Idea: Kennedy survives assassination but doesn't run in 1964

I know I already asked about 1968 in the event of a 1961-1969 Kennedy Administration. But here's another question, which I'm not sure has been asked here before, although I'm sure it's been mentioned.

The point of divergence is that the shot that killed Kennedy misses. He comes out of Dallas wounded, but alive. Unfortunately for Kennedy, his wound has happened in a very inopportune place. He has been wounded in the back, which already caused him a great deal of pain even before the gunshot wound made things worse. Roguebeaver has suggested that, under these circumstances, Kennedy's health would require him to all but retire from public life, handing the "Kennedy" torch over to Bobby, even though he was still among the living. In other words, the wound would be so painful, and so detrimental to Kennedy's health, that there's at least a slight chance he isn't in any condition to seek reelection. If that's the case, what might the 1964 convention look like? Who would emerge as the nominee? Does Vice President Johnson stand a chance without already being the incumbent? If not, who would the nominee be? Or would JFK simply resign under these circumstances, making Johnson President as per historical reality? Maybe I'm just overestimating things here, I'm no medical expert.

In any case, what might Kennedy's legacy/perception be in this odd situation?
 
That's more or less what happens in George Bernau's excellent novel "Promises To Keep". Johnson is elected in 64 with Robert Kennedy as his running-mate. Bobby is killed during a tour in Vietnam in 67, et JFK is re-elected in 68.
 
That's interesting, but I'm not sure that's what would happen. Firstly, LBJ and RFK famously hated each other. It's very very hard for me to see both those guys on the same ticket. Secondly, assuming no resignation, LBJ has the southerner problem. LBJ's Texan status wasn't a problem historically because he was already President. Here, he's still just V.P.

My suspicion is Hubert Humphrey is the nominee, since LBJ's from the South, and RFK might be considered too young. During the election he'd only be about 38 if I have the dates correct, and he'd be 39 on January 20 1965. While he'd be constitutionally eligible, by four years, the age issue might handicap him. Also, there'd be an experience issue at least in theory, since he's only been Attorney General at this point. Mind you, it'd be neat if RFK won, because I think it'd be cool to elect someone who's younger than 40 to the White House, but it's not very likely to happen.
 
But does a Democrat win?

The Republicans might be able to use this to their advantage. Let's say LBJ and RJK maul each other in the primaries. Goldwater was chosen, IIRC, partly becasue they didn't feel they had much hope. If they think the Democrats are going to to nuke each other in the primaries, perhaps Nixon tries it anyway. Or Rockefeller, although wasn't this about the time his divorce came? So, maybe it's not the best time for him.

I think Civil Rights still passes; LBJ was around to pull his political weight, but this could be one of the hurdles. Imagine LBJ claiming responsibility for it, while RFK in turn claims it ws his brother's doing and that, as President, FJK should get the credit.

Granted, JFK is still alive here and can also choose to support one or the other or try to mend the fences, and that might make all the difference. RogueBeaver or someone much more knowledgeable about the Kennedys can respond much more ingithfully as to what JFK would do in that situation. But, till he does, I can see a tough nomination fight that might allow the Republicans a chance. If they can find the right candidate.
 
If that happens, then most likely LBJ or HHH run. Not RFK for the same reason that he wouldn't run in '68 in a JFK lives scenario- no legislative experience and the electorate probably won't countenance a direct succession. The Clinton Show is probably the best comparison here.
 
To use Johnson's vernacular, the Republicans in '64 couldn't screw a whore in a cat house with a 50 dollar bill. They won't win 1964, ever.

The interesting thing about JFK being incapacitated enough to take him out of the White House, but not enough to make him nonfunctional, is that here he has the chance to be the elder statesmen. This puts him in a special position to oversee Democratic politics. I think 1964 will either be Johnson, or perhaps Humphrey. RFK won't get into the White House because he lacks experience in elected office. And he's still too green to run on appointed positions for his background like Hoover did.

I'll ask Roguebeaver this: What's your opinion of what JFK would have done concerning Johnson getting the nomination for 1964?
 
To use Johnson's vernacular, the Republicans in '64 couldn't screw a whore in a cat house with a 50 dollar bill. They won't win 1964, ever.

The interesting thing about JFK being incapacitated enough to take him out of the White House, but not enough to make him nonfunctional, is that here he has the chance to be the elder statesmen. This puts him in a special position to oversee Democratic politics. I think 1964 will either be Johnson, or perhaps Humphrey. RFK won't get into the White House because he lacks experience in elected office. And he's still too green to run on appointed positions for his background like Hoover did.

I'll ask Roguebeaver this: What's your opinion of what JFK would have done concerning Johnson getting the nomination for 1964?

Would have let it go through- the choices are LBJ or HHH, and he'd probably prefer LBJ.
 
I think JFK would have a big say in who would get the nomination. If JFK is wounded, LBJ would be acting President for a time. I see LBJ winning in 64. I think JFK would make sure that RFK is either VP or in the cabinent. He would want to have RFK watching LBJ. If RFK is VEEP than HHH may become majority leader. If HHH is VEEP than RFK gets State dept. Depending on the situation JFK will run for president in 68 or 72.
 
We forget that RFK wouldn't want to serve under LBJ- even though at this point their relationship isn't nearly as poisonous as it would become in 1966-7 IOTL. When he "ran" for the Veepship in '64 it was largely to please some of his friends and tweak LBJ, not because he was actually serious about it.
 
