Just a random thought, prompted by recent U.S. History subst work focusing on the 1968 election: What would've had to change, even if at the ASB level, for LBJ to decide to run and (perhaps even more ASB) win in '68?
First thoughts: No "slow escalation", or he adopts his own form of "Vietnamization" well ahead of Nixon, thus reducing/keeping U.S. involvement low through the campaign?
Or: Johnson actually holds to a "limited and fitting response" (whatever that might be) to Tonkin, thus keeping his promise of "no wider war" (or at least one that doesn't become so prominent in the media and therefore boosting the unpopular/unwinnable perceptions of the conflict)?
Absent these: Doubt the Tet Offensive or a similar event can be butterflied, if LBJ largely sticks to his OTL stances, but willing to be proven wrong. Since he was primarily focused on the Great Society and other domestic programs, perhaps more aggressive/visible reform and effort in these areas, esp. Civil Rights, gives him enough popularity to decide to run (although winning might be another story)?
First thoughts: No "slow escalation", or he adopts his own form of "Vietnamization" well ahead of Nixon, thus reducing/keeping U.S. involvement low through the campaign?
Or: Johnson actually holds to a "limited and fitting response" (whatever that might be) to Tonkin, thus keeping his promise of "no wider war" (or at least one that doesn't become so prominent in the media and therefore boosting the unpopular/unwinnable perceptions of the conflict)?
Absent these: Doubt the Tet Offensive or a similar event can be butterflied, if LBJ largely sticks to his OTL stances, but willing to be proven wrong. Since he was primarily focused on the Great Society and other domestic programs, perhaps more aggressive/visible reform and effort in these areas, esp. Civil Rights, gives him enough popularity to decide to run (although winning might be another story)?
Last edited: