No Southern Strategy in 1968

A good one for MLK day.



From: AK47 (catsjnobrien@dogs.erols.com)
Subject: No Southern Strategy in 1968
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2004-01-18 11:43:15 PST


Suppose that in 1968, Richard Nixon, instead of pandering to the
neo-segregationists with his “Southern Strategy” as in OTL (“clear it
with Strom”), he had taken the position that Brown vs. Board of
Education and its progeny are now law, and that the Republican Party,
would support school integration and the entire civil-rights agenda.

Very good topic, and as you said, appropriate for MLK Day. If this happens, then expect more support for George Wallace. The Republicans will lose ALOT of Southern support, and I think Humphrey wins in 1968. Of course, I expect someone to totally shatter this opinion, so we'll see who's next.

well, it seems that the Republicans would have the moral high ground, but it would also cost them big in political base; the Democrats would likely dominate politics for some time. Or would the southern conservatives form their own party, perhaps?

It would cost Nixon the states of Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Florida, and (at the very VERY most) Virginia. Wallace would control all the ex-Confed states, with the exception of Texas, which Humphrey won anyways. It would give Wallace an extra 57 electoral votes, leaving the final tally at:


OTOH, the swaying of Nixon towards a more liberal standpoint may steal Washington, Connecticut, New York and Pennsylvania away from Humphrey as all that's needed in those four states is a 3% sway to Nixon. This would leave the final total at:


Now, this would be disastrous for Humphrey and the Democratic Party. It would be the first time since 1912 that a third party has out-totalled either the Democratic or Republican parties. Even then, the Progressive Party was no longer able to continue because it had lost A) its charismatic leader and B) its support base rejoined the Republicans. The American Independent Party would have A) Wallace back and more powerful in 1972 and B) no great rush to rejoin either party.

However, I believe it's best to be conservative here. So we'll give Wallace Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Florida and give Nixon only Washington and New York. The final tally:


Still a Nixon victory, but a greater win for Wallace. He is most likely to stay as a third party and run again in 1972, where he is almost certain to beat the Democratic candidate. After all, he led the Democratic candidates in the northern caususes until he was shot. And, don't forget, a healthy, charasmatic George C. Wallace has a good five tries at the Presidency (1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, and 1984). He didn't retire as Governor of Alabama until 1987. Could the United States finally see a lasting third party?

From: niteowlned (nedk@infionline.net)
Subject: Re: No Southern Strategy in 1968


View this article only
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2004-01-19 22:43:39 PST


"AK47" <catsjnobrien@dogs.erols.com> wrote in message
news:400ae1d2$0$6075$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...
> Suppose that in 1968, Richard Nixon, instead of pandering to the
> neo-segregationists with his “Southern Strategy” as in OTL (“clear it
> with Strom”), he had taken the position that Brown vs. Board of
> Education and its progeny are now law, and that the Republican Party,
> would support school integration and the entire civil-rights agenda.
> --
> To e-mail me get rid of the cats and dogs.


You would have a GOP with much broader appeal today. When the power in
the party shifted to the Southern Conservatives over the Nixon-to-Reagan
period it lost a major part of its constituency in the Northeast. The
Republicans would have a better grip on what used to be called the
Rockefeller-Republican wing of the party but are now called Democrats. They
would have a much better grip on suburbanized states like NJ, Conn, a better
presence in Pennsy and a hell of a lot better chance of winning NY and
California.
As for what would have happened to the Stroms and Newts of the world,
maybe Wallace's third party sticks around for a few years more or develops
into a successful regional party in the South

strom and newt

As for what would have happened to the Stroms and Newts of the world,
maybe Wallace's third party sticks around for a few years more or develops
into a successful regional party in the South[/quote]

What if strom and newt had supported wallace?

Well, MEJ won't answer you, since he's left the site. Beck Reilly also doesn't come anymore. Next time you might check before bumping.

gianluca790 said:

As for what would have happened to the Stroms and Newts of the world,
maybe Wallace's third party sticks around for a few years more or develops
into a successful regional party in the South

Click to expand...

