Vice, Virtue, and Independence (A Different Path, Chapter 2)

[MillennialModerate]

Margaret C. Smith: 5%

I see what you did there...

[MillennialModerate]

Democrats had huge majorities in both houses, JFK was personally EXTREMELY popular, politically more likable than your average President and lastly this was at an age where most Americans by in large trusted the government (remember no Vietnam in this scenario). So with all that being I ask... how does JFK have only a 56% approval?

By the way that field of contenders is hideous. LBJ, Nixon and Romney are the only ones that I think had the potential to make great Presidents (of course we see Nixon become corrupt despite his brilliant statesmanship and LBJ’s stubborn foreign policy decisions overshadow his domestic legacy)

[MillennialModerate]

More than likely JFK would want to remain neutral because while it looks good on his legacy if a Democrat succeeds him, it also likely makes it harder for Bobby or Teddy to run in the near future

[MillennialModerate]

Great story! Just a small issue: when you have long headlines, could you make them not marquee'd/moving? It's very hard to read some of it when there are, like, three lines of moving text

OK thanks, I love feedback like this. I'm experimenting with tweaking the format but I obviously want it to be readable! I'll make some changes.

I happen to like the scrolling headlines, adds variety to it ... just don’t make it 3 at the same time scrolling, keep it to 1 or it gets dizzy

[MillennialModerate]

Are you planning on Chappaquiddick to still happen?

I hate to reveal much beforehand. Let's just say that if it happens, obviously there will be negative consequences, but even if it doesn't, the knock-on effect might not be totally ideal for Teddy...

I like him far less than JFK, RFK & JFK Jr. but I think Teddy would have made a good VP.

[MillennialModerate]

Are you planning on Chappaquiddick to still happen?

I hate to reveal much beforehand. Let's just say that if it happens, obviously there will be negative consequences, but even if it doesn't, the knock-on effect might not be totally ideal for Teddy...

I agree, don’t give anything away!

[MillennialModerate]

It’s hard to imagine the greatest country in the world going from leaders like FDR! (Truman), IKE! and JF effing K! .... to George Wallace?! How could the Dems let him lead after the first ballot? That would make 3/4ths of the country vote GOP.

I would imagine that JFK’s preference in this situation would be hugely pivotal considering how great of a President he was in OTL but even more so in this TL... a successful president with rock star like popularity would surely have sway with delegates in his own party, right?

[MillennialModerate]

Whoah! Great writing .. a twist I didn’t see coming

I actually thought Lyndon would get the nomination and Wallce would run third party as he did in RL and Wallace taking the South and splitting the Dem vote would throw the election to Goldwater.

This whole thing from Chapter 1 and onto now is brilliant!

[MillennialModerate]

Smathers was a great friend of JFK, in my perfect dream scenario he was the one to succeed JFK in ‘68.

https://youtu.be/ezGDLOcZVjw

[MillennialModerate]

Something has to happen to LBJ. IDK why but I just don’t think he ends up being victorious. Does he get assassinated? Does it go to the house and he loses?

In this TL I’m all in for LBJ. For a number of reasons but three main ones: First, in this TL LBJ isn’t the stubborn POTUS that keeps doubling down on disastrous Vietnam, secondly in this TL LBJ isn’t filled with and motivated by Kennedy jealously/resentment. And third, Smathers is one of my favorite Non-Kennedy politicians.

...Although maybe I shouldn’t support LBJ in this TL because it makes an RFK or Teddy victory less likely in the immediate future ... then again Wallace and Goldwater are just about the worst two candidates one can imagine aside from Trump of course.

BTW, JFK - Keep this up! I originally enjoyed this TL just because it’s my dream scenario of a full JFK administration but that aside it really is VERY well written 

[MillennialModerate]

November 1, 1968
Gallup Poll
President Kennedy Approval Rating
Approve: 69%
Disapprove: 30%
Not sure: 1%
Didn’t answer: 0%
Who are you more inclined to vote for in the general election?

Governor Lyndon Johnson/Senator George Smathers: 38%, 282 Electoral Votes
Senator Barry Goldwater/Governor Ronald Reagan: 31%, 76 Electoral Votes
Former Governor George Wallace/Governor George Mahoney: 28%, 89 Electoral Votes
Undecided/Tossup: 3%, 91 Electoral Votes

This is going to the house!

[MillennialModerate]

I would be fascinated to know who JFK endorsed.

With that being said I KNEW IT

[MillennialModerate]

Three things:

I like the general story from the campaign and to the administration being spaced out but can the actual election night posts be closer together?

Also, can we get some posts about who JFK endorses or how he feels about this?

Finally, this is terrific!

[MillennialModerate]

Three things:

I like the general story from the campaign and to the administration being spaced out but can the actual election night posts be closer together?

Also, can we get some posts about who JFK endorses or how he feels about this?

Finally, this is terrific!

1) if you mean in time, yes, I try to post 2 a day but I'm getting medical tests done (I may have cancer) so I've been busy. There will be at least one update when I get home later today.!

Oh wow. Praying for you dude, stay strong!

[MillennialModerate]

I really like Smathers.

And I would think most clear minded objective Americans like him over Wallace or Goldwater, so with that being said I’m surprised LBJ didn’t win regardless of his condition.

[MillennialModerate]

I’d thjnk WV goes Wallace, a tailor made state for him.

