Robert Kennedy is not assassinated...

[GDIS Pathe]

I do think that in most cases, even with RFK surviving, that Humphrey is still the nominee.

In fact, I think about the only way for RFK to win the nomination in 1968, would be, dare I say, surviving an assassination attempt. I've always thought that.

And you are right about the Yippies, Daley, and the Police. My thought process is RFK being alive would reduce the number of protesters, down to the most active/fringe. Daley might have thrown his support to RFK, might, or maybe decided to try to broker some kind of compromise between RFK and Humphrey. Daley personally thought that the Vietnam War was a disaster, he saw it breaking apart the Democratic coalition, and attended the funeral of about every Chicago citizen who was killed in the Conflict. But he did not like the protesters, for a combination of reasons, from Law and Order, to believing that the protesters were actually hurting the anti war cause.

I don't think RFK surviving his assassination changes the Convention math. There's a non-binding Illinois primary, then a series of Conventions where the Humphrey/Administration side had locked up the delegates, and then the New York primary. All well and good except the New York delegation at the Convention was already wholly composed of Peace delegates OTL. The pro-peace delegates entered Chicago with ~830 delegates between McGovern and McCarthy. Kennedy needs to find and or convince 500 Humphrey delegates to swing to him while also convincing the McCarthy (who hated his guts) that the anti-war people should unite around him.

Even if you accept the premise that RFK living somehow reduces the size of the Chicago protestors (and given that most of them people had about as a low an opinion of RFK as they did of HHH I don't exactly see how that tracks) it's not going to prevent the Chicago Police Department from brutalizing them on live TV, it's not going to prevent them from roughing up supporters, and it's not going to prevent them from harassing McCarthy's staff and delegates. 1968 was a police riot, all the protestors did was give the CPD somebody to hit.

As for Daley supporting RFK, Daley could've voted anyway he wanted on the 2nd ballot. There was never going to be a 2nd ballot unless RFK finds 500 delegates under Hyannisport's couch cushions.

The white soldiers were mostly split between Nixon and Wallace, the black soldiers between Nixon and Humphrey, and almost all agreeing that the biggest problem facing America were a collapse of civil order and riots/unrest.

But what was striking to me was when soldiers were asked if Bobby Kennedy had been the nominee, would they have voted for him instead, and all of the ones interviewed, across different units, demographic groupings, and backgrounds, said yes. This may strike us as odd for ideological reasons but really, there was a lot of insistence both that the war needed to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, that civil disorder was the largest issue facing America, and that Bobby Kennedy was the right man for the job.

The Kennedy halo effect was in full bloom, he would have won decisively I think

The halo effect existed only because he was *dead.* We have polling of the election when Kennedy was alive, and it showed Kennedy either running even or under performing HHH.

A bit?" It's the same thing. I'm just not sure LBJ wants a branch. I honestly wonder if he'd rather blow up the tree than see RFK as President.

My favorite thing about this scenario is that John Connally is such a wily politician, that we might be living in one of the few corners of the multiverse where he doesn't end up as President.

Fun notion inspired by the legendary "Fear Loathing and Gumbo." What if we get an electoral deadlock between Nixon and Kennedy, with wild suspicions abound on both sides, no choice can be reached in the Congress, the Senate elects Connally, he becomes Acting President, and just... stays?

Kennedy picking Connally as Veep (if by some miracle he got the nomination) would be such a blatant betrayal and sell out of everything his candidacy has stood for up until that point that I wouldn't be surprised if it convinces the anti-war people to get behind a Dr. Spock 4th party run.

 

[neopeius]

RFK making it to the convention sews up McCarthy's, McGovern's, and OTL Teddy's constituencies. That's probably enough for there to be a chance of a second ballot. Remember that RFK was the "Law & Order" candidate before Nixon stole the idea.

 

[wilji1090]

Assuming RFK gets the nomination, I imagine he pulls a squeaker over Nixon but the problem is that RFK would not be able to really take advantage of the Sino-Soviet Split assuming that still happens on schedule. A lot Nixon's reforms like the EPA would still happen but maybe they'd be more extensive?

