Had JFK Lost in 1960, Could He Have Made a Comeback in '64 or '68?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
He was supposed to step aside for his brothers I think, according to paterfamilias.
Had JFK lost in 1960, RFK planned on running for Governor of Massachusetts in 1962. The same year Teddy was elected Senator. However if Nixon isn't terribly successful in his first term and the 1960 results were extremely close, being the runner up last time with 17 years experience in Congress would mean JFK is still presidential material in 1964. Certainly far more than his younger and less experienced brothers. Joe Sr may desire otherwise, but the Democratic Party and the country as a whole would outweigh his influence especially once he has a stroke in 1961.
Bobby has the best chance of getting into the White House. JFK still have Addison's disease, but he could live up to the ealry 70s at best, maybe even 76. A lot also depends on who the Republican challenger is. Be either George Romney or Will Scranton. Rommey is sufficiently liberal and centrist and will pull from Bobby's support base, while Scranton will have a good hold on the East Coast.
Nixon will push, and pass a Civil Rights Bill, which we will see a split in the Democratic Party. The Northern Democrats would favor the CRA, Southern Democrats would oppose it. (While the Republicans stay the party of Civil Rights and of Abe Lincoln.)
We also won't see a Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon was a well known anti-Communist whereas Kennedy was seen as more as an unknown. (despite having strong anti-Communist sympathies himself). Khrushchev won't put pressure on Nixon because Nixon is a more identifiable quality. As for a Bay of Pigs...bye, bye Cuba. Khrushchev would be force to throw Castro under the bus as Nixon won't play around.
Nixon will push, and pass a Civil Rights Bill, which we will see a split in the Democratic Party. The Northern Democrats would favor the CRA, Southern Democrats would oppose it. (While the Republicans stay the party of Civil Rights and of Abe Lincoln.)
We also won't see a Cuban Missile Crisis, Nixon was a well known anti-Communist whereas Kennedy was seen as more as an unknown. (despite having strong anti-Communist sympathies himself). Khrushchev won't put pressure on Nixon because Nixon is a more identifiable quality. As for a Bay of Pigs...bye, bye Cuba. Khrushchev would be force to throw Castro under the bus as Nixon won't play around.
Last edited:
I think you're underestimating the incredible obstinance of men like Nikita Khrushchev. You are looking less at "bye bye Cuba" and more at "bye bye world".
If there is World War 3, then it would be more alike to 'America and Canada getting a black eye, Western Europe's teeth are kick in, and the USSR and Warsaw Pact is a nuclear wasteland.'
However, the Bay of Pigs now can have a decent chance of succeeding, or Tricky Dick scuttle the whole thing if he saw how badly it would turn out.
The whole reason for the Cuban Missile Crisis and even the Berlin Crisis is Khrushchev saw Kennedy as too young and lack foreign experience and thus he be able to push hard against the West. With Nixon's structure, political base, and veteran experience, he can stare down Khrushchev along with McMillan and de Gaulle to back down.
I think if JFK lost in 1960, he'd be done. He might stay as a Senator for another term or so, but like Historyman said, the best chance for the Kennedys is either Bobby or Teddy. JFK might live to see the early- to mid-70s, but I'm not sure about after that. Nixon would likely have won the 1964 election through inertia, so 1968 would be the best chance for the Kennedy family.
I could see Bobby running, but it also depends who the GOP challenger is. Nixon would have immense pull on who the GOP candidate would be. I could see George Romney, William Scranton, probably Reagan as the Goldwaterite-type candidate, all in the race. Volpe and Lindsey could have thrown their hats in the ring, maybe Charles Percy as well. But I think after 1953-69 being run by the Republicans, the Democrats would win in '68 regardless.
