RFK vs. Nixon

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Recently I've been thinking about how RFK's assasination probably had much further-reaching historical consequences than JFK's.  The disaster in Chicago wouldn't have torn the Democrat party apart, and RFK probably would have become president.  No Watergate, either.  Here are some things to ponder:

-Would RFK have been successful in pulling us out of Vietnam?
-Would the Republicans still have pursued the Southern Strategy?  If not, do the Dixiecrats emerge as a third party?
-Would left-wing politics have been more successful, or would a right-wing backlash have ended liberal Democrat supremecy?
-Would this have any bearing on Middle East crises of the 70s (energy crisis, Iran hostage crisis)?  What about the long-term consequences (global terrorism)?
-Taken as given a US withdrawl from Vietnam in 1969, would the world perception of the US have be markedly different?
-Would we have normalized relations with mainland China?

I'm not looking for any long-term "what-if" timeline, but what would the immediate political consequences of RFK winning the '68 election have been?

[12th Doctor]

I think RFK would have won big because he was more likeable than Nixon and because he had his family mystique.  He'd not have been a successful President, though, because his plans to pull out of Vietnam quickly would have been shot down by congress.  He'd be locked into a war he didn't want any part, and would fail.  Just like Niceas failed when he had to take over Alcibiades' Sicilian Invasion in the Peloponnesian War.

Ronald Reagan wins in 1972 with Paul Laxalt as his running mate, resumes bombing and invades North Vietnam.  China would stay out of the war, as long as we don't copy McAurthur's mistake in Korea and attack them directly.  US wins the Vietnam War, Reagan is a hero, the Soviet Union collapses in the mid eighties and not the early nineties, Nixon-Carter stagflation never happens, and Reagan-Laxalt give us 16 years of strength and prosperity.

WOW,  I like the way you think.  Never thought that an RFK win would benifit the country, but it seems that you have found a way to make it so.  Welcome to the forum.

[12th Doctor]

By the way, who is herman Cain?

He is running in the Republican Senate primary in Georgia.  He is the CEO of a MAJOR southern pizza chain.  I went to his website and I am definatly supporting him in that race.  right now, I've heard he is pulling out ahead in the polls.

[minionofmidas]

I think RFK would have won big because he was more likeable than Nixon and because he had his family mystique.  He'd not have been a successful President, though, because his plans to pull out of Vietnam quickly would have been shot down by congress.  He'd be locked into a war he didn't want any part, and would fail.  Just like Niceas failed when he had to take over Alcibiades' Sicilian Invasion in the Peloponnesian War.

Ronald Reagan wins in 1972 with Paul Laxalt as his running mate, resumes bombing and invades North Vietnam.  China would stay out of the war, as long as we don't copy McAurthur's mistake in Korea and attack them directly.  US wins the Vietnam War, Reagan is a hero, the Soviet Union collapses in the mid eighties and not the early nineties, Nixon-Carter stagflation never happens, and Reagan-Laxalt give us 16 years of strength and prosperity.

I don't believe a single word of the last sentence.
Up to there, it's extremely credible, though.

[Reaganfan]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

[volk1]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

46 + tenn and the carilinas are not 102

[JohnFKennedy]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

46 + tenn and the carilinas are not 102

it is 81 I think.

[Gustaf]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

46 + tenn and the carilinas are not 102

it is 81 I think.

It's 77. Period. And the original number was 45.

[JohnFKennedy]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

46 + tenn and the carilinas are not 102

it is 81 I think.

It's 77. Period. And the original number was 45.

original number was 46 actually..... and at the time Tennessee was worth 11 EVs, and the Carolinas 8 and 12, so it totals up to 77, yes, sorry I got confused when I looked at the map and read the Virginia and North Carolina numbers by accident.

[Gustaf]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

46 + tenn and the carilinas are not 102

it is 81 I think.

It's 77. Period. And the original number was 45.

original number was 46 actually..... and at the time Tennessee was worth 11 EVs, and the Carolinas 8 and 12, so it totals up to 77, yes, sorry I got confused when I looked at the map and read the Virginia and North Carolina numbers by accident.

