Nixon in '64?

[wilcoxchar]

All the timelines I've seen with Nixon getting elected either have him become president in 1960 or 1968. But what would have to happen for Nixon to be elected president in 1964? Obviously the death of JFK would have to be gotten rid of or made earlier, since the timing of the assassination made it so no Republican could win in 1964 (probably why Nixon didn't run then in OTL).

For the first idea of Kennedy surviving, Nixon could probably capitalize on the Cuban Missile Crisis diverting Kennedy's attention from his campaign promises. The Republicans could claim that Nixon would have done a better job, and that Kennedy did nothing of value during his presidency. In fact, all he did do was bring the country extremely close to another Pearl Harbor.

For the second case, LBJ was a rather bad president and really only one because the memory of JFK was still fresh in the public mind and because the Republican alternative of Barry Goldwater was such a horrifying thought. I've been reading up on LBJ for a class on Watergate, and in 1964 a lot of people considered him untrustworthy, yet still voted for him because the idea of Goldwater was so much worse. If the Republicans had a less controversial nominee like Nixon, the landslide for LBJ certainly wouldn't have happened and the Republicans could have capitalized on LBJ's moral issues like they did in 1968.

So, taking those two ideas, what would the effects be on US and world history if Nixon was elected president in 1964? Would United States involvement in Vietnam still have escalated? Would there be better or worse relations with the Soviet Union? What about the Civil Rights movement?

 

[RogueBeaver]

JFK's approval ratings were at 76% in late 1963, with a majority of Republicans approving of his job performance. Nixon is still tainted with the loss of 1960, and his opponents will say that Nixon cannot beat JFK, or the Kennedys generally, which happened in 1968 IOTL. Postwar, presidents who lost re-election were either massively unpopular (Truman, Carter, Bush I), had a split party (all 3), a bad economy (Carter, Bush I) or a protracted foreign war (Truman). None of those conditions exist in 1964, JFK can run on peace and prosperity much like Reagan in 1984 and Clinton in 1996. No Republican can beat JFK, and Nixon is far too cautious to run in 1964. The closest parallel would be Gore not running in '04, also for very solid reasons.

Capitalization on moral issues: as I have repeated ad infinitum, the press did not report on politicians' personal lives before Watergate, and treated them as friends, not enemies. While journalists might've known of unsavory details, they were never printed.

 

[Han]

Nixon would not have run in OTL 1964 for doing so would be committing political seppuku. Despite any problems voters had with LBJ at the time, it would've been difficult for anybody to beat him: the nation was still in mourning over JFK's loss, and a lot of LBJ's votes were sympathy votes. The nation was not emotionally ready to have another President in 1964. Hell, if JFK had lived, Barry Goldwater would've done a lot better than he did in 1964. To add to that, IIRC the economy was pretty good in 1964, so the election would've been the incumbent's to lose.

I think, in order to get Nixon in the White House in 1964, you have to have JFK live, and have his Presidency go really really really really badly to the point where he will almost definitely lose in a landslide in 1964. I don't think JFK was going to lose to anybody in 1964 either.

 

[RogueBeaver]

JFK would garner about 30-40 less EV than LBJ, mainly in the Mountain West and one or two Deep Southern states, but Barry will most likely garner under 100 EV and the Dems might still get 60%+ PV. It would not be a close election by any standards. Even IOTL, a trial LBJ-RFK ticket made little statistical difference (and no more than 20 EV difference) outside the deepest of the Deep South, since the lost Southern votes were cancelled out by the increased youth and Catholic vote in the North. Also, the CRA and VRA will be making their way to the President's desk by the end of 1965, or early 1966 for the VRA absolute latest.

 

[Douglas]

Since we have some latitude here, I have two suggestions:

1. Best-Case Cuban Missile War. America wins it by turning Eastern Europe and Russia into glow-in-the-dark craters, but a couple of US cities are "busted". Yay, we won the war, with 5-20 million casualties...now the post-war swing to Republican isolationism we saw in 1948, where Dewey almost won, could allow Nixon to run again with a plausible chance of victory, though I'd argue this is the definitive scenario for a successful Goldwater candidacy.

2. A major foreign policy disaster. Is it possible for South Vietnam to tumble over, if we give the North a few breaks between 1961 and 1964?

 

[Han]

RogueBeaver: I'm not sure JFK would've gotten 60% of the vote if he had lived. A lot of LBJ's votes came from sympathy voters. I'd say 55%-57% maybe? The worst he'd probably do is 54%. Also, I don't think it would've been as big of a landslide as you suggest, as JFK and Barry were friends, and I don't see JFK running as big of a smear campaign as LBJ did (Daisy ad anyone?). Also, JFK and Goldwater had agreed to several debates, so maybe Goldwater wouldn't have been seen as much of an extremist as he was OTL 1964.

Here's how I see the map going down (PV percentages can vary):


John F. Kennedy (D-MA)/Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX): 55% PV, 370 EV
Barry M. Goldwater (R-AZ)/Margaret C. Smith (R-ME): 44% PV, 168 EV

 

[wilcoxchar]

And if Kennedy was still alive, Nixon would use the campaign strategy that he had gotten practically nothing done in his term but almost bringing the country to nuclear war. Whether that's true or not, look at the success that Republicans are getting saying that Obama has done nothing in his term so far.

Also, Kennedy's approval ratings had been on a steady decline by his assassination. Maybe revelations come out of some of the dirty tricks the Democrats pulled in the 1960 election (if Nixon's running you know that those will come out), and some of Johnson's corruption during his Senate term surfaces. Kennedy pledges in a campaign speech to withdraