Republican Nominee in 1972 if Nixon Loses in 1968

Amadeus

The 1968 election was relatively close, and it's not hard to imagine a Democrat winning the White House with the right POD. One scenario I've thought about is RFK not being assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel: after sweeping the remaining primaries, Kennedy defies the odds and wins the Democratic nomination when Daley (who IOTL supported Ted Kennedy over HHH at the convention) throws his support to RFK. Kennedy's charisma, opposition to the war, and ability to mobilize a winning coalition allow him to narrowly defeat Nixon. A scenario I've considered involves Humphrey winning instead: Kennedy is still assassinated and HHH is nominated. But days before the election Humphrey reveals Nixon's involvement in sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks, leading to a last-minute bump for the Democratic ticket that carries HHH over the line on election day.

In either scenario, a Democrat would be President in 1972. Had Nixon lost, who would the Republicans have nominated in 1972?
 

Byz

Rockefeller would be an obvious frontrunner, though you can't discount the possibility Reagan makes an early play.
 

daveg1967

Amadeus said:
The 1968 election was relatively close, and it's not hard to imagine a Democrat winning the White House with the right POD. One scenario I've thought about is RFK not being assassinated at the Ambassador Hotel: after sweeping the remaining primaries, Kennedy defies the odds and wins the Democratic nomination when Daley (who IOTL supported Ted Kennedy over HHH at the convention) throws his support to RFK. Kennedy's charisma, opposition to the war, and ability to mobilize a winning coalition allow him to narrowly defeat Nixon. A scenario I've considered involves Humphrey winning instead: Kennedy is still assassinated and HHH is nominated. But days before the election Humphrey reveals Nixon's involvement in sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks, leading to a last-minute bump for the Democratic ticket that carries HHH over the line on election day.

In either scenario, a Democrat would be President in 1972. Had Nixon lost, who would the Republicans have nominated in 1972?
Click to expand...
Nixon isn't the nominee in 1968 if RFK survives and gets the nomination.
 

Byz

I will say if it is Reagan, I think either a President Humphrey or Kennedy would both destroy him in 1972. All the big northeastern states go Democratic, the midwest goes mostly Dem, and the only region Reagan can rely on is the Deep South. The West, Texas, parts of New England, and Upper South are competitive, but though it's not as big a landslide as 1964 it's still pretty bad for Reagan.
 

Amadeus

TheByzantineOttoman said:
I will say if it is Reagan, I think either a President Humphrey or Kennedy would both destroy him in 1972. All the big northeastern states go Democratic, the midwest goes mostly Dem, and the only region Reagan can rely on is the Deep South. The West, Texas, parts of New England, and Upper South are competitive, but though it's not as big a landslide as 1964 it's still pretty bad for Reagan.
Click to expand...

Might Reagan sit out the election knowing that he is unlikely to defeat an unpopular incumbent?
 

daveg1967

Amadeus said:
Why do you think that?
Click to expand...
The Republican Establishment wasn't going to risk him losing to another Kennedy. Nixon wouldn't be running against the Johnson administration, he'd be running against a ghost. In 1968, Reagan was running to prevent Kennedy from being president. He kind of lost interest after he died.
 

bguy

Donor
TheByzantineOttoman said:
I will say if it is Reagan, I think either a President Humphrey or Kennedy would both destroy him in 1972. All the big northeastern states go Democratic, the midwest goes mostly Dem, and the only region Reagan can rely on is the Deep South. The West, Texas, parts of New England, and Upper South are competitive, but though it's not as big a landslide as 1964 it's still pretty bad for Reagan.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of strong headwinds against the Democrats going into 1972. They've already been in power for 12 years (the American electorate rarely lets one party control the government for that long without wanting change), they'll be viewed as solely responsible for the defeat in Vietnam (since the war was started under a Democrat president and lost under a Democrat president), crime was rising dramatically (which will be blamed on the party in power), and the busing issue will be starting to seriously bite the Democrats (and busing will likely be even more prevalent an issue ITTL than it was IOTL in 1972 since a Democrat president from 1969-1973 means more liberal judges appointed to federal district and circuit courts which likely means more pro-busing rulings come down which will hurt the Democrats everywhere they happen.) Nor is Reagan going to be anywhere near as easy as Goldwater to paint as a dangerous extremist since Reagan has a much more amiable nature and a proven track record of being able to work with the Democrats from his governorship in California.

