1968: LBJ vs Nixon vs Wallace

[BigVic]

After JFK served for two terms with high approval ratings (71% approval on Election Day), LBJ becomes the Dem nominee and faces Kennedy's 1960 opponent Richard Nixon and Dixiecrat George Wallace. Who would win

[MillennialModerate]

In this scenario the rumors of scandal regarding LBJ are extinguished. LBJ also gains an even greater reputation as a brilliant lawmaker after his backroom arm twisting was a MAJOR factor in JFK passing a once unthinkable Civil rights bill - as well as many other social programs that ended up becoming extremely popular with most Americans.

But LBJ becomes a shoe in for the nomination after going to Paris to broker a peaceful settlement in Vietnam, something that took the administration off the hook from hawks that were upset when JFK refused to escalate American involvement in ‘65.

Despite JFK’s administration going down as legendary, only surpassed by Lincoln and FDR - the constant unrest in the South over Civil Rights led to some fracturing amongst Southern Dems. This spurs George Wallace to run. He thinks he can force the election to the House where Southern Dems can have their way.

Meanwhile Richard Nixon played the role of good soldier for the past 6 years after his ‘62 CA loss. He smartly decided to sit out in ‘64 against an unbeatable incumbent JFK - an election that saw JFK get 61% of the popular vote and 501 electoral votes. But heading into ‘68 he has polished up his image and is no longer seen as bitter and cold - but instead as an older statesman of the GOP. He criticizes the Dems, JFK & LBJ for making “big government even bigger”. He also plays both sides of the Civil Rights issue, saying “All Americans should be afforded the same rights” but appealing to win Southern electoral votes by saying “its a states rights issue”

V.P Lyndon Johnson / Sen Edmund Muskie • 338
Fmr V.P Richard Nixon / Gov Spiro Agnew • 171
Gov George Wallace / Gen Curtis LeMay • 29

[Sir Mohamed]

In this scenario the rumors of scandal regarding LBJ are extinguished. LBJ also gains an even greater reputation as a brilliant lawmaker after his backroom arm twisting was a MAJOR factor in JFK passing a once unthinkable Civil rights bill - as well as many other social programs that ended up becoming extremely popular with most Americans.

But LBJ becomes a shoe in for the nomination after going to Paris to broker a peaceful settlement in Vietnam, something that took the administration off the hook from hawks that were upset when JFK refused to escalate American involvement in ‘65.

Despite JFK’s administration going down as legendary, only surpassed by Lincoln and FDR - the constant unrest in the South over Civil Rights led to some fracturing amongst Southern Dems. This spurs George Wallace to run. He thinks he can force the election to the House where Southern Dems can have their way.

Meanwhile Richard Nixon played the role of good soldier for the past 6 years after his ‘62 CA loss. He smartly decided to sit out in ‘64 against an unbeatable incumbent JFK - an election that saw JFK get 61% of the popular vote and 501 electoral votes. But heading into ‘68 he has polished up his image and is no longer seen as bitter and cold - but instead as an older statesman of the GOP. He criticizes the Dems, JFK & LBJ for making “big government even bigger”. He also plays both sides of the Civil Rights issue, saying “All Americans should be afforded the same rights” but appealing to win Southern electoral votes by saying “its a states rights issue”

V.P Lyndon Johnson / Sen Edmund Muskie • 338
Fmr V.P Richard Nixon / Gov Spiro Agnew • 171
Gov George Wallace / Gen Curtis LeMay • 29

This is a good answer. I think Johnson doesn't survive his term or if reelected dies shortly after his second swearing-in in 1973.

[MillennialModerate]

In this scenario the rumors of scandal regarding LBJ are extinguished. LBJ also gains an even greater reputation as a brilliant lawmaker after his backroom arm twisting was a MAJOR factor in JFK passing a once unthinkable Civil rights bill - as well as many other social programs that ended up becoming extremely popular with most Americans.

