Richard Nixon dies in 1958....
- Thread starter rick007
- Start date
I think Eisenhower would play the role of kingmaker for the 1960 nomination honestly. As to who he'd crown, others on here would have a better idea than me. I don't see why the Democrats wouldn't still nominate Kennedy, though butterflies from a Nixon death might set the stage for someone else. As for the general election in 1960, it's a coin toss. On the one hand, the economy was kind of sour toward the end of Ike's term, so that helps the Democrats. On the other hand, despite that, and despite the flawed pledge to visit all 50 states and despite being off the campaign trail for some time due to illness or injury (I forget which it was of the two), Nixon still came damn close to beating Kennedy, so the Republicans still have a good shot (if not better odds than OTL) at winning in a Nixonless 1960.
As for 68, it depends on what happens in 1960 and 1964. If the Democrats still win in 1960, they likely hold on in 1964, so 68 would very much depend on who the loser of 64 was and how badly they lost. If it's like 1964 OTL where Goldwater loses and loses big, than 1968 would likely go to someone like Rockefeller or Romney. If it's a moderate/liberal that goes down in 64, a Conservative (maybe even Goldwater himself) gets the nomination.
As for American Conservatism itself, the Keynesian consensus that dominated since FDR unraveled in the mid to late 70s OTL, which was key to the rise/dominance of American Conservatism in the 1980s, 90s, and 2000s. My guess is you still have a rise of laissez faire / neoliberal economics sometime between 1976 and 2000, so in that sense Conservatism isn't any different than OTL. That said, it might not have been as dominated by cultural and social issues as it was thanks to Nixon and Reagan.
As for 68, it depends on what happens in 1960 and 1964. If the Democrats still win in 1960, they likely hold on in 1964, so 68 would very much depend on who the loser of 64 was and how badly they lost. If it's like 1964 OTL where Goldwater loses and loses big, than 1968 would likely go to someone like Rockefeller or Romney. If it's a moderate/liberal that goes down in 64, a Conservative (maybe even Goldwater himself) gets the nomination.
As for American Conservatism itself, the Keynesian consensus that dominated since FDR unraveled in the mid to late 70s OTL, which was key to the rise/dominance of American Conservatism in the 1980s, 90s, and 2000s. My guess is you still have a rise of laissez faire / neoliberal economics sometime between 1976 and 2000, so in that sense Conservatism isn't any different than OTL. That said, it might not have been as dominated by cultural and social issues as it was thanks to Nixon and Reagan.
1960 Republican nominee - most likely to be Nelson Rockefeller. Strongest competitor would be Henry Cabot Lodge.
The Democrats would have still nominated Kennedy as he was the most popular choice within the party and nationally. Hard to say who would have won. The Republicans may have benefitted from a sympathy vote following Nixon's death, particularly if it had been in violent circumstances. But I'm not sure how Rockefeller or Lodge would have gone down with average American voters as both were seen as very patrician. I still think Kennedy would have edged victory - although he was a Roman Catholic, people would have been aware of his war record and the fact he was strongly anti-Communist and would vigorously defend US interests.
1968 would be a difficult choice. Rockefeller (if eligible to stand) was damaged by the fact he had gone through a divorce. This leaves Ronald Reagan and George Romney. I think the Republicans would have played it safe and gone for Romney. Reagan would have been helped by demands for a tough line on law and order following two years of race riots and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations but he was relatively new to politics and I suspect his time was to come later.
Many previous observations about Nixon on AH have been that he was a moderate rather than a true conservative. He was tough on law and order and defence, but he continued with the Kennedy/Johnson policies on health, welfare and civil rights and it was Nixon who brought about a rapprochement with China. One consideration is that Watergate is unlikely to have happened without Nixon and if Romney had won in 1968, he would have served two full terms and possibly be succeeded by another Republican in 1976. Reagan may not have got his chance.
The Democrats would have still nominated Kennedy as he was the most popular choice within the party and nationally. Hard to say who would have won. The Republicans may have benefitted from a sympathy vote following Nixon's death, particularly if it had been in violent circumstances. But I'm not sure how Rockefeller or Lodge would have gone down with average American voters as both were seen as very patrician. I still think Kennedy would have edged victory - although he was a Roman Catholic, people would have been aware of his war record and the fact he was strongly anti-Communist and would vigorously defend US interests.
1968 would be a difficult choice. Rockefeller (if eligible to stand) was damaged by the fact he had gone through a divorce. This leaves Ronald Reagan and George Romney. I think the Republicans would have played it safe and gone for Romney. Reagan would have been helped by demands for a tough line on law and order following two years of race riots and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations but he was relatively new to politics and I suspect his time was to come later.
Many previous observations about Nixon on AH have been that he was a moderate rather than a true conservative. He was tough on law and order and defence, but he continued with the Kennedy/Johnson policies on health, welfare and civil rights and it was Nixon who brought about a rapprochement with China. One consideration is that Watergate is unlikely to have happened without Nixon and if Romney had won in 1968, he would have served two full terms and possibly be succeeded by another Republican in 1976. Reagan may not have got his chance.
Apparently, Eisenhower was fond of Treasury Secretary Robert Anderson and wanted him to succeed Nixon as Vice-President in 1956. If Anderson were to enter the 1960 Republican primaries, while he would have Eisenhower's backing he would also have the disadvantage of being a former Democrat. (He only became a Republican in 1956).
I think the nomination goes to Rockefeller. Sans Nixon, Republican power brokers would turn towards the Governor of what at the time was the most populous state in the Union. In 1960, conservatives were a growing force but they had not yet gained control of the party machinery as they would by 1964 (allowing Goldwater to win the nomination). Moreover, this is before Rockefeller's divorce which obliterated his credibility with conservatives and many moderates like Prescott Bush. While in 1964 the moderates were divided between Rockefeller, Lodge, Scranton, etc in this ATL 1960 they are more likely to be united behind Rockefeller.
If it's a Rockefeller vs Kennedy race, it's still a toss up. Kennedy would be aided by the economic recession and the U-2 incident, and unlike Nixon IOTL Rockefeller would not have the advantage of being the Vice-President to a popular incumbent. Conservatives are also more likely to stay home if Rockefeller is nominated. Nonetheless, Rockefeller may perform better in the debates against Kennedy and pick a stronger running mate than Lodge. (As a New Yorker, Rockefeller would never get away with selecting a Bostonian like Lodge — instead he would have to run with someone like Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who would make the ticket more competitive in his home state). Kennedy claimed that he would have lost to Rockefeller; if there is any opinion we should consider on the matter it ought to be JFK himself.
If it's rockefeller, no way Kennedy picks Johnson as VP or calls MLK in jail. Maybe Wallace as VP, or more likely a less incendiary racial conservative to balance the ticket.
marktaha
Banned
Wallace wasn't even Governor in 1960. Rockefeller would have narrowly beaten Kennedy with a more Conservative running-mate (Dirksen? Maybe Goldwater himself- they were friends?).
From previous posts on AH, it's clear that Kennedy would have preferred to have Symington as VP. Johnson was picked because it was necessary to have someone from the South and one who was not a racial conservative.
Why did Kennedy want Symington, if you don't mind my asking?
Check the Wikipedia entry for Symington. He was Kennedy's first choice for the VP role but was subsequently dropped in favour of Johnson.