1964 Election in a Kennedy Lives World

vultan

Exactly what it says on the tin. If JFK survives his assassination attempt, how does the next presidential election go?
Would the rumors of LBJ being dropped from the ticket turn out to be true? If so, who would replace him? George Smathers (most likely)? Someone else?
Who would be the Republican nominee? Would Goldwater still get the nod? How about Rockefeller? Maybe even Nixon? Someone else?
How would the GOP ticket look on both ends assuming one of the aforementioned is nominated?
And finally, how would the campaign play off? Does Kennedy win?
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

  • LBJ remains. Kennedy needs the South locked in in a way only LBJ can.
  • Goldwater gets nomination. Rockefeller had the divorce.
  • GOP VP candidate could be different. Miller was only there to bug LBJ.
  • JFK wins. You have a Liberal during the era of the Liberal consensus with approval numbers over 60% going up against a Conservative.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

vultan said:
But couldn't Smathers get the South just as well? He was segregationist after all.
Click to expand...

Not as much of it. LBJ was more established, more of a powerhouse, and could get Texas when that state was already starting to turn Republican as more and more Texans moved to the cities and became white collar. And really, there was no reason to drop LBJ. Roguebeaver can correct me here, but if I recall, they were cordial with one another by at least this point, and there was no reason to rock the boat.
 
Plumber

Plumber

Nah, the Sanford thing wasn't serious.

Atl. '64 elections are rather boring IMO. Not very different at all.
 

Glass Onion

Emperor Norton I said:
  • LBJ remains. Kennedy needs the South locked in in a way only LBJ can.
  • Goldwater gets nomination. Rockefeller had the divorce.
  • GOP VP candidate could be different. Miller was only there to bug LBJ.
Click to expand...

On the first point, I agree that Johnson wouldn't be dropped from the ticket. Sitting Vice Presidents very rarely are. But I'm always suspicious of the influence a Vice President, or a Vice Presidential candidate, can have on an election. Maybe the Southern circumstances and the power of his personality make LBJ a special case, but generally speaking, people don't vote for the bottom of the ticket. Also, for a given value of "The South", even with LBJ the South probably isn't locked. The Deep South had the few states Goldwater won. And, presuming the CRA still happens on schedule, I think Goldwater would still win those states, which would mean the south isn't locked. Of course Kennedy isn't going to know that outcome going in. But basically, Kennedy has nothing to gain from losing Johnson. Dumping the Vice President would probably just cause all kinds of problems in the party. Kennedy isn't going to risk creating needless dissent within the party like that. Or at least, he doesn't strike me as that foolish.

The second part is probably right if Rockefeller does everything he did historically.

It'd be interesting to see who Goldwater would pick as his running mate. Although that role's a footnote anyway.
 
RogueBeaver

RogueBeaver

What Norton said. JFK in '64 is like Clinton in '96: coasting to victory on his own popularity, peace and prosperity.

On JFK-LBJ relations: They were usually quite good, but there was a good cop/bad cop thing going on vis-a-vis LBJ between the brothers.

Rocky's divorce was in June '63, BTW, so he'll still lose the nomination.
 
Last edited:

Marky Bunny

I agree with everything said. Kennedy would not drop LBJ. I think Goldwater picks someone from a Swing state. Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes would be a decent pick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rhodes
Goldwater would do better than he did in OTL, but still goes down to heavy defeat. Don't forget that Kennedy liked and respected Goldwater as a person, but disagreed with him on policy, which was different from LBJ, so the campaign is less personnal and vicious against Goldwater. (No scare adverts).
 

Wendell

Kennedy likely tries to push addressing civil rights until the second term.

Goldwater still loses, but does considerably better, especially in Western states. John Sherman Cooper is his running mate. Johnson delivers less of the South than Kennedy expets; JFK's numbers were dropping before Dallas if memory serves.

Also, the campaign is very cordial and the "Goldwater-Kennedy debates" go down in history for their cordiality, and become the basis for subsequent presidential races.
 
RogueBeaver

RogueBeaver

Wendell said:
Kennedy likely tries to push addressing civil rights until the second term.

Goldwater still loses, but does considerably better, especially in Western states. John Sherman Cooper is his running mate. Johnson delivers less of the South than Kennedy expets; JFK's numbers were dropping before Dallas if memory serves.

Also, the campaign is very cordial and the "Goldwater-Kennedy debates" go down in history for their cordiality, and become the basis for subsequent presidential races.
Click to expand...

Texas will still go Democratic, but the Deep South goes GOP as per OTL. JFK's final approvals were between 59-62% IIRC, which is Clintonian.
 

Cathcon1

My dream scenario is Rockefeller or someone getting the 1964 nod, leaving 1968 to Barry Goldwater. However, given Rocky's divorce, I guess I'd have to agree with the above posters.

Interstingly, according to Pat Buchanan's "Right from the Beginning", Conservatives were originally building momentum until the Cuban Missile Crisis. From his side of the aisle, with the failure in the Bay of Pigs, Conservatives were getting revved up for '64. Not sure if the Cuban Missile Crisis comes into the equation, but after JFK's death, that was pretty much a lost cause in 1964.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

Cathcon1 said:
My dream scenario is Rockefeller or someone getting the 1964 nod, leaving 1968 to Barry Goldwater. However, given Rocky's divorce, I guess I'd have to agree with the above posters.
Click to expand...

I think there's a timeline somewhere on the forum where that happens.

Interstingly, according to Pat Buchanan's "Right from the Beginning", Conservatives were originally building momentum until the Cuban Missile Crisis. From his side of the aisle, with the failure in the Bay of Pigs, Conservatives were getting revved up for '64. Not sure if the Cuban Missile Crisis comes into the equation, but after JFK's death, that was pretty much a lost cause in 1964.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how much I trust Pat Buchanan here (and I don't know how much I trust Pat Buchanan anywhere). From what I know, Conservatism was a bit of a sexy rebellious thing for some people, some intellectuals and some young people (it was the age of the Liberal Consensus; to be Conservative was to be against that), but they were a niche group and a minority. Granted, history seems to show that minority did manage to build momentum for themselves enough to get one of their members to become their party's candidate (though perhaps it could also be argued Goldwater was a sacrificial lamb for an unwinnable 1964).
 
RogueBeaver

RogueBeaver

Emperor Norton I said:
I think there's a timeline somewhere on the forum where that happens.




I'm not sure how much I trust Pat Buchanan here. From what I know, Conservatism was a bit of a sexy rebellious thing for some people and some young people (it was the age of the Liberal Consensus; to be Conservative was to be against that), but they were a niche group and a minority. Granted, history seems to show that minority did manage to build momentum for themselves enough to get one of their members to become their party's candidate (though perhaps it could also be argued Goldwater was a sacrificial lamb for an unwinnable 1964).
Click to expand...

TL: You called? ;)

Conservatives: They had been building momentum within the GOP since '61 but not in the country at large. 1960 party ID was something like 50-35 Democratic IIRC.
 

Marky Bunny

Wendell said:
Kennedy likely tries to push addressing civil rights until the second term.

Goldwater still loses, but does considerably better, especially in Western states. John Sherman Cooper is his running mate. Johnson delivers less of the South than Kennedy expets; JFK's numbers were dropping before Dallas if memory serves.

Also, the campaign is very cordial and the "Goldwater-Kennedy debates" go down in history for their cordiality, and become the basis for subsequent presidential races.
Click to expand...

The only think I disagree with you on is the chosing of John Sherman Cooper, although he was from the "Upper South" in Kentucky he voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act, and was pro-civil rights. Can't see him going to be on the ticket with Goldwater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sherman_Cooper
 
Last edited:

Marky Bunny

My best guess at the result.
genusmap.php

Kennedy & Johnson 405 ev
Goldwater & Rhodes 133 ev
 
RogueBeaver

RogueBeaver

037771 said:
With that sort of a loss (a few more states picked up than in OTL), how would the 'conservative' strain in the GOP fare in the 1968 primaries, after (presumably) eight years of Kennedy?
Click to expand...

The ideas won't be discredited, just mothballed, because JFK won't demagogue Goldwater or his ideas like Johnson did. However since Reagan's political career was butterflied, there's no one whose charisma can overpower the electorate's doubts about economic liberalism. Unless Rhodes runs, they don't have a candidate and Nixon wins in '68. (RFK won't directly succeed his brother, rather wait for '76 or '80)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top