SOAWWIISoldier
Monthly Donor
Wasn't JFK more than a bit distrustful of his advisors after Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis? I think Kennedy might be reluctant to commit much to Vietnam.
1968 Election with a living JFK?
- Thread starter Old1812
- Start date
Attorney General is not a non-entity, but he is not running for President either.
Nazi Space Spy
Banned
Not true - he came quite close to blocking Nixon on the first ballot of the RNC in 1968 by forming an alliance with Rocky. I agree he has no chance in November, particularly if it were Kennedy and Goldwater as the nominees in 1964, but he did stand a shot at getting nominated in OTL.
Newspapers in 1963 confirmed that Johnson was going to stay on the ticket. Even if Kennedy didn't like Johnson he still needed the Southern vote.
You don't get two Kennedys in a row that's for certain. Without the myth of "Camelot" Bobby is a lot less compelling, not to mention I can't see him putting his career above JFK's. IIRC Bobby only went into electoral politics because of the assassination, if anything Ted's probably the most likely second Kennedy president ITTL. Its not unusual for formerly high-profile politicians to disappear into law firms, maybe that's where RFK goes with a possible supreme court position at the end of the tunnel.
And if the Kennedy presidency is regarded as bad, that family is probably done nationally, at least for JFK's brothers.
Deleted member 140587
In 1968, the Democratic nominee would most likely be either be Lyndon B. Johnson (if he hung on to office of Vice President - which is definitely possible), Hubert Humphrey (he was still popular as a Senator and had been a loyal Democratic senator during the earlier parts of the Kennedy administration) and Terry Sanford (the man most likely to have replaced Lyndon Johnson). RFK would not have been the nominee in '68 for a plethora of reasons - #1. Having the (living) President's brother run right after him screams nepotism. #2. RFK would not be the man on a mission to restore his brother's legacy in this timeline, he'd likely have been the Secretary of Defense or State. Rather than giving speeches eulogizing Martin Luther King, he'd have to be the spokesman for America at a time it was bogged down in Vietnam (granted I don't think it would've spun out of control under JFK the way it did under LBJ, but rather it would be something like Korea or Afghanistan, an unpopular war but not one people are burning their draft cards over) and would have to be dealing with military bureaucracies and arms dealers. Rather than RFK "the poet", we'd be dealing with RFK "the enforcer."
For the Republicans a number of people could've grabbed the nomination but the most likely one is, and I know I will get flak for this, Richard Milhous Nixon. Kennedy's assassination may have sparked Nixon's interest in re-entering politics in OTL but there's no reason to assume he wouldn't see his opportunity if Kennedy lived. He was also, frankly, the best man the Republicans could put up in 1968. Nixon was uniquely placed between the right and left wings of the Republican Party and could reach out to both. None of the other leading figures in the Republican Party at that time: Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, John Lindsay, Charles Percy, Jim Rhodes, or Barry Goldwater could.
So that leaves in my mind, the most likely matchup in my mind being Richard Nixon versus Lyndon Johnson (with a George Wallace candidacy also quite likely). Lyndon Johnson versus Richard Nixon would be a clash of political titans. Nixon, in my mind, is the likely winner of this contest; he was a better debater than Johnson (should they agree to a debate) and he would be able to attack the Democrats for Vietnam.
For the Republicans a number of people could've grabbed the nomination but the most likely one is, and I know I will get flak for this, Richard Milhous Nixon. Kennedy's assassination may have sparked Nixon's interest in re-entering politics in OTL but there's no reason to assume he wouldn't see his opportunity if Kennedy lived. He was also, frankly, the best man the Republicans could put up in 1968. Nixon was uniquely placed between the right and left wings of the Republican Party and could reach out to both. None of the other leading figures in the Republican Party at that time: Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney, John Lindsay, Charles Percy, Jim Rhodes, or Barry Goldwater could.
So that leaves in my mind, the most likely matchup in my mind being Richard Nixon versus Lyndon Johnson (with a George Wallace candidacy also quite likely). Lyndon Johnson versus Richard Nixon would be a clash of political titans. Nixon, in my mind, is the likely winner of this contest; he was a better debater than Johnson (should they agree to a debate) and he would be able to attack the Democrats for Vietnam.
Deleted member 140587
I mean, the idea that Bobby would completely disappear from a electoral politics after a JFK Presidency is a possibility but it's also not a forgone conclusion. RFK was the most ambitious of the Kennedy brothers, if anything he would be more likely to become a President than Teddy (who most definitely DID NOT want to be President). Could he go back to lawyering after Jack served out his term? Most definitely. However, it's also just as possible he runs for Senate in New York against Malcolm Wilson (who likely would still be Senator at this time in a JFK Lives scenario) or, alternatively, he could run for Governor of Massachusetts against Francis Sargent. It's possible that the thing that makes RFK want to redeem JFK's legacy ITTL is not his death but rather a different scenario, Vietnam, for example.
Do you think RFK might try to get his brother's blessing as his successor, assuming JFK enjoys a largely successful administration (so no Vietnam escalation)?
Deleted member 140587
I know there was a talk of RFK running '68 earlier in the Kennedy administration; somewhere on this website there's a link to a Gore Vidal article proposing that RFK genuinely did want the nod in '68. I just don't buy it. Both JFK and RFK would know how corrupt it would look. It would reek of nepotism. There's also the fact than RFK in a JFK Lives timeline has never held elected office. Better let him mature in a lower elected office.
In '76, however, RFK would be 51 (still quite young as Presidents go). I wouldn't have any doubts about seeing him getting an endorsement from Jack.
I think Gene McCarthy is another likely choice for the Democrats.
Deleted member 145219
I lean towards a GOP victory in 1968. Nixon is likely the nominee and ultimate victor, if there is still a Vietnam War. If there's no Vietnam War, Romney might be the one to watch, as long as he doesn't implode. Nixon's foreign policy credentials would not have much appeal without the Vietnam War, even if South Vietnam fell in 1965/1966.
A Johnson - Nixon - Wallace race would be one for the ages.
A Johnson - Nixon - Wallace race would be one for the ages.
If there is no Vietnam War, Saigon will fall during JFK's second term and Nixon will rail against Kennedy for "losing Vietnam." Regardless of whether the US had gone to war in Vietnam, America's Vietnam policy was going to end in failure so long as it opposed Ho Chi Minh (who was originally a US ally against the Japanese). Either Saigon would fall in 1965/66/67 without American combat troops, or it would fall as it did in the 1970s after combat troops had fought and died in Vietnam.
If Kennedy does not commit combat troops to Vietnam, Nixon has a good chance of winning in 1968 on the basis of the "loss" of Vietnam and the disorder on America's streets. There would be less unrest due to decreased American involvement in Vietnam, but Nixon would still be able to capitalize on the rioting and cultural changes which alienated many Americans. However, JFK would likely leave office a mostly popular President which would help the Democratic candidate.
Deleted member 145219
I actually have to agree. With or without Vietnam, Nixon would be well positioned to be the Republican nominee. I think Romney probably would implode in a similar manner to OTL. I thought your write up of a Johnson - Nixon - Wallace contest in 1968, without an Americanization of the Vietnam War, was well done by the way.
Would you say Johnson is likely to be the Democratic nominee ITTL?
It's true his heart may be in better shape here, but I wonder if he could reliably get the support of the left wing of the party, as opposed to Humphrey or McCarthy (probably Humphrey, if I had to guess).
I disagree that Romney would implode without Vietnam (or even with it the "brainwashing" gaffe is easily butterflied). However, the fact is he is positioned as the liberal candidate as the conservatives are in ascendance and the bosses want a compromise. So I do agree Nixon is in a good place to win the nomination.