What if strom and newt had supported wallace?[/QUOTE]

I don't think that Newt was a factor in those days.

Someone has speculated that a pro-civil rights Nixon might lose support in the South but gain it in the North -- and thus win anyway.

I'm sure Nixon crunched the numbers at the time, and concluded that it wasn't likely to work, which is why he went with the Southern strategy in the first place.

I agree with the thinking that if Nixon runs a pro-civil rights campaign, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina go to Wallace. No one gets a majority of Electoral votes, and the election goes to the House of Representatives -- where Humphrey wins. (With more Nixon votes going to Wallace, HHH wins the popular vote too. It's legally meaningless, I know, but it gives Humphrey more moral authority to govern.)

If Nixon had opted against the Southern strategy, he also wouldn't have picked Spiro Agnew as his running mate. The decision to pick Agnew was based on Agnew's appeal in the border states -- like Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. If Nixon decides against the Southern strategy, he probably picks someone else.

Tgibbs said:

Someone has speculated that a pro-civil rights Nixon might lose support in the South but gain it in the North -- and thus win anyway.

I'm sure Nixon crunched the numbers at the time, and concluded that it wasn't likely to work, which is why he went with the Southern strategy in the first place.

I agree with the thinking that if Nixon runs a pro-civil rights campaign, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina go to Wallace. No one gets a majority of Electoral votes, and the election goes to the House of Representatives -- where Humphrey wins. (With more Nixon votes going to Wallace, HHH wins the popular vote too. It's legally meaningless, I know, but it gives Humphrey more moral authority to govern.)

If Nixon had opted against the Southern strategy, he also wouldn't have picked Spiro Agnew as his running mate. The decision to pick Agnew was based on Agnew's appeal in the border states -- like Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina. If Nixon decides against the Southern strategy, he probably picks someone else.

Click to expand...

Even without a formal "Southern Strategy" approach, Nixon will want a balanced ticket. If we have Howard Baker win the 1964 Senate race, then we could see him as Nixon's VP choice in 1968.

Howard Baker is certainly a fine man and probably an excellent vice president, or president. But I have to think if Nixon decided to run on a pro-civil rights platform, he'd be conceding the "Upper South" (to coin a phrase) to Wallace. That would include Tennessee. I doubt Baker's presence on the ticket would persuade people from Tennessee or the Carolinas to vote for Nixon, if Nixon is using the same pro-civil rights language he used in 1960. (In 1960, Nixon even used the word "liberal" to describe his position on civil rights.)

With Wallace winning at least eight states, Nixon has to challenge Humphrey in the northeast in order to get 270 Electoral votes. I think he picks a northeasterner. The most obvious choice is Rockefeller, if he'll do it. My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think the governor of Massachusetts at the time was John Volpe, and he was considered. Is William Scranton still governor of Pennsylvania at this point? Even if he's not, he's a former governor.

Tgibbs said:

Howard Baker is certainly a fine man and probably an excellent vice president, or president. But I have to think if Nixon decided to run on a pro-civil rights platform, he'd be conceding the "Upper South" (to coin a phrase) to Wallace. That would include Tennessee. I doubt Baker's presence on the ticket would persuade people from Tennessee or the Carolinas to vote for Nixon, if Nixon is using the same pro-civil rights language he used in 1960. (In 1960, Nixon even used the word "liberal" to describe his position on civil rights.)

Click to expand...

Fair enough. That said, I think Nixon on his own would be liberal enough to do well in the Northeast on his own. If he is going to win as the Richard Nixon of 1960, he needs someone to win him the South.

With Wallace winning at least eight states, Nixon has to challenge Humphrey in the northeast in order to get 270 Electoral votes. I think he picks a northeasterner. The most obvious choice is Rockefeller, if he'll do it. My memory is fuzzy on this, but I think the governor of Massachusetts at the time was John Volpe, and he was considered. Is William Scranton still governor of Pennsylvania at this point? Even if he's not, he's a former governor.