 

[Amadeus]

I would like to get some opinions on a possible Robert F. Kennedy presidency. In this scenario, he is not assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan. There is never even an attempt. Some questions I have are:

1.) Would Robert Kennedy defeat Richard Nixon in 1968? Was the nation burned out enough from the Vietnam War and Democratic leadership under Lyndon Johnson to give Nixon the victory, or would nostalgia for JFK give Robert Kennedy the edge to win?
2.) How would have Robert Kennedy handled Vietnam?
3.) Who would have been a good choice for Vice-President under Robert Kennedy? Who could have filled other key Cabinet posts?
4.) Assuming Robert Kennedy is re-elected in 1972, how would a post-Apollo U.S. space program look?
5.) Anything else that you would like to discuss.

My opinion is that:
1. If nominated, RFK would probably defeat Nixon because he would have united most of the Democratic Party behind him and the liberals who IOTL sat out 1968 would mostly have voted for Kennedy. But we should not take for granted the notion that RFK would have been nominated at all. At the time of his death, he was still behind Humphrey in delegates. The convention would be held over two months later, and any number of things could have happened which would have caused Democratic bosses to have second thoughts about Humphrey. Moreover, RFK would use all of the Kennedy family's power, money, and might behind the scenes to convince party leaders to support him. I can see Humphrey heading into the convention as the frontrunner, before being overtaken by Kennedy.
2. RFK probably negotiates a ceasefire in Vietnam in 1969 and then begins pulling out troops. US ground troops would likely be out of Vietnam by 1970. No invasion of Cambodia or Kent State killings.
3. RFK would probably pick a liberal Southerner. So maybe he'd pick Terry Sanford or Ralph Yarborough.
4. RFK likely continues the Apollo program as a tribute to JFK, but eventually Congress would want to defund it once America achieves its goal of putting a man on the moon.
5. RFK would probably be a successful President since he would be working with a liberal Congress. He may even manage to enact healthcare reform. But by 1974 the GOP would take at least one House of Congress and Reagan probably wins the White House in 1976.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

RFK making it to the convention sews up McCarthy's, McGovern's, and OTL Teddy's constituencies. That's probably enough for there to be a chance of a second ballot. Remember that RFK was the "Law & Order" candidate before Nixon stole the idea.

Yes. Thank You for bringing this up.

My opinion is that:
1. If nominated, RFK would probably defeat Nixon because he would have united most of the Democratic Party behind him and the liberals who IOTL sat out 1968 would mostly have voted for Kennedy. But we should not take for granted the notion that RFK would have been nominated at all. At the time of his death, he was still behind Humphrey in delegates. The convention would be held over two months later, and any number of things could have happened which would have caused Democratic bosses to have second thoughts about Humphrey. Moreover, RFK would use all of the Kennedy family's power, money, and might behind the scenes to convince party leaders to support him. I can see Humphrey heading into the convention as the frontrunner, before being overtaken by Kennedy.
2. RFK probably negotiates a ceasefire in Vietnam in 1969 and then begins pulling out troops. US ground troops would likely be out of Vietnam by 1970. No invasion of Cambodia or Kent State killings.
3. RFK would probably pick a liberal Southerner. So maybe he'd pick Terry Sanford or Ralph Yarborough.
4. RFK likely continues the Apollo program as a tribute to JFK, but eventually Congress would want to defund it once America achieves its goal of putting a man on the moon.
5. RFK would probably be a successful President since he would be working with a liberal Congress. He may even manage to enact healthcare reform. But by 1974 the GOP would take at least one House of Congress and Reagan probably wins the White House in 1976.

1. Yes, RFK winning the nomination is much more implausible than him winning the General. Jeff Greenfield has said that if there was not an assassination attempt, RFK would not win the nomination.

2. I think President Robert Kennedy quickly brings America's involvement to an end. Likely through a "two track," agreement between the US and North Vietnam, and South Vietnam and the NLF. The US probably still provides money and weapons to South Vietnam, and I think really insists that Congress votes for this, and even buts heads with the Anti War movement on continual support for South Vietnam. It's probably not enough for South Vietnam to survive, but you never know with a few years of peace. Without continued American presence as long as OTL, public opinion would be more willing to continue supporting South Vietnam. I also don't think RFK would pardon the Draft Dodgers, he would be off the opinion that he cannot give the Anti War movement everything that they want.

