1968: Ronald Reagan vs Hubert Humphrey

[Don Vito Corleone]

Richard Nixon doesn't come out of retirement after his loss to Pat Brown in 1962, and thus doesn't run for the Republican Nomination in 1968. Taking his OTL place as Republican nominee is Ronald Reagan. He faces Hubert Humphrey in the general election. Who wins? Discuss with maps.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Humphrey wins. 1968 was too early for Reagan.

[SamTilden2020]

Humphrey wins. 1968 was too early for Reagan.

[The Govanah Jake]

Humphrey. 1968 wasn't Reagans year neither was 1976 either when he ran for president again. 1980 was truly his time.

[Lechasseur]

Humphrey. 1968 wasn't Reagans year neither was 1976 either when he ran for president again. 1980 was truly his time.

This

[dw93]

Humphrey. 1968 wasn't Reagans year neither was 1976 either when he ran for president again. 1980 was truly his time.

This. It even took extreme circumstances (Hostage Crisis, Energy Crisis, Sour economy, etc...) for Reagan to be palatable  in 1980 as some people even then saw him as Goldwater 2.0.

[Burke859]

I'll be the contrarian and say that Reagan wins.

Remember that a lot of people said that Obama couldn't win in 2008 as well.  The country in OTL 2008 hadn't elected a "liberal" president since the '60s, and Obama was seen as similar to Howard Dean in ideology, Dean having lost his own party's nod four years earlier.

But like Obama, Reagan was eminently likable.  Obama won in 2008 because he was seen as eons more charismatic and optimistic than Dean four years earlier.  The same could be said of nominee Reagan in 1968 contra Goldwater in 1964.

Reagan would have won the Nixon voters as the Republican nominee in 1968, plus most of the George Wallace voters.  Thus Reagan would have beaten Humphrey decidedly.  Humphrey still would have been a bad candidate.  The Democratic Party would still have been fractured.  Reagan would not have won 400 electoral votes the way he did in OTL 1980.  But he might have won 350 electoral votes in ATL 1968.

The big difference between Reagan 1968 and Reagan 1980 is that conservative policy would have been kneecapped.  No tax cuts, no social conservatism, because the voters weren't supportive of those things yet.  Reagan would have been forced to govern as a hawkish moderate, and might have ended up being quite popular for that reason, because he would have finished Vietnam in a cleaner way than Nixon did.  Cold War could have ended sooner.  No Watergate and no Carter, thus no Iranian Revolution.  Probably butterflies away any tax cuts in the 1980s, and we end up with a much smaller debt.  Funny thing is, this would have ensured we never had a conservative president during the 1980s, because there was no "other" version of Reagan to lead it, and because Reagan washing out as a domestic policy moderate would have invalidated conservatism to some extent, as just "more of the same," sort of how Obama ended up being forced to the center as well.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

With or without Wallace?

[darklordoftech]

Could someone post a map for how this election would turn out?

[Burke859]

Could someone post a map for how this election would turn out?

I will once I have enough posts that I'm allowed to post one!  LOL.

Basically, Wallace is butterflied out because all the conservative-populist energy is with Reagan. 

So the states Wallace won plus Texas, which almost went Republican, go to Reagan instead of Humphrey.  Reagan also wins all the Nixon states, because Nixon voters were basically voting for the guy with the R next to his name, and voting against Democratic disarray (as opposed to voting for Nixon).

Reagan wins 372 electoral votes, instead of the 500-plus landslides from the '80s.  This is very similar to Obama's 365 electoral votes from 2008, and likely what will follow is an Obama-like presidency where Reagan is viewed as too extreme during his first two years, sees his party blown out in the midterms, and then moves to the center and is remembered as a good but not a transformative president.  Reagan Revolution of the '80s is butterflied away, and we never have a president win those massive landslides.

[dw93]

I think Humphrey wins. People actually valued experience in those days and Reagan had only been Governor since January 1967. He was also  seen as Goldwater 2.0 in those days and the country  just wasn't ready for that in the 60s, even if 1968 was a horrible year for the Democrats. Granted, it would be a narrow Humphrey win, but a Humphrey win none the less. I think if HHH wins in 68 against another Republican (maybe Nixon sabotaging the Peace Talks get out...), Reagan could win in 1972 with a full term as Governor under his belt after 12 years of Democrats in the White House.

