Did Kennedy need to make LBJ his running mate to win in the 1960 election? Could he have picked some other southerner and still beat Nixon? And if he could what happens when/if he is assassinated? What does that running mate do as President?
Did JFK need LBJ to win 1960?
- Thread starter Hulkster'01
- Start date
The only southern states which Nixon lost but came within four points of carrying were TX (-2.0) and S.C. (-2.8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election JFK could have lost both states and still would have 271 electoral votes--two more than the 269 needed to win. The next closest was NC, which JFK carried by 4.22 points. IMO any running mate not positively offensive to the South would have been enough for JFK to carry NC. Albert Gore, Senior is the most likely southerner if LBJ turned down the vice-presidential nomination. (He would be satisfactory to northern liberals because he had not signed the Southern Manifesto and had voted for the watered-down Civil RIghts Act of 1957; yet he was not considered a "traitor to the South" by most southerners.)
There *is* one complication. The Louisiana state Demcoratic committee only narrowly voted to endorse JFK as the Democratic candidate instead of backing a slate of unpledged electors. They might not have done so withut the ticket having their neighbor (and friend of the oil industry) LBJ on the ticket. It is possible that even without their backing JFK would have won the state in a threee-way race (unlike other southern states there was a large Catholic base for JFK). But if he doesn't, and he loses TX and SC (I'm not sure he *would* lose SC), the race would go into the House. JFK would be the favorite to win there, though.
There *is* one complication. The Louisiana state Demcoratic committee only narrowly voted to endorse JFK as the Democratic candidate instead of backing a slate of unpledged electors. They might not have done so withut the ticket having their neighbor (and friend of the oil industry) LBJ on the ticket. It is possible that even without their backing JFK would have won the state in a threee-way race (unlike other southern states there was a large Catholic base for JFK). But if he doesn't, and he loses TX and SC (I'm not sure he *would* lose SC), the race would go into the House. JFK would be the favorite to win there, though.
Last edited:
Perhaps not.
As is often noted, nobody votes for the Vice Presidential candidates, even in the candidates' home states (a traditional reason for picking a running mate). 1960 may have been the last election where there was such an effect: Johnson's influence in Texas probably won that state for Kennedy. But even without Texas, Kennedy would still win the Electoral College. The only other Southern state won narrowly by Kennedy was South Carolina, where Johnson had no particular influence - and even without Texas and South Carolina, Kennedy wins.
As is often noted, nobody votes for the Vice Presidential candidates, even in the candidates' home states (a traditional reason for picking a running mate). 1960 may have been the last election where there was such an effect: Johnson's influence in Texas probably won that state for Kennedy. But even without Texas, Kennedy would still win the Electoral College. The only other Southern state won narrowly by Kennedy was South Carolina, where Johnson had no particular influence - and even without Texas and South Carolina, Kennedy wins.
Could he have won? Yes. But the important thing to remember is that they were living with 1960 as an uncertain future while we have the benefit of hindsight and much more information.
Even so, these are all matters of likelihoods. OTL replaying all the exact same cast in the same places, you play history out and the election can flip many different ways between a Kennedy or Nixon victory each replay. It was that close. What the Kennedy campaign was working with was also those same likelihoods. Out of all the potential running mates, I still argue Johnson gave Kennedy the best chance of winning. He could have also won with others but I don't think they had the same strength for the ticket.
Even so, these are all matters of likelihoods. OTL replaying all the exact same cast in the same places, you play history out and the election can flip many different ways between a Kennedy or Nixon victory each replay. It was that close. What the Kennedy campaign was working with was also those same likelihoods. Out of all the potential running mates, I still argue Johnson gave Kennedy the best chance of winning. He could have also won with others but I don't think they had the same strength for the ticket.
You might have a state or two in the south give unpledged electors ( though Louisiana seems odd as they are split between Catholics and baptists, though maybe the Protestants had more power statewide and might not have liked Kennedy for that as well as other issues) and maybe Texas goes GOP, and you might lose enough votes in Illinois in the downstate region (a small area but one that’s more like the upper south) and Missouri if you have more southern leaning Dems might not supporting Symington.
Also might Symington be too liberal for the time. I heard Kennedy looked hard at George Smathers from Florida. Smathers was born and partially grew up in New Jersey but called Florida home and his family was from North Carolina before moving to Jersey. So you have a guy who’s southern but not as embroiled on the Deep South, much like Johnson.
Also might Symington be too liberal for the time. I heard Kennedy looked hard at George Smathers from Florida. Smathers was born and partially grew up in New Jersey but called Florida home and his family was from North Carolina before moving to Jersey. So you have a guy who’s southern but not as embroiled on the Deep South, much like Johnson.
In looking at close states don't ignore New Mexico, which was very close and very much tied to Texas politically at the time
He absolutely needed LBJ in order to win. LBJ’s unrelenting effort in the 1960 election for Kennedy in the south is so underrated. LBJ was the perfect VP for Kennedy optically too. having a tough, experienced, and widely heralded politican as his VP helped Kennedy masking some potential heat for his youth and seemingly naive campaign platform.
