If Rockefeller doesn’t get divorced and wins 1964 Republican nomination, then both R’s and D’s generally accept Civil Rights as a fait accompli? ?

[Dancing Fool]

https://www.nytimes.com/1964/01/12/archives/rockefeller-goldwater-contest-is-assessed-future-of-the-republican.html

Jan. 12, 1964–

“ . . . Were it not for the divorce and remarriage issue that overshadows his entire political future, he would almost certainly be the favorite, against Senator Goldwater and the field. . . ”

Instead . . .

Barry Goldwater, with only 39% of the total vote, won his home state of Arizona and 5 southern states. And person doesn’t have to be a super deep student of American political history to realize, Hey, this kind of regionalism is probably not real great for the body politic.

And so . . .

What if Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York had been the nominee . . .

 

[Dancing Fool]

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

“ . . . after a 72-day filibuster, it passed the United States Senate on June 19, 1964. . . ”

*****************

A version had previously passed the House, and after a final version was agreed to by a conference committee, this final version was passed by both House and Senate, and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 2, 1964.

And to many southern white voters, this was the only thing which mattered come election time.

 

[Mikestone8]

George Wallace does a third-party run four years earlier?

 

[Dancing Fool]

George Wallace does a third-party run four years earlier?

I’d rather a 3rd party than the Republican Party itself.

 

[Mikestone8]

I’d rather a 3rd party than the Republican Party itself.

That's ok for '64 but where do you go from there?

Iirc, opinion polls at the time showed Rockefeller (or indeed Lodge, Nixon, Scranton or anyone else) losing to LBJ almost as badly as Goldwater. As successor to the martyred JFK, Johnson was certain to win and to win big. So with the Liberal Republican beaten and humiliated, doesn't that leave the Goldwater people in an even stronger position?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

That's ok for '64 but where do you go from there?

Iirc, opinion polls at the time showed Rockefeller (or indeed Lodge, Nixon, Scranton or anyone else) losing to LBJ almost as badly as Goldwater. As successor to the martyred JFK, Johnson was certain to win and to win big. So with the Liberal Republican beaten and humiliated, doesn't that leave the Goldwater people in an even stronger position?

You could have Goldwater in 1968 but you would also very likely simply still get Nixon but with Goldwater taking the Reagan role in that year. That affects Reagan's career arc. That's more a wind up Butterfly than an immediate Butterfly.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Johnson was certain to win and to win big. So with the Liberal Republican beaten and humiliated,

The Party is likely to go with a conservative in 1968. Fair enough.

But I ask, Why does being more conservative have to include being anti-Civil Rights? I don’t think it does. In fact, I’d point out that the [defeated] filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act was overwhelmingly a southern Democratic filibuster. And that Senator Goldwater was one of only one of about eight six Republicans in the Senate to vote against the Act.

 

[Wendell]

When Rockefeller loses, conservatives will say it was because voters need "A choice, not an echo." Also, Goldwater did not oppose civil rights per se, but found legal conundrums in the 1964 law.

 

[Dancing Fool]

affects Reagan's career arc

But Reagan might still run for Governor of California in 1968 1966. [which he did in Original Time Line]

 

[Dancing Fool]

Goldwater did not oppose civil rights per se, but found legal conundrums in the 1964 law.

Okay, the more libertarian objection than a pro-segregation objection. But by God, he was perceived as being pro-segregation. I mean, look at the map and a 39% candidate winning the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina [plus, his home state of Arizona].

And southern whites who were prejudiced thinking they could roll back equal rights, I think this was very bad for the country.

 

[sciscisciortino]

I think Nixon would still win the nomination in 1968 (and probably without having to make deals with new southern Republicans like Thurmond).

 

[Mynock]

You could have Goldwater in 1968 but you would also very likely simply still get Nixon but with Goldwater taking the Reagan role in that year. That affects Reagan's career arc. That's more a wind up Butterfly than an immediate Butterfly.

I think Goldwater has better chances than Reagan at taking the 1968 nomination. If he does I think we see Humphrey in 1968.

 

[sampleswift]

I think eventually someone's going to have the idea of using the disgruntled Southern Democrats as part of a coalition. There will always be those politicians who will take advantage of people fearing a loss of their grip on (racial) power.

 

[Mynock]

I think eventually someone's going to have the idea of using the disgruntled Southern Democrats as part of a coalition. There will always be those politicians who will take advantage of people fearing a loss of their grip on (racial) power.

It's just a fact of political life that if there is a large group of floating voters and only two real parties, one of them will try to reach out to those voters. The Republican Party could use their existing small government and law and order rhetoric to couch that appeal and so were in the best place to try and get them onside. That's not even getting into demographic and economic changes all of which pushed southern voters towards the Republicans.

 

[Dancing Fool]

Barry Goldwater - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

‘ . . Congressional Republicans overwhelmingly supported the bill, with Goldwater being joined by only 5 other Republican senators in voting against it [the 1964 Civil Rights Act]. It is likely that Goldwater significantly underestimated the effect this would have, as his vote against the bill hurt him with voters across the country, including from his own party. In the 1990s, Goldwater would call his vote on the Civil Rights Act, "one of his greatest regrets." . . ’

===============

Yes, on Civil Rights, Goldwater was out of step with his fellow Republicans.

 

[dw93]

If Rocky only wins narrowly, I could see Goldwater giving it another go in 1968, and while I don't see him winning the nomination, he could give Nixon enough of a run for his money to force some steep concessions, which in turn would give Humphrey a victory in the general election.

 

[Dancing Fool]

I think eventually someone's going to have the idea of using the disgruntled Southern Democrats as part of a coalition

if there is a large group of floating voters and only two real parties,

But maybe less of a large group if both R’s and D’s go 10 years with civil rights being just accepted as a given.

I mean, we know people generally conform with what’s expected of them in the here and now, right?

 

[Dancing Fool]

And I really think what I’m saying is well within the norm. Doesn’t mean it’s necessarily correct, but I think it is in this case.

PS Social Psychology is an interesting field with straddles psychology and sociology. But I don’t think it’s yet a major at most colleges.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Rockefeller wins maybe half a dozen states, Wallace takes the four states Thurmond won in 1948, LBJ racks up over 400 electoral votes. The Republican right uses Rockefeller's dramatic failure and the civil unrest from the long-hot summer to demand and get a stalwart law and order conservative nominee in 1968, whether that's Nixon, Goldwater or Reagan is up in the air.

The fight for the soul of the Republican party was over in 1964. The only question is how long before the grass-roots got their way

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Rockefeller wins maybe half a dozen states, Wallace takes the four states Thurmond won in 1948, LBJ racks up over 400 electoral votes. The Republican right uses Rockefeller's dramatic failure and the civil unrest from the long-hot summer to demand and get a stalwart law and order conservative nominee in 1968, whether that's Nixon, Goldwater or Reagan is up in the air.

The fight for the soul of the Republican party was over in 1964. The only question is how long before the grass-roots got their way

Reagan wouldn't rise to political proeminence without his speech supporting Goldwater, so the latter would be the nominee in 1968.