Kennedy/Symington 1960'

..... Johnson wanted the Vice Presidency. It was his only real path to higher office. No convention would nominate a southern senator, no matter how influentional he was. Lyndon was even willing to blackmail Jack Kennedy to recieve the nomination. However, his advisors were concerned. As much as Johnson wanted to be President, a job like the Vice Presidency would do nothing but annoy him. Going from Senate Majority leader to Vice President would be like going from Emperor to pauper. Not worth the switch. Besides, even if Jack beat Nixon, he wasn't going to be given a shot at the nomination for President until 1968. And based on his family history, it was iffy if he'd even make it through that term. The alternative, was for Lyndon to run the Senate like a fiefdom. He could be a latter day Henry Clay, albeit for another house. After a long consideration. Johnson decided against seeking a Vice Presidential nomination......
Excerpt From: Lyndon Johnson Master of the Senate.

Kennedy Picks Symington
Today, as many here at the convention had expected. Democratic nominee John Kennedy chose former Secretary of the airforce Stuart Symington as his running mate. The choice was approved without much opposition. The pair will face Vice President Nixon in the fall....
From the New York Times

The election of 1960 was by any calculation one of the closest elections in American history. Kennedy and Symington came far closer to losing that race than any of us today can realize. Indeed, in many respects, the nomination of Stuart Symington had been a strategic error on Kennedy's part. While Symington himself was well respected, his nomination allowed for the Nixon campaign to attack the Kennedy ticket in a manner not unlike the Eisenhower campaign had attacked Stevenson. To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Johnson barely payed lip service to Kennedy. It is no wonder that Nixon won in Texas under those circumstances. Kennedy's victory was entirely dependent on Illinois. If Kennedy had lost that state as well, he never would have been President. At the time there was some indication that Nixon had indeed won in Illinois, and as such was the President elect. However, the recounts which followed the election weren't quite as clear. And as such, Illinois' votes remained in Kennedy's hands. And he emerged the victor with 274 electoral votes to his name.
"The Price of Power" by Seymour Hersh.
 
..... Johnson wanted the Vice Presidency. It was his only real path to higher office. No convention would nominate a southern senator, no matter how influentional he was. Lyndon was even willing to blackmail Jack Kennedy to recieve the nomination. However, his advisors were concerned. As much as Johnson wanted to be President, a job like the Vice Presidency would do nothing but annoy him. Going from Senate Majority leader to Vice President would be like going from Emperor to pauper. Not worth the switch. Besides, even if Jack beat Nixon, he wasn't going to be given a shot at the nomination for President until 1968. And based on his family history, it was iffy if he'd even make it through that term. The alternative, was for Lyndon to run the Senate like a fiefdom. He could be a latter day Henry Clay, albeit for another house. After a long consideration. Johnson decided against seeking a Vice Presidential nomination......
Excerpt From: Lyndon Johnson Master of the Senate.

Kennedy Picks Symington
Today, as many here at the convention had expected. Democratic nominee John Kennedy chose former Secretary of the airforce Stuart Symington as his running mate. The choice was approved without much opposition. The pair will face Vice President Nixon in the fall....
From the New York Times

The election of 1960 was by any calculation one of the closest elections in American history. Kennedy and Symington came far closer to losing that race than any of us today can realize. Indeed, in many respects, the nomination of Stuart Symington had been a strategic error on Kennedy's part. While Symington himself was well respected, his nomination allowed for the Nixon campaign to attack the Kennedy ticket in a manner not unlike the Eisenhower campaign had attacked Stevenson. To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Johnson barely payed lip service to Kennedy. It is no wonder that Nixon won in Texas under those circumstances. Kennedy's victory was entirely dependent on Illinois. If Kennedy had lost that state as well, he never would have been President. At the time there was some indication that Nixon had indeed won in Illinois, and as such was the President elect. However, the recounts which followed the election weren't quite as clear. And as such, Illinois' votes remained in Kennedy's hands. And he emerged the victor with 274 electoral votes to his name.
"The Price of Power" by Seymour Hersh.
As Kennedy lost Texas by a very narrow margin in 1960 there was a great urgency on his part to gain that state in his 64 re-election bid. When he arrived in Texas on that fateful morning of November 22 his first stop was in the city of Dallas. He chose that city because exactly a month before a riot broke there when Ambassador to UN Adlai Stevenson made a vistit there and the Ambassador was slightly injured. The president was to ride through downtown Dallas in a motercade accompanied by Governor John Conally and followed by Senator Ralph Yarborough. After which he woukl make an appearance at the Dallas Trade Mart and later stop at a fundraising banquet and barbeque and then spend the night at Senate Majority leader Lyndon Johnson's ranch at Johnson City. All went off without a hitch until halfway through the motercade ride in Dallas at 12:30 pm. Back in Washington DC Vice President Symington was interrupted two minutes later during his lunch break by an urgent phone call.
 
Symington brings interesting things into play: he died in 1965 of a heart attack. Perhaps he becomes the second president in less than five years to die in office?
 
Symington brings interesting things into play: he died in 1965 of a heart attack. Perhaps he becomes the second president in less than five years to die in office?

What? Stuart Symington lived until 1988. He remained in the US Senate until December, 1976. In this thread, Missouri gets its second president in less than two decades!
 
This is a POD that's fascinated me since I read Dark Side of Camelot. I've always kind of wondering how a Vice President Symington would have changed the Kennedy years. I may not be the best man to write it, but I've got several ideas.

I wanted Kennedy to actually win, but I wanted Johnson's absence from the ticket to be felt, hence: Nixon wins in Texas.

I'm not sure how the years up to 1963 will be different without Johnson in the Vice Presidency.

My plan was to avoid Kennedy's assassination, Symington was not supposed to become President ITTL. I won't say more because I don't want to ruin any other surprises.

Help would be appreciated greatly. I'm bad at this, I need all the help I can get.

Oakvale, since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about politics in this time period. Where do we go from here? Is the assassination likely to happen anyway? Or have the circumstances changed too much. Does Senate Majority Leader Johnson survive Bobby Baker?

Oh, and what happens in 1964? I'm betting on a Kennedy win against Barry Goldwater, but it's going to be closer. I'm also assuming no huge scandal breaks out in 1964. And I may well be wrong about that. Thematically, a reelected Kennedy is more interesting because then I can do a fall from grace story.
 
This is a POD that's fascinated me since I read Dark Side of Camelot. I've always kind of wondering how a Vice President Symington would have changed the Kennedy years. I may not be the best man to write it, but I've got several ideas.

I wanted Kennedy to actually win, but I wanted Johnson's absence from the ticket to be felt, hence: Nixon wins in Texas.

I'm not sure how the years up to 1963 will be different without Johnson in the Vice Presidency.

My plan was to avoid Kennedy's assassination, Symington was not supposed to become President ITTL. I won't say more because I don't want to ruin any other surprises.

Help would be appreciated greatly. I'm bad at this, I need all the help I can get.

Oakvale, since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about politics in this time period. Where do we go from here? Is the assassination likely to happen anyway? Or have the circumstances changed too much. Does Senate Majority Leader Johnson survive Bobby Baker?

Oh, and what happens in 1964? I'm betting on a Kennedy win against Barry Goldwater, but it's going to be closer. I'm also assuming no huge scandal breaks out in 1964. And I may well be wrong about that. Thematically, a reelected Kennedy is more interesting because then I can do a fall from grace story.

Heh, I'm no expert, but I don't think the assassination is going to happen. JFK may well visit Dallas in an effort to win Texas in 1964, but butterflies will (probably) ensure Oswald/The Mafia/Illuminati doesn't assassinate him. Then again, a lot of people on the fringes really, really hate Kennedy- the Secret Service were more concerned about the John Birch society et al then they were the radical left.

Assuming Kennedy remains popular, preventing Nixon trying again, Kennedy should win easily in 1964- Barry Goldwater isn't the most electable candidate, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a quite similar result as that of OTL. I'm looking forward to this- just be careful to avoid the cliché of Kennedy being impeached over Addison's or Marilyn Monroe or whatever. I mean, it's fine if you're going to go in that direction, but it's rapidly on it's way to becoming predictable. That said, I do look forward to reading the fall from grace part. Said fall could lead to a new sense of cynicsm amongst the public- if it's to do with a particular scandal, it could almost be like the effect of Watergate.

I wonder if we'll still see Nixon in '68? What happens with Vietnam? Fascinating!

Basically, Symington likely butterflies away the assassination, IMO, so this is almost a What if Kennedy lives? TL, although I don't know a whole lot about Symington, admittedly. He was Truman's preferred candidate, so I guess that would help Kennedy with the party establishment.

By the way, don't be discouraged. I'm not much good at this stuff either, but once you get into it and start enjoying writing the TL it becomes easy. Take the plunge! :p
 
I don't think Kennedy will fall from grace, but he might be forced to leave office after one term because of his back problems, Addison's, etc. By mid-1964, he may be endorsing his successor from a wheelchair. If JFK hangs on and runs, you might have a good fall-from-grace story in 1965 or 1966. Consider the impact on the burgeoning civil rights movement.

Do we butterfly away the 25th Amendment, or do we get it sooner as a result of the president's disability?
 
I'm thinking about Nixon running ITTL 1968, but with Kennedy's second term going the way it's going to go, it might seem to be too much of a "I told you so" campaign. And I'm not sure Nixon, or the American public would go for that. Also, I don't want to be too twee about things.
The only problem is, if not Nixon: Who?

Reagan? No, Reagan's been Governor for Two years, assuming I still have him elected Governor in the first place. I doubt the GOP would be willing to nominate someone so new to the political scene.

Rockefeller can't be nominated and he's too much like Kennedy.

Romney probably isn't constitutionally viable from what I know.

But I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.
 
Given that ITTL:

- Kennedy will almost certainly lose the popular vote, if he loses Texas;
- Kennedy wins the election on the basis of the corrupt Illinois vote;

He's in for a bumpy ride with the Republicans. In fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't a legal challenge of the results a la 2000, which IOTL Nixon refused to do. Without Johnson, Kennedy may also have lost South Carolina, in which case we're looking at 266-252. Which is to say, no overall majority. (Although if you're just confining the impact to Texas here, that's okay with me)
 
Last edited:
The results of the 1960 Presidential election were tightly contested. Vice President Nixon had received 34, 154, 414 votes to Kennedy’s 34, 174, 727. The popular vote favored Kennedy, but only slightly. Kennedy had received 20, 313 votes more than Nixon, hardly a stunning result. It was clearly not the result the Senator had either anticipated or wanted. Both candidates had received what amounted to 50 % of the vote. However, it was not the cause for alarm it might otherwise have been. While such a conclusion might well have prompted a run off in another nation, in the United States, the Presidency was and is decided by electoral votes. And there, by all appearances Kennedy was considerably more comfortable. However, shadows loomed in the distance. Kennedy’s status as President elect was entirely dependent on the results in Illinois. And there were various irregularities within the state. As such, it was not surprising in the least that the Republican party would quickly challenge the results. In spite of the “Illinois” problem, both candidates managed to remain rather aloof. Shortly after the election, and with a recount in Illinois ongoing, Nixon finally spoke about the situation in Illinois. In an interview with Walter Cronkite, Nixon said that contrary to rumour, he was not planning to reverse his concession to Kennedy. “This isn’t about getting me into the White House, or about keeping Senator Kennedy out of it. This is about making sure every vote is counted. As of yet, I haven’t received any indication that my concession on election night was premature. Senator Kennedy is still the President elect. I’ve spoken with the Senator, and from the little he told me, I am certain that he shares the conviction that every vote ought to be counted.” Of course, Kennedy and Nixon hadn’t spoken at all. Kennedy attempted to distance himself from Illinois as much as possible. The last thing Kennedy wanted was to have his Presidency tainted before it even begun. At the same time, Nixon was trying his best not to appear as a sore loser. In the end, the recount concluded that Kennedy had indeed triumphed in Illinois, but by a lower margin than previously assumed. But the damage was done. For the rest of his Presidency, his popularity would suffer on account of a seemingly stolen election.
Excerpt Kennedy: A Life by John Reeves.
 
Vice President Symington, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens:
We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom, symbolizing an end as well as a beginning, signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge – and more.
To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do; for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.
To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom; and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.
To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required – not because the communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds in a new alliance for progress; to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support, to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course – both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin a new remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms – and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.
Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the Earth the command of Isaiah to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again; not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are; but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation" – a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.
Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility; I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it – and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on Earth God's work must truly be our own.
The Inaugural Address of President John Kennedy.


Former President Kennedy: Yes, that day was quite as happy as I'd hoped. I was more than aware that there was a cloud over my inauguration in the eyes of much of the public. But I like to think my speech calmed them down a bit.
Mike Wallace: And from the beginning of your term, you faced..shall I call it the Cuban problem?
Former President Kennedy: Mike-I'd rather not discuss Cuba.
60 Minutes Feb. 12 1975
 
Top