Similar to my Jimmy Carter thread in the '80s.

What if in an alternate reality, Hubert H. Humphrey won the 1968 Presidential election and was President until at least 1973 or also potentially 2 full terms until 1977.

How different would the '70s have looked with a President Humphrey?

Obviously, Watergate wouldn't have happened and Humphrey most likely wouldn't have opened relations with the People's Republic of China.

Also, US involvement in Vietnam would have probably ended in 1969-1970 instead of 1973. But what else?

BUMP.

We would have had a president named Hubert.  ;D

If Triple H is President from 69 to 73 you likely see Democratic losses in Congress (they might not LOSE Congress, but have lesser majorities) because of Democratic fatigue in the 1970 and 1972 elections. I'm not sure of HHH's environmental record - you might not see an EPA being developed, for example. Or, you might see some of the proposals the Democrats sent Nixon being signed off on. A lot of things Nixon did were to outdo his 1972 Democratic challengers' proposals. Humphrey and Nixon weren't that far apart politically (in the sense of where they stood - HHH was a middle of the road Democrat, Nixon a middle of the road Republican). But Nixon's focus was on foreign policy. He had no interest in domestic policy. You would probably see more Great Society-esque programs opening up under Humphrey, definitely more money going toward the anti-poverty programs, perhaps Humphrey might have been able to sign off on a guaranteed minimum income legislation. You MIGHT, I'm not sure, see some activism towards women and gay rights from Humphrey.

Basically, think LBJ-lite. Not as powerful, not as grand, similar domestic policies but on a much smaller scale. More of what Kennedy's second term would've looked like, basically.

If Triple H is President from 69 to 73 you likely see Democratic losses in Congress (they might not LOSE Congress, but have lesser majorities) because of Democratic fatigue in the 1970 and 1972 elections. I'm not sure of HHH's environmental record - you might not see an EPA being developed, for example. Or, you might see some of the proposals the Democrats sent Nixon being signed off on. A lot of things Nixon did were to outdo his 1972 Democratic challengers' proposals. Humphrey and Nixon weren't that far apart politically (in the sense of where they stood - HHH was a middle of the road Democrat, Nixon a middle of the road Republican). But Nixon's focus was on foreign policy. He had no interest in domestic policy. You would probably see more Great Society-esque programs opening up under Humphrey, definitely more money going toward the anti-poverty programs, perhaps Humphrey might have been able to sign off on a guaranteed minimum income legislation. You MIGHT, I'm not sure, see some activism towards women and gay rights from Humphrey.

Basically, think LBJ-lite. Not as powerful, not as grand, similar domestic policies but on a much smaller scale. More of what Kennedy's second term would've looked like, basically.

HHH was very much a liberal not "middle of the road". He had to keep himself tempered because of LBJ...that's all.

Also, he was more shy and soft spoken, so he was seen as being LBJ's lap dog and "The Happy Warrior".

HHH would have definitely founded the EPA or a similar/similar named agency.

Everything else you said like an expansion of the Great Society is true.

We would have had a president named Hubert.  ;D

True :P.

But we've had Presidents named Ulysses, Chester, Woodrow, Herbert & Lyndon :P

HHH was very much a liberal not "middle of the road". He had to keep himself tempered because of LBJ...that's all.

Also, he was more shy and soft spoken, so he was seen as being LBJ's lap dog and "The Happy Warrior".

HHH would have definitely founded the EPA or a similar/similar named agency.

Everything else you said like an expansion of the Great Society is true.


True, but I don't know how passionately liberal was in the way LBJ was, you dig? LBJ had the fire, passion and sense of command to get what he wanted. I don't know that HHH had that same personal strength or fire inside him; few presidents have. I just see his Presidency as sort of like, if LBJ was FDR, he would be Truman. I think you definitely, with no doubt, see further moves on civil rights, more anti-poverty legislation or at least, the current anti-poverty programs get bigger budgets, more stuff like PBS and such. But Vietnam would've hamstrung a lot of his efforts on the domestic front and the Republican minority in Congress might not have been as obedient to him as they were to Johnson. Johnson lucked out in that Dirksen was very willing to work with him, just as LBJ had been the steward of Eisenhower's domestic vision when he was Speaker of the House - but would that similar subservience have been given to HHH or might things have gotten more partisan?

Also, while I don't see him enlarging Vietnam the way Nixon did, I also think he would have a hard time, politically, ending it before 1971. Promising to pull all the troops home is one thing; actually doing it is another. Not because he wouldn't have really wanted to, but because of the political reality. There would have been a LOT of push back, both in Congress and among your average citizen, against a unilateral withdrawal in 1969 or even 1970.

