Electoral Map of JFK in '64

Quite possibly.

And I suspect only Nixon can... get the vast majority of his forty-or-so senators to swear blind to the managers of reform legislation that they will vote for cloture. But that's further down the track.
 
Yes, under the rules of the game as determined by LBJ.

Eh? I think it's Master of the Senate that goes over very well that Southerners were less opposed to voting rights than the end of segregation. But I do see JFK focusing on a CRA before a VRA, which would unfortunately doom the latter due to lack of time. But this is the man who took LBJ's advice to introduce the tax cut before civil rights in order to have a better chance at both, and ignored it completely.
EDIT: Ninja'd by hcallega!

But you do think that a reelected JFK can pass a civil rights bill, before any such riots, even given his reduced legislative skills? Perhaps without Titles II and VII, which were looking to be shaved off as they always were in favor of a much weaker act.

How does the civil rights situation look like by '66, '67 ITTL? Plus without a tax cut the budgetary situation looks better.

No, because the increased economic activity from the cut increased tax revenue.
 
Eh? I think it's Master of the Senate that goes over very well that Southerners were less opposed to voting rights than the end of segregation.

Caro in MoTS points out that the non-insane Southrons could never deny the patriotic, American value of allowing everyone to vote... in the abstract.

But in the non-abstract, they and their cloture-sceptic pals forced Leader Johnson to water down the 1957 Civil Rights Act so that the voting rights enforcement portion was thrown to all-white juries (depending on the will of the judge), for effectively civil, non-criminal trial (it's actually contempt of court that was the mechanism for jail sentences).

I don't think any Southron bad guys were ever put away under this law.

The 1957 Civil Rights act is not a good pointer for the VRA being an easy thing to do. VRA is an awesome example of big government liberal interventionism, not a damp squib.

But at least the earlier stuff was a pointer for Johnson not being terrified into inaction like FDR was over this stuff.

But this is the man who took LBJ's advice to introduce the tax cut before civil rights in order to have a better chance at both, and ignored it completely.

The amazing thing is that crap decision by JFK was assisted by advice from Larry O'Brien, his legislative liasion, and yet O'Brien goes on to be assimilated into LBJ's orbit (to a greater extent than any old Kennedy hand), and Johnson seems to have come to the conclusion that O'Brien wasn't half bad as a number counter.

The breakdown in strategy over congressional relations in Camelot, it's as bad as anything Carter is accused of.

No, because the increased economic activity from the cut increased tax revenue.

Hmmm, we coming up against some pushback against Jack's Keynesian fundamentals here, I wonder.
 
Desegregation/voting rights: What Mag said. If blacks vote that's the end of segregation.

Congressional relations: True that the Frontiersmen were clueless about that, but even if they weren't and fully included him in that process (which isn't happening) LBJ's clout was much diminished anyways. Particularly after he tried to remain as de facto majority leader.
 
Desegregation/voting rights: What Mag said. If blacks vote that's the end of segregation.

Congressional relations: True that the Frontiersmen were clueless about that, but even if they weren't and fully included him in that process (which isn't happening) LBJ's clout was much diminished anyways. Particularly after he tried to remain as de facto majority leader.

Kennedy's Congressional failures are overrated. While he was unable to get many of his biggest proposals through, he didn't have the horrible relations that Carter did. He ran into reality of a Congress still dominated by old Southern Committee Chairs (Judge Smith, Harry Byrd, etc.) at a time when the leadership in both Houses (Speaker McCormack, Leader Mansfield) were weak. That's no excuse for his mistakes, but let's not make Kennedy out to be an utter failure.
 
On economics, JFK was relying on continuing resolutions instead of being able to pass comprehensive budgets; I'm convinced that alone means his legislative efforts need to be reassessed all over again in our era, as I don't believe there's another president until Obama who has such a rough time with basic congressional finances (not even Carter, though he has budget reconcilialation to work with). IIRC Caro mentions that Clinton had it easier passing budgets under Gingrich than JFK did with his solid Dem majority.

What I'd like to see is people like Ezra Klein analysing the governmental failures--and successes--of POTUSes like Kennedy and Carter, not 'big picture' writers like the New Republic headliners of the nineties, or, god help us, David Broder.

Because that leads to op-ed historical conclusions where every prez is judged a loser until the End of History under Clinton. And even he is something of a loser for those Washington insider centrist writers who ape the late Broder.:rolleyes:
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
Kennedy's Second Term and Project Apollo

How do these affect each other?

It's difficult to tell, because there are so many butterflies involved, but one possibility is that the Apollo I fire does not happen, leading to a successful Moon landing in the autumn of 1968, as the crowning glory of Kennedy's second term.

On the other hand, can the Republicans claim it as a waste of taxpayers' dollars by the spendthrift Democrats?
 
Top