No, 46 comes from a Nixon elector in Tennessee voting for Wallace...so it's still 45. And North Carolina hsa 13 EVs.

[JohnFKennedy]

North Carolina does, but Wallace got 1 of them in actuality, not from Tennessee.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

While I think RFK would win, perhaps maybe in a landslide, Nixon would put up a big fight, he sure did against Vice President Humphrey.

One thing I don't think anyone is considering is the possibility of no electoral majority.  In our timeline, Wallace won 46 EV.  He probably would have done the same if RFK had been the Dem nominee.  Perhaps Wallace would also have taken Tenn. and the Carolinas.  That would push his total up to 102.  All Nixon would have needed was 167 EV to throw the election into the House.

Although, all RFK would need to have taken was New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Wisconsin (or Ohio).  But it still could easily have gone to the House.  Who controlled it at that time?

I attribute Nixon's '68 victory to the Democrats' meltdown in Chicago.  Therefore, I still think RFK would have beaten Nixon.

46 + tenn and the carilinas are not 102

Oops.  I was going to include Texas, but then realized that Wallace had not chance there.  So I removed Texas, without removing its 25 EV.  It should be 77.

[Gustaf]

North Carolina does, but Wallace got 1 of them in actuality, not from Tennessee.

Ah, yes that's true, I mixed up NC and TN. But I was still more right than I was wrong, I think.

[MarkDel]

I think RFK would have won a close election, as much as it PAINS me to admit.

[MAS117]

I would have voted for RFK is a second

[afleitch]

RFK would have won, but we are forgetting much of the sex-scandals that would have erupted at the time, which in reality was only shortly after his death. But, saying that he did have charisma, which in our own timeline helped salvage Clinton in the eyes of the electorate. RFK would have ran again in 72 and lost to Reagan I believe, but the economic situation would not have been right for Reaganomics, he would have been as tied up as Ford was and possibly Ted Kennedy or even Jimmy Carter would have been the Dems nomination come 76 and he would have won. If we say it was Carter, I think he would have won re-election in 1980 and George Bush Snr would have won in 84, with re-election in 88. In 92, I think the GOP would be far more moderate than it in reality was, so any race with the Dems would have been tight. After that I'm not gonna speculate!

[Gustaf]

RFK would have won, but we are forgetting much of the sex-scandals that would have erupted at the time, which in reality was only shortly after his death. But, saying that he did have charisma, which in our own timeline helped salvage Clinton in the eyes of the electorate. RFK would have ran again in 72 and lost to Reagan I believe, but the economic situation would not have been right for Reaganomics, he would have been as tied up as Ford was and possibly Ted Kennedy or even Jimmy Carter would have been the Dems nomination come 76 and he would have won. If we say it was Carter, I think he would have won re-election in 1980 and George Bush Snr would have won in 84, with re-election in 88. In 92, I think the GOP would be far more moderate than it in reality was, so any race with the Dems would have been tight. After that I'm not gonna speculate!

If there's no challenge to RFK in the 1972 primaries, we can suppose that George Wallace do not run, right? Then he isn't shot...does he make another indepednent run? Does he run in the priamries of 1976 wiht more success?

[MarkDel]

JohnFord,

I agree with you that the 1972 Election would have been ripe for Reagan, but for very different reasons. I think Nixon's appeal in 1972 was largely based on his appeal to the "silent majority" who were sick to death of the lawlessness that had been so prevelant on the streets and college campuses of America in the late 1960's and early 1970's. When Reagan was elected Governor of California, a big part of his appeal to working class Democrats and Independents is that he would be tough on campus radicals and other left wing extremists who had A LOT of power in that time. And if Nixon was a strong sell to the general public in 1972 as a "law and order" candidate, imagine how strong a candidate Reagan would have been?

[Dave from Michigan]

Nixon close

[PBrunsel]

RFK was a bit to extreme for middle class America. Nixon appealed to them. He called them, "The great silent majority." My grandfather voted for Wallace though!