True, but I don't know how passionately liberal was in the way LBJ was, you dig? LBJ had the fire, passion and sense of command to get what he wanted. I don't know that HHH had that same personal strength or fire inside him; few presidents have. I just see his Presidency as sort of like, if LBJ was FDR, he would be Truman. I think you definitely, with no doubt, see further moves on civil rights, more anti-poverty legislation or at least, the current anti-poverty programs get bigger budgets, more stuff like PBS and such. But Vietnam would've hamstrung a lot of his efforts on the domestic front and the Republican minority in Congress might not have been as obedient to him as they were to Johnson. Johnson lucked out in that Dirksen was very willing to work with him, just as LBJ had been the steward of Eisenhower's domestic vision when he was Speaker of the House - but would that similar subservience have been given to HHH or might things have gotten more partisan?

Also, while I don't see him enlarging Vietnam the way Nixon did, I also think he would have a hard time, politically, ending it before 1971. Promising to pull all the troops home is one thing; actually doing it is another. Not because he wouldn't have really wanted to, but because of the political reality. There would have been a LOT of push back, both in Congress and among your average citizen, against a unilateral withdrawal in 1969 or even 1970.

Are you forgetting that HHH in 1948 boldly spoke in front of the DNC and asked the party leaders to adopt civil rights? That led to many Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond storming out of the convention and forming the States Rights Party (aka the Dixiecrats).

HHH could hold his own weight but he was just a bit too nice and honest for DC politics. He couldn't (and I think shouldn't) be able to pull off a Nixon to China type event but he certainly could have ended the Vietnam War sooner. Remember it was Nixon's dirty dealings why the war was prolonged in the first place.

Also, HHH was more liberal than LBJ. He just didn't have the height and attitude/personality that LBJ had.

Are you forgetting that HHH in 1948 boldly spoke in front of the DNC and asked the party leaders to adopt civil rights? That led to many Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond storming out of the convention and forming the States Rights Party (aka the Dixiecrats).

HHH could hold his own weight but he was just a bit too nice and honest for DC politics. He couldn't (and I think shouldn't) be able to pull off a Nixon to China type event but he certainly could have ended the Vietnam War sooner. Remember it was Nixon's dirty dealings why the war was prolonged in the first place.

Also, HHH was more liberal than LBJ. He just didn't have the height and attitude/personality that LBJ had.


It's just hard for me to see him as more than a background figure to be honest. He really let LBJ overshadow him and I know his record but I just can't see him as a President, as a leader, as an alpha male so to speak. I feel like he lost of his guts during the LBJ years. My perception isn't reality, obviously, but perception is a powerful thing and I think he allowed that perception to rule him in 1968. He was walking a weird tightrope of loyalty to LBJ and trying to push his own identity on the masses. But where I can see differences between say, Eisenhower and Nixon as President and Vice President, HHH has always struck me as just a behind the scenes type of loyal party guy. Not a forceful personality. The last President we elected who lacked that personal forcefulness was Carter.

Personally, more than any other alternative scenario, I prefer the idea of Johnson staying in the race in 1968 and winning.

It's just hard for me to see him as more than a background figure to be honest. He really let LBJ overshadow him and I know his record but I just can't see him as a President, as a leader, as an alpha male so to speak. I feel like he lost of his guts during the LBJ years. My perception isn't reality, obviously, but perception is a powerful thing and I think he allowed that perception to rule him in 1968. He was walking a weird tightrope of loyalty to LBJ and trying to push his own identity on the masses. But where I can see differences between say, Eisenhower and Nixon as President and Vice President, HHH has always struck me as just a behind the scenes type of loyal party guy. Not a forceful personality. The last President we elected who lacked that personal forcefulness was Carter.
Well, yes...that's what I was telling you for the past few posts.


Personally, more than any other alternative scenario, I prefer the idea of Johnson staying in the race in 1968 and winning.

He would have lost badly to Nixon.

Robert Kennedy should have been the Democratic nominee in my opinion but of course we all know what happened.

Eugene McCarthy would have lost similar like McGovern in 1972. HHH was the only option left and he was a decent candidate, he just didn't have the feisty personality of LBJ and the braggadocio of Nixon.

Well, yes...that's what I was telling you for the past few posts.
He would have lost badly to Nixon.

Robert Kennedy should have been the Democratic nominee in my opinion but of course we all know what happened.

