WI: Bobby Kennedy survives 1968, gets elected in 1976

[Lost the game]

Just like it says on the tin. Sirhan Sirhan stumbles while shooting Senator Kennedy, shooting him in the shoulder but missing any major artery. The Senator is rushed to a nearby hospital where he is stabilized. A few days later when he is well enough he visits his would-be assassin in prison and argues strenuously in favor of some degree of clemency for the man on account of what he considers to be clear signs of mental illness.

He is, however, unable to resume a normal campaign schedule and ultimately the 1968 Democratic Convention proceeds much as OTL. At the convention he goes outside to speak to the protesters and so his Grant Park Address becomes as iconic as his address following the assassination of Martin Luther King. There he calls for calm. He also condemns the actions of Mayor Daley and the purposeful escalation in order to discredit the protesters.

Nevertheless, while he emerges as a figure for national unity Hubert Humphrey is nominated and goes down in defeat as-per OTL.

The Nixon administration proceeds much as it did IOTL. Kennedy sits out 1972 thinking Nixon too strong to beat. Watergate still happens and Nixon still resigns. In 1976, Kennedy, now 51, sweeps the Democratic primaries and selects John Glenn as his Vice Presidential candidate.

How does he do? How might he have handled issues like the Iranian Revolution and the stagflation that resulted? Does he go along with the proposed health care law that Jimmy Carter stymied? Is the presence of a Kennedy enough to restore some measure of trust in government?

What about 1980? Does he manage to pull off a win where Jimmy Carter couldn't? Does this win cost the Democrats the House or the Senate? Who succeeds him in 1984? Reagan is too old, and the conservative trends probably mean some version of the Reagan Revolution is coming, but what form does it take and who is the standard bearer? And does having a pro-life Democratic president make abortion less of a partisan football?

 

[Bomster]

Just like it says on the tin. Sirhan Sirhan stumbles while shooting Senator Kennedy, shooting him in the shoulder but missing any major artery. The Senator is rushed to a nearby hospital where he is stabilized. A few days later when he is well enough he visits his would-be assassin in prison and argues strenuously in favor of some degree of clemency for the man on account of what he considers to be clear signs of mental illness.

He is, however, unable to resume a normal campaign schedule and ultimately the 1968 Democratic Convention proceeds much as OTL. At the convention he goes outside to speak to the protesters and so his Grant Park Address becomes as iconic as his address following the assassination of Martin Luther King. There he calls for calm. He also condemns the actions of Mayor Daley and the purposeful escalation in order to discredit the protesters.

Nevertheless, while he emerges as a figure for national unity Hubert Humphrey is nominated and goes down in defeat as-per OTL.

The Nixon administration proceeds much as it did IOTL. Kennedy sits out 1972 thinking Nixon too strong to beat. Watergate still happens and Nixon still resigns. In 1976, Kennedy, now 51, sweeps the Democratic primaries and selects John Glenn as his Vice Presidential candidate.

How does he do? How might he have handled issues like the Iranian Revolution and the stagflation that resulted? Does he go along with the proposed health care law that Jimmy Carter stymied? Is the presence of a Kennedy enough to restore some measure of trust in government?

What about 1980? Does he manage to pull off a win where Jimmy Carter couldn't? Does this win cost the Democrats the House or the Senate? Who succeeds him in 1984? Reagan is too old, and the conservative trends probably mean some version of the Reagan Revolution is coming, but what form does it take and who is the standard bearer? And does having a pro-life Democratic president make abortion less of a partisan football?

Paging @Amadeus

 

[Amadeus]

Paging @Amadeus

@Lost the game I've covered this at length in a couple of other threads so this time I'll try to be as concise as possible. Interesting POD first of all. Second, Nixon was far from unbeatable when the 1972 race began, the year before he was projected to lose to Muskie. This fear of losing is what lead to the dirty tricks against the Democrats, and this gave birth to Watergate. Had he survived 1968, Kennedy would be the frontrunner for 1972 and early on he would be the man to beat. Further, long odds didn't prevent RFK from challenging LBJ and later Humphrey in 1968. So provided that Arthur Bremer doesn't choose him as a target, Kennedy most likely runs in 1972 and wins the Democratic nomination. He runs a much closer race than McGovern, but most likely still loses as Nixon will have the momentum going into election day.

However, in 1976 there would be a demand for Kennedy to run again. Whatever our own opinions about the Kennedy's, there's no disputing their hold on the public imagination even after the darker side of Camelot - womanizing, Cuba, etc - was revealed after JFK's death. If Kennedy thinks the country needs him and if he is the frontrunner for '76 then he probably wins the nomination - but not without a fight. And there's no way he picks another Northernther like Glenn as VP - he'll need to pick Carter or Bentsen. Depending on the butterflies, he could be going up against either Ford or Reagan in the general. Either way, Kennedy wins handidly.

