Richard Nixon and Ruth Buzzi. Thank you for that mental picture. :eek:
Who would be on top?
Ruth. All Nixon could do is screw up.
It would be a disaster. Nixon would be so distracted by that damn toilet running he’d never get any sleep, and he’d be even more iritable than normal, and so he’d nuke Russia or something.
More seriously, here’s the 1960 Republican Party Platform
The big thing that’s going to limit our fictional Nixon administration in 1960 is that both houses of Congress are in Democratic hands, which is of course something that limited the actual Nixon administration.
Thanks Cap’n but I went a little off track towards the end.
From CA’s link to the 1960 GOP platform.
:eek:
:eek: :eek:
Hey, it worked for me. Precious little of what alternate history I can find is actually close enough to my own experience for me to relate to it, and this is a welcome exception. AH is not a very popular genre nowadays, as far as I can tell, Harry Turtledove notwithstanding.
He’d probably go down on her.
Only Nixon could go to vagina.
Wrong. Nixon played hard, even dirty, in every election he ever participated in. In our alternative universe, win big or win small, Nixon would have wanted to make sure his reelection in 1964 would be huge.
Sure he would. Republicans believed in the Domino Theory as much if not more than Democrats. And Nixon, who clearly remembered the “Who lost China?” debates of the late 1940s, would never want to be tagged with “Who lost Vietnam?”
Believe it or not, Nixon was generally considered friendly to the civil rights movement, but there’s no way he would have pushed for legislation the way LBJ did. Even if he did, LBJ had arm-twisting clout with the Southern Democrats that Nixon never did.
In our alternative universe, who do the Democrats run against Nixon in 1964? Kennedy has already lost. Johnson is still Senate majority leader and seen as the guy who couldn’t get the nomination in 1960. Adlai Stevenson is a footnote in history. Hubert Humphrey had already been blown out by JFK in the 1960 campaign. Robert Kennedy is still an obscure Senate counsel. Who in the Democratic Party is there to take on a sitting president?
NO, it’s because 5 time champ made just one small, believable change that could have believably altered the outcome. In your 1812 thread, you altered pretty much everything, all to favour a particular outcome, in a not beleivable way.
Kennedy can still run; note that many Presidential losers have run again, and a couple have done so successfully (Cleveland, Jackson). Strom Thurmond might, since he ran in our history. George Wallace might, since he ran in our history. Actually, I have a hard time believing that the Democrats would run openly racist candidates during the middle of the Civil Rights era; Stuart Symington, who ran for President in 1960, and instead was reelected to the Senate, might be a viable Presidential candidate in 1964, perhaps with one of the two I mentioned before to draw the Southern Racist Democrat vote.
What would this do to the Southern Strategy[sup]tm[/sup]?
Potato, potato. Wait, that doesn’t work in writing. You know what I mean. Seriously, that was what I meant. My lack of connection with that era prevented me from working out the likely results of my change very well, and my desire for that outcome virtually eliminated any chance for realism I had.
Nightmare fuel!
Depending on how much the election results in other races change in this timeline, Gov. Pat Brown of California, former Gov. G. Mennen Williams of Michigan, former Gov. Robert Meyner of New Jersey, and quite a few other Governors and Senators are plausible candidates.
Yeah, I was thinking Pat Brown, but thought that since Nixon won the race in '62, there wouldn’t have been anyone much there. Silly me, I forgot.
The only person who had a chance was Pat Paulson.
God, I feel old.
Harold Stassen could have taken on the president in a primary challenge.