3. I'm pretty sure he picks Sanford. Yarborough would be too liberal.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. I think he absolutely goes for Health Care Reform. He also does Welfare Reform, Urban Renewal, and Energy Independence. He would actually be fairly Fiscally Conservative. I do think he's succeeded by Reagan. Interestingly, RFK might run for the Senate in New York, in 1980, to remain involved in the political sphere. He would only be 51 when he left office.

 

[Amadeus]

Yes. Thank You for bringing this up.

1. Yes, RFK winning the nomination is much more implausible than him winning the General. Jeff Greenfield has said that if there was not an assassination attempt, RFK would not win the nomination.

2. I think President Robert Kennedy quickly brings America's involvement to an end. Likely through a "two track," agreement between the US and North Vietnam, and South Vietnam and the NLF. The US probably still provides money and weapons to South Vietnam, and I think really insists that Congress votes for this, and even buts heads with the Anti War movement on continual support for South Vietnam. It's probably not enough for South Vietnam to survive, but you never know with a few years of peace. Without continued American presence as long as OTL, public opinion would be more willing to continue supporting South Vietnam. I also don't think RFK would pardon the Draft Dodgers, he would be off the opinion that he cannot give the Anti War movement everything that they want.

3. I'm pretty sure he picks Sanford. Yarborough would be too liberal.

4. Yes.

5. Yes. I think he absolutely goes for Health Care Reform. He also does Welfare Reform, Urban Renewal, and Energy Independence. He would actually be fairly Fiscally Conservative. I do think he's succeeded by Reagan. Interestingly, RFK might run for the Senate in New York, in 1980, to remain involved in the political sphere. He would only be 51 when he left office.

Why did Jeff Greenfield think that RFK would have lost the nomination?

And how could RFK be fiscally conservative if he is implementing liberal government programs like healthcare reform and urban renewal?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

RFK making it to the convention sews up McCarthy's, McGovern's, and OTL Teddy's constituencies. That's probably enough for there to be a chance of a second ballot. Remember that RFK was the "Law & Order" candidate before Nixon stole the idea.

For one, McCarthy and RFK had literally spent the months after the New Hampshire primary and RFK's entry going after each other's throats in the primaries. Eugene McCarthy told Teddy that he was willing to withdrew on the 2nd ballot if he was willing to enter the race but he had explicitly stated he *wouldn't* do so for his brother. McCarthy would've rejected out of hand any notions of a RFK-McCarthy alliance prior to the convention, the peace faction would've rolled into Chicago divided and at each other's throats, and then Humphrey would've rolled over them both.

For two the combined totals of McCarthy, McGovern, Channing Philips, and Ted Kennedy's delegates at the convention are, respectively, 601, 146.5, 67.5 and 12.75 delegates for a total of 827.75. Humphrey was nominated on the first ballot with 1759.75 delegates out of 2622. I will repeat this until I’m blue in the mouth. There was no anti-war majority in Chicago, there was no anti-administration majority in Chicago. The closest vote between the 'Peace' and 'Establishment' factions on the 1st night of the convention, the vote to throw out Lester Maddox's Georgia delegation wholesale in favor of Julian Bond's loyalist faction, was defeated 1041.5 to 1413 and this was with Liberal challenges to the delegations of 3 Southern (pro-Humphrey) states keeping nearly a hundred 'Establishment' delegates from voting.

The peace plank was defeated 1,567.75 to 1,041.25.

The fact that there wasn’t a anti-adminstration majority is precisely the reason why the McGovern-Fraser commission existed.

 

[MatthewFirth]

Kennedy would not be nominated here; Humphrey would eventually get it. However, it would set up 1972 for Kennedy vs. Nixon in which the former would more likely win...

 

[hwyl]

Kennedy would not be nominated here; Humphrey would eventually get it.

I remember once upon in time reading about this from various sources- and my recollection is that the consensus was that Humphrey was likely to get it but that it was by no means completely certain. In any case it was such an awful tragedy for the US, him surviving (even if maybe turning out to be a disappointment) would have been so much better than otl.

 

[RousseauX]

I would like to get some opinions on a possible Robert F. Kennedy presidency. In this scenario, he is not assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan. There is never even an attempt. Some questions I have are:

1.) Would Robert Kennedy defeat Richard Nixon in 1968? Was the nation burned out enough from the Vietnam War and Democratic leadership under Lyndon Johnson to give Nixon the victory, or would nostalgia for JFK give Robert Kennedy the edge to win?
2.) How would have Robert Kennedy handled Vietnam?
3.) Who would have been a good choice for Vice-President under Robert Kennedy? Who could have filled other key Cabinet posts?
4.) Assuming Robert Kennedy is re-elected in 1972, how would a post-Apollo U.S. space program look?
5.) Anything else that you would like to discuss.

