Rockefeller/Reagan vs. Kennedy/McCarthy vs. Wallace/LeMay?

[TommyC1776]

What would happen here.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Rockefeller/Reagan: 224
Kennedy/McCarthy: 269
Wallace/LeMay: 45

[King]

Richard Nixon only lost New York by 5 points.  Rockefeller couldn't win his homestate?

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Rockefeller/Reagan (R) 300 EV 45%
Kennedy/McCarthy (D) 193 EV 42%
Wallace/LeMay (AI) 45 EV 13%

[TommyC1776]

Why would Kennedy win Texas?  I thought the only reason Humphrey won it was because of LBJ.  ANd I know how the Kennedy's and LBJ got along.

[gorkay]

Rockefeller/Reagan looks like a good ticket on paper, but there would have been a lot of questions about it, since the two were so far apart ideologically. It's hard to imagine Reagan settling for second place either, even back then, and his political inexperience might have been a liability to the ticket (remember that he had only been governor of CA for two years and wasn't nearly as savvy a politician as he later became). Also, there would have been no chance that Kennedy would have picked McCarthy as his running mate. For one thing, he didn't balance the ticket, nor did he provide help in a doubtful state or region. For another, Kennedy would have had to select a Protestant as his running mate; two Catholics, then and now, is a no-no. Third, the two didn't much like each other; McCarthy felt that RFK withheld his help when McCarthy was running against LBJ, and Kennedy thought McCarthy stole his thunder by jumping into the race prematurely.

Leaving aside the question of running mates, however, I am sure that Kennedy would have beaten Rockefeller in the general election. His personal popularity was very high in '68, the Kennedy mystique was still very strong back then, and he was a relentless campaigner and a brilliant public speaker.