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think Humphrey wins. People actually valued experience in those days and Reagan had only been Governor since January 1967. He was also seen as Goldwater 2.0 in those days and the country just wasn't ready for that in the 60s, even if 1968 was a horrible year for the Democrats. Granted, it would be a narrow Humphrey win, but a Humphrey win none the less. I think if HHH wins in 68 against another Republican (maybe Nixon sabotaging the Peace Talks get out...), Reagan could win in 1972 with a full term as Governor under his belt after 12 years of Democrats in the White House.

This. Humphrey very nearly did win IRL, and if he is going up against someone as Extreme as Ronald Reagan in the 1960's, I think he wins.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Vice President Hubert Humphrey/Governor John Connally - 342 ✓
Governor Ronald Reagan/Senator Edward Brooke - 171
Governor George Wallace/General Curtis LeMay - 25

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Vice President Hubert Humphrey/Governor John Connally - 342 ✓
Governor Ronald Reagan/Senator Edward Brooke - 171
Governor George Wallace/General Curtis LeMay - 25

Wouldn't Reagan do better in the South?

[Don Vito Corleone]

Vice President Hubert Humphrey/Governor John Connally - 342 ✓
Governor Ronald Reagan/Senator Edward Brooke - 171
Governor George Wa
llace/General Curtis LeMay - 25

If Humphrey is winning, I'm pretty confident he would win MO, given he lost it by 1% IRL.

[Sir Mohamed]

I'll be the contrarian and say that Reagan wins.

Remember that a lot of people said that Obama couldn't win in 2008 as well.  The country in OTL 2008 hadn't elected a "liberal" president since the '60s, and Obama was seen as similar to Howard Dean in ideology, Dean having lost his own party's nod four years earlier.

But like Obama, Reagan was eminently likable.  Obama won in 2008 because he was seen as eons more charismatic and optimistic than Dean four years earlier.  The same could be said of nominee Reagan in 1968 contra Goldwater in 1964.

Reagan would have won the Nixon voters as the Republican nominee in 1968, plus most of the George Wallace voters.  Thus Reagan would have beaten Humphrey decidedly.  Humphrey still would have been a bad candidate.  The Democratic Party would still have been fractured.  Reagan would not have won 400 electoral votes the way he did in OTL 1980.  But he might have won 350 electoral votes in ATL 1968.

The big difference between Reagan 1968 and Reagan 1980 is that conservative policy would have been kneecapped.  No tax cuts, no social conservatism, because the voters weren't supportive of those things yet.  Reagan would have been forced to govern as a hawkish moderate, and might have ended up being quite popular for that reason, because he would have finished Vietnam in a cleaner way than Nixon did.  Cold War could have ended sooner.  No Watergate and no Carter, thus no Iranian Revolution.  Probably butterflies away any tax cuts in the 1980s, and we end up with a much smaller debt.  Funny thing is, this would have ensured we never had a conservative president during the 1980s, because there was no "other" version of Reagan to lead it, and because Reagan washing out as a domestic policy moderate would have invalidated conservatism to some extent, as just "more of the same," sort of how Obama ended up being forced to the center as well.

My first thought was also "Reagan was seen as too radical" for 1968 and had therefore lost. However, these are good points and I also say Reagan wins for the reasons above. He also keeps the moderate Republican votes and picks a moderate as VP.

Assuming Wallace still runs:

✓ Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)/Former Governor William Scranton (R-PA): 296 EVs.; 44.4%
Vice President Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)/Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME): 203 EVs.; 42.6%
Former Governor George Wallace (AI-AL)/General Curtis LeMay (AI-CA): 39 EVs.; 10.5%

Head-to-head:

✓ Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)/Former Governor William Scranton (R-PA): 306 EVs.; 50.8%
Vice President Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)/Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME): 232 EVs.; 48.1%

[Kingpoleon]

Humphrey wins in a squeaker. Running alongside Smathers or Shivers, he sends them down South to campaign for him.

Humphrey raises the minimum wage to $2.20, increasing it fifteen cents every year for four years. The income brackets are made to six brackets: 9%/20%/35%/45%/55%/65%. He also raises welfare spending by 20% as well as military salaries, as well as instating a 10% federal sales tax. Stagflation comes early, and Rockefeller, Ford, or Hatfield wins in 1972.

[brucejoel99]

Reagan was a hawk on Vietnam & Wallace is still running. Humphrey wins no problem.