RFK would have lost the nomination in 1968, although him -living- might have actually butterflied a Humprey presidency into existence

RFK would have being a more serious version of his Brother Ted and has a very good chance of winning the presidency at -some- point

 

[mjwebb76]

Connally might be but it would be a branch to LBJ and it might harken back to JFK a bit.

Strongly disagree. LBJ HATED Connally. One of the main reasons JFK went to Texas in Nov 1963 was to try to effectuate some type of peace between his VP and the Governor of Texas.

 

[neopeius]

So what do folks think on the Apollo question?

 

[1968SeriesChamps]

I would like to get some opinions on a possible Robert F. Kennedy presidency. In this scenario, he is not assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan. There is never even an attempt. Some questions I have are:

1.) Would Robert Kennedy defeat Richard Nixon in 1968? Was the nation burned out enough from the Vietnam War and Democratic leadership under Lyndon Johnson to give Nixon the victory, or would nostalgia for JFK give Robert Kennedy the edge to win?
I'm not sure that RFK gets the nomination in 1968. This has been debated for years but consensus I've read is that Humphrey courts the bosses and gets the nomination. But let's say RFK does get the nomination. I think the biggest risk with an RFK candidacy is that he's going to appear to far to the left so it becomes easier for Nixon to be viewed as the moderate choice. Working in RFK's favor is enthusiasm for his candidacy is going to be higher so there will be a boost in turnout among Catholics and minorities. The biggest questions are who does RFK pick as his running mate, how charismatic will his general election candidacy be, will Nixon agree to debate him (the public demand will be higher for one), how does this affect Wallace's candidacy, does Johnson privately back Nixon over RFK, and how does that affect the rest of the general election. Are there even attempts to end the war? I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts but I'm generally of two minds about 1968. I think it's almost impossible for Democrats to thread the needle but there are strengths that RFK brings that might make it possible.

2.) How would have Robert Kennedy handled Vietnam?
No idea. Best case scenario for RFK is Johnson gets a peace agreement during the general election and RFK just has to carry out the end of the war. If that doesn't happen, a different version of "not well."

3.) Who would have been a good choice for Vice-President under Robert Kennedy? Who could have filled other key Cabinet posts?
I've seen suggestions for Ralph Yarborough, Terry Sanford, Stuart Symington, Philip Hart, William Proxmire, or Al Gore, Sr., John Connally is probably too conservative for RFK to choose.

RFK would not have won the nomination in 1968, most likely. The weekend before he was murdered Humphrey went over the top in needed delegates and of those yet to be determined, Humphrey would have at least some of them. LBJ dropped out of the race too late for Humphrey to enter primaries but that's not the only way a candidate secured delegates then.

One claim is that well, the Humphrey people in and out of the convention were just a bunch of political hacks, union pork choppers, and other time servers who would have stampeded to Bobby if only given the chance, no particular loyalty to Humphrey. I was there, I was one of them, and this wasn't the case. Besides, LBJ still controlled the convention and I doubt he would have allowed such a convention movement.

One scenario is that Humphrey takes the nomination, names RFK as his vp nominee to unite the party, and then if he wins Bobby and the other Kennedys undermine his administration on the basis that the presidency really belongs to them.

 

[Sabin]

I know we're getting off topic but:

I'm persuaded by the idea that if RFK survived an assassination attempt (just isn't hit) that it's not unreasonable to think he could have been the nominee. But the Democratic Party was still facing a lot of challenged in 1968, maybe too many for any President to win. But 1968 almost certainly sets RFK up to run in 1972.

A few questions:
*I think RFK will support Humphrey more than McCarthy did but it's hard to imagine him really desperately working overtime to get Humphrey in office knowing that 1972 is around the corner. But it's possible that it's enough to swing Humphrey the popular vote. Like, there's no way that RFK will hold off until almost the end of the general election to give him a real endorsement.
*I'd imagine that RFK living doesn't really change any running mate math for Humphrey.
*In 1972, does McGovern even run with RFK in the race?
*In 1972, does RFK shift his focus away from Vietnam and towards attitudes re: good government? "Resisting the politics of fear" and all that? That's generally a successful plank for Democrats to run on.

 

[Sabin]

One scenario is that Humphrey takes the nomination, names RFK as his vp nominee to unite the party, and then if he wins Bobby and the other Kennedys undermine his administration on the basis that the presidency really belongs to them.

I agree with a lot of your points, but...

Is there any chance that Humphrey chooses RFK? Someone that would clearly outshine him on the campaign trail and someone that his President (LBJ) clearly hated? Is there any chance that RFK accepts?

Let's say it happens (and Lord knows, I'm here for an RFK vs. Agnew debate), how would RFK undermine Humphrey's administration? Why would tanking a President's administration be good politics for any Vice President's chances of succeeding him? I guess that happened back with Adams-Jefferson but that was back when we didn't have that whole "What is a Vice President?" thing figured out.

 

[Amadeus]

I agree with a lot of your points, but...

Is there any chance that Humphrey chooses RFK? Someone that would clearly outshine him on the campaign trail and someone that his President (LBJ) clearly hated? Is there any chance that RFK accepts?

Let's say it happens (and Lord knows, I'm here for an RFK vs. Agnew debate), how would RFK undermine Humphrey's administration? Why would tanking a President's administration be good politics for any Vice President's chances of succeeding him? I guess that happened back with Adams-Jefferson but that was back when we didn't have that whole "What is a Vice President?" thing figured out.

I don't think RFK would be Humphrey's running mate. if Humphrey loses, then RFK is associated with a losing ticket. If Humphrey wins, then RFK would be a VP with no power.

In all likelihood, if RFK loses at the convention he gives a well received speech calling for an end to the protests and urging Democrats to unite behind Humphrey. Perhaps with Kennedy's support, Humphrey picks up support from liberals who IOTL stayed home and he narrowly defeats Nixon. Humphrey ends the Vietnam War, and RFK is second to Humphrey as the most powerful man in Washington. Reagan is the likely 1972 GOP nominee, and I am not sure that Humphrey could beat Reagan.

I once did a mini-TL where JFK lives, LBJ wins in 1968 and serves one term, then Reagan narrowly beats Vice-President Humphrey in '72. Reagan narrowly beats RFK in '76, then RFK finally wins in 1980. Maybe something similar would have happened had everything been the same as OTL up until June 1968, with a surviving RFK losing to Humphrey but enjoying a successful Senate career until he is elected President at a later date. I wanted to continue the TL through the 1980s (RFK would have taken Reagan's place as Gorbachev's negotiating partner, and the man often credited for ending the Cold War) but I stopped with RFK's election in 1980.

 

[Sabin]

I don't think RFK would be Humphrey's running mate. if Humphrey loses, then RFK is associated with a losing ticket. If Humphrey wins, then RFK would be a VP with no power.

In all likelihood, if RFK loses at the convention he gives a well received speech calling for an end to the protests and urging Democrats to unite behind Humphrey. Perhaps with Kennedy's support, Humphrey picks up support from liberals who IOTL stayed home and he narrowly defeats Nixon. Humphrey ends the Vietnam War, and RFK is second to Humphrey as the most powerful man in Washington. Reagan is the likely 1972 GOP nominee, and I am not sure that Humphrey could beat Reagan.

I once did a mini-TL where JFK lives, LBJ wins in 1968 and serves one term, then Reagan narrowly beats Vice-President Humphrey in '72. Reagan narrowly beats RFK in '76, then RFK finally wins in 1980. Maybe something similar would have happened had everything been the same as OTL up until June 1968, with a surviving RFK losing to Humphrey but enjoying a successful Senate career until he is elected President at a later date. I wanted to continue the TL through the 1980s (RFK would have taken Reagan's place as Gorbachev's negotiating partner, and the man often credited for ending the Cold War) but I stopped with RFK's election in 1980.

With the way 1968 is going, I think the likelier scenario is that RFK's endorsement creates an electoral deadlock. 1968 was not a Democrat's year. The only way it remotely appeared that way was because of Wallace. A race without Wallace isn't close. Even if one is generous with the Wallace vote (in the North, evenly between Humphrey and Nixon; in the South, Nixon over Humphrey by three to one), Nixon takes it. I'm inclined to think that a slightly more united nomination contest is still a nomination contest which is a sign of a party that isn't going to win outright. Maybe it doesn't lose outright and takes a popular vote that almost certainly would have gone to Nixon if he wasn't losing so many votes to Humphrey, but I don't think it wins.