Amadeus said:
Might Reagan sit out the election knowing that he is unlikely to defeat an unpopular incumbent?
Click to expand...

No chance Reagan sits out in 1972. He was willing to run for president in 1968 (when he barely even had any experience as governor) and to take on an incumbent president from his own party in '76, so he's clearly not afraid of a fight.
 

David T

daveg1967 said:
The Republican Establishment wasn't going to risk him losing to another Kennedy. Nixon wouldn't be running against the Johnson administration, he'd be running against a ghost. In 1968, Reagan was running to prevent Kennedy from being president. He kind of lost interest after he died.
Click to expand...
Fun fact: "As of mid-May, both Nixon and his Republican challenger, Nelson Rockefeller, were preferred over all three Democratic candidates in Gallup's fall election trial heats, with Kennedy performing the worst of the three." https://news.gallup.com/vault/235283/gallup-vault-look-back-robert-kennedy.aspx

Reagan's challenge was too late and fell afoul of the fact that some people who might otherwise have preferred him decided to support Nixon to prevent there even being the slightest chance Rockefeller would be nominated. But there is no reason to think it was dependent on who the Democrats would nominate--they were all way to far left for him.

The Republican Establishment by 1968 was far from liberal, and even people like Eisenhower thought that there was no need for moderates to stop Nixon because they thought Nixon *was* a moderate. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZlRpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA245
 

Red_Neptune

I think Ray Shafer or Bill Scranton, both of Pennsylvania, are potential choices. They were both noted moderates like Nixon, and the party could turn to them.
 
Maeglin

Maeglin

Reagan in 1972 would have been saddled (unfairly or not) as a Goldwater Retread. The mood for a hard-right turn was not there, and the moderate wing of the party had not been discredited.
 

bguy

Donor
Maeglin said:
Reagan in 1972 would have been saddled (unfairly or not) as a Goldwater Retread. The mood for a hard-right turn was not there, and the moderate wing of the party had not been discredited.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Desegregation busing was incredibly unpopular in 1972. (A Harris Poll that year found 73% of the public opposed busing to only 20% that supported it.)


It's also an issue with a lot of emotional power since it involves people's children. And Reagan was really good at hammering an opponent once he found an emotionally resonant issue. (Witness how effectively he used the Panama Canal issue against Ford in '76.) Nor will it be easy to paint Reagan as an extremist when he is advocating for the position supported by 73% of the country.
 

Amadeus

bguy said:
I don't know. Desegregation busing was incredibly unpopular in 1972. (A Harris Poll that year found 73% of the public opposed busing to only 20% that supported it.)


It's also an issue with a lot of emotional power since it involves people's children. And Reagan was really good at hammering an opponent once he found an emotionally resonant issue. (Witness how effectively he used the Panama Canal issue against Ford in '76.) Nor will it be easy to paint Reagan as an extremist when he is advocating for the position supported by 73% of the country.
Click to expand...

Sure, on that one issue Reagan would be effective. But what if Reagan is out of step with where most Americans stand on Vietnam and economic issues?
 

bguy

Donor
Amadeus said:
Sure, on that one issue Reagan would be effective. But what if Reagan is out of step with where most Americans stand on Vietnam and economic issues?
Click to expand...

South Vietnam will likely have already fallen by 1972 which effectively insulates Reagan on that issue. (He'll be able to safely criticize the Democrats for getting us into the war and then losing it without scaring voters that he will take America back into the war because it will already be lost.)

I doubt Reagan would talk about the economy that much since it is probably doing ok in 1972. (Busing, law and order, and the Democrats' failure in Vietnam would all be far more effective campaign themes for him.) But to the extent that the economy is an issue, I don't think Reagan was really pushing any particularly radical economic ideas in 1972 that would scare the voters. (He wasn't even a supply sider yet in 1972). He'll support tax reduction and welfare reform, but those aren't exactly unpopular positions, and Reagan is certainly not a Goldwater. He's not going to campaign on abolishing the TVA in Tennessee or talk about getting rid of farm subsidies when he's speaking to farmers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top