Click to expand...

Scranton was governor of Pennsylvania between 1963 and 1967. He certainly is a possibility. Rocky was then the sitting governor of New York and had been for nearly a decade.

Imperial advisors

I heard rumors the man from Yorba Linda offered a cabinet post to Senator Brooke. What if he accepted along with Whitney Young as viceroy on the black captalism idea? What would happen then, my follow experts?

Seandineen said:

I heard rumors the man from Yorba Linda offered a cabinet post to Senator Brooke. What if he accepted along with Whitney Young as viceroy on the black captalism idea? What would happen then, my follow experts?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that Young would have gone for that. He seems to have disagreed with Nixon over Vietnam, and likely other issues as well.

Michael E Johnson said:

A good one for MLK day.



From: AK47 (catsjnobrien@dogs.erols.com)
Subject: No Southern Strategy in 1968
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: soc.history.what-if
Date: 2004-01-18 11:43:15 PST


Suppose that in 1968, Richard Nixon, instead of pandering to the
neo-segregationists with his “Southern Strategy” as in OTL (“clear it
with Strom”), he had taken the position that Brown vs. Board of
Education and its progeny are now law, and that the Republican Party,
would support school integration and the entire civil-rights agenda.

Click to expand...

School integration already happened,almost twenty years before then. Opposed by the Democratic Governor of Arkansas,supported by the Republican President.Dont you think its a little unfair and biased to think "Southern Strategy" means nothing more than pro-segregration?

nunya said:

School integration already happened,almost twenty years before then. Opposed by the Democratic Governor of Arkansas,supported by the Republican President.Dont you think its a little unfair and biased to think "Southern Strategy" means nothing more than pro-segregration?

Click to expand...

Nunya,it was 14 years since "Brown", Intergration was not complete as the "Negro" High School in one Tennessee town graduated its last class in 1970. The Little Rock incident was only one of many, Ike would not have sent the 101st to LR if the Gov of Ark had not called out the NG to keep 7 teenagers out of Central High.

Humphrey would win, beacuse untill Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1968. The Denicrats always won the south, except of course when a southern third party emerged 1948, 1968. In 1928 for instance all the states Al Smith, a catholic New Yoker won were in the old South. Without Goldwater's Souther Strategy the Republicans can't win the south

1928: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1928-Large.png


1948:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1948-Large.png


1964:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1964-Large.png


1968:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:ElectoralCollege1968-Large.png

In '68 the Republicans actually win South Carolina something that would havebeen unimaginabe just 5 years before.

Wolf said:

Humphrey would win, beacuse untill Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Nixon in 1968. The Denicrats always won the south, except of course when a southern third party emerged 1948, 1968. In 1928 for instance all the states Al Smith, a catholic New Yoker won were in the old South. Without Goldwater's Souther Strategy the Republicans can't win the south

Click to expand...

Actually the primary reason for the South drifting away from the Democrats is that the Old Confederacy was basically conservative, and the Democratic Party was basically liberal. The Civil War and the New Deal obscured this reality (as did the conservative Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party) but Civil Rights pretty much finished off the weakening Democratic hold on the South.

Therefore Humphrey was certainly not assured of the South, especially given his own liberalness.

Electric Monk said:

Actually the primary reason for the South drifting away from the Democrats is that the Old Confederacy was basically conservative, and the Democratic Party was basically liberal. The Civil War and the New Deal obscured this reality (as did the conservative Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party) but Civil Rights pretty much finished off the weakening Democratic hold on the South.

Therefore Humphrey was certainly not assured of the South, especially given his own liberalness.

Click to expand...

Wow.You are one of the few people I have seen post on this subject here that gets what happened!

Michael E Johnson said:

Wow.You are one of the few people I have seen post on this subject here that gets what happened!

Click to expand...

Aw shucks, my blushes.

Thanks . I want to run political campaigns, so I consider knowing this stuff part of the job.