Your challenge is to have Humphrey beat JFK for the nomination and then explain what the outcome is. I think that Humphrey probably picks LBJ to be his VP, if only to provide regional/ideological balance without being a full-on segregationist. I also think Humphrey has a real chance of doing better in the North than Kennedy, and, given Humphrey’s Protestantism, he could do better in the South as well. Therefore I think it’s likely Humphrey beats Nixon with a couple more states than Kennedy had. The real question is what does Humphrey do in ‘Nam and about civil rights compared to JFK and LBJ.
AHC/WI: Humphrey beats JFK in 1960
- Thread starter KaiserWilhelm
- Start date
Deleted member 146578
JFK might try another Presidential run in ‘64 if Humphrey loses or in ‘68 if Humphrey serves two terms. Otherwise, that’s it for him.
Nixon might take both Carolinas and perhaps even Texas thanks to Humphrey's reputation as a civil rights crusader, which was won during his speech in the 1948 Democratic convention. However, Humphrey would almost definitely take Wisconsin, and butterflies might allow him to capture the West Coast states, which IOTL were VERY narrowly won by Nixon.
Didn't he have plenty of health problems? That could keep him from running in 1968.
HHH wins decisively. He's got much of JFK's appeal(cold warrior hawk+new dealer) but he's protestant unlike JFK.
Nixon came as close as he did because of Kennedy's catholicism.
Nixon came as close as he did because of Kennedy's catholicism.
Maybe Humprhey pushes for a Great Society, Vice President Johnson is effectively still master of the Senate
An old post of mine at https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-humphrey-in-1960.413130/#post-14486878
***
I really have a hard time seeing Humphrey, with his very liberal reputation--especially on civil rights--carrying TX (where the oil industry will be violently hostile), NC, SC, or LA or getting any electoral votes in AL. (As it was, the Democratic state committee in LA *almost* voted to support unpledged electors instead of JFK; they would almost certainly vote to support unpledged electors against HHH.) And I don't see him making it up elsewhere; the big industrial states were mostly carried by JFK anyway. The same is true of MN, and most of the other farm states were sure to go Republican. Finally, while he was anti-Communist (like most liberals in that era) probably no Democrat could be "tougher" on communism than Nixon. Or if any Democrat could, it would be JFK (who actually talked tougher on Cuba than Nixon, who of course could not talk about the planned invasion...).
It's hard for me to see him winning the Democratic nomination anyway. He lost the WV primary, even though the state was overwhelmingly Protestant and had fond memories of the New Deal (which Humphrey tried to evoke). And even the votes he got there were not necessarily really for him. Robert Byrd, an avowed LBJ supporter, said "If you are for Adlai Stevenson, Senator Stuart Symington, Senator Johnson, or John Doe, this primary may be your last chance to stop Kennedy..." https://books.google.com/books?id=w3oiOriupLwC&pg=PT209
***
To that I would only add that there might be considerable resentment from Catholic voters who thought the Democrats rejected JFK because of his religion.
***
I really have a hard time seeing Humphrey, with his very liberal reputation--especially on civil rights--carrying TX (where the oil industry will be violently hostile), NC, SC, or LA or getting any electoral votes in AL. (As it was, the Democratic state committee in LA *almost* voted to support unpledged electors instead of JFK; they would almost certainly vote to support unpledged electors against HHH.) And I don't see him making it up elsewhere; the big industrial states were mostly carried by JFK anyway. The same is true of MN, and most of the other farm states were sure to go Republican. Finally, while he was anti-Communist (like most liberals in that era) probably no Democrat could be "tougher" on communism than Nixon. Or if any Democrat could, it would be JFK (who actually talked tougher on Cuba than Nixon, who of course could not talk about the planned invasion...).
It's hard for me to see him winning the Democratic nomination anyway. He lost the WV primary, even though the state was overwhelmingly Protestant and had fond memories of the New Deal (which Humphrey tried to evoke). And even the votes he got there were not necessarily really for him. Robert Byrd, an avowed LBJ supporter, said "If you are for Adlai Stevenson, Senator Stuart Symington, Senator Johnson, or John Doe, this primary may be your last chance to stop Kennedy..." https://books.google.com/books?id=w3oiOriupLwC&pg=PT209
***
To that I would only add that there might be considerable resentment from Catholic voters who thought the Democrats rejected JFK because of his religion.
Last edited:
David T - Is it a fair summary of your position to say: 'too liberal for the nomination, too liberal for the general, too liberal for the south, too resented by the Catholics if not too liberal for them' for the White House in 1960?
.....and then going beyond that...
But maybe after continued internal Civil Rights turmoil and Nixon's Laos or Cuba Wars, the country might be ready for Humphrey or an alternate Democrat like JFK or somebody else in 1964?
.....and then going beyond that...
But maybe after continued internal Civil Rights turmoil and Nixon's Laos or Cuba Wars, the country might be ready for Humphrey or an alternate Democrat like JFK or somebody else in 1964?
FDR Jr supported Kennedy IIRC, he accused Humphrey of being a draft dodger in the WV primary I believe.
Ah, yes, I forgot that. I'm not sure how much that helped JFK, by the way; there was widespread denunciation of the accusation (one of the people unhappy was mother Eleanor...)