There’s a reason that Kennedy picked him even though basically all of his inner circle but his father didn’t want LBJ picked
There’s a reason that Kennedy picked him even though basically all of his inner circle but his father didn’t want LBJ picked
Probably similar things, at least immediately. LBJ was very much an opportunist, and I see no reason why someone in his position wouldn't pass the CRA similar to Johnson. Besides that, we might not see some of the Great Society's programs come to fruition without Johnson.
That's the logistical problem I ran into when I was planning on doing a George Smathers TL where he succeeded instead of LBJ. I stopped planning dystopian timelines because the world got rather depressing (and things became somewhat predictive in a disconcerting way), but that's another issue.
Even if he did not sign it, I don't think it would have been the best idea to have him as a running mate. He was Kennedy's friend but he wasn't as marketable as other possible big name candidates. But without the Southern Manifesto, he may not have the controversy other bigger names had either. Maybe he could be sold with the ticket as a symbol of the New Frontier generation, North and South. At best, I think Smathers may have a Henry Cabot Lodge Jr element of not helping or hurting.
Last edited:
Once and for all, it is *not* going to be Smathers, and his signing the Southern Manifesto is *not* the only reason (thought it would be suficient in itself). To quote an old post of mine at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...le-justifiable-vp.495938/page-2#post-21008307
***
I honestly do not know why the belief that JFK could have chosen Smathers as his running mate (either in 1960 or if it seemed necessary to drop LBJ from the ticket in 1964) is so widespread here. (FWIW, in all the books I have read concerning JFK's potential running mates, Smathers is never even mentioned as a possibility.) Maybe it stems from the fact that JFK and Smathers were friends. But presidential candidates have lots of friends whom they know it would be foolish to put on the national ticket. And in any event, according to an interview Smathers gave decades later, the JFK-Smathers friendship was strained by Smathers' decision to run as a favorite son presidential candidate from Florida in 1960. https://books.google.com/books?id=CeldDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151 (That candidacy made it substantially less likely that JFK would win on the first ballot.)
Putting someone who had signed the Southern Manifesto on the national ticket would be incredibly risky in close northern and border states like Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, where the African American vote could make the difference. LBJ was the ideal running mate because he had southern support yet had not signed the Manifesto--indeed the southerners didn't want him to sign it because they knew that would destroy his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination. LBJ even got the support of some black political leaders like Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., something Smathers could never have gotten. And if LBJ declined and JFK was still insistent on a southerner, there were others less toxic to northern liberals and African Americans than Smathers--Albert Gore, Sr. of TN for example.
Florida was still a rather small southern state in 1960--it had only 10 electoral votes, no more than KY or LA. But in the very unlikely event JFK wanted to put a Floridian on the ticket, LeRoy Collins would be at least marginally more plausible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeRoy_Collins
Also, as I wrote here a couple of years ago, "There is also the obvious fact that seems to be ignored here that LBJ, Symington, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey and the other people mentioned for the vice-presidency were all men of stature, men who could be taken seriously as president--as could Henry Cabot Lodge on the Republican side. One reason that Smathers was never seriously mentioned is that he was an obvious lightweight who could not be taken seriously as president. That might not have changed many votes, but in as close a race as 1960 not that many votes had to be changed. Nixon's claim that JFK was a frivolous immature playboy--in contrast to the more "mature" Nixon--would only be strengthened by choosing someone solely because he was a personal friend....Smathers was a pal, no doubt. But Bebe Rebozo, another Floridian, was Nixon's pal (actually it was Smathers who got them acquainted!) and I doubt that Nixon ever considered him as a running mate."
***
I honestly do not know why the belief that JFK could have chosen Smathers as his running mate (either in 1960 or if it seemed necessary to drop LBJ from the ticket in 1964) is so widespread here. (FWIW, in all the books I have read concerning JFK's potential running mates, Smathers is never even mentioned as a possibility.) Maybe it stems from the fact that JFK and Smathers were friends. But presidential candidates have lots of friends whom they know it would be foolish to put on the national ticket. And in any event, according to an interview Smathers gave decades later, the JFK-Smathers friendship was strained by Smathers' decision to run as a favorite son presidential candidate from Florida in 1960. https://books.google.com/books?id=CeldDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA151 (That candidacy made it substantially less likely that JFK would win on the first ballot.)
Putting someone who had signed the Southern Manifesto on the national ticket would be incredibly risky in close northern and border states like Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, where the African American vote could make the difference. LBJ was the ideal running mate because he had southern support yet had not signed the Manifesto--indeed the southerners didn't want him to sign it because they knew that would destroy his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination. LBJ even got the support of some black political leaders like Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., something Smathers could never have gotten. And if LBJ declined and JFK was still insistent on a southerner, there were others less toxic to northern liberals and African Americans than Smathers--Albert Gore, Sr. of TN for example.