I could see Bobby running, but it also depends who the GOP challenger is. Nixon would have immense pull on who the GOP candidate would be. I could see George Romney, William Scranton, probably Reagan as the Goldwaterite-type candidate, all in the race. Volpe and Lindsey could have thrown their hats in the ring, maybe Charles Percy as well. But I think after 1953-69 being run by the Republicans, the Democrats would win in '68 regardless.
Pretty much. JFK was no picture of health. Maybe he buys the Boston Globe, or something like that to pass the time and go private sector, but the Kennedy Clan best hope now is Bobby, or even Teddy. (Teddy was fine with being in the senate, and he needs more political capitol however. So with him you need something to push him and wait for the 70s to be older and more experience.)
Even after 15 years of Republican rule, the Dems will have to fight to get into the White House. Nixon is going to have done pretty well even if he is seen as Ink's third term and fourth, or a Republican Truman (Civil Rights, putting the Reds in their place, his own space pledge), and whoever is the GOP challenger would have his full support. ("Let's do this one for Ink!" Or something like that. Nixon in 1960 is vastly different to the man he was in 1968.) The best thing to do for Bobby is run on 'Camelot is here!' as many had hope with John in part of his youth and background.
I think you're far too optimistic about the outcome of a hypothetical 60's WW3 on NATO's side. Yes, it won't be the total destruction that the East would experience, but it would still be the most brutal conflict in the history of mankind, and American deaths are going to number in the millions easily. A Soviet first strike (which is admittedly only one outcome, but I'd say a pretty plausible one if the US is as gung-ho in Cuba as you're suggesting) would throw about 25 ICBMs toward the US mainland - which, given a predictable spread between military and civilian targets, amounts to a hell of a lot more than "a black eye". The USSR is still going to be annihilated, the USA is probably still going to remain a major power, but at what cost? If even a fifth of those missiles detonate you've got a politically incomprehensible situation - consider the shock Japan went through after its bombing, and then triple that. You aren't dealing with a military operation any more, you're dealing with a massive sociopolitical crisis, and in my honest opinion Nixon's... "charisma" is not going to survive it.
WW3 wouldn't have been the end of the world, no, but it certainly would have been the end of the world as we know it.
Last edited:
Maybe I am, but the Soviets always lagged behind the United States and the West. At this point, the USSR's nuclear weapons and bombers are unreliable and inaccurate, and required a lot of prep time/fueling. I doubt all 25 even get close to the USA, or reach their target.
If the USSR dons't have any missile sites in Cuba, Moscow won't go to war over it. Khrushchev won't risk it. If there is no Bay of Pigs, and the Berlin Crisis goes different, Khrushchev has no reason to even think about putting missiles in Cuba in the first place, or can't in the first place.
I too doubt that all 25 would reach their targets. I don't doubt that a portion of them would, and the destruction from them would be immense. Think about how the entire world reacted to two buildings in New York falling, and then think about New York being wiped off the map. This is a much, much bigger deal than you're giving it credit for. The Cold War was a loser's game.
I don't think the Berlin Crisis would really have gone differently either way, but in any case I don't see how that matters. There's a motive to set missile sites up, and in the Cold War a motive was tantamount to a decision. Either way, Cuba is just about the most valuable ally the USSR could possibly have. It would take a very level-headed Premier to back down from the US threatening Cuba, and Khrushchev was anything but level-headed.
OTL, it was the Russians trying to move missiles into Cuba: a straightforward first move, threatening US interests without any obvious Russian gain except MAD. ITTL, it's actual American aggression, with strong motives on both sides and two incredibly stubborn leaders who despise each other. This would emphatically not well.
The Russian interests in Cuba aside, Khrushchev push for the missile sites for two main reasons: The weakness and unknown he saw in Kennedy and the OTL screw up of the Bay of Pigs, that he can push JFK around. This is so not the case with Nixon. This is someone who had came away from the Kitchen Debate impressed by Tricky Dick strong-willed and tough-minded nature.
In the events of a successful Bay of Pigs (With Nixon giving them all the navy and air support they need.) the Soviets would be huffing and puffing, but they knew Cuba was well into the Americans sphere of influence. If there is no Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev won't have what he sees as weakness to push for missiles in Cuba.
Last edited:
No, the case is a direct invasion (not even a "military advisory") in a recently-established firm ally of the USSR, which is going to last a good while - a few weeks at least, unless you really discount the ability of the Cubans who annihilated the OTL invasion - and which won't even have popular support at home. It would actually be a quite reasonable move for Khrushchev to throw some weight around, in case the American people have a why-die-for-Danzig mentality (which they absolutely will). Two steps forward, a mile back.
I really think you are overestimating Nixon's raw charisma here, and underestimating Khrushchev's stubbornness and wit.
Anyway, if there's no Bay of Pigs then there's less sign of an American willingness to retake Cuba, and therefore less expected resistance to missiles. If there is a Bay of Pigs but it fails even more dramatically than OTL, then the US will have been humiliated at a crucial time and the US public won't rush to defend any more action. If there's a Bay of Pigs and it succeeds, well, there's no Soviet ally there anyway.
I do think Kennedy did do a great job handling the OTL Cuban Missile Crisis, not bombing, or invading the island. But I do think with Nixon, we can avoid the Missile Crisis. No Bay of Pies, Castro won't lose trust in the USA and won't fear the idea of invasion. This would be enough from stop Moscow from placing the missiles in the first place. Cuba only really got close the USSR AFTER the Bay of Pigs screw up.
The PR version of the missile crisis, yes, he handled it well. And he deserves credit for not allowing WW3 to start. But it was a complete blunder on his part and it only looks good when compared to Nuclear Holocasut. A low bar indeed.
A low bar, but that was the standard every President was dealing with since July 16, 1945. At a certain point during their Presidencies Truman, Ike, and JFK all had to deal with the very real prospect of worldwide nuclear holocaust and they all managed to prevent it from happening one way or another. The world became an extremely dangerous place once nuclear weapons were invented and many on both sides of the Cold War were pretty willing to use them to kill millions of people if it meant annihilating their opponent. The moment when this came closest to happening was in 1962 and the world is extremely fortunate that it survived that terrible period. We have Kennedy's leadership to thank for that. JFK's Bay of Pigs was a massive blunder and that contributed to the crisis, but on balance his foreign policy was a success given that he got the missiles out without a nuclear exchange and the Soviets were forced out of the Western Hemisphere.
IMO, had Nixon won in 1960 he'd see an improved economy by 1964 but he is bound to get himself involved in a military quagmire, whether it be in Cuba, Laos, or Vietnam. Nixon was pro-civil rights in 1960, but even by that point he was reluctant to act on the issue and was courting white Southerners. He is less likely to propose an end to segregation, and would most likely continue Eisenhower's approach of simply calling for the enforcement of existing law and defer civil rights progress to Congress.
In 1964 Nixon may end up being unpopular depending on how he handles foreign policy, which would give JFK an opening to make a comeback if he loses by less than 1-2%.
In 1964 Nixon may end up being unpopular depending on how he handles foreign policy, which would give JFK an opening to make a comeback if he loses by less than 1-2%.
With Catholicism still being seen as a negative, Kennedy being a junior senator who attempted to go too far too fast (likely being labeled the Democrat's Dewey), his health being questionable, and the possibility of his family's ties to the Mafia (who is to say that such a discovery is what costs JFK 1960), I don't see a second run so soon and if he isn't able to run until '68 then his health will definitely rule him out.
Being elected catholic POTUS was one thing, but being divorced, involved in affairs with Marilyn Monroe and Elisabeth Taylor ?
He would probably been pressured into shadows, not to harm "good family name".
Also, in 1964. there would be no stoping LBJ to try run at the office.
He would probably been pressured into shadows, not to harm "good family name".
Also, in 1964. there would be no stoping LBJ to try run at the office.