Jack vs Rock

I have been using The Making of The President 1964 as bathroom reading. In that book, author Teddy White quotes John Kennedy as happy that Republicans nominated Nixon not Rockefeller in 1960. According to White Kennedy thought he could not have beat Rockefeller. Do you agree or disgree with the late President?
 
Ike disliked Rocky because Nelson was a RINO, in particular NY deficit spending. In addition, he had only one year in elective politics. Unlike Reagan he had no charisma or fan base outside NY. Too liberal for the GOP. I think that JFK might've been more of a fiscal conservative than Rocky was. Ideological crossfire. I'd say a JFK win, if only because of the two-term rule.
 
Rocky had the potential to win.

Whether or not it would have happened is, of course, up to the vagaries of that universe next door. I do however (plug!) explore the issue in my Democratic President Reagan timeline.


Broadly speaking, I think Rocky had an edge over Kennedy. Yes, Rocky meant the South solidifies behind JFK, but JFK mostly got the South anyway and Rockefeller makes the rest of the country tighter. Nixon could have (arguably should have, barring only a few mistakes) won and inRocky-vs-JFK the Republican base will—reluctantly, as it has every other time with a progressive nominee—stay on board. Add that to a Northern focused strategy (instead of Nixon switching between South-North focus), an appeal to blacks and cities, and so on: at worst, an even match-up.
 
Ike disliked Rocky because Nelson was a RINO, in particular NY deficit spending. In addition, he had only one year in elective politics. Unlike Reagan he had no charisma or fan base outside NY. Too liberal for the GOP. I think that JFK might've been more of a fiscal conservative than Rocky was. Ideological crossfire. I'd say a JFK win, if only because of the two-term rule.
Rockefeller wasn't a RINO; he represented the Liberal faction, and was it's leader after Dewey. It's not until the GOP goes Conservative in the Reagan era that you can really use the term RINO because preReagan, there are factions, and the Conservatives aren't the biggest by far. Similarly, the Liberal faction was rather larger and perhaps on par with the Moderates, with the Conservative faction in third place behind that Liberal-Moderate coalition within the party. And, you could even say the Liberal faction was rather the most dominant one. Whereas the Conservatives occupied the West and were rather small, the Liberals dominated the Northeast and big cities.

Rockefeller similarly, while only with a year of elected office, had (as I've said before) a mile long resume of political experience besides.

Rockefeller would have kicked the hell out of Kennedy, plain and simple.
 
Then in 1968, we have Nixon vs. JFK, the two rejects again... :p In 1974, if Watergate occurs, then we could see RFK interrogating them in a manner somewhat less gentlemanly than Sam Ervin. Deja vu all over again, circa the OTL Ike years... And in 1976... "Let us put the past behind us" rather as Obama's doing...
 
Close Election All the Same

Nixon barely lost to JFK in OTL. JFK narrowly carried Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Texas--Nixon winning between 48-49.9% of the popular vote in each of those 12 states. Nixon narrowly carried Alaska, California, Florida, Montana, Washington and Wisconsin--JFK winning between 48-49.9% of the popular vote in each of those 6 states. Nixon's two-week absence from the fall campaign trail, recovering from a knee injury/infection, and his poor appearance in the first televised debate were two significant reasons given for his defeat.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller as the 1960 Republican nominee clearly eliminates whatever financial advantages that JFK had over Nixon. Rockefeller puts New York's 45 electoral votes (which JFK won in OTL) into play, and perhaps boosts Republican chances in other nearby Northeastern states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The outspokenly pro-civil rights Rockefeller hurts the Republican ticket in the South, but JFK's Roman Catholic religion did not really cost him any southern states against Nixon anyway. The absence of Nixon from the ticket hurts Republican chances in California, which had a Democratic governor in Pat Brown at that time.

If Rockefeller works hard and spends enough money in the 18 swing states mentioned above, plus New York and Ohio, then he possibly flips enough states from the Democratic to Republican columns to narrowly beat JFK.

On the other hand, Rockefeller was always lazy when it came to campaigning outside New York and relied too much on just his money and name-recognition. Unlike JFK, Rockefeller never worked very hard to win his own party's nomination and expected that it would eventually be offered to him on a silver platter (Goldwaterites out-worked the active Rockfeller campaign in 1964 to win the nomination that year). Plus, as a sitting governor of the then-largest state, Rockfeller had executive responsibilities to distract him from the campiagn trail--unlike both VP Nixon and Senator JFK. Democrats in Albany could be expected to have given Rockfeller a hard time in order to help out JFK. Thus, JFK still might have beaten the less hardworking Rockfeller in 1960.
 
Ike disliked Rocky because Nelson was a RINO, in particular NY deficit spending. In addition, he had only one year in elective politics. Unlike Reagan he had no charisma or fan base outside NY. Too liberal for the GOP. I think that JFK might've been more of a fiscal conservative than Rocky was. Ideological crossfire. I'd say a JFK win, if only because of the two-term rule.

Well thats a heaping pile of Bullshit.
 
I spoke before I thought. :eek: My apologies Carpetbagger. Even Nixon, no Goldwaterite himself, thought "... policy positions made him almost a liberal Democrat on many issues." That's from Nixon's memoirs. I was wrong on the election though.
 
You were incorrect about Rocky having no Charisma, Rocky's speeches brought about crowds that rivaled JFK, but you are correct in the sense that Jacky boy is more conservative (IMO) than Rocky. We would probably have seen a different Party system emerge today than IOTL. If Rocky was alive today, he'd probably be a Moderate Democrat.
 
Which is why RFK had trouble in 1964 with ultralibs abstaining or going to Keating. Ideological crossfire... Ditto with Javits et al. Even Schlesinger says Javits should've crossed the floor: "bouts of equivocation in order to retain Republican credentials." I think it was less their professed personality issues (mutual) but rather that RFK was too Bubbaish ideologically for their liking. Rabbi : "reminds some of the tough Irish kid who beat you up on the way home from Hebrew school, shouting "Christ-killer." :rolleyes::rolleyes: At least be original.
 
Top