Eugene McCarthy would have lost similar to McGovern in 1972. HHH was the only option left and he was a decent candidate, he just didn't have the feisty personality of LBJ and the braggadocio of Nixon.


I agree.

Also Nixon really did a great job of selling himself in 68 didn't he? "The New Nixon", supposedly more mature, less petty, like a young elder statesmen - the sane alternative in an insane year - right in the middle - not a "liberal peacenik" and not a southern segregationist. I actually think Nixon was a good if troubled man at heart but his worst tendencies came out due to the stress of Vietnam and I believe that he, Kissinger, Haldeman and Ehrlichman all fed off each other in a very toxic sort of way which brought out all of their worst traits. I think if he had been elected in 1960 he wouldn't have been the same Nixon - not as devious or as hateful of the media.

I agree.

Also Nixon really did a great job of selling himself in 68 didn't he? "The New Nixon", supposedly more mature, less petty, like a young elder statesmen - the sane alternative in an insane year - right in the middle - not a "liberal peacenik" and not a southern segregationist. I actually think Nixon was a good if troubled man at heart but his worst tendencies came out due to the stress of Vietnam and I believe that he, Kissinger, Haldeman and Ehrlichman all fed off each other in a very toxic sort of way which brought out all of their worst traits. I think if he had been elected in 1960 he wouldn't have been the same Nixon - not as devious or as hateful of the media.

Yeah, I actually agree.

Losing the 1960 Presidential election to JFK and the 1962 California gubernatorial election to Pat Brown changed Nixon. He didn't want to lose in 1968...AT ALL COSTS.

Yeah, I actually agree.

Losing the 1960 Presidential election to JFK and the 1962 California gubernatorial election to Pat Brown changed Nixon. He didn't want to lose in 1968...AT ALL COSTS.


Yup. And I do believe the '60 election was stolen. You probably had Daley's people in Chicago and LBJ's people in Texas stuffing the ballots. And yes, I've read Nixon felt betrayed in 1962  - JFK coming out and endorsing Brown felt like a stab in the back. They really did seem to be close friends prior to 1960 and I honestly think Nixon took the beating in 1960 as a personal betrayal by a friend.

And the people he surrounded himself with in the late 60s/early 70s - Pat Buchanan, Haldeman, Kissinger - are a toxic bunch by themselves. Nixon seemed to be someone who just wanted to be accepted by people and I think having these sorts of toxic types just helped his existing paranoia and hatreds grow. I mean Pat Buchanan by himself is a trainwreck. In 1960 these people weren't in his orbit.

It's a very sad what could've been. LBJ and Nixon to me are very similar - both distinguished public servants who, due to insecurities, destroyed themselves. They're very much American tragedies. LBJ comes out of it a little cleaner thanks to the Great Society. I'd have to think, statistically, that the programs of the Great Society did more good on the whole than Vietnam did bad. Hopefully as the Baby Boomer generation dies off, he's remembered more for his heroic efforts on Civil Rights and less for Vietnam. Truman isn't hated for the 30,000 dead boys in Korea. In my honest ranking, LBJ is probably the second or third best President of the 20th century, and definitely within the Top 10 overall.

Kennedy is I feel very overrated. If he had lived, I think civil rights would've been set back at least 4-8 years. The bill he was trying to get through Congress in 1963 was very weak compared to the one LBJ rammed through in 1964. Kennedy didn't seem to grasp why blacks found civil rights so important - a true child of privilege, I think Kennedy accepted the way things were as a normal status quo. Whereas Johnson grew up relatively middle class and seemed to have an interest in helping people of color going back to his days as a teacher in rural Texas, educating poor Mexican students. Kennedy never truly understood the racial divide or why civil rights went beyond politics; in a way, only a Southerner as President could.

Yup. And I do believe the '60 election was stolen. You probably had Daley's people in Chicago and LBJ's people in Texas stuffing the ballots. And yes, I've read Nixon felt betrayed in 1962  - JFK coming out and endorsing Brown felt like a stab in the back. They really did seem to be close friends prior to 1960 and I honestly think Nixon took the beating in 1960 as a personal betrayal by a friend.
I don't believe that the 1960 election was stolen as there is no SOLID evidence to prove that it was. However, the rest of your statement I agree with.


And the people he surrounded himself with in the late 60s/early 70s - Pat Buchanan, Haldeman, Kissinger - are a toxic bunch by themselves. Nixon seemed to be someone who just wanted to be accepted by people and I think having these sorts of toxic types just helped his existing paranoia and hatreds grow. I mean Pat Buchanan by himself is a trainwreck. In 1960 these people weren't in his orbit.

