpe, Scranton, Nixon's VP (be it Lodge or Robert B. Anderson as Eisenhower wanted). I would have said George Romney as well but if Nixon is the victor in 1960 one could see the Republican turnout in Michigan increase making Paul Bagwell win the governorship race. But of course any of these would have still lost most likely.

 

[Amadeus]

Assuming that LBJ is nominated in 1964, possibly with Humphrey as running mate, and Nixon wins. Would RFK try to run in 1968? John wouldn't have run due to his health, so no Nixonesque comeback for him. The Plan B for the Kennedy's if John were to lose is that RFK would run for Governor of Massachusetts in 1962 although I am not sure if that is accurate.

For the Republicans, would Rockefeller have been the nominee?

Why would the Democrats nominate the losing VP nominee only four years later? I think it's more likely they nominate Humphrey for President in '64. Assuming that Nixon wins, you could see JFK try and make a comeback at the age of 51 in '68. While it's possible that Addison's and other health problems would have prevented JFK from running, I do not find this likely as people who suffer from Addison's can function normally as long as their disease is properly treated. At age 46, JFK at least appeared to be unimpaired physically so I doubt that only 5 years later he would be so debilitated by the disease and other ailments that he could not run again. (Life expectancy for men with Addison's is 65, though JFK as a wealthy politician had access to the best quality healthcare possible and therefore would be expected to life somewhat longer than most men with his disease).

At any rate, JFK had already lost and the party bosses may well block him at the '68 convention. Vice-President Lodge may end up as the GOP nominee, though Rockefeller or Reagan would have a shot.

 

[gaitskellitebevanite]

Humphrey would be the frontrunner for the Dem nomination in 1964, and its reasonably likely that Wallace would have made his third party bid that year as well.

 

[kmmontandon]

This entirely depends on Vietnam, which was the single most important campaign topic of 1968.

Without a large-scale war in Vietnam, you likely have an entirely different slate of candidates running entirely different campaigns.

 

[Amadeus]

This entirely depends on Vietnam, which was the single most important campaign topic of 1968.

Without a large-scale war in Vietnam, you likely have an entirely different slate of candidates running entirely different campaigns.

I don't see why Nixon wouldn't escalate the number of advisors as Kennedy did, and when it comes to the point when he has to decide between war and the collapse of South Vietnam then there's no reason to believe that Nixon wouldn't make the same mistake that Johnson did. After all, Nixon escalated the Vietnam War from 1969 to '70 IOTL.

 

[bguy]

Why would the Democrats nominate the losing VP nominee only four years later? I think it's more likely they nominate Humphrey for President in '64.

Could Humphrey get the nomination in 1964 though? The South is going to be dead set against him (with Wallace all but certain to make a third party run if they nominate Humphrey), and the northern party bosses aren't going to want to run a candidate that would split the party, so I could easily see the Democratic convention in 1964 deadlocking with Humphrey being unacceptable to the South and Johnson to the north, so the Democrats end up having to nominate a less prominent, but also less controversial compromise candidate. (Maybe someone like Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana who was a western liberal but also a long standing political ally of Russell and Johnson.)

At any rate, JFK had already lost and the party bosses may well block him at the '68 convention. Vice-President Lodge may end up as the GOP nominee, though Rockefeller or Reagan would have a shot.

Would Reagan even be on the political radar ITTL? No Goldwater campaign in 1964 probably means Reagan doesn't give "the speech" which got him so much attention in Republican circles that year. Furthermore, even if Reagan does still end up running for Governor, 1966 is likely to be a much less friendly year for Republican candidates ITTL as instead of being the midterm election in the sixth year of Democrat control of the presidency, it would be a midterm election in the 14th year of GOP control of the presidency, and thus the electorate is all but certain to swing hard against the Republicans that year.

(And as an aside if Pat Brown does win reelection in 1966 then he might very well be in the running for the Democratic nomination in 1968 himself as he would have a pretty impressive resume with 10 years as the Governor of California. Of course the "Catholics can't win" issue would dog him just as it would JFK or RFK.)

At any rate I would expect the GOP race in 1968 to be between Goldwater, Rockefeller, and Lodge with Lodge (presumably backed by Nixon) probably getting the nomination as the compromise candidate.

I don't see why Nixon wouldn't escalate the number of advisors as Kennedy did, and when it comes to the point when he has to decide between war and the collapse of South Vietnam then there's no reason to believe that Nixon wouldn't make the same mistake that Johnson did. After all, Nixon escalated the Vietnam War from 1969 to '70 IOTL.

If Nixon invaded Cuba and has already had to fight a nasty guerilla war there, he might be reluctant to commit ground troops to Vietnam.

 

[Amadeus]

(Maybe someone like Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana who was a western liberal but also a long standing political ally of Russell and Johnson.)

I think Mansfield would be content to stay in the Senate. Speaking of Pat Brown, why not him as the compromise candidate in 1964?

If Nixon invaded Cuba and has already had to fight a nasty guerilla war there, he might be reluctant to commit ground troops to Vietnam

This is a fair point, though the OP didn't mention this in their scenario. Alternatively, if American forces win in Cuba by 1965 might Nixon order another intervention in Vietnam after defeating Castro?

 

[dw93]

I think LBJ or Stuart Symington are put up as Sacrificial lambs in 1964 assuming there isn't that much change economically from OTL as Humphrey sits it out with his sights on 68.

 

[bguy]

I think Mansfield would be content to stay in the Senate. Speaking of Pat Brown, why not him as the compromise candidate in 1964?

Well the big advantage of Mansfield is he's a long time ally of the southern senators (he had even voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar), so he would be acceptable to the Southern block in a way that Brown (who was a known civil rights supporter) would not. Still, Mansfield is a Catholic and the Democrats probably wouldn't be keen on nominating a Catholic candidate again right after Kennedy's loss, so I'm not sure who their best option for a compromise candidate would be. They would probably want a Protestant governor from a Mid-Western state who has never really said much about civil rights, but I can't think of anyone who really fits that description.

This is a fair point, though the OP didn't mention this in their scenario. Alternatively, if American forces win in Cuba by 1965 might Nixon order another intervention in Vietnam after defeating Castro?

That's certainly possible. If the US wins a relatively easy victory in Cuba that would probably embolden Nixon. I guess the other question is what does Nixon do about Diem? Does he still get assassinated?

 

[Amadeus]

Well the big advantage of Mansfield is he's a long time ally of the southern senators (he had even voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the Senate calendar), so he would be acceptable to the Southern block in a way that Brown (who was a known civil rights supporter) would not. Still, Mansfield is a Catholic and the Democrats probably wouldn't be keen on nominating a Catholic candidate again right after Kennedy's loss, so I'm not sure who their best option for a compromise candidate would be. They would probably want a Protestant governor from a Mid-Western state who has never really said much about civil rights, but I can't think of anyone who really fits that description.



That's certainly possible. If the US wins a relatively easy victory in Cuba that would probably embolden Nixon. I guess the other question is what does Nixon do about Diem? Does he still get assassinated?

IMO, if America invades Cuba it would be seen around the world as an unjustified incursion into a smaller nation's affairs and damage America's standing with its Allies in the developing world. U.S. ground forces could overthrow Castro, but they'd be overwhelmingly opposed by the Cuban population. Castro would just go right back to the type of rebellion he waged against Batista, only this time more popular than before because of the American invasion. I've seen some argue that the U.S. would eventually win by blockading Cuba, but if the war becomes a protracted guerilla struggle it would begin to lose support at home by 1962/63.

 

[gentboss]

Depends on the Nixon administration and what it gets up to. I've always liked the idea of Lyndon Johnson getting the Democratic nomination that year and promising to restore law and order and end Nixon's war in Southeast Asia, but that's because I like weird reductionism.

 

[bguy]

IMO, if America invades Cuba it would be seen around the world as an unjustified incursion into a smaller nation's affairs and damage America's standing with its Allies in the developing world. U.S. ground forces could overthrow Castro, but they'd be overwhelmingly opposed by the Cuban population. Castro would just go right back to the type of rebellion he waged against Batista, only this time more popular than before because of the American invasion. I've seen some argue that the U.S. would eventually win by blockading Cuba, but if the war becomes a protracted guerilla struggle it would begin to lose support at home by 1962/63.

As for the invasion damaging US standing with the rest of the world, maybe but I doubt it would do any more damage than the OTL invasions of the Dominican Republic (1965) or Grenada (1983) or Panama (1989).

I'm also very skeptical about the invasion losing support at home that quickly. A US invasion of Cuba is definitely not going to be a Vietnam situation as Cuba has only about 1/3 of the people Vietnam does (thus it will take much less US troops to secure Cuba than were needed in Vietnam), and Castro's forces have no way to get supplies from the Soviets or Chinese since Cuba does not share a land border with any communist state and can be easily blockaded by the US Navy and Coast Guard. Thus there will be much fewer US casualties than in Vietnam which means US public support will be much more resilient. And of course the possibility of a communist government just 90 miles off the US coast will seem a lot more threatening to the American people than a communist state on the opposite side of the war, so it will also be a lot easier to convince the American people that the intervention in Cuba is necessary than it was with Vietnam.

