Later John F. Kennedy Presidency (1965-?)

Let's say that the Democratic nominee in 1960 is either Governor Pat Brown of California or Senator/Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas (possible if Johnson brokers the convention). The Democratic nominee in 1960 loses to Vice President Richard Nixon in the General Election but Nixon loses in 1964 to Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts because of Republican fatigue among Independent voters. Obviously if Johnson is the loser in 1960, he is not Kennedy's vice president (Maybe if Brown is the loser Johnson can still blackmail Kennedy as OTL). If Nixon escalates involvement in Vietnam, how do you think Kennedy would deal with it? Nixon felt strongly about the Civil Rights Movement, so I could see that being set back until the mid or late 1960s. How do you think Nixon would handle the Cuban Missile Crisis? Although he was Eisenhower's Vice President, I think him not handling it aggressively is plausible.
 
Last edited:
There wouldn't be a Cuban Missile Crisis under the leadership of Richard Nixon. While there would be a Berlin Wall, and it would be handled probably similarly to OTL, Cuba would likely go very differently under Nixon.
 
Let's say that the Democratic nominee in 1960 is either Governor Pat Brown of California or Senator/Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas (possible if Johnson brokers the convention). The Democratic nominee in 1960 loses to Vice President Richard Nixon in the General Election but Nixon loses in 1964 to Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts because of Republican fatigue among Independent voters. Obviously if Johnson is the loser in 1960, he is not Kennedy's vice president (Maybe if Brown is the loser Johnson can still blackmail Kennedy as OTL). If Nixon escalates involvement in Vietnam, how do you think Kennedy would deal with it? Nixon felt strongly about the Civil Rights Movement, so I could see that being set back until the mid or late 1960s. How do you think Nixon would handle the Cuban Missile Crisis? Although he was Eisenhower's Vice President, I think him not handling it aggressively is plausible.

We butterflying Kennedy's crippling health problems?
 
There wouldn't be a Cuban Missile Crisis under the leadership of Richard Nixon. While there would be a Berlin Wall, and it would be handled probably similarly to OTL, Cuba would likely go very differently under Nixon.

Bay of Pigs would go the same for whoever was President, unless they were a FP/security genius who could adequately challenge CIA/military flaws in their reports - we know that Nixon as VP was supportive of getting rid of Castro and in favour of the Bay of Pigs plan.

Therefore, can we assume that Nixon would have committed to invading Cuba with ground forces unlike JFK when the Bay plan failed?
 
We butterflying Kennedy's crippling health problems?
No but, could his health problems be a reason to keep him out of the 1960 race and allow Pat Brown or Lyndon Johnson to win?
Therefore, can we assume that Nixon would have committed to invading Cuba with ground forces unlike JFK when the Bay plan failed?
Perhaps his committing of ground forces to Cuba and Vietnam could be the source of Republican fatigue among Independent voters? Just a thought.
 
Let's say that the Democratic nominee in 1960 is either Governor Pat Brown of California or Senator/Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas (possible if Johnson brokers the convention).

Pat Brown was simply not a serous presidential prospect in 1960. The most he could conceivably get would be the vice-presidential nomination if the party were to nominate a Protestant like LBJ or Symington for president (and if JFK turned down the vice-presidential nomination).
 
Bay of Pigs would go the same for whoever was President, unless they were a FP/security genius who could adequately challenge CIA/military flaws in their reports - we know that Nixon as VP was supportive of getting rid of Castro and in favour of the Bay of Pigs plan.

Therefore, can we assume that Nixon would have committed to invading Cuba with ground forces unlike JFK when the Bay plan failed?

Put simply, no. The location we know as the Bay of Pigs was chosen under Kennedy thanks to State Department intervention to minimize egg of the nation's face if it went sideways. The original location was Trinidad, Cuba (IIRC) and Nixon would've likely invaded there, and yes with more support, meaning it has the potential to go a lot better.
 
Put simply, no. The location we know as the Bay of Pigs was chosen under Kennedy thanks to State Department intervention to minimize egg of the nation's face if it went sideways. The original location was Trinidad, Cuba (IIRC) and Nixon would've likely invaded there, and yes with more support, meaning it has the potential to go a lot better.