I'd love to see a 1968 electoral deadlock TL.

 

[Deleted member 145219]

Why did Jeff Greenfield think that RFK would have lost the nomination?

And how could RFK be fiscally conservative if he is implementing liberal government programs like healthcare reform and urban renewal?

Greenfield thinks basically that RFK would not have had enough "umph," to overtake Humphrey. According to Greenfield, the plan was to campaign vigorously across the country, grow his support, and draw big crows, and demonstrate to the powers that be in the Democratic party (besides LBJ) that RFK had the support, had the coalition that could not only win, but enhance the Democratic coalition. Big City bosses and Labor Leaders could see that the New Deal Coalition was failing. Including Richard Daley.

Regarding RFK, being fiscally conservative, his ideology was this really unique combination of ideas that would not really come into their maturity in the Democratic Party until the days of the DLC and Bill Clinton's Presidency. RFK was not an orthodox liberal. He often criticized the detachment of the federal government towards state and local concerns. He criticized the War on Poverty for, in his view, degrading the dignity of communities by giving out welfare, instead of creating jobs and economic opportunity. He even talked about a program to have kids in failing school districts in impoverished areas, having the opportunity to work half of the school day to learn the dignity of earning a paycheck at a young age. He talked about restoring Law and Order. And famously when asked by I think it was wealthy medical students how RFK would pay for his programs, he said, "you will."

It's a very strange paradox that is for sure.

 

[neopeius]

I was there, I was one of them, and this wasn't the case. Besides, LBJ still controlled the convention and I doubt he would have allowed such a convention movement.

I very much appreciate your insight and would love to know what role you played at the convention.

That said, I think people are acting as if RFK time travels from June 5, 1968 to the convention, and all the politics are exactly as they were OTL. A week is a lifetime in politics, and there are 12 lifetimes between RFK not getting shot and the Chicago convention in this ATL.

 

[Amadeus]

Greenfield thinks basically that RFK would not have had enough "umph," to overtake Humphrey. According to Greenfield, the plan was to campaign vigorously across the country, grow his support, and draw big crows, and demonstrate to the powers that be in the Democratic party (besides LBJ) that RFK had the support, had the coalition that could not only win, but enhance the Democratic coalition. Big City bosses and Labor Leaders could see that the New Deal Coalition was failing. Including Richard Daley.

Regarding RFK, being fiscally conservative, his ideology was this really unique combination of ideas that would not really come into their maturity in the Democratic Party until the days of the DLC and Bill Clinton's Presidency. RFK was not an orthodox liberal. He often criticized the detachment of the federal government towards state and local concerns. He criticized the War on Poverty for, in his view, degrading the dignity of communities by giving out welfare, instead of creating jobs and economic opportunity. He even talked about a program to have kids in failing school districts in impoverished areas, having the opportunity to work half of the school day to learn the dignity of earning a paycheck at a young age. He talked about restoring Law and Order. And famously when asked by I think it was wealthy medical students how RFK would pay for his programs, he said, "you will."

It's a very strange paradox that is for sure.

These are unorthodox positions, but I think that Reagan and others will still portray RFK as a big spending, big government, big city liberal who is raising your taxes to help lazy so-called "bums" who can't help themselves.

With the way 1968 is going, I think the likelier scenario is that RFK's endorsement creates an electoral deadlock. 1968 was not a Democrat's year. The only way it remotely appeared that way was because of Wallace. A race without Wallace isn't close. Even if one is generous with the Wallace vote (in the North, evenly between Humphrey and Nixon; in the South, Nixon over Humphrey by three to one), Nixon takes it. I'm inclined to think that a slightly more united nomination contest is still a nomination contest which is a sign of a party that isn't going to win outright. Maybe it doesn't lose outright and takes a popular vote that almost certainly would have gone to Nixon if he wasn't losing so many votes to Humphrey, but I don't think it wins.

I'd love to see a 1968 electoral deadlock TL.

Humphrey lost California, Missouri, Illinois, and Ohio very narrowly. If Humphrey wins IL, CA, and OH, then he wins the election. So he certainly could have won, and he probably would have if Nixon had not sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks.