Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket in 1968?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 09:29:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket in 1968?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Humphrey-Rockefeller ticket in 1968?  (Read 934 times)
David T
Rookie
**
Posts: 52
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 14, 2018, 10:15:06 PM »

Former Massachusetts governor Endicott Peabody, a summer neighbor of Nelson Rockefeller's (and a staunch Democrat) tried to draft Rocky as VP on Humphrey's ticket in 1968, calling on Rocky to take part in a grand alliance of Humphrey, Kennedy, McCarthy, Rockefeller and Romney supporters to prevent the victory of "a leadership outright opposed to your policies." "Humphrey himself called to make the case for a coalition government." Richard Norton Smith, On His Own Terms: A Life of Nelson Rockefeller, p. 540. https://books.google.com/books?id=fzeODQAAQBAJ&pg=PA540 See also Marianne Means' column of September 4, 1968: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1893&dat=19680904&id=y8cfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=iNgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4589,6345352

Yes, it may seem unlikely that Rockefeller accepts, but after 1964 and 1968, maybe he concludes that he just has no future in the national GOP and that he is closer philosophically to Humphrey? Anyway, while normally "nobody votes for the veep", http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2000/06/nobody_votes_for_the_veep.html could it be different this time, given the closeness of the election and the possibility that Rocky's presence on the ticket could appeal to some moderate Republicans (and independents) who may have been reluctant Nixon voters in OTL?
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2018, 07:43:26 AM »

MO, NJ, and WI were close enough that I see this map as a realistic possibility:

Humphrey/Rockefeller 43.2% / 232 EV
Nixon/Agnew 42.7% / 261 EV
Wallace/LeMay 13.7% / 45 EV

I have bumped up Wallace's PV% ever so slightly, and have not reallocated 1 EV in NC to Wallace.
Humphrey wins the PV. No one wins the EC. Wallace electors hold some power. Do they vote Nixon? Does the House decide?
Logged
GeorgiaModerate
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,708


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2018, 12:38:19 PM »
« Edited: July 15, 2018, 04:09:41 PM by GeorgiaModerate »

MO, NJ, and WI were close enough that I see this map as a realistic possibility:

Humphrey/Rockefeller 43.2% / 232 EV
Nixon/Agnew 42.7% / 261 EV
Wallace/LeMay 13.7% / 45 EV

I have bumped up Wallace's PV% ever so slightly, and have not reallocated 1 EV in NC to Wallace.
Humphrey wins the PV. No one wins the EC. Wallace electors hold some power. Do they vote Nixon? Does the House decide?

This gets very, very messy.

One of Wallace's main goals was to force an EC deadlock and use that as leverage to end federal desegregation efforts in the South.  Would Nixon have gone for a bargain on those terms to become President?  It's possible.  But if he didn't...

The new House had 26 state delegations controlled by the Democrats -- exactly enough to choose a President.  19 were controlled by the Republicans, with the other 5 evenly split between the parties (and presumably abstaining as a result).  If all 26 D states voted for Humphrey, he would be elected.  HOWEVER...5 of the 26 were the states you gave to Wallace.  What would the Democratic Congressmen in those states do?  It's certainly plausible that enough of them would vote for Wallace (or Nixon in the event of a Nixon-Wallace bargain) to prevent the House from electing a President.  They would NOT have enough to elect Nixon, assuming the 5 split states stay sidelined.

The new Senate had 58 Democrats and 42 Republicans.  In theory, this should mean that the Democratic candidate was elected VP (and acting President if the House stayed deadlocked).  But again...a bunch of the Democratic Senators were from the South.   How many of them would abstain or vote for Agnew rather than Nelson Rockefeller, a very liberal Republican and strong advocate of civil rights?

This scenario reminds me of the AH-like book Our Next President: The Incredible Story of What Happened in the 1968 Elections by Russell Baker, written in 1967.  (Here's an article about the book; I read the serialized version in the Saturday Evening Post at the time.)  LBJ runs again, but fearing a primary challenge from Robert Kennedy, he maneuvers Humphrey into resigning as VP to become Secretary of State, then appoints RFK as his replacement VP (and running mate in '68).  The Republicans nominate NYC mayor John Lindsay, with Texas Sen. John Tower as his running mate.  Wallace does better than in OTL, and the election goes to the House and deadlocks there.  The Senate elects RFK as VP, and he ends up acting as President thereafter.  
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.218 seconds with 14 queries.