It's a very sad what could've been. LBJ and Nixon to me are very similar - both distinguished public servants who, due to insecurities, destroyed themselves. They're very much American tragedies. LBJ comes out of it a little cleaner thanks to the Great Society. I'd have to think, statistically, that the programs of the Great Society did more good on the whole than Vietnam did bad. Hopefully as the Baby Boomer generation dies off, he's remembered more for his heroic efforts on Civil Rights and less for Vietnam. Truman isn't hated for the 30,000 dead boys in Korea. In my honest ranking, LBJ is probably the second or third best President of the 20th century, and definitely within the Top 10 overall.

I agree with you 100% here.


Kennedy is I feel very overrated. If he had lived, I think civil rights would've been set back at least 4-8 years. The bill he was trying to get through Congress in 1963 was very weak compared to the one LBJ rammed through in 1964. Kennedy didn't seem to grasp why blacks found civil rights so important - a true child of privilege, I think Kennedy accepted the way things were as a normal status quo. Whereas Johnson grew up relatively middle class and seemed to have an interest in helping people of color going back to his days as a teacher in rural Texas, educating poor Mexican students. Kennedy never truly understood the racial divide or why civil rights went beyond politics; in a way, only a Southerner as President could.

I agree with you on Johnson.

However, I only halfway agree with you on Kennedy. Yes, originally, JFK was indifferent on the issue of civil rights and a major fact in that was his privileged upbringing. However, as he saw many events unfold like the murder of the 3 Freedom Riders in Mississippi in 1961 and the Birmingham Church bombing in 1963, he changed his indifference towards support and action.

He forced the desegregation of Ole Miss and the University of Alabama. He also was influenced by Robert Kennedy to finally create the Civil Rights Act and when he made that speech which was written by Robert, multiple times he added HIS OWN statements/interjections and that showed that he knew what he was doing was right and it was the right time for it.

Of course, he most likely couldn't have gotten it passed if he lived but Kennedy wasn't indifferent anymore towards civil rights for African-Americans.

I don't believe that the 1960 election was stolen as there is no SOLID evidence to prove that it was. However, the rest of your statement I agree with.
I agree with you 100% here.
I agree with you on Johnson.

However, I only halfway agree with you on Kennedy. Yes, originally, JFK was indifferent on the issue of civil rights and a major fact in that was his privileged upbringing. However, as he saw many events unfold like the murder of the 3 Freedom Riders in Mississippi in 1961 and the Birmingham Church bombing in 1963, he changed his indifference towards support and action.

He forced the desegregation of Ole Miss and the University of Alabama. He also was influenced by Robert Kennedy to finally create the Civil Rights Act and when he made that speech which was written by Robert, multiple times he added HIS OWN statements/interjections and that showed that he knew what he was doing was right and it was the right time for it.

Of course, he most likely couldn't have gotten it passed if he lived but Kennedy wasn't indifferent anymore towards civil rights for African-Americans.


Johnson, for all his braggadocio and bravado I think was actually a very sensitive man, very introspective, beneath his self-confident and crude veneer. I have read biographies of him and it seems he struggled with his own masculinity. His father was a typical American male who expected his boy to be a MAN whereas his mother wanted her son to take an interest in poetry and classical education and in those days, you know, that was what sissies were into to use the words of that time. I think Johnson struggled internally with being the man his father wanted versus the man his mother felt he could be. I don't think Kennedy ever had such internal struggle; if he did he kept it very deeply buried. It's a sad case of a man trapped in mid century America's expectations of what a man "should" be.

I do agree he would've liked to have done more. I'm not saying he was callous or cold to it. But even in 1963 I don't think it was agenda number one for him. It would be a nice bonus if he could settle the civil rights issue in a just and fair way - but Kennedy was a pragmatist. If he couldn't win that battle, there were more important things to attend to any way. I do think he began to feel on a personal level that the situation of African Americans was a moral wrong - but it's hard to beat back 46 years of your previous beliefs for one, and second, Kennedy was smart enough to recognize the political realities, which were that he was having problems getting Congress to pass even more "acceptable" legislation like many of his New Frontier programs - he did not have the personal touch with Congress that LBJ did; he was not a Southerner, so there was no way he could even begin to talk to Richard Russel and sway him on this issue for example.

Kennedy to me is an interesting person because, as warm as he appeared on the outside, internally he was a cold pragmatist. He spoke of wanting the US to go to the moon as a triumph for our country - but privately bemoaned how much it would cost and was speaking privately to the Soviets of doing a joint mission to the Moon instead. He was driven by his mind and less by his gut whereas with LBJ it was the reverse.

