Making the VP less powerful, Nixon loses by lots in 1960

Could Nixon have lost by a significant margin in 1960.

What effect would that have on the value of being VP/

Could he has lost in 1968 to someone who had not been VP?
 
Could Nixon have lost by a significant margin in 1960.

What effect would that have on the value of being VP...


Once there was a poor widow who had two sons.

One of them ran off to sea.

The other became Vice President of the United States.

And neither was ever heard of again.
 
He could have lost 1960 by a landslide electorally, but never in the popular vote. Kennedy could have picked up California, Alaska, Washington, Montana, Florida, and Wisconsin. The least close of the close states Kennedy could have won are Oregon, Virginia, Ohio, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Kentucky, Idaho, Utah, Colorado.

That doesn't mean the vice presidency becomes less powerful. If there is a trend where the VP consistently fails to win the nomination or the election, then it would have that prospect, but it'd need to be a longer term trend over several elections.
 
Yes, Nixon could have lost the 1960 presidential election by a larger Electoral College vote margin. No, a bigger defeat would not have lessened the power of the vice presidency nor the value of being the Vice President. Prior to Nixon in 1968, only 3 incumbent Vice Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Van Buren went on to become POTUS w/o succeeding to the presidency first upon their predecessor's death (Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson).

Look closer to our own time and note that the failed presidential bids of Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle and Al Gore have not diminished power or prestige of the office of the Vice President.
 
Honestly, I'd say Johnson did more to strengthen the office than Nixon, by reminding people why the hell we had the job in the first place - and why you need to keep a good eye on number two.
 
Honestly, I'd say Johnson did more to strengthen the office than Nixon, by reminding people why the hell we had the job in the first place - and why you need to keep a good eye on number two.

Well, the assassination did more than Johnson himself. LBJ was a joke and shunned as the VP, being basically castrated compared to his role in the Senate. He was about to be ruined in scandal and may have been dropped in '64 in favor of Sanford or Gore, Sr. Of course, the assassination put him as C-in-C and there on is history...

So, yeah, if no JFK assassination, the VP slot may stay weaker longer.
 
He absolutely could have lost by a landslide in 1960. There was a recession going on from 1958 to the early part of the Kennedy years, which only really went away with Kennedy's loosening of the fiscal screws kept tight by Eisenhower. Have Eisenhower tighten those screws harder and press for a more balanced federal budget (perhaps with cuts in defense spending?) and that recession gets deeper and puts Nixon in a very bad position for the 1960 presidential election.
 
Top