If Richard Nixon Beat Kennedy, would nixon get assasinated

[Mister Abbadon]

If Richard Nixon was successfully elected over Kennedy, would Nixon be assasinated, how would this effect kennedy's Carrer.
Can Kennedy run for president later on, maybe Win when Nixon would have won in OTL

[Cook]

Do you mean could A President Nixon be assassinated in 1963? Of course he could, every statesman of the twentieth century was a potential target to some degree.

If you mean would he have been driving in an open top convertible in Dallas sometime near November 22, 1963, don’t be silly.

[RogueBeaver]

No, butterflies would dictate otherwise re a Nixon assassination. Kennedy might pull a Nixon, but he'll be running as the "experience" not the "change" candidate. By 1968 JFK will be a three-termer, 51, and some of the lustre will have worn off.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

No, butterflies would dictate otherwise re a Nixon assassination. Kennedy might pull a Nixon, but he'll be running as the "experience" not the "change" candidate. By 1968 JFK will be a three-termer, 51, and some of the lustre will have worn off.

Perhaps. I guess the question to ask is if Oswald was already on the path to assassinating the President by 1960. I don't recall him having anything specific against Kennedy besides his Cuba policy (I think) and would Nixon's policy have been vastly different?

[Mister Abbadon]

Originally Posted by Georgepatton

Perhaps. I guess the question to ask is if Oswald was already on the path to assassinating the President by 1960. I don't recall him having anything specific against Kennedy besides his Cuba policy (I think) and would Nixon's policy have been vastly different?

well, back then both's policies toward communism was against it so I don't think it would be Vastly different or even remotley different

[RogueBeaver]

Oswald was a nut, Cuba was a minor factor. Nixon opposed an invasion of Cuba, saying that it would not work and just royally piss off the rest of Latin America.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Oswald was a nut, Cuba was a minor factor. Nixon opposed an invasion of Cuba, saying that it would not work and just royally piss off the rest of Latin America.

Well, then if Oswald was a nut, then maybe it doesn't matter who was President, merely that there was an anti-communist President, and Oswald's going to take a shot at him.

Now, if it did go down in spite of the changes, odds are it won't happen in Dallas on the OTL day, and so on, and its a fair point that things with Nixon probably wouldn't play into Oswald's hands so nicely.

[RogueBeaver]

IOTL Oswald did try to assassinate Nixon in the summer of '63, but his wife Marina locked him in the closet until he calmed down. Previously he'd taken a potshot at Gen. Edwin Walker and missed.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

IOTL Oswald did try to assassinate Nixon in the summer of '63, but his wife Marina locked him in the closet until he calmed down. Previously he'd taken a potshot at Gen. Edwin Walker and missed.

Were they attacks of opportunity, or did he try it deliberately, planning and so forth?

[RogueBeaver]

Both: they happened to be in Dallas, but Oswald didn't follow them around the state/country. The other two prominent assassins, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, did stalk their victims to the degree of a professional stalker. Oswald was a 'professional' unlike those two, being a qualified Marine sharpshooter. However Oswald didn't have a specific animus towards Kennedy per se.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Both: they happened to be in Dallas, but Oswald didn't follow them around the state/country. The other two prominent assassins, Sirhan Sirhan and James Earl Ray, did stalk their victims to the degree of a professional stalker. Oswald was a 'professional' unlike those two, being a qualified Marine sharpshooter. However Oswald didn't have a specific animus towards Kennedy per se.

So, if Nixon came into Oswald's field of opportunity as President, he could well have killed him, or at least tried? Hmm, interesting...

I suppose this means we have to consider President Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. then?

[RogueBeaver]

I'm not overly enthused by the prospect of a President Lodge- he would've been a horrible POTUS for a variety of reasons.

1) Hasn't won an election since 1946: 'Nuff said.

2) Incredibly lazy: IOTL he took noontime naps in the middle of a campaign tour.

3) Complete disinterest in domestic affairs: Lodge knew nothing about domestic affairs, and wasn't so great on foreign policy either. This was the man who thought assassinating Diem was a swell idea.

4) No base in the party: like Rocky, hemmed into New England and nowhere else.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

I'm not overly enthused by the prospect of a President Lodge- he would've been a horrible POTUS for a variety of reasons.

1) Hasn't won an election since 1946: 'Nuff said.

2) Incredibly lazy: IOTL he took noontime naps in the middle of a campaign tour.

3) Complete disinterest in domestic affairs: Lodge knew nothing about domestic affairs, and wasn't so great on foreign policy either. This was the man who thought assassinating Diem was a swell idea.

4) No base in the party: like Rocky, hemmed into New England and nowhere else.

I'm not in a position to comment on any of the above but would it be fair to say, barring something out of the ordinary, Lodge won't be winning re-election?

If so, who will the Democrats be running against him? I don't think it'll be Kennedy again, they learned that lesson with Stevenson. Or perhaps not, given how close it was.

[RogueBeaver]

I don't think Lodge would win even based on the sympathy factor: it would be an administration of old, non-political men (Nixon would retain most of Ike's cabinet) who've been in power since 1953. JFK might run against Lodge in '64 unless he's worried about the sympathy factor, and would probably (thankfully) beat Lodge. No non-incumbent Southerner can be nominated during that era, so forget LBJ. Symington is a Midwestern JFK clone, and Humphrey's too liberal.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

I don't think Lodge would win even based on the sympathy factor: it would be an administration of old, non-political men (Nixon would retain most of Ike's cabinet) who've been in power since 1953. JFK might run against Lodge in '64 unless he's worried about the sympathy factor, and would probably (thankfully) beat Lodge. No non-incumbent Southerner can be nominated during that era, so forget LBJ. Symington is a Midwestern JFK clone, and Humphrey's too liberal.

Alright, so two points:

First, what would this delayed Kennedy administration look like? Granted, its hard to say, given how we've skated over Nixon and Lodge, but is there anything we can say? And who'd he want for VP?

Second, suppose Kennedy is out for, I dunno, health reasons. Who's next?

[RogueBeaver]

Without posting a wall of citations, JFK's health is a non-issue. It would likely be Humphrey, Pat Brown or Symington. If you mean in terms of the dynasty, Bobby is next in line. With the plans that Jack had in mind in the case of a '60 loss IOTL, there's a strong chance of a POTUS RFK by 1976 or 1980. JFK's administration depends on what Nixon and Lodge do regarding civil rights: Vietnam strategy will remain the same as JFK's IOTL. JFK would pick Gov. Terry Sanford (D-NC) as his running mate if LBJ was unavailable.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Without posting a wall of citations, JFK's health is a non-issue. It would likely be Humphrey, Pat Brown or Symington. If you mean in terms of the dynasty, Bobby is next in line. With the plans that Jack had in mind in the case of a '60 loss IOTL, there's a strong chance of a POTUS RFK by 1976 or 1980.

I just picked health reasons off-hand. You know heart attack or stroke or car accident, stuff that could happen to anyone.

Also, what does all of this mean for Vietnam?

[RogueBeaver]

Nixon's strategy was the same as the Kennedy brothers IOTL: what would later be known as Vietnamization. Give them the equipment and the training, and that's it.

[Georgepatton]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Nixon's strategy was the same as the Kennedy brothers IOTL: what would later be known as Vietnamization. Give them the equipment and the training, and that's it.

So, assuming that Lodge doesn't change that, and Nixon sticks to the plan, and whoever gets in in 1964 does too, does that mean we get to skip Vietnam?

[RogueBeaver]

If they follow this strategy and keep Diem, yes, it's possible we skip Vietnam. Here's a lengthy discussion of Nixon in '60.