1964 Election in a Kennedy Lives World

My prediction:
genusmap.php

Kennedy-Sanford (Democratic) 345
Goldwater-Cooper (Republican) 193
 
How does Goldwater win California, which Nixon only won on postal votes in 1960? Show-Me Missouri? Ohio and Pennsylvania where the Dems (if not JFK/LBJ themselves, their surrogates) will trot out the "classical liberalism caused the GD" trope? Florida, where Goldwater talks about "this Administration's Medicare hoax", which JFK had proposed as early as '62?
 
How does Goldwater win California, which Nixon only won on postal votes in 1960? Show-Me Missouri? Ohio and Pennsylvania where the Dems (if not JFK/LBJ themselves, their surrogates) will trot out the "classical liberalism caused the GD" trope? Florida, where Goldwater talks about "this Administration's Medicare hoax", which JFK had proposed as early as '62?

Of those states, I only have Goldwater win California, and it was less decisive for Johnson in OTL than a great many states:confused: Now, I concede that Catholics may deliver California to the incumbent, but still...
 
Of those states, I only have Goldwater win California, and it was less decisive for Johnson in OTL than a great many states:confused: Now, I concede that Catholics may deliver California to the incumbent, but still...

My apologies on the other states, but I still don't see CA going Republican. If Kennedy nearly won it in 1960, why wouldn't he win it in '64 with a 7-9% national Dem swing?
 
My apologies on the other states, but I still don't see CA going Republican. If Kennedy nearly won it in 1960, why wouldn't he win it in '64 with a 7-9% national Dem swing?

I gave Goldwater California because Johnson's performance there was surprisingly weak in our timeline when compared to other states.
 
Beautiful.

But, would I be correct in assuming that it can just be any liberal Republican (using that adjective in the most general, Nixonian sense) could take the nomination? Rockefeller, Charles Percy et al?

Nixon would take the nomination as per OTL, since ITTL he doesn't have to worry about his right flank.
 
Revised map and numbers, with California and Alaska switched:
genusmap.php

Kennedy-Sanford (Democratic) 382
Goldwater-Cooper (Republican) 156
 
Why would Reagan's career be butterflied? This scenario doesn't stop him from giving "the speech", nor does it stop him from being elected Governor of California. I'm wondering how the race riots that (I think) delivered Reagan the Governor's mansion could be averted.
 
Why would Reagan's career be butterflied? This scenario doesn't stop him from giving "the speech", nor does it stop him from being elected Governor of California. I'm wondering how the race riots that (I think) delivered Reagan the Governor's mansion could be averted.

Oops, forgot that Goldwater was still nominated. The difference is that Medicare will not be passed, since JFK's proposal was much more modest. Most likely it would have been Medicaid but not Medicare.

Reagan CA: Race riots were only part of it.
 
Mark's map and Norton's conclusions seems reasonable to me. Despite the account of Kennedy's secretary, I really do not see him dropping LBJ.


What issues do you all suppose the presidential campaign will focus upon?
 
Mark's map and Norton's conclusions seems reasonable to me. Despite the account of Kennedy's secretary, I really do not see him dropping LBJ.


What issues do you all suppose the presidential campaign will focus upon?

Same as Clinton in '96: Peace and prosperity, so vote for the administration which delivered it. If Goldwater attempts any sort of ideological debate, which JFK wanted (but on a philosophical level, not demagogic like LBJ did IOTL) he'll get squashed like a bug.
 
I gave Goldwater California because Johnson's performance there was surprisingly weak in our timeline when compared to other states.

One of the big reasons why Nixon won in California was precisely because he was from California. Furthermore, any political capital that Nixon could provide by stumping for Goldwater in 64 is diminished by the fact that Nixon had been decisively defeated in the 62 governors race vs Pat Brown in which in the voter's minds he became linked with the John Birch Society.

So basically, unless Kennedy gets caught in some type of Tiger Woods-like mistress scandal, I don't see how he could possibly lose in 64.
 
One of the big reasons why Nixon won in California was precisely because he was from California. Furthermore, any political capital that Nixon could provide by stumping for Goldwater in 64 is diminished by the fact that Nixon had been decisively defeated in the 62 governors race vs Pat Brown in which in the voter's minds he became linked with the John Birch Society.

So basically, unless Kennedy gets caught in some type of Tiger Woods-like mistress scandal, I don't see how he could possibly lose in 64.

52-47 is decisive? Nixon repudiated the JBS and even faced a primary challenger from them, so dunno how he could be linked to them.

Agreed on JFK.
 
If Kennedy serves two terms, who runs in 68 for the Dems? Johnson is probably too old, and RFK would just scream of nepotism. Maybe this is where Smathers gets his chance?
 
Top