But LBJ becomes a shoe in for the nomination after going to Paris to broker a peaceful settlement in Vietnam, something that took the administration off the hook from hawks that were upset when JFK refused to escalate American involvement in ‘65.

Despite JFK’s administration going down as legendary, only surpassed by Lincoln and FDR - the constant unrest in the South over Civil Rights led to some fracturing amongst Southern Dems. This spurs George Wallace to run. He thinks he can force the election to the House where Southern Dems can have their way.

Meanwhile Richard Nixon played the role of good soldier for the past 6 years after his ‘62 CA loss. He smartly decided to sit out in ‘64 against an unbeatable incumbent JFK - an election that saw JFK get 61% of the popular vote and 501 electoral votes. But heading into ‘68 he has polished up his image and is no longer seen as bitter and cold - but instead as an older statesman of the GOP. He criticizes the Dems, JFK & LBJ for making “big government even bigger”. He also plays both sides of the Civil Rights issue, saying “All Americans should be afforded the same rights” but appealing to win Southern electoral votes by saying “its a states rights issue”

V.P Lyndon Johnson / Sen Edmund Muskie • 338
Fmr V.P Richard Nixon / Gov Spiro Agnew • 171
Gov George Wallace / Gen Curtis LeMay • 29

This is a good answer. I think Johnson doesn't survive his term or if reelected dies shortly after his second swearing-in in 1973.

Thanks, as good of a President that Muskie would have been I think in that scenario you’ll probably see the GOP (Reagan or Dole) win in ‘72 - at that point voters become fatigued of one party. So LBJ dies just two days after he leaves office.

And I don’t know how likely this following scenario is but I could see it playing out this way: Reagan likely is a popular President and wins re-election in 76. In 80, with GOP approvals freefalling due to Iran and the energy crisis - New York Senator Robert Kennedy (who beat Javits in ‘68) fights on the Democratic nomination.

[brucejoel99]

JFK wouldn't lift a finger for LBJ so he'd be on his own, & the Vice Presidency isn't enough to save him.

Fmr. VP Richard Nixon / Gov. Spiro Agnew: 273
VP Lyndon Johnson / Sen. Hubert Humphrey: 220
Gov. George Wallace / Gen. Curtis LeMay: 45

[Sir Mohamed]

JFK wouldn't lift a finger for LBJ so he'd be on his own, & the Vice Presidency isn't enough to save him.

Fmr. VP Richard Nixon / Gov. Spiro Agnew: 273
VP Lyndon Johnson / Sen. Hubert Humphrey: 220
Gov. George Wallace / Gen. Curtis LeMay: 45

JFK wouldn't want Nixon as prez, he'd support Johnson in general, but fought his nomination.

[MillennialModerate]

JFK wouldn't lift a finger for LBJ so he'd be on his own, & the Vice Presidency isn't enough to save him.

Fmr. VP Richard Nixon / Gov. Spiro Agnew: 273
VP Lyndon Johnson / Sen. Hubert Humphrey: 220
Gov. George Wallace / Gen. Curtis LeMay: 45

JFK wouldn't lift a finger for LBJ so he'd be on his own, & the Vice Presidency isn't enough to save him.

Fmr. VP Richard Nixon / Gov. Spiro Agnew: 273
VP Lyndon Johnson / Sen. Hubert Humphrey: 220
Gov. George Wallace / Gen. Curtis LeMay: 45

JFK wouldn't want Nixon as prez, he'd support Johnson in general, but fought his nomination.

This is a tricky debate all around. Because on one hand the Kennedy’s were pretty apprehensive about LBJ. However JFK was far more cordial with him than RFK was. Also it’s likely they would’ve saw him in a more positive light if it was his hard work and back room arm twisting that allowed the JFK administration to pass not only Civil Rights but other popular social programs.