 

[Maeglin]

Wayne Morse is a possible Democratic candidate for 1964. He did have Presidential ambitions, was a Protestant, and voted against Civil Rights in 1957 while not being a Southerner.

 

[Amadeus]

As for the invasion damaging US standing with the rest of the world, maybe but I doubt it would do any more damage than the OTL invasions of the Dominican Republic (1965) or Grenada (1983) or Panama (1989).

I'm also very skeptical about the invasion losing support at home that quickly. A US invasion of Cuba is definitely not going to be a Vietnam situation as Cuba has only about 1/3 of the people Vietnam does (thus it will take much less US troops to secure Cuba than were needed in Vietnam), and Castro's forces have no way to get supplies from the Soviets or Chinese since Cuba does not share a land border with any communist state and can be easily blockaded by the US Navy and Coast Guard. Thus there will be much fewer US casualties than in Vietnam which means US public support will be much more resilient. And of course the possibility of a communist government just 90 miles off the US coast will seem a lot more threatening to the American people than a communist state on the opposite side of the war, so it will also be a lot easier to convince the American people that the intervention in Cuba is necessary than it was with Vietnam.

I wonder then if Oswald would try to assassinate Nixon instead, seeing him as the antagonist of Castro and his Revolution?

 

[MartinD]

I think LBJ or Stuart Symington are put up as Sacrificial lambs in 1964 assuming there isn't that much change economically from OTL as Humphrey sits it out with his sights on 68.

It's likely that Johnson would have remained Senate Majority Leader if Nixon wins the 1960 presidential election. If Nixon is looking like a strong favourite to be re-elected in 1964, why would Johnson give that up for a presidential run with little chance of success?

Moving more widely from that thought, the most likely Democratic candidate in 1964 will be strongly influenced by what has happened during Nixon's term, and (assuming that Nixon will run again in 1964) how Nixon is perceived when the Democrats are picking their candidate. (For example, how different would the potential field of candidates for the Democrats have looked in 1991-92 if Bush's approval ratings hadn't been through the roof in the aftermath of the Gulf War?)

 

[bguy]

Wayne Morse is a possible Democratic candidate for 1964. He did have Presidential ambitions, was a Protestant, and voted against Civil Rights in 1957 while not being a Southerner.

Interesting thought though Morse had a reputation for being a maverick, so the Democratic party bosses might be leery of him since he would be so difficult to influence.

Another obscure possibility could be Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington (another western liberal who voted against putting the 1957 civil rights bill on the legislative calendar.)

I wonder then if Oswald would try to assassinate Nixon instead, seeing him as the antagonist of Castro and his Revolution?

I'm sure Oswald would be very interested in shooting Nixon, but would Nixon have any particular reason to go to Dallas in his first term? (Maybe in 1964 to campaign for the GOP senate candidate that year though if Nixon abides by the 5th Avenue Compact and makes a strong push for a civil rights bill in his first term then he probably won't be very popular in Texas by 1964.)

It's likely that Johnson would have remained Senate Majority Leader if Nixon wins the 1960 presidential election. If Nixon is looking like a strong favourite to be re-elected in 1964, why would Johnson give that up for a presidential run with little chance of success?

Why would Johnson have to give up being Senate Majority Leader to run for president? (Given that Johnson insisted on running for reelection to the Senate even as he was running for Vice President, I can't imagine Johnson would willingly step down as Senate Majority Leader unless he was elected president.)

 

[Vidal]

I'm sure Oswald would be very interested in shooting Nixon, but would Nixon have any particular reason to go to Dallas in his first term? (Maybe in 1964 to campaign for the GOP senate candidate that year though if Nixon abides by the 5th Avenue Compact and makes a strong push for a civil rights bill in his first term then he probably won't be very popular in Texas by 1964.)

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that Oswald would travel to Nixon a la Hinckley

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I wonder then if Oswald would try to assassinate Nixon instead, seeing him as the antagonist of Castro and his Revolution?

Oswald is a wild card in history. The fact that he killed Kennedy is such a freak happenstance of history that I would not necessarily even include him in the equation. He is a small man who happened to think of murder as something he should do, who then happened to think it should be murder of a prominent person, who then happened to think of killing Walker, happened to fail, happened to think of killing Kennedy, happened to get the chance and happened to do it.