DNC 1960- 2nd Ballot

DNC 1960- Ballot 2


  • Total voters
    38
Ironically if it had gone to a second ballot IOTL LBJ would've been the nominee & we'd have had Nixon in '60.

IC: My preferred outcome has been achieved. :cool:
 
I'm going with Humphrey. Kennedy is too young and inexperienced, and Stevenson would be soft on Communism, plus no way can he beat Nixon. Plus, if Kennedy wins, I bet he puts his brother Bobby in the Cabinet over some more deserving people.
 
Kennedy was in the House for 6 years, and the Senate for 7. That's 13 years of political experience. Nixon was in the House for 3 and the Senate for 3. That's 6 years of non-VP experience. Both men entered politics the same year (1947). And Mr. Nixon is only 3 or 4 years older than Mr. Kennedy.
The only advantage Nixon has is that he's been Vice President; a position even Ike has said he hasn't done diddly in. So the argument that Kennedy is too young and inexperienced is bunk.
 
Kennedy was in the House for 6 years, and the Senate for 7. That's 13 years of political experience. Nixon was in the House for 3 and the Senate for 3. That's 6 years of non-VP experience. Both men entered politics the same year (1947). And Mr. Nixon is only 3 or 4 years older than Mr. Kennedy.
The only advantage Nixon has is that he's been Vice President; a position even Ike has said he hasn't done diddly in. So the argument that Kennedy is too young and inexperienced is bunk.

There is a very good argument that simply being "in politics" isn't enough. Looking back over the past century, the most effective Presidents (and one of the worst) were all former state governors. Experience in an executive office appears to be far more important than simply sitting in a legislature, no matter how long one serves there.

That's not to say that someone with no executive experience could be an effective President. But the odds are that anyone who was a state governor, Vice President (even if he hasn't done diddly, at least he was able to observe how the Executive branch works), or who came into politics straight from being a private sector CEO (we haven't had one yet, but there's always hope), or a flag ranked military officer.

As for who would get nominated, Stevenson couldn't beat Ike, but it's doubtful that anyone could have beaten Ike. Stevenson might have been able to beat Nixon. Humphrey had the skills, but not the power base to get the nomination. Johnson had the power base, but lacked personal charisma. Kennedy was not the best choice to run the country, but just as the winner in the election in 2008 did, Kennedy gave the best illusion of being the right choice. As a candidate to defeat Nixon, Kennedy was the best choice.
 
Looking back over the past century, the most effective Presidents (and one of the worst) were all former state governors. Experience in an executive office appears to be far more important than simply sitting in a legislature, no matter how long one serves there.

FDR serves this example, but it gets fuzzier after that -- TR, for example, was in office barely a year before he started getting sucked into the 1900 election as VP. And that had far more to do with his previous bio than anything he had done as governor.

Just looking at the top five US Presidents*, besides the Roosevelts you have two generals -- Washington and Eisenhower -- and Abraham Lincoln, who had some of the sparsest overall national political "experience" of any POTUS's we've had.

As to further down the list, I'd go with either Truman, who didn't have any executive experience either, or -- JFK.

*OK, not just 20th Century, and it's IMO, but it still works...
 
I'm still supporting Kennedy though I do wonder how his Roman Catholic religion will play with voters, mostly in the south.
 
He'll have to confront the bigots. Any idea what it's like being a Republican Catholic? Nixon's a Quaker- as was Hoover- but you didn't hear the bigots because they had Catholic opponents.
 
I officially declare Senator John F. Kennedy the Democratic nominee for President! Speculation abounds as to whom he wil select as his running mate.

OOC: and OTL proceeds, until 11/22/63 when Oswald misses. :cool:
 
You only need a simple majority to clinch it. IOTL JFK's majority was only 45- but because his nearest opponent (LBJ) was trailing 2-1 (806-409) it looked a lot safer than it was.

If you mean the colours: yes, I did some intentional ideological color-coding. JFK is blue for a reason. :cool:
 
Mattruvinteress, why was Stuart Symington left out?

Iirc from my Theodore H White, he was viewed as a serious contender, and he got more votes than either Sevenson or Humphrey on the first ballot.
 
Top