As for his administration and chances of re-election, it really depends on how much better Kennedy handles the key issues of the period. If he does well, which I'm inclined to think he would based off his impressive record as AG and Senator, then he accomplishes much more than Carter and is re-elected. If not, then the GOP still wins in 1980. As for 1984, provided that Hinckley doesn't get to RFK then his VP runs to succeed him. Whether or not he is successful will depend on the state of the economy after seven years of liberal governance.

As for long-term political implications: it Kennedy wins in 1980 then the Reagan Revolution never happens and the GOP nominates a moderate in 1984. Without Reagan there is no conservative who even has a chance for the nomination let alone the general election. RFK didn't touch abortion as a political issue, and as President he'd probably try to avoid it as much as possible.

Okay, not so concise but that's my two cents...

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Democrats are less neoliberal-authoritarian with RFK's failing as badly as Carter OTL reducing certain authoritarian "Communitarian" elements in the party. No Bill Clinton dems in the 90s, definitely no intersectional feminist reaganite HRC dems in 2018 with that "communitarian" streak being weaker.

 

[Marius Mazzini]

Democrats are less neoliberal-authoritarian with RFK's failing as badly as Carter OTL reducing certain authoritarian "Communitarian" elements in the party. No Bill Clinton dems in the 90s, definitely no intersectional feminist reaganite HRC dems in 2018 with that "communitarian" streak being weaker.

Wat.

 

[Colonel Crittendon]

Democrats are less neoliberal-authoritarian with RFK's failing as badly as Carter OTL reducing certain authoritarian "Communitarian" elements in the party. No Bill Clinton dems in the 90s, definitely no intersectional feminist reaganite HRC dems in 2018 with that "communitarian" streak being weaker.

translation needed?...

 

[Hnau]

As a communitarian, I object to your analysis.

 

[Colonel Crittendon]

I’m not sure what Jimmy Carter did that was notable during his 4 years in office? and was accordingly trounced by Regan in 1980 election.

So would RFK had handled the Iranian hostage crisis any better than Carter did? Would the Iranians had feared him more and not taken hostages in the first place? Would the post-Vietnam US military still be in a pathetic state during this era?

I think the answer to the last question is still yes, and I think the economy would still be suffering from inflation and we still have energy issues. But the 1980 election is ALOT closer.

 

[creighton]

@Lost the game I've covered this at length in a couple of other threads so this time I'll try to be as concise as possible. Interesting POD first of all. Second, Nixon was far from unbeatable when the 1972 race began, the year before he was projected to lose to Muskie. This fear of losing is what lead to the dirty tricks against the Democrats, and this gave birth to Watergate. Had he survived 1968, Kennedy would be the frontrunner for 1972 and early on he would be the man to beat. Further, long odds didn't prevent RFK from challenging LBJ and later Humphrey in 1968. So provided that Arthur Bremer doesn't choose him as a target, Kennedy most likely runs in 1972 and wins the Democratic nomination. He runs a much closer race than McGovern, but most likely still loses as Nixon will have the momentum going into election day. .

I disagree with it being a certainty that RFK was necessarily going to run in 1972 if he had survived an assassination attempt, although most literature suggests that 1972 was not as close as it turned out OTL, which didn't break hard for the GOP until late in the cycle. There were many RFK alumni at the house party before Chappaquiddick, but it's not unthinkable a similar incident could have happened that would have cause the family to take a pass on '72, even if RFK were not even close to involved. If we want a POD, it's not implausible that there could be an almost published story about JFK or RFK and the relationship they had with some women in the early 1960s, that, while unable to verify, makes RFK take a 4 year pass, like Clinton in 1988, and slips him behind Watergate.

 

[Amadeus]

There were many RFK alumni at the house party before Chappaquiddick, but it's not unthinkable a similar incident could have happened that would have cause the family to take a pass on '72,

Chappaquiddick occurred under very specific circumstances that are highly dependent on RFK's death in 1968. If he survived Chappaquiddick is almost certainly butterflied.

If we want a POD, it's not implausible that there could be an almost published story about JFK or RFK and the relationship they had with some women in the early 1960s, that, while unable to verify, makes RFK take a 4 year pass, like Clinton in 1988, and slips him behind Watergate.

Jack was a compulsive womanizer, but Bobby wasn't. The only way a womanizing scandal could realistically knock him out of the race is if it is revealed that as AG he was blackmailed by Hoover using the FBI's knowledge of JFK's affairs. Although given that Hoover is still alive at this point, it brings into question why and how that material would be released...