Which leads me to a controversial thought. LBJ proceeded at a very rapid pace with Civil Rights - the 1964 Act, which was massive; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another massive leap - and then the 1968 Fair Housing Act, another leap. In the long run, may a slower, more measured, less feverish pace on these matters have led to greater harmony between the races? By poll, white America felt something should be done on civil rights in 1963 - but was the pace and scope of Johnson's legislation too much for white America of that era? In response to violence by whites you had groups like the Black Panthers blossoming - which only strained relations further.

It's a hard question because, obviously, I believe in equality. But you can't abolish 400 years of hatred and injustice with three strokes of a pen in the 1960s. LBJ enforced laws, but those laws don't change hearts and minds on either side, or generations-long attitudes or fears or prejudices. The White Man was not going to stop thinking the Black Man inferior simply because Lyndon Johnson told him to, and the Black Man was not going to stop hating, fearing, and resenting the White Man because Lyndon Johnson signed some laws. They were paper. They didn't erase the past, or erase the present day ghetto.

A part of me feels that much of Johnson's domestic policies, even beyond civil rights, while needed, was too much at one time - like having too many portions in one meal.

Look at the current divide between the races. It doesn't seem like the Civil Rights Acts helped much in that regard. They made life easier for Black Americans but did they change hearts and minds?

Johnson, for all his braggadocio and bravado I think was actually a very sensitive man, very introspective, beneath his self-confident and crude veneer. I have read biographies of him and it seems he struggled with his own masculinity. His father was a typical American male who expected his boy to be a MAN whereas his mother wanted her son to take an interest in poetry and classical education and in those days, you know, that was what sissies were into to use the words of that time. I think Johnson struggled internally with being the man his father wanted versus the man his mother felt he could be. I don't think Kennedy ever had such internal struggle; if he did he kept it very deeply buried. It's a sad case of a man trapped in mid century America's expectations of what a man "should" be.

I do agree he would've liked to have done more. I'm not saying he was callous or cold to it. But even in 1963 I don't think it was agenda number one for him. It would be a nice bonus if he could settle the civil rights issue in a just and fair way - but Kennedy was a pragmatist. If he couldn't win that battle, there were more important things to attend to any way. I do think he began to feel on a personal level that the situation of African Americans was a moral wrong - but it's hard to beat back 46 years of your previous beliefs for one, and second, Kennedy was smart enough to recognize the political realities, which were that he was having problems getting Congress to pass even more "acceptable" legislation like many of his New Frontier programs - he did not have the personal touch with Congress that LBJ did; he was not a Southerner, so there was no way he could even begin to talk to Richard Russel and sway him on this issue for example.

Kennedy to me is an interesting person because, as warm as he appeared on the outside, internally he was a cold pragmatist. He spoke of wanting the US to go to the moon as a triumph for our country - but privately bemoaned how much it would cost and was speaking privately to the Soviets of doing a joint mission to the Moon instead. He was driven by his mind and less by his gut whereas with LBJ it was the reverse.

Which leads me to a controversial thought. LBJ proceeded at a very rapid pace with Civil Rights - the 1964 Act, which was massive; the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another massive leap - and then the 1968 Fair Housing Act, another leap. In the long run, may a slower, more measured, less feverish pace on these matters have led to greater harmony between the races? By poll, white America felt something should be done on civil rights in 1963 - but was the pace and scope of Johnson's legislation too much for white America of that era? In response to violence by whites you had groups like the Black Panthers blossoming - which only strained relations further.

It's a hard question because, obviously, I believe in equality. But you can't abolish 400 years of hatred and injustice with three strokes of a pen in the 1960s. LBJ enforced laws, but those laws don't change hearts and minds on either side, or generations-long attitudes or fears or prejudices. The White Man was not going to stop thinking the Black Man inferior simply because Lyndon Johnson told him to, and the Black Man was not going to stop hating, fearing, and resenting the White Man because Lyndon Johnson signed some laws. They were paper. They didn't erase the past, or erase the present day ghetto.

A part of me feels that much of Johnson's domestic policies, even beyond civil rights, while needed, was too much at one time - like having too many portions in one meal.

Look at the current divide between the races. It doesn't seem like the Civil Rights Acts helped much in that regard. They made life easier for Black Americans but did they change hearts and minds?

Well...all of that is a discussion for a different topic lol.

Remember this thread was about a potential President Humphrey ;D.