1964: Stevenson/Humphrey vs. Goldwater/Miller

[cmt]

Let's assume that President Johnson does decide to not seek a full term in the WH.  He announces just prior to the convention, so that he will have a big hand in naming his successor.  It comes down to Sen. Hubert Humphrey and UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson.  Stevenson, twice the Dem nominee (or sacrifice) vs. Eisenhower in the 50's is nominated and asks his good friend Hubert to be his running mate.  On the GOP side things go according to convention--and Goldwater is nominated and selects Rep. Miller of NY as his running mate (just as he actually did).



I still see '64 as a Dem year with Stevenson (third time the charm) winning 323-215 in the electoral college.  Goldwater picks up some southern states like Texas and Florida and some conservative farm belt states like NE, KS, and the Dakotas.  He also takes traditionally GOP Indiana and narrowly beats Stevenson in Ohio.  I think Stevenson/Humphrey still hold all of the Northeastern states and Illinois and Michigan--as well as the west coast and a couple of other western states. 

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Why would Johnson choose Stevenson over his acutal vice presidential nominee in rl Humphrey?

Whilst I too find this 1964 scenario far fetched Garrison, you must remember that this is indeed a What If scenario. I remember you told me so on many occassions, to get with the "program" when I questioned you about some of your scenarios. Now you should get with the "program' with this 1964 scenario.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Stevenson/Humphrey vs. Goldwater/Miller:

A less than comfortable Goldwater victory. Stevenson turns out to be a TERRIBLE CANDIDATE, as he had been in the past.

There is no way Barry Goldwater could have won the Presidency of the United States in 1964. Thanks to the November 1963 assassination of then President John F. Kennedy, no matter who the Democratic Party nominated in 1964 (with the exception of a segregationist e.g. George Wallace), they were going to be sworn in as President on January 20, 1965.

Also, might I point out that Adlai Stevenson was not a weak candidate when he ran for the Presidency in 1952 and 1956 respectively. Stevenson was running against former General Dwight Eisenhower. Anybody the Democratic Party nominated in both 1952 and 1956 would have met the same fate as Stevenson and would have lost by a landslide.

If I can make the point, I did not just take the 1964 map and just randomly flip states without even touching the percentages. What makes this poster think that Goldwater would loose Nevada, California, Colorado, and New Mexico when Goldwater was both running against a much weaker democratic nominee than Johnson is compared to Stevenson and when Goldwater lived in the region and could have carried most of those states against a weaker democrat.

Whilst you indeed did not make a map for this 1964 scenario, you did make a map, which in my mind is quite ludicrous considering the political makeup during the time of the 1964 Presidential Election. You fail to take in considerations such as Goldwater's failure to bring in liberal and moderate Republicans that would have helped him dearly in the New England area, thus his failure to broaden his national base, which consisted of conservatives.

These Western states had voted republican since Franklin Roosevelt up to that point and voted for republicans after this election until after 1988. What makes this poster think that these western states would vote for Stevenson when Adlai had lost them by landslide proportions in 1952 and 1956 and had this long record of voting republican when it did not include 1964.

Sure Adlai Stevenson lost both Oregon and Washington considerably to Dwight Eisenhower in both 1952 and 1956, but let us remember that Lyndon B. Johnson won both Oregon and Washington in 1964 against Barry Goldwater. On average with 62.8% of the vote in both of those states in 1964.

Whilst you might be thinking that Adlai Stevenson is no Lyndon B. Johnson you are correct. However Stevenson, like Johnson would have won over the support of liberal and moderate Republicans, which were key to both states voting for Richard Nixon in 1960. Though back in 1952 and 1956, Eisenhower had them wrapped up easily as he had support from liberals, moderates, even some conservatives in the Republican Party, thus contributing to Stevenson's landslide defeats in both Oregon and Washington.

This poster is very inexperienced in politics and that is okay. He has time to get more familiar with it. And I am not trying to sound grouchy. But, it is often claimed that I know absolutely nothing about politics. I am here to prove that I do and that is part of the reason for my explanation.

Do you listen to yourself Garrison? By looking at your 1964 Electoral College map, not to mention your explanations for your map regarding this Stevenson/Goldwater match up, you also are very inexperienced in the world of politics. Please don't use this opportunity to mention that you know everything about politics. You do not. Likewise with everyone of us on this entire political forum.

Although we know a vast majority about a wide range of politics, we do not know everything. If I knew everything about politics, then I would know who the current President of Azerbaijan is! That's my two cents on the matter of your profound knowledge of politics and your analysis.

[cmt]

Well Mac, believe it or not there was speculation that Stevenson might be Johnson's VP nominee which I found in the book "Adlai Stevenson and the World".  Also, Stevenson was not a terrible candidate, infact, he came out of his 1952 campaign with a lot of respect from voters for his intelligence and wit.  He happened to have the misfortune of running against Eisenhower the most popular man of his time and still was able to win 45% and 43% of the vote respectively.  In my scenerio I didn't make it clear but I have Johnson arranging for Stevenson and Humphrey to be his two top choice and they would have to fight it out at the convention and at the convention Stevenson still had a lot of support from his 1950's campaigns. 

