Rockefeller 1960 -- consequences?

[Red_Neptune]

(1) I don't think that winning the nomination is by any means granted - I strongly suspect anti-Rockefellerite and pro-Goldwater forces will be considerably strengthened in the absence of Nixon, and Goldwater will be certain to make a run. I also suspect Ike will back his preferred successor, Robert B. Anderson, though I strongly doubt whether he will win the nomination. Moreover, conservative forces are much stronger than they are being credited for - in 1952, they nearly won the nomination from Eisenhower, despite the fact that Ike had personal popularity nigh-unsurpassed at this time. Furthermore, the burgeoning Southern influence into the GOP was strongly opposed to Rocky; so while I think he will do better than 1964 or 1968 (where anti-Rockefeller opposition was considerably strengthened), it's by no means required he wins the nomination.

2) Even if he wins the nomination, I think it's more than plausible that a conservative Treaty of Fifth Avenue occurs, where Rocky agrees to run on a much more conservative platform than he did IOTL. I suspect part of that means a conservative -- perhaps the hawkish Minnesota Congressman Walter Judd? -- is selected as Vice President. I suspect Rocky would end up emphasizing not his social liberalism or support for civil rights, but rather his anti-Cold War rhetoric -- which could yield interesting results.

In the general election, while I see Rocky possibly winning New York and some other close states, the South is pretty much guaranteed to be lost to Kennedy or Byrd. I also think he'd do worse in California (where, despite being the state's favorite son, Nixon only barely won the state) and a number of other Western states. I'm actually less inclined to think he'd do better than Nixon because the "experience" argument would fall on flat feet against a 1-term governor, but the race would still be close.

 

[sciscisciortino]

I am not sure who conservatives would back or if Goldwater would be guaranteed to run (he was reluctant to anyway a few years later). Maybe Dirksen? A plausible VP choice for Rockefeller when I think of it. Robert B. Anderson seems more like one of Ike's flights of fancy that would get tamped down by party fixers.

 

[bguy]

(1) I don't think that winning the nomination is by any means granted - I strongly suspect anti-Rockefellerite and pro-Goldwater forces will be considerably strengthened in the absence of Nixon, and Goldwater will be certain to make a run. I also suspect Ike will back his preferred successor, Robert B. Anderson, though I strongly doubt whether he will win the nomination.

There's definitely room for an Eisenhower backed moderate candidate as Eisenhower won't want to back Rockefeller (Ike was really insulted by Rockefeller's calls for increased defense spending which Eisenhower took as an attack on his own record as president), but I agree that it's really hard to see the GOP accepting a Democrat like Robert Anderson as their candidate in what appears to be a winnable election year.

Moreover, conservative forces are much stronger than they are being credited for - in 1952, they nearly won the nomination from Eisenhower, despite the fact that Ike had personal popularity nigh-unsurpassed at this time. Furthermore, the burgeoning Southern influence into the GOP was strongly opposed to Rocky; so while I think he will do better than 1964 or 1968 (where anti-Rockefeller opposition was considerably strengthened), it's by no means required he wins the nomination.

Perhaps though the fact that Nixon felt the need to placate Rockefeller (which involved Nixon not only agreeing to a deal with Rockefeller that Nixon had to know that Goldwater would hate but also Nixon lying to Goldwater's face) certainly suggests that Nixon felt Rockefeller was much more of a threat to him than Goldwater was.

2) Even if he wins the nomination, I think it's more than plausible that a conservative Treaty of Fifth Avenue occurs, where Rocky agrees to run on a much more conservative platform than he did IOTL. I suspect part of that means a conservative -- perhaps the hawkish Minnesota Congressman Walter Judd? -- is selected as Vice President.

I don't know. Rockefeller has always seemed a very "my way or the highway" kind of guy. (He is after all the man who rejected the Vice Presidency in 1960 and wasn't interested in any Cabinet slot in 1968 because he'd rather reign in Albany than serve in D.C.) He's also kind of playing with house money when he runs for president because if he loses, so what? He's still the scion of one of the richest families in the world and still the Governor of the largest state in the Union (a job he seemed to really enjoy given that he did it for 16 years IOTL), so he doesn't really need to be president in the same way that Nixon did. Thus I suspect Rockefeller would rather lose on his terms than win by compromising his principles.

He might accept a conservative vice president because that doesn't really cost him anything (Rocky didn't seem to think much of the vice presidency or else he wouldn't have turned it down when Nixon offered it to him), but I can't see him compromising on the platform.

 

[Gukpard]

It would be interesting to see how Brazil would react to that, he was a celebrity here due his role in world war II. Maybe he takes a different stance from OTL and the 1964 coup doesn't happens.