AHC: With a PoD no earlier than November 9, 1966, Have LBJ Win 1968

[Devoid]

Since the passage of the 22nd Amendment, all presidents eligible for reelection have sought it and been renominated by their party. Some won, some lost. The sole exception is Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, who very well could have won renomination (though certainly not without a considerable uphill struggle), but chose to withdraw after an underwhelming win in the New Hampshire primary against the anti-war (and fairly weird) Senator Eugene McCarthy led to Robert F. Kennedy launching a serious bid for the nomination. How do we get Johnson to win the nomination and the general election?

In my estimation, there's in particular two major issues to deal: Vietnam and general social/racial unrest.

Let's start with the elephant in the room slowly crushing the ribs of LBJ's presidency, Vietnam. The war destroyed LBJ's reputation, and part of the reason I don't want a PoD too early in LBJ's term is as much about keeping his key achievements from then (don't want too think too much about what is done regarding Medicare, Medicaid, and the Voting Rights Act) as it is that I think considering PoDs from changing LBJ's early prosecution of the war is close to impossible; there's pretty much no one in the room to tell Johnson it's a bad idea and he chose to escalate it for a reason. IMO the most effective course of action to get LBJ in in 1968 is to figure out how to delay the war getting bogged down or finding an out LBJ would actually take that doesn't result in South Vietnam falling immediately (lest his ability to win the general be lost by being the president who 'lost' Vietnam to communism), as simply avoiding escalation is likely too implausible. Paris in 1968 is probably too late, given LBJ had already been forced to withdraw from nomination months before then; in any case the Vietnam War is not my forté, so I'm not really sure how to 'fix' the issue so that it doesn't hurt LBJ as badly as OTL.

The other issue, of course, is the general unrest that 1968 was seeing. Even with Vietnam less of an issue, LBJ's very aggresive integration policies (especially AG Ramsey Clark's copious desegregation suits), while distinctly very positive achievements on LBJ's part, were making a lot of people realize what desegregation really, truly meant; it's why white flights to the suburbs took off at this time. Plus, the black power movement was taking off, you had MLK's assassination, and in general unrest was just building on the issue. Black people felt movement on the issue was too slow (over which LBJ had some... interesting opinions, shall we say), while many whites felt threatened in a way they weren't in the pre-CRA environment, even if they had supported civil rights previously. Vietnam being less controversial and butterflying MLK's assassination probably help, but don't deal with all of the underlying issues behind the riots and the unrest. And LBJ probably needs them to not be so intense in order to have a better chance of winning. The question here, I think, is how do we minimize their intensity without compromising too much of one of the Johnson administration's most important achievements?

Any other thoughts?

 

[Dancing Fool]

underlying issues behind the riots and the unrest

I think we’d both agree that riots are relatively rare, right? But then, they sure get a shit ton of news coverage!

And then, people look for deep psychological explanations. But I think the lion’s share is just that young men ages 16 to 25 are statistically more likely to commit crimes. So, take a peak Baby Boom year and add 20 years.

 

[1940LaSalle]

If somehow this transpired it would be a Pyrrhic victory. IOTL, Vietnam aged Johnson rapidly and I don't see an argument against that here. Given that and his medical history, he'd likely die in office in 1970 if not earlier. Hubert Humphrey would have to cleàn up the mess, but would be sufficiently tainted by association that he'd lose a bid for a term in his own right, possibly to Nelson Rockefeller (Nixon wouldn't get a third chance).

 

[Devoid]

I think we’d both agree that riots are relatively rare, right? But then, they sure get a shit ton of news coverage!

And then, people look for deep psychological explanations. But I think the lion’s share is just that young men ages 16 to 25 are statistically more likely to commit crimes. So, take a peak Baby Boom year and add 20 years.

1968, however, is also the height of integration efforts, and when the Civil Rights movement was also beginning to point the racial injustices that existed in the North. It started pointing to more tangible inequalities instead of just the legal inequalities of the South, which made it... more unpalatable for previous supporters. The integration movement was going to have a backlash eventually, and this was it. Moreso than a peak baby boom hear, 1968 had real reasons for why it was so violent.

If somehow this transpired it would be a Pyrrhic victory. IOTL, Vietnam aged Johnson rapidly and I don't see an argument against that here. Given that and his medical history, he'd likely die in office in 1970 if not earlier. Hubert Humphrey would have to cleàn up the mess, but would be sufficiently tainted by association that he'd lose a bid for a term in his own right, possibly to Nelson Rockefeller (Nixon wouldn't get a third chance).

Probably. But it's still interesting to explore IMO. The question of Johnson's death is one of when, not if (he'd probably take better care of himself, since he took on many bad habits he'd given after his heart attack in the 50's back after his presidency, but he only survived the term by two days IOTL). How Humphrey manages is also its own question.
Rocky being the GOP nominee probably also assures a far-right third-party campaign in 1972 (most likely Wallace, who siphons votes from both, but nonetheless).

 

[Slime_blob]

Nixon Gets Exposed About him meddling peace negotiations in '68. Jailed in the middle of campaign. Treason charges

 

[Dancing Fool]

Nixon Gets Exposed About him meddling peace negotiations in '68. Jailed in the middle of campaign. Treason charges

I don’t like to use the word “treason” because that’s the word angry right-wingers throw at us sensible people in the middle! I mean, just to say it and all. Besides the U.S. Constitution limits the definition to giving aid and comfort to an enemy, and South Vietnam was not an enemy.

Nixon did something sneaky.

And he possibly caused the extension of the war and the lost of 20,000 additional American lives and a considerably larger number of additional Vietnamese lives. Now, a saving grace may have been that South Vietnam’s Thieu wasn’t crazy about the Peace Talks [in part because it’d mean him stepping down from his job! ]

* Nixon had TWO back-door channels to South Vietnam — Republican activist Anna Chennault and businessman Louie Kung. People tend to neglect the 2nd.

 

[Iwanh]

Honestly, I think if LBJ stuck it out he would have won.
Kennedy and McCarthy were splitting the anti-war delegates.
The North Vietnamese would be more inclined to seek peace sooner instead of hoping for a better deal with a different president, and even if they aren't LBJ may announce a bombing halt on the grounds of confidence building (as he did IOTL) as a big October suprise. the Chicago riots might not have happened if the President is running the show instead of Mayor Daley
With Wallace and Nixon fighting each other for the South, LBJ still has big advantages going into the general, never underestimate the incumbency advantage.

Feel free to poke holes in my argument, I can take it.

 

[Sabin]

I am here for anything that leads to President Lyndon Johnson winning in 1968. That election will be nasty and I want it in my veins.

I have no answers for you. This is all I know.

I talk about Allan Lichtman's Keys to the White House theory a lot on this board but the incumbent party had eight keys going against them (five is the threshold for re-nomination): poor midterm performance (compared to previous midterm) (-1), nomination contest (-2), no incumbent President seeking renomination (-3), third party candidate (-4), social unrest (-5), lack of foreign/military success (-6), perception of foreign/military failure (-7), lack of historically charismatic nominee (-8). Now, the third party candidate is different in this scenario because by election day it cut almost entirely into Nixon's totals. So, the incumbent party essentially needs to knock two of these keys to the wayside. Going in the Democrats' favor was the perception of a strong economy (no recession +1 and GPD exceeding the previous two terms +2), policy success (+3), no scandal (+4), and no broadly charismatic opponent. Honestly, that's not a bad hand to go to bat with. Also, I'm not sure that Wallace running third party technically counts against the Democratic party because it cut so deeply into the conservative vote. That said, I have no doubt that Wallace would be more effective campaigning against Johnson than Humphrey.

Johnson running for re-election gets the Democrats one key. Is it possible for Johnson to avoid a nomination contest? Much of Eugene McCarthy's support in New Hampshire was just an anti-Johnson vote, both pro- and anti-war voters. Is there anything he can do to avoid that kind of peel-off?

Is there any world where the Dems can hang onto eleven additional seats in the House during the 1966 midterms?

Is there any way for Johnson to declare victory in Vietnam and begin bringing back the troops at or before the convention?

 

[Devoid]

Also, I'm not sure that Wallace running third party technically counts against the Democratic party because it cut so deeply into the conservative vote. That said, I have no doubt that Wallace would be more effective campaigning against Johnson than Humphrey.

A good chunk of the Wallace vote were conservadems (even outside the Deep South) who would've preferred Humphrey to Nixon, so it definitely counts against them. Lichtman's system isn't perfect but I think for our purposes it's a useful way to see what ww can do help Johnson.

Johnson running for re-election gets the Democrats one key. Is it possible for Johnson to avoid a nomination contest? Much of Eugene McCarthy's support in New Hampshire was just an anti-Johnson vote, both pro- and anti-war voters. Is there anything he can do to avoid that kind of peel-off?

That's part of the idea of what I want to do here. Johnson can definitely win the general, even if only narrowly, it's avoiding the nomination fight that's the tricky part.

