John F. Kennedy Dies earlier

[Mister Abbadon]

While John F. Kennedy was serving in the Navy during WWII, his ship was sank, Obviously he survived and was rescued.

What if He didn't, I know there's a lot of Speculation about Kennedy living, I would Like to speculate him being removed completly.

 

[HJ Tulp]

The world rejoices.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Paging RogueBeaver. Paging RogueBeaver. RogueBeaver to the After 1900 Ward, stat.


But seriously, I guess that this just means that Bobby takes Jack's place much like Jack took Joe's place.

 

[theReturner]

I guese the Family Presidential ambitions would be on Robert F. Kennedy. However, he probably wouldn't be ready to be president until 1968, as in OTL, so that leaves a bit of a void in American Politics for the 50's and early 60's, without JFK around.

Heck, Nixon might win the Presidency in 1960, without having to fight JFK for it.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Wolfpaw and TR are correct. Bobby takes Jack's place. Just after graduating law school in 1950, he was offered a safe Connecticut House seat- at the ripe old age of 24. Other plans in the mid-1950s included moving to New Mexico or Nevada to set up political shop and running for Senate there. But he does not get elected POTUS until 1968 at the earliest. All other things occurring as per OTL means that Nixon wins in 1960. I'm assuming that Joe Jr. dies as well as per OTL- not that it makes that much of a difference in the family dynamic from OTL. Whenever one falls, the next picks up the mantle. From Joe to Jack to Bobby to Ted to Bobby Jr. to John Jr.- such is the presidentiable progression of OTL. I should add that RFK was very ambitious for himself but subordinated that to his brothers' IOTL- a false impression is often created that he suddenly became independent in '63, part of the Dallas mythology surrounding him.

 

[RogueBeaver]

I guese the Family Presidential ambitions would be on Robert F. Kennedy. However, he probably wouldn't be ready to be president until 1968, as in OTL, so that leaves a bit of a void in American Politics for the 50's and early 60's, without JFK around.

Heck, Nixon might win the Presidency in 1960, without having to fight JFK for it.

Not really. JFK wasn't known outside New England politically (Kennedys-as-celebs dates to the 1930s) until the 1956 convention. The near-win and concession speech did for him what Obama's keynoter did in 2004- namely political superstardom, while at the same time having the Hillary '08 effect- the inevitable nominee. Except this time, the inevitable nominee was the nominee.

A few other things- RFK won't be well known till the later 1950s at the earliest depending on when he becomes a senator. Also, People will have to find a different "Sexiest Man Alive" in 1988 for one.

 

[Wolfpaw]

A few other things- RFK won't be well known till the later 1950s at the earliest depending on when he becomes a senator. Also, People will have to find a different "Sexiest Man Alive" in 1988 for one.

A thought just occurred to me. Might Bobby's association with McCarthy in the early '50s (if it isn't butterflied away, of course) hurt him a bit? I mean, it seemed he really blossomed and became popular under the aegis of JFK. Perhaps things will be a bit more difficult for him being tarred by his association with McCarthyism.

Also, head on over to the "Void the 22nd!" thread. Something was just posted that I'd like your opinion on.

EDIT: Nevermind, seems like you go to it already

 

[RogueBeaver]

I don't think it harms him in the long run. The controversies around MLK wiretapping didn't prevent him from getting as much black support as Obama did 40 years later (though it did kill his Oregon chances among white civil libertarians), nor did his in-character response of "National security, and that's all the answer you're gonna get!" Ditto for saying donating blood to North Vietnam is OK back in '65. Like Reagan, he had a Teflon ("Teflon Bob" anyone? ) quality to him. Politically, he came into his own with his proto-DLC platform as a senator, but was always popular as a political figure. He was always polarizing, but that was his public personality, not ideology, at play.

 

[Grey Wolf]

The question of what a Nixon presidency does for the USA has as much impact as what Bobby does for himself. If Nixon is popular and wins re-election in 64, then Bobby may actually have a real opportunity in 68 since he will seem like the fresh young face of US politics compared to the LONG period of Republican rule, and the old men around him.

But if Nixon falls in 64, then whoever becomes president for the Democrats might permanently curtail RFK's ambitions since he would have his own VP and circle.

Maybe under the latter situation, Bobby still has an eventual run at the presidency but it might not be until the mid 1970s

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Mikestone8]

Does Nixon necessarily win?

With Humphrey too far left and Johnson probably unable to get enough delegate votes outside the South, it comes down to either giving Stevenson a third run, or else turning to Symington or maybe Kefauver. Any reason why one of them couldn't get in? After all, the Republicans had been well and truly creamed in 1958, and it's rare for the in party to win again two years after such a hammering.

Had the Dems not nominated a Catholic, might thier victory have been bigger than OTL's?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Does Nixon necessarily win?

With Humphrey too far left and Johnson probably unable to get enough delegate votes outside the South, it comes down to either giving Stevenson a third run, or else turning to Symington or maybe Kefauver. Any reason why one of them couldn't get in? After all, the Republicans had been well and truly creamed in 1958, and it's rare for the in party to win again two years after such a hammering.

Had the Dems not nominated a Catholic, might thier victory have been bigger than OTL's?

Well, I don't know enough about it, sorry

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[RogueBeaver]

Does Nixon necessarily win?

With Humphrey too far left and Johnson probably unable to get enough delegate votes outside the South, it comes down to either giving Stevenson a third run, or else turning to Symington or maybe Kefauver. Any reason why one of them couldn't get in? After all, the Republicans had been well and truly creamed in 1958, and it's rare for the in party to win again two years after such a hammering.

Had the Dems not nominated a Catholic, might thier victory have been bigger than OTL's?

Stevenson is too liberal and a two-time loser with a single term as governor, Symington had no support and Kefauver is an alcoholic, superannuated lightweight. JFK is by far the most centrist of the bunch. No real choice here.

@GreyWolf: quite plausibly. If Nixon wins in 1960 and 1964 then 16 years of GOP rule give RFK an open net for one of his trademark slapshots. The age of the country's leaders will fall by a whole generation, and RFK's personality will make the gap seem larger than it actually is, which is both a plus and a minus as occurred IOTL.