A slip on my part, I've been writing about it for a JFK thesis so have gotten used to calling it the Bay of Pigs plan, it's popular term. In general I was referring to the Cuba plan authorised by Eisenhower, which was originally for Trinidad and supported by then VP Nixon.

It wouldn't have gone better however, even if JFK's OTL changes (changing it from day to night, reducing number of airstrikes, changing location from Trinidad beach to BoP) were not made by Nixon, it was unlikely that the rebels could have overriden Castro's forces due to being outnumbered (remember Acheson's famous PWC comment) and there was not credible evidence to suggest that a popular uprising would be sparked after a few days if Castro's forces failed to defeat the invaders, as the CIA claimed.

Therefore, with the Trinidad/BoP plan being unlikely to succeed regardless, if Nixon had invaded with US troops, it had potential to go south very fast in a wider US-USSR context.
 
Pat Brown was simply not a serous presidential prospect in 1960. The most he could conceivably get would be the vice-presidential nomination if the party were to nominate a Protestant like LBJ or Symington for president (and if JFK turned down the vice-presidential nomination).

So, if John F. Kennedy does not run in 1960, Lyndon B. Johnson or Stuart Symington broker the convention (sort of like OTL). How can Richard Nixon beat Johnson or Symington in the General Election?
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is that Humphrey could be Johnson's VP nominee ITTL, it would be history fast-forwarded. Johnson-Humphrey Vs. Nixon-Lodge 1960. Kennedy-Symington? or Kennedy-Jackson? Vs. Nixon-Lodge 1964.
 
If JFK were not around or for some reason had decided not to run, it would be one thing. But if he does run, and is blocked on the first ballot (which came fairly close to happening) and ultimately LBJ or Symington is chosen, the candidate will almost have to choose a Catholic running mate, to appease Catholics who (rightly) thought JFK was rejected largely because of his religion. (This is especially true because Nixon might choose a Catholic running mate in that event.) More likely than an LBJ-Humphrey ticket in 1960 would be an LBJ-Eugene McCarthy ticket. (McCarthy's early record in the Senate was definitely *not* that of a liberal maverick like Wayne Morse or Paul Douglas--to win favor with LBJ, he refused to support Douglas's campaign against the oil depletion allowance. In short, to a surprising extent, given his later reputation, McCarthy was a get-along-go-along Democrat. he gace the nominating speech for Stevenson at the 1960 Demcoratic convention, but there was widespread suspicion that this was just a stop-JFK ploy so that LBJ could get nominated ad McCarthy named as his running mate...) Of course JFK himself would be the ideal Catholic running mate, but I am not sure he would accept.
 
Last edited:
about the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis . . .

I've read that Kennedy was privately furious, thinking Khruschev had perceived him as weak. (but I think we may have also previously discussed that this was only one administration source and/or famous biographer saying this) And heck, may have simply been an incorrect poker read on JFK's part.

I think missiles in Cuba was all about Khrushchev, who wanted to reach cold war parity on the cheap, so he could concentrate on industrial development.
 
Nixon/Lodge win in 1960

Nixon assassinated in 1963

Lodge beomes President

Lodge/Goldwater win in '64 (Sympathy vote helps put them over the top)

1968 JFK/Humphry win the White House

1972 Watergate Scandal (JFK caught in affair at DC hotel)

1973 JFK forced to resign due to growing scandal

Humphry new President

1976 Reagan/Rockefelar win in 1976 (Restore American Values)

1980 Brown/Udall (defeat RR/NR who was weakened by the economy failing and the Iran Hostage Massacre)
 
Nixon/Lodge win in 1960

Nixon assassinated in 1963

Lodge beomes President

Lodge/Goldwater win in '64 (Sympathy vote helps put them over the top)

1968 JFK/Humphry win the White House

1972 Watergate Scandal (JFK caught in affair at DC hotel)

1973 JFK forced to resign due to growing scandal

Humphry new President

1976 Reagan/Rockefelar win in 1976 (Restore American Values)

1980 Brown/Udall (defeat RR/NR who was weakened by the economy failing and the Iran Hostage Massacre)


This is completely deterministic.
 
Top