For sh*ts and giggles, your challenge is to position Alabama Governor and noted segregationist George Wallace, and one of the Kennedy boys (Whether John, Robert, or Ted) together on a Presidential ticket. Either one can be at the top, I leave that decision to you, as well as the chosen election for such a ticket.

How you accomplish this is also up to you, but try to keep pre-1960 butterflies to a minimum.
 

kernals12

Banned
Interestingly, during early polling for the 1976 Democratic Primary, George Wallace and Ted Kennedy were usually the frontrunners. As for the AHC, have JFK survive Dallas with only minor brain damage, causing him to think it's a good idea to swap LBJ for Wallace.
 
Can we not change George Wallace?

In 1958, Wallace ran in the Democratic primary for governor. Wallace's main opponent was state attorney general John Malcolm Patterson, who ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP. Wallace lost the nomination by over 34,400 votes.

If we get Frank M. Johnson Jr., who was a much more liberal politician in relation to social issues and issues of race, to be the mentor of George Wallace, we could see him as a Pro-civil rights in the South.
 
Can we not change George Wallace?

In 1958, Wallace ran in the Democratic primary for governor. Wallace's main opponent was state attorney general John Malcolm Patterson, who ran with the support of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization Wallace had spoken against. Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP. Wallace lost the nomination by over 34,400 votes.

If we get Frank M. Johnson Jr., who was a much more liberal politician in relation to social issues and issues of race, to be the mentor of George Wallace, we could see him as a Pro-civil rights in the South.

I was imagining Wallace would remain at least somewhat racist, but fair enough. Prior to his loss, he wasn't particularly hateful, so if you could somehow prevent that loss we wouldn't necessarily see the Wallace we knew. My question is, though: How does he remain viable in Alabama without playing to racism? And if he's not a viable politician, unlikely he'd wind up in the VP spot, let alone at the head of the ticket.

EDIT: I also suppose it's possible that Wallace does a complete 180 and champions Civil Rights from the get-go, trying to win off of the support of African Americans. But that doesn't seem like a viable strategy in Alabama for the time period.
 
I was imagining Wallace would remain at least somewhat racist, but fair enough. Prior to his loss, he wasn't particularly hateful, so if you could somehow prevent that loss we wouldn't necessarily see the Wallace we knew. My question is, though: How does he remain viable in Alabama without playing to racism? And if he's not a viable politician, unlikely he'd wind up in the VP spot, let alone at the head of the ticket.

EDIT: I also suppose it's possible that Wallace does a complete 180 and champions Civil Rights from the get-go, trying to win off of the support of African Americans. But that doesn't seem like a viable strategy in Alabama for the time period.
Simply by having Wallace, follow the same techniques as Jimmy Carter, did and remain relatively quiet on the issue at first, even as it polarized much of the county, to avoid alienating his segregationist colleagues.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Have Joe Kennedy Jr. Survive WW2. Then have him get into politics, something he was more than planning on doing, and running in 1960. There, you have a Kennedy Boy and racist who i imagine would have no moral problems with a man such as Wallace.
He might lose to Nixon, more than John. Especially that ticket would not be popular in the North.
 

Deleted member 92121

He might lose to Nixon, more than John. Especially that ticket would not be popular in the North.
He might lose, yes. However he doesn't need to be openly racist and/or agains't desegregation, he only needs to not be a vocal about those issues like JFK was. We never got the chance to see Joe Jrs. political style, so he could prove to be just as much, if not more charismatic then his brother. BUt even then, he could still lose in 1960. But most candidates could, it was a tough election for any democrat.
 
Top