Florida was still a rather small southern state in 1960--it had only 10 electoral votes, no more than KY or LA. But in the very unlikely event JFK wanted to put a Floridian on the ticket, LeRoy Collins would be at least marginally more plausible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeRoy_Collins
Also, as I wrote here a couple of years ago, "There is also the obvious fact that seems to be ignored here that LBJ, Symington, Scoop Jackson, Humphrey and the other people mentioned for the vice-presidency were all men of stature, men who could be taken seriously as president--as could Henry Cabot Lodge on the Republican side. One reason that Smathers was never seriously mentioned is that he was an obvious lightweight who could not be taken seriously as president. That might not have changed many votes, but in as close a race as 1960 not that many votes had to be changed. Nixon's claim that JFK was a frivolous immature playboy--in contrast to the more "mature" Nixon--would only be strengthened by choosing someone solely because he was a personal friend....Smathers was a pal, no doubt. But Bebe Rebozo, another Floridian, was Nixon's pal (actually it was Smathers who got them acquainted!) and I doubt that Nixon ever considered him as a running mate."
Probably. Let's say JFK picks Stuart Symington, the Senator from Missouri who seems to have been Kennedy's second choice. Without LBJ Kennedy loses Texas, and likely South Carolina. LBJ worked like a dog for JFK, vigorously campaigning while using his behind the scenes influence to unite Southern Democrats around Kennedy. Moreover, given the dynamics of the 1960 race, I imagine that the selection of a good ol' Protestant cowboy from the Texas hill country made a difference (however slight) with rural Protestant voters in northern swing states like Illinois or New Jersey who were uncomfortable with JFK's Catholicism. Selecting the domineering Senate Majority Leader also blunted accusations about Kennedy's inexperience, as he had picked one of the most powerful men in government to be his running mate.
If Kennedy loses Texas, South Carolina, Illinois, and New Jersey, then Nixon wins with 294 electoral votes. Now, it is still possible that Kennedy would have won Illinois and New Jersey had he not picked Johnson. Had he just lost Texas and South Carolina, JFK wins with 271 votes - but he likely loses the popular vote. At least, I do think that LBJ was needed to give Kennedy a convincing majority and a mandate to govern if not the presidency itself.
If Kennedy loses Texas, South Carolina, Illinois, and New Jersey, then Nixon wins with 294 electoral votes. Now, it is still possible that Kennedy would have won Illinois and New Jersey had he not picked Johnson. Had he just lost Texas and South Carolina, JFK wins with 271 votes - but he likely loses the popular vote. At least, I do think that LBJ was needed to give Kennedy a convincing majority and a mandate to govern if not the presidency itself.
I can see how Symington could hurt JFK in the South--maybe even enouugh to sink his candidacy [1]--but the idea that he would hurt him in IL or NJ seems very implausible. Quite the contrary for IL--southern IL, where JFK's Catholicism hurt him, was precisely where Symington was strongest, it bordering his own state of MO. "Symington was popular in the agricultural regions of southern Illinois that bordered on his home state" https://books.google.com/books?id=nGem2g467GAC&pg=PT221 "Daley, hopeful of increasing the Democratic vote in Southern Illinois" urged JFK to choose Symington. https://books.google.com/books?id=0WVmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT274
And I find it hard to see anyone in NJ, Catholic or Protestant, identifying with Texas and Lyndon Johnson...
(There is one non-southern state where it is plausible that LBJ helped JFK--in NM, especially in "Little Texas." But JFK lost heavily in heavily Baptist areas like Roosevelt County, anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_County,_New_Mexico Note JFK's 15 point drop off compared to Stevenson in 1956.)
[1] That's why I suggested Gore instead.
Last edited:
My point was not so much that Symington would hurt JFK, but rather that he may not help Kennedy as much as LBJ did. It is worth noting that on Nov. 4, four days before the election, Lady Bird Johnson was assaulted by a group of protestors in Texas. In an election as narrow as 1960, the negative publicity for Republicans so soon before election day may have made an impact in states which went for Kennedy by razor thin margins. It is impossible to know for sure, however.
Regardless, without Texas I doubt that the Kennedy/Symington ticket wins the popular vote. Every time that has happened, questions of legitimacy swirl around the incoming administration so I imagine the same would be true for JFK.
While Johnson helped Kennedy to some extent, I suggest it was Nixon's running mate who had a greater, albeit negative impact. Lodge was largely a negligible quantity on the hustings. Had Nixon chosen someone more dynamic--say, Theodore McKelden of Maryland--that could have changed the game: a personable Republican from a border state would help theGOP in the south.
Interesting. Didn’t know Symington was popular there. I mean I guess he’d have media exposure as Southern IL was in the St Louis sphere of influence. I guess I figured that Symington being a liberal and more or less a northern liberal in a border state as IIRC his family was prominent not only in St Louis but in the northeast. I figured down state Illinois might not like a guy like that.