First things first: you're probably looking at a first-order floor fight at the '64 Democrats' convention including multiple ballots. Johnson will have his supporters; Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy will have theirs, and a lot of the party bigwigs (spearheaded by Mayor Daley of Chicago) will tell John Kennedy politely to butt out since he opted out in the first place--and it is therefore not within his scope to play kingmaker.

Gonna guess Humphrey will get the nomination because he's not disliked by the RFK and LBJ factions and can get along with both without being excessively chameleonlike. But the southerners will go along grudgingly at best, knowing Humphrey's support for a civil rights bill; their price will likely be the inclusion of a southerner (say, Smathers of FL) as the VP nominee.

And that's just the beginning. The Republicans could have disorder of their own, yielding a battle royale between Goldwater and Rockefeller forces, with Nixon remaining aloof and hoping to be a compromise candidate. The latter won't happen, since there's PA governor Bill Scranton: he's viewed amiably by all, and emerges as the eventual compromise nominee. Scranton takes MD congressman Rogers Morton (originally from KY, by the way) as his running mate.

So now, we have a battle of two "good guys" for the presidency: both Humphrey and Scranton are amiable, earnest types. Who wins? My hunch is that Humphrey's inability to stop talking costs him in the long run: he'll say something semi-stupid that boomerangs and costs him enough to put Scranton in the White House.
 
I can't see any one telling the President of the USA to butt out. JFK will have that convention sewed up tighter than you know what. JFK will be in a lot better shape then Truman was in 52 and Truman picked Stevenson and that was just the way it was. Only LBJ will be nominated for President and if JFK wants his brother to be VEEP than no matter what RFK and LBJ may think of one another that is the way it will be. JFFK alive in August of 1964 is the most powerful man in the WORLD and he will not let any one stay in his way. So there will be no floor fights other candidates etc.
 
I have to bring up another name that JFK would of had run in his place.

Senator George Smathers from Florida would of gotten the nod from JFK.

First of all, Smathers and Kennedy were good friends in the Senate, to the point Smathers was a groomsman for JFK. In 1960 he was also a favored son of the Democratic Party during the President Campaign, and infact won the Florida Primary. Rumor has it that; since JFK didn't trust LBJ, muchless like him, he wanted to replace Johnson with Smather as his Vice-Presidential Candidate in 1964. JFK felt he would be able to keep the Old South in his win column just as much with Smathers as he would of with LBJ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960
 
Again, I strongly believe that JFK would not impose his brother on LBJ or HHH. RFK never wanted to be VP and certainly never wanted to serve under Johnson in any capacity.

1964 is like 1996 IMO: you can't lose in that economy and relative international tranquility barring a dead boy/live girl scenario.
 
I have to bring up another name that JFK would of had run in his place.

Senator George Smathers from Florida would of gotten the nod from JFK.

First of all, Smathers and Kennedy were good friends in the Senate, to the point Smathers was a groomsman for JFK. In 1960 he was also a favored son of the Democratic Party during the President Campaign, and infact won the Florida Primary. Rumor has it that; since JFK didn't trust LBJ, muchless like him, he wanted to replace Johnson with Smather as his Vice-Presidential Candidate in 1964. JFK felt he would be able to keep the Old South in his win column just as much with Smathers as he would of with LBJ.

That was debunked by RFK himself in '68 in response to Lincoln's memoir, which is where all the Dump LBJ claims can usually be sourced to. And again, non-incumbent (LBJ counts as an incumbent here) Southerners were not nominated in that era.
 
We forget that RFK wouldn't want to serve under LBJ- even though at this point their relationship isn't nearly as poisonous as it would become in 1966-7 IOTL. When he "ran" for the Veepship in '64 it was largely to please some of his friends and tweak LBJ, not because he was actually serious about it.

He might not want to, but would if JFK told him to. And I think JFK would, in order to keep some measure of influence in the government and control over the party. And, as a further bonus, having RFK looking over his shoulder as VEEP would emasculate LBJ, by putting him in the position of being a stand-in for JFK. It's all quite Machiavellian, but the Kennedys did know a bit about playing hardball. JFK, as a tragic victim of an attempted assassination, would be in a stronger political position than he was heading into '64 and would be in a position to dictate outcomes. I just can't see, in this kind of situation, JFK giving up leverage over the shape of the government and the direction of the party by willingly ceding power. In this scenario, with RFK on the ticket, the LBJ run in '64 is in all material respects a JFK second term with JFK wielding substantial influence behind the scenes.
 
That was debunked by RFK himself in '68 in response to Lincoln's memoir, which is where all the Dump LBJ claims can usually be sourced to. And again, non-incumbent (LBJ counts as an incumbent here) Southerners were not nominated in that era.


Can you post a source to that quote???

Mainly because RFK was JFK most trusted adviser, and he for one hated LBJ with a passion. And LBJ had a certain political contempt for the Kennedys and just pure hate of RFK.

So I can't see RFK debunking that, and meaning it at the same time. Because RFK and the Northern Liberal wing of the Party did not like LBJ. Hell remember RFK went to LBJ and told him to remove his name from the nomination for Vice President. LBJ told him to go to Hell, and in turn earn Johnson's enmity as a ''grandstanding little runt.''

So I believe that LBJ in either case gets thrown under the bus. Especially when Kennedy survives an assassination, which gives him even more political power. And Smathers is an up and coming political figure at that time.
 
Last edited:
That was debunked by RFK himself in '68 in response to Lincoln's memoir, which is where all the Dump LBJ claims can usually be sourced to. And again, non-incumbent (LBJ counts as an incumbent here) Southerners were not nominated in that era.

Do you have where he said that in link or book form? I'm not disputing it at all. My reason for asking is to hear his words on it.
 
Top