Kennedy’s feelings with Nixon were similarly mixed. On one hand they didn’t like him politically and knew the tricks he could pull, at the same time I think JFK and Nixon got along good when they were in the congress - I think Joe Sr. even contributed to Nixon’s Senate campaign.

However while they would’ve kept a distance from LBJ’s campaign to avoid an LBJ loss reflecting as a rebuke against the Kennedy administration - I think behind (to a point) they would work to help LBJ win.  

Why? You might ask. Well you have to remember that the Kennedy’s had an elite level of political shrewdness. They were always looking ahead. Make no mistake about it in ‘67-‘68 they would have been angling to get Bobby a reasonable path to the Presidency. With that being said it probably benefits them to see LBJ get elected in ‘68 (It also helps the legacy of the JFK administration, not that it would have needed it but it can’t hurt). I say this cause they probably would’ve anticipated charges of nepotism and a sentiment amongst some Dems that regardless of how popular they were, it was time to ”give someone else a shot”. So having a Non-Kennedy Democratic President would likely squash those feelings, making much more fertile political ground for Bobby to run in ‘76 or more likely in ‘80

[brucejoel99]

JFK wouldn't lift a finger for LBJ so he'd be on his own, & the Vice Presidency isn't enough to save him.

Fmr. VP Richard Nixon / Gov. Spiro Agnew: 273
VP Lyndon Johnson / Sen. Hubert Humphrey: 220
Gov. George Wallace / Gen. Curtis LeMay: 45

JFK wouldn't lift a finger for LBJ so he'd be on his own, & the Vice Presidency isn't enough to save him.

Fmr. VP Richard Nixon / Gov. Spiro Agnew: 273
VP Lyndon Johnson / Sen. Hubert Humphrey: 220
Gov. George Wallace / Gen. Curtis LeMay: 45

JFK wouldn't want Nixon as prez, he'd support Johnson in general, but fought his nomination.

This is a tricky debate all around. Because on one hand the Kennedy’s were pretty apprehensive about LBJ. However JFK was far more cordial with him than RFK was.

Robert Caro did a pretty good job in his book explaining & showing how little respect JFK had for LBJ. They didn't have a good working relationship. They didn't have much of a working relationship at all, actually. For example, JFK, for a minor unimportant Texas court nomination, embarrassed LBJ by ignoring his pick & picking his own candidate. When LBJ went to the Oval Office to ask JFK to change his mind, JFK just turned his chair around & had Bobby explain to LBJ why it couldn't be reversed. And that's just one example of them not personally much caring for each other. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK said the people who he trusted most during that crisis were Dillon McNamara, & Bobby. No mention of LBJ at all. So you can't just separate the conflict between LBJ & Bobby as being completely unrelated to his conflict with JFK. Bobby was seen in many ways as speaking for the President. They often worked as a team where the President would sit back as Bobby did the pushy work for him.

Also it’s likely they would’ve saw him in a more positive light if it was his hard work and back room arm twisting that allowed the JFK administration to pass not only Civil Rights but other popular social programs.

This greatness of LBJ is overstated. It's true in many regards, but it ignores context & the force of history in that there was already enormous momentum for the CRA in both houses of Congress &, in particular, the Senate when JFK died. There was also a huge public surge in interest & support, especially in the aftermath of high-profile incidents of disobedience & violence in the South & the March on Washington. Additionally, Mike Mansfield, Everett Dirksen, & figures like Hubert Humphrey all played an enormous role. Even if you posit that it wouldn't have passed 'til 1965 or later without JFK's death, remember that the election results would've still returned an even larger-than-pre-1964 Democratic majority (even if it was short of LBJ's post-1964 numbers).

Not to mention, other post-CRA bills like the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, the Great Society, etc. wouldn't necessarily get passed, & may very well have been watered down in a JFK presidency.

Kennedy’s feelings with Nixon were similarly mixed. On one hand they didn’t like him politically and knew the tricks he could pull, at the same time I think JFK and Nixon got along good when they were in the congress - I think Joe Sr. even contributed to Nixon’s Senate campaign.