Is there any world where the Dems can hang onto eleven additional seats in the House during the 1966 midterms?

In the title, I chose the day right after the midterms because I don't want to avoid the things of the first half of LBJ's term, just jiggle the second half, and March 1968 is far too late to get Johnson the nom.

Is there any way for Johnson to declare victory in Vietnam and begin bringing back the troops at or before the convention?

My instinct is to do the opposite - try to keep the Vietnam situation sufficiently neutral and under the radar until after 1968 in order to kick the legs out from the Dump Johnson movement as well as mitigate the social unrest of 1968, and instead make it second-term LBJ's problem (kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan in 2004, where they were attracting some negative attention but weren't yet a millstone around Bush 43's neck). The Vietnam War is a place where every president that had to deal with it had a selection of bad choices (that LBJ chose the worst of the bad options handed to him is another matter entirely). War goes on, it's not great and a few attacks are thrown about it but it doesn't catch fire as a major issue until later (thus removing the foreign failure key from contention).
Then again maybe by November '66 Vietnam was already an issue (as I said its particularities are not my forté).

Nixon Gets Exposed About him meddling peace negotiations in '68. Jailed in the middle of campaign. Treason charges

1. By that point LBJ had already lost the nomination. Helps him in the middle of the general election campaign (as long he doesn't leak it himself, that would backfire spectacularly on him), but does nothing to gain him the nomination. And if he's busy running a reelection campaign, would LBJ even have time to organize the talks in Paris at all?
2. Even if Nixon still does that despite butterflies, no way he's even indicted before Election Day. It damages him, but any criminal charge would have to come after the election. And even if they throw due process in the trash a trial wouldn't be over until after the election, much less begin. And they won't throw him in jail with no conviction.

In all, they can have the five keys of OTL, and Johnson winning renomination with little opposition nets them two more. Mitigating Vietnam or the riots is eight, and just enough for reelection.

So yeah, I think defusing the nomination contest (IE making McCarthy have no platform by making Vietnam less of an issue, perhaps?) is the main trouble here.

 

[Sabin]

A good chunk of the Wallace vote were conservadems (even outside the Deep South) who would've preferred Humphrey to Nixon, so it definitely counts against them. Lichtman's system isn't perfect but I think for our purposes it's a useful way to see what ww can do help Johnson.

That's a good point, however I have a hard time believing any of those southern states go to Humphrey if Wallace doesn't run.

That's part of the idea of what I want to do here. Johnson can definitely win the general, even if only narrowly, it's avoiding the nomination fight that's the tricky part.

In the title, I chose the day right after the midterms because I don't want to avoid the things of the first half of LBJ's term, just jiggle the second half, and March 1968 is far too late to get Johnson the nom.

My instinct is to do the opposite - try to keep the Vietnam situation sufficiently neutral and under the radar until after 1968 in order to kick the legs out from the Dump Johnson movement as well as mitigate the social unrest of 1968, and instead make it second-term LBJ's problem (kind of like Iraq and Afghanistan in 2004, where they were attracting some negative attention but weren't yet a millstone around Bush 43's neck). The Vietnam War is a place where every president that had to deal with it had a selection of bad choices (that LBJ chose the worst of the bad options handed to him is another matter entirely). War goes on, it's not great and a few attacks are thrown about it but it doesn't catch fire as a major issue until later (thus removing the foreign failure key from contention).

Well, yeah, if that happens, then I think he wins. No Gulf of Tonkin means no Eugene McCarthy, which negates the nomination contest key, the lack of incumbency key, the foreign/military failure key, and the social unrest key. Johnson is now effectively only running against a conservadem split (-1), a poor midterm showing (-2), lack of a foreign/military success (-3), and he's not historically charismatic (-4). It's entirely an election around the Great Society backlash.

Does Nixon even get the nomination? The bulk of Nixon's appeal was a plea for leadership. Maybe it's Reagan or Rockefeller? I have a hard time even seeing what a Nixon candidacy without Vietnam looks like? Is it entirely law and order?

 

[Devoid]

Well, yeah, if that happens, then I think he wins. No Gulf of Tonkin means no Eugene McCarthy, which negates the nomination contest key, the lack of incumbency key, the foreign/military failure key, and the social unrest key. Johnson is now effectively only running against a conservadem split (-1), a poor midterm showing (-2), lack of a foreign/military success (-3), and he's not historically charismatic (-4). It's entirely an election around the Great Society backlash.

Tonkin's a PoD a fair bit further back than I'm thinking, but besides that I don't think it's a very good PoD - LBJ had already decided on going in by then; Tonkin was just the excuse (obtained on partially false grounds, I might add), not the reason. A US intervention in Southeast Asia is probably inevitable regardless of who the president is after about 1955, and LBJ was very eager to get in; he's to want to delay as little as possible. I think that to solve the Vietnam issue, it's about how the war goes (basically, delay it turning into an ulcer as long as possible, because the war itself probably can't be delayed very much, at least not without preventing butterflies that end up radically changing Johnson's presidency), rather than avoiding it completely (which by then is probably borderline ASB at best).

The draft seems to like something that could be a sticking point - on the one hand it's already being in use beforse Johnson is even presidsent (Kennedy had already given orders regarding priorization of who would be drafted), but with a lower intensity war opposition to it might not escalate (it survived the Korean War and that one nearly sunk Truman, though it was nowhere near as bad as Vietnam was for Johnson).

 

[peeter]

Hubert Humphrey gets killed by a crazy anti-war protester in late 1967- early 1968 which leads to a huge bi-partisan backlash towards the anti-war movement. Humphrey’s assassination re-invigorates LBJ and pretty much ends any chance of dissention from anyone from the liberal/left wing of the party. LBJ decides to halt bombing in vietnam and begin negotiations to end the war and that boosts his popularity big time in addition to the sympathy approval boost from Humphrey’s murder.

LBJ wins the nomination easily and chooses Ted Kennedy as his VP which signals party unity from the national democratic party. LBJ and Ted campaign on the good economy, Humphrey’s memory, wnd avocating for liberal policy that’s broadly popular like expanding medicaid to children 18 and under and/or an NIT system like nixon proposed (things like these policies not necessarily exactly these policies).

With bombing halted and peace negotiations Nixon’s “peace with honor” falls flat and The democrats attacks him on being an opportunist with no real beliefs. I imagine Ted would be a very effective attack dog on Nixon and the LBJ campaign team would want to force Nixon to make policy positions that would either anger liberals or piss of conservatives and keep them home because they think he’s just LBJ with an R instead of D next to his name on the ballot

 

[Iwanh]

By the way, if anyone wants to write a timeline on this they must call it
All The Way: LBJ In 68

 

[Devoid]

Hubert Humphrey gets killed by a crazy anti-war protester in late 1967- early 1968 which leads to a huge bi-partisan backlash towards the anti-war movement. Humphrey’s assassination re-invigorates LBJ and pretty much ends any chance of dissention from anyone from the liberal/left wing of the party. LBJ decides to halt bombing in vietnam and begin negotiations to end the war and that boosts his popularity big time in addition to the sympathy approval boost from Humphrey’s murder.

LBJ wins the nomination easily and chooses Ted Kennedy as his VP which signals party unity from the national democratic party. LBJ and Ted campaign on the good economy, Humphrey’s memory, wnd avocating for liberal policy that’s broadly popular like expanding medicaid to children 18 and under and/or an NIT system like nixon proposed (things like these policies not necessarily exactly these policies).

With bombing halted and peace negotiations Nixon’s “peace with honor” falls flat and The democrats attacks him on being an opportunist with no real beliefs. I imagine Ted would be a very effective attack dog on Nixon and the LBJ campaign team would want to force Nixon to make policy positions that would either anger liberals or piss of conservatives and keep them home because they think he’s just LBJ with an R instead of D next to his name on the ballot

Interesting scenario - the only major issue I take with it is that I'm pretty sure LBJ would rather die than take a Kennedy as his VP. Plus Bobby is still kicking around in this scenario, and while it's there that the core of the LBJ-Kennedy conflict was, going for Ted when you have Bobby right there is going to be counterintuitive to the general public (that better knew Bobby than Ted until Sirhan Sirhan did his thing) of the time.

By the way, if anyone wants to write a timeline on this they must call it
All The Way: LBJ In 68

Unfortunately my idea is already named but "All the Way With LBJ in 1968" makes for a great part 1/chapter name. Maybe they even use it in-universe as a slogan...

 

[peeter]

the only major issue I take with it is that I'm pretty sure LBJ would rather die than take a Kennedy as his VP

LBJ and Ted actually got a long incredibly well and had a great working relationship

 

[West234]

the only major issue I take with it is that I'm pretty sure LBJ would rather die than take a Kennedy as his VP.

Also add on that Ted was quite inexperienced at this point and he wasn’t even interested to be put on the vice presidential consideration in our timeline he felt he was to inexperienced and he did not want to just be a stand in for his brother.