Televised Presidential Debates in 1964, 1968 and 1972 -- Any Election Changes?

[Super_Cool]

Even though the first televised presidential debate was in 1960 (Nixon vs. Kennedy), the subsequent three elections did not have any. We would have to wait until 1976 to get another. Considering how two of those elections (1964 and 1972) were landslides, I'm curious if things would have been more even.

If there were televised debates, would any of the elections have gone differently?

 

[arrowiv]

I definitely would have loved to see McGovern go after Nixon on Watergate on any televised debate! Who knows?....

 

[Paul V McNutt]

interesting question, I don't think it does not change 1964 or 1972. The challengers views were too unpopular. I can see the very close election of 1968 going the other way. Humphrey was a better debater than Nixon and he would have forced Nixon to get specific about Vietnam.

 

[MatthewFirth]

64 and 68' unchanged. 72, Humphrey wins because of better debate and Nixon's problems over Vietnam.

 

[David T]

64 and 68' unchanged. 72, Humphrey wins because of better debate and Nixon's problems over Vietnam.

Humphrey wasn't nominated in 1972...

 

[Emperor Norton I]

There's an argument to be made that Goldwater could do better somewhat, since his views would not be able to be stereotyped. LBJ wasn't the best public speaker either. Then again, you can also argue he happily tapped into the people who would vote for him, who were not the best, most civil and reasonable bunch (think Tea-partiers), thus turning off voters.

 

[vultan]

There's an argument to be made that Goldwater could do better somewhat, since his views would not be able to be stereotyped. LBJ wasn't the best public speaker either. Then again, you can also argue he happily tapped into the people who would vote for him, who were not the best, most civil and reasonable bunch (think Tea-partiers), thus turning off voters.

Based on pure public-speaking skills, Goldwater was probably somewhat more charismatic and a better orator than Johnson. However, one gaffe and it's all over.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Based on pure public-speaking skills, Goldwater was probably somewhat more charismatic and a better orator than Johnson. However, one gaffe and it's all over.

There will be multiple gaffes, and as I said, you can make the argument that Goldwater wasn't really as pure minded in 1964 as the popular thought goes, and was willing to appeal to the kinds of people who ended up supporting him and voting for him in 1964. As the 1964 convention can attest to, it was a kind of feral political mob with vitriolic statements and thought; the kind that would boo Nelson Rockefeller, thought Kennedy was a Marxist and applauded his murder, and follow the John Birch Society newsletter. Even if you believe he is pure minded and was undone by his straight moral purity and lack of politician hot-air, he then runs into the chance of turning off those people who are his base.

 

[Plumber]

Both Goldwater and Johnson committed terrible gaffes in 1964, so who knows who ends up better? Goldwater's gaffes probably get more coverage like OTL, but a strong performance might balance it out. The difference won't be much.

1968 was so close and I'm really more interested in how Wallace does in the debates. Anything could happen.

I can't see how 1972 doesn't help McGovern by one to three points or so.

 

[JSmith]

Even though the first televised presidential debate was in 1960 (Nixon vs. Kennedy), the subsequent three elections did not have any.

What was the reason for this OTL ? One imagines it one or both of the parties objecting to debates ?

 

[Paul V McNutt]

What was the reason for this OTL ? One imagines it one or both of the parties objecting to debates ?

Exactly each time it was one party: 1964 Johnson, 1968 and 1972 Nixon.

 

[Shadowlord]

Wouldn't have any impact on '64 or '72.

Could possibly change '68, given how close it was. A good performance by Humphrey might help him win battlegrounds he narrowly lost in OTL. Also, a good performance by Wallace might pull some votes from Nixon. A three way debate between Humphrey, Nixon, and Wallace would be interesting, at least.

 

[Tammany Tiger]

Exactly each time it was one party: 1964 Johnson, 1968 and 1972 Nixon.

Two books I recently read, Days of Fire (Bush/Cheney administration) and Double Down (2012 campaign), both made the point that the incumbent tends to lose the first debate because he's too busy running the country to practice as much as the challenger. For Johnson in 1964 and Nixon in 1972 the downside of debating greatly outweighed the upside, even if the races were closer.

As for Nixon, those who've read The Selling of the President know that he ran a totally scripted campaign, and had a substantial lead coming out of the conventions. The downside of him debating Humphrey outweighed the upside.

 

[UncleDynamite]

In spite of his crypt-keeper image, Goldwater was very charismatic and certainly a better orator than Johnson.

However, he was still Barry Goldwater- a conviction politician. He was who he was, nakedly and without pretension or condescension, and had to be accepted or rejected en bloc, more like Coolidge or Thatcher than any post-New Deal President. And who he was was somebody who was unpopular during the high-water mark of postwar liberalism. To make Barry Goldwater POTUS requires a POD early enough that a man like Barry Goldwater can get elected in the first place.

If Johnson agrees to debate Goldwater, Goldwater would do quite a bit better overall, probably have some pickups in the Mountain West, Great Plains, and Outer South, and '64 would not be remember as a major trouncing, though it wouldn't be close.

Interesting effect: The Deep South went for Goldwater as a protest vote, as he voted against the CRA. If he clarifies his position better in the debates(he was in favor of integration, he just wasn't in favor of the federal government doing it, especially not to private businesses) he'd probably do as badly as Johnson in the Deep South, which would go to a Southern protest candidate, most likely everyone's favorite piece of human garbage, George Wallace. Meanwhile, in relatively close VA+FL, Goldwater could pick them up in the 3-way race.

 

[Plumber]

In spite of his crypt-keeper image, Goldwater was very charismatic and certainly a better orator than Johnson.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. Johnson was better at speaking extemporaneously than he was with prepared remarks, so he'd do better in a debate than you think. If Johnson really gets his groove on, he could crush Goldwater. But it's more likely he slips up and just does okay.

Interesting effect: The Deep South went for Goldwater as a protest vote, as he voted against the CRA. If he clarifies his position better in the debates(he was in favor of integration, he just wasn't in favor of the federal government doing it, especially not to private businesses)

This is not plausible. Goldwater knew exactly what he was doing when he voted the segregationist line.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

A 1964 debate brings more attention to Goldwater's unpopular views.

 

[JVM]

McGovern wins handily against Nixon, as he's a very charismatic speaker compared to the President, and more importantly, it completely changes the dynamic of Nixon's campaign. Nixon told different crowds completely different things and distorted McGovern's record, and he has a big chance to call Nixon on all of his "dirty tricks" and lies. It'll almost certainly be a win for the McGovern campaign. It can't propel him to victory post-Eagleton, but it can boost him in the popular vote and maybe win back a state or two.