However while they would’ve kept a distance from LBJ’s campaign to avoid an LBJ loss reflecting as a rebuke against the Kennedy administration - I think behind (to a point) they would work to help LBJ win.  

Why? You might ask. Well you have to remember that the Kennedy’s had an elite level of political shrewdness. They were always looking ahead. Make no mistake about it in ‘67-‘68 they would have been angling to get Bobby a reasonable path to the Presidency. With that being said it probably benefits them to see LBJ get elected in ‘68 (It also helps the legacy of the JFK administration, not that it would have needed it but it can’t hurt). I say this cause they probably would’ve anticipated charges of nepotism and a sentiment amongst some Dems that regardless of how popular they were, it was time to ”give someone else a shot”. So having a Non-Kennedy Democratic President would likely squash those feelings, making much more fertile political ground for Bobby to run in ‘76 or more likely in ‘80

Yeah, 1976 is an excellent bet for Bobby (especially if one presumes that a Republican president would be elected in 1968), but 1980 is the absolute latest before he would start to become a relic of another age, even though he would've only been 58 in 1984.

[MillennialModerate]

Robert Caro did a pretty good job in his book explaining & showing how little respect JFK had for LBJ. They didn't have a good working relationship. They didn't have much of a working relationship at all, actually. For example, JFK, for a minor unimportant Texas court nomination, embarrassed LBJ by ignoring his pick & picking his own candidate. When LBJ went to the Oval Office to ask JFK to change his mind, JFK just turned his chair around & had Bobby explain to LBJ why it couldn't be reversed. And that's just one example of them not personally much caring for each other. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK said the people who he trusted most during that crisis were Dillon McNamara, & Bobby. No mention of LBJ at all. So you can't just separate the conflict between LBJ & Bobby as being completely unrelated to his conflict with JFK. Bobby was seen in many ways as speaking for the President. They often worked as a team where the President would sit back as Bobby did the pushy work for him.

I know almost everything there is to know about the Kennedy’s but that’s one subject I’ve always heard conflicting reports on: whether or not JFK saw LBJ like Bobby did. It’s fascinating because I do think LBJ had some political skill but wasn’t a good person - but yet he passed laws that did a lot of good. Everything about him seems like a contradiction.

Not to mention, other post-CRA bills like the Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, the Great Society, etc. wouldn't necessarily get passed, & may very well have been watered down in a JFK presidency.

This is one area where I disagree. This again goes to the shrewd political foresight of the Kennedy’s. I feel as though they would be far more aggressive and bold in a second term. Remember they initially were waiting till a second term for CR but the situation escalated so intensely that Bobby told JFK he had to act. But I think you likely would have seen most of what was passed in the Great Society passed in a second term of the New Frontier. And despite their feelings for LBJ, I don’t think the Kennedy’s would hesitate to use him if they thought he’d help get major legislation passed.

Yeah, 1976 is an excellent bet for Bobby (especially if one presumes that a Republican president would be elected in 1968), but 1980 is the absolute latest before he would start to become a relic of another age, even though he would've only been 58 in 1984.

I think in this scenario, Bobby Kennedy would have had a GREAT shot at the Presidency. Playing a key role in a wildly successful JFK administration and then being elected to the Senate in his own right, so that by the time ‘76 rolled around he’d have surely vaulted to front runner status in the Democratic Party.

Now the question is what gives him a better shot: If LBJ (or another Dem) wins in ‘68? Or if the Republicans win in ‘68? I think, as I said before: the whole legacy criticism goes away if there is another Dem in between him and JFK. You could also look at it the other way that yet another 4 years of the Democrats in the White House makes voter fatigue with that party all the more likely.

Regardless, if JFK had lived - I think his administration would have been historically successful, especially in its second term: Thus, Bobby Kennedy would stand a great shot at winning the Presidency himself in ‘76 or ‘80.

I also don’t think ‘80 is too late at all. He would have been ‘55 in 1980. FDR was 51, Truman was 60, Eisenhower 62, LBJ 55, Reagan 69, Bush Sr 64... and on and on. I mean Reagan was Governor in the 60’s and then left the Presidency at Age 77 in 1989.

[brucejoel99]

I also don’t think ‘80 is too late at all. He would have been ‘55 in 1980. FDR was 51, Truman was 60, Eisenhower 62, LBJ 55, Reagan 69, Bush Sr 64... and on and on. I mean Reagan was Governor in the 60’s and then left the Presidency at Age 77 in 1989.

I didn't mean 1984 would be too late age-wise for him (hence why I emphasized what would've been his still-relative youth when I brought that point up). I meant that he'd be seen as a relic of another age in that he & the family would've been in politics & the public eye for so long that people might've just gotten Kennedy fatigue by that point. I suppose a similar modern example would be Jeb! 2016.

[morgankingsley]

even though he would've only been 58 in 1984.

Being 59 at the inauguration would not be young at all. He would have been the 12th oldest president at taking office. Which would be older than 2/3 presidents statistically speaking.

[MillennialModerate]

I also don’t think ‘80 is too late at all. He would have been ‘55 in 1980. FDR was 51, Truman was 60, Eisenhower 62, LBJ 55, Reagan 69, Bush Sr 64... and on and on. I mean Reagan was Governor in the 60’s and then left the Presidency at Age 77 in 1989.

I didn't mean 1984 would be too late age-wise for him (hence why I emphasized what would've been his still-relative youth when I brought that point up). I meant that he'd be seen as a relic of another age in that he & the family would've been in politics & the public eye for so long that people might've just gotten Kennedy fatigue by that point. I suppose a similar modern example would be Jeb! 2016.

Even though I personally like the Bushes, the facts are that Bush 41 was seen as a likable gentleman and statesman but out of touch. Bush 43 was seen as a good man who did what he thought was right but was hard headed & stubbornly got us into this generations waterloo (IRAQ) and oversaw an inherited thriving economy that had a surplus and turned it into the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Not to mention the partisan toxicity that’s around now • Meanwhile you have the Kennedy’s who for the most part (except for Teddy) always had astronomical approval ratings (both JFK/RFK). So id say they were better positioned to overcome a potential fatigue. ESPECIALLY if the 70’s saw turbulence of any kind, people would see RFK as a return to the great memories of the JFK administration.

[brucejoel99]

I also don’t think ‘80 is too late at all. He would have been ‘55 in 1980. FDR was 51, Truman was 60, Eisenhower 62, LBJ 55, Reagan 69, Bush Sr 64... and on and on. I mean Reagan was Governor in the 60’s and then left the Presidency at Age 77 in 1989.

I didn't mean 1984 would be too late age-wise for him (hence why I emphasized what would've been his still-relative youth when I brought that point up). I meant that he'd be seen as a relic of another age in that he & the family would've been in politics & the public eye for so long that people might've just gotten Kennedy fatigue by that point. I suppose a similar modern example would be Jeb! 2016.

Even though I personally like the Bushes, the facts are that Bush 41 was seen as a likable gentleman and statesman but out of touch. Bush 43 was seen as a good man who did what he thought was right but was hard headed & stubbornly got us into this generations waterloo (IRAQ) and oversaw an inherited thriving economy that had a surplus and turned it into the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Not to mention the partisan toxicity that’s around now • Meanwhile you have the Kennedy’s who for the most part (except for Teddy) always had astronomical approval ratings (both JFK/RFK). So id say they were better positioned to overcome a potential fatigue. ESPECIALLY if the 70’s saw turbulence of any kind, people would see RFK as a return to the great memories of the JFK administration.

Bold of you to assume that the Kennedys remaining at the top levels of politics for 20+ more years wouldn't leave them vulnerable to being called out-of-touch career politicians.