The remaining states should all go for LBJ in normal circumstances.

Again, Smathers is better than Goldwater and Wallace. So LBJ ticket SHOULD push this to the house.

[MillennialModerate]

Don’t make me wait 24 hours for the conclusion to the election !

[MillennialModerate]

"President-elect Barry Goldwater" is such a weird phrase to type!

P.S. @MillMod: I made you wait 25 hours, not 24, per your request.

P.P.S.: IDK how I did it but I think this election was actually at least as crazy as IRL '68, if not slightly worse.

(>_>)

Still surprised by this result:

First because historically popular Presidents (like JFK is IRL and like he is in this TL) almost always get their successor elected (Truman elected on the back of FDR, LBJ elected on the back of JFK and Bush elected on the back of Reagan)... and in this case I’d consider LBJ the successor despite Wallace being the Dem nominee.

Secondly, repeating what I’ve said before: Wouldn’t Smathers be considered more acceptable to voters than Wallace or Goldwater?

[MillennialModerate]

"President-elect Barry Goldwater" is such a weird phrase to type!

P.S. @MillMod: I made you wait 25 hours, not 24, per your request.

P.P.S.: IDK how I did it but I think this election was actually at least as crazy as IRL '68, if not slightly worse.

(>_>)

Still surprised by this result:

First because historically popular Presidents (like JFK is IRL and like he is in this TL) almost always get their successor elected (Truman elected on the back of FDR, LBJ elected on the back of JFK and Bush elected on the back of Reagan)... and in this case I’d consider LBJ the successor despite Wallace being the Dem nominee.

Secondly, repeating what I’ve said before: Wouldn’t Smathers be considered more acceptable to voters than Wallace or Goldwater?

60% of voters voted for Democrats following a highly successful Democratic presidency, proving your point without contesting these results.

The situation with the independent Democrats is difficult. LBJ could very well survive, but he could also die before all the votes are counted. So you can't assume Smathers would be the one assuming office. Also, Smathers wasn't some great progressive; he was a moderate at best. Pretty sure he called Claude Pepper a communist for supporting civil rights and free healthcare in '50. Not exactly the dream candidate for voters looking for the continuation of the Kennedy Administration, which had just passed legislation on civil rights and free healthcare (for the poor and elderly). Not to mention that he was something of a segregationist (out of political necessity than actual racism, I'd like to think, but the effect on wider society was the same regardless of motivation).

ITTL, Progressives did not love Johnson, but they didn't even like Smathers. They hated Goldwater and Wallace almost equally (probably Wallace a little more, depending on how strongly they feel about civil rights). Many decided to stay home, while most of the rest voted for LBJ out of protest.

The disparity between the 31% Goldwater polled at on Nov. 1st and the 41% he ended up getting was due to a reduced electorate size, not an increase in support.

I think it's safe to say either RFK or Teddy will be the Democratic nominee in 1972.

The question is will they win?

Sure, that's a safe bet.

One could argue that Goldwater is more likely to win reelection than election in the first place, since so much of the argument against him was because of what he might do. If he doesn't do those things (e.g. cause nuclear Armageddon) then I think he certainly stands a decent chance. You'll just have to see what happens in his administration.

of course I already know who wins in '72 I'm just being coy

Goldwater is also exactly the kind of person who would escalate things in Vietnam (much like LBJ did IRL), so that has to be taken into account when discussing his re-election chances. Even if he doesn't start a war with the Soviet Union, he might start one with China, which would be a disaster given China's enormous manpower reserves. And of course, there are landmines like Israel and the rest of the Middle East, India and Pakistan and Cuba, none of which a militant foreign policy like Goldwater's is equipped to handle.

I'd expect him to get blown out in 1972, especially if RFK or Teddy is the nominee, and likely so even if we get a weaker (in my opinion) nominee like Ed Muskie or Eugene McCarthy, Democrats should win handily.

In a way this is similar to the situation we are currently in, where the minute Trump was elected you knew it was unlikely he’d get re-elected - Where in this TL it’s even more unlikely Goldwater gets re-elected even if he has a half decent first term, ESPECIALLY cause the Democratic bench is SO Astro gets: RFK, Teddy, Muskie...

[MillennialModerate]

(If you want to edit this minor detail in, his secretary’s name is Evelyn Lincoln. He always referred to her as Mrs Lincoln)

Wait, McGovern?!?! He will get beat by even Goldwater!

Please tell me RFK ran for something and won?!

[MillennialModerate]

Really confused by RFK not running for office.

Seems unlike the Kennedy’s

[MillennialModerate]

Really confused by RFK not running for office.

Seems unlike the Kennedy’s

Wouldn't that be a violation of the 1939 Hatch Act? I remember Sec. Castro caught heat for simply endorsing Clinton in '16, I can't imagine the ramifications of a serving cabinet member running for office himself.

I don't see RFK resigning from the administration. I have plans for RFK, be patient.

Didn’t even think of that! Good call.

[MillennialModerate]

This feels eriely familiar to 2016-2017

[MillennialModerate]

I think I’d also support the war in this TL.

Reluctantly though as I wouldn’t trust Goldwater

[MillennialModerate]

March 14, 1969
Donald

“Father, I, like, really really don’t want to serve, believe me. I mean everyone always tells me I’d be the best soldier, but-”

Hahahahahaha. Absolutely effing brilliant