Finally, Barry Goldwater couldn't of won in 1964.  I know you wish it to have happened, but it couldn't have.  You give him NH, ME, VT, CT and NJ and given his hard right reputation at the time he would not have won the liberal independent and repbulican vote (both of which was still strong in the early 60's) in the Northeast.  I would also argue that it is much more likely that Goldwater would have won Texas than California.  1964 with JFK's assassination still fresh and a strong, robust economy was a Democratic year.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Against a weaker democrat, Goldwater would have a better shot at carrying upper new England and new jersey and Delaware would be close, as would Connecticut.

The only way Barry Goldwater could have won the New England states in 1964 would have been if Goldwater managed to receive the support of liberals and moderates in the Republican Party which would were essential to many New England states voting Republican. I mentioned that in my previous post, which you ignored.

You are saying that Stevenson was a great candidate. You must not remember the campaigns of 1952 and 1956. A strong candidate does not perform the way that Stevenson did in '52 and yet again in '56 no matter who he is running against. Truman spoke of Stevenson as a weak campaigner and that he regretted his endorsement of Stevenson in a book where Truman was interviewed and asked about 1952. So your claim that the only reason that Stevenson lost it in 1952 and 1956 is because of who his opponent was has been proved wrong.

Neither myself not cmt suggested that Adlai Stevenson would have won the Presidency in either 1952 or 1956 respectively, if the Republican Party nominated anyone else but former General Dwight David Eisenhower. Anybody the Democratic Party nominted in both 1952 and in 1956 were going to meet the same fate as Stevenson against Eisenhower.

Lets talk about California and Texas. The poster and the independent from Australia claim that Texas would have gone to Goldwater in this scenario. They must forget about landslide Lyndon. Johnson would have pulled through Texas for Stevenson. Johnson did it for Kennedy in 1960, Johnson won it himself by a near landslide in 1964, and got in for Humphrey in 1968. Had Johnson supported Stevenson so strongly as this poster claims, then he would have pulled it through for Stevenson.

Garrison, if I can remember your name, then surely you can remember mine. Afterall, I, the "Independent from Australia" as you like to call me, am a "friend" of yours on Facebook. I can easily change that and cause havoc on your official "Garrison Porter Fanclub" page. Anywho, that's going completely off-topic.

Please tell me where I mentioned that Texas would vote for Barry Goldwater in this scenario. I have looked over that post of mine, fairly criticising your analysis on this 1964 Presidential Election between Stevenson and Goldwater and I find no mention, what so ever, of Goldwater and Texas. Just Goldwater and the states Washington and Oregon.

California would go to Goldwater in this scenario. Goldwater did better than expected in California against Johnson.  California was more republican in 1964 than Texas was in 1964. Infact, not just in 1964, but in 1952 through 1988, California voted republican consistently.

How could Barry Goldwater manage to win California in 1964 against Adlai Stevenson, when Goldwater lost California to Lyndon B. Johnson by nearly 20 points? I could imagine Goldwater picking up an extra one or two percent against Stevenson, but he would still lose, in forum speak "loose" California to Adlai Stevenson. Also, I should point out that California only narrowly went for Richard Nixon against John F. Kennedy in 1960, thus making the opportunity greater for Stevenson to defeat a conservative like Goldwater in the state.

Goldwater would lead by a thin margin in California throughout the campaign and the Reagan speech in the final days of the campaign would seal the victory for Goldwater in California and in the country.

Note to Garrison: Barry Goldwater does not win California in 1964, nor does Ronald Reagan's famous "Time for Choosing" speech help Goldwater defeat Stevenson. End of Story. I shall join you all the next time, when I have enough time to fairly criticise Garrison Porter. Until then, have a pleasent tomorrow.

[Хahar 🤔]

LOL.

[cmt]

Mac, I never said Stevenson was a "great candidate" I just pointed out that he was respected for his intelligence and wit.  If he had run against a mere mortal like Taft I think he may have won in 1952.  Now you keep saying that Johnson delivered Texas to HHH in '68--certainly he helped, but remember HHH won Texas over Nixon by only about 39,000 votes.  What really delivered Texas to HHH was George Wallace in 1968 who won 584,269 votes.  If Wallace hadn't been the American Independent candidate in '68 I feel pretty confident that Nixon would have won Texas.  I feel Goldwater would certainly have defeated Stevenson in Texas in '64 if it had been a race between them.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Adlai wins, 368-170.

[glm15jul]

This would be much closer, no doubt, than what actually occurred in 1964.  I agree that this would be a democratic year, no matter who the nominee would be, in lieu of the tragedy in Dallas in November of '63.  Goldwater was too extreme to win in any year. Stevenson would have won in this "what-if " and IF it did happen,  Vice President Humphrey would be sworn in as president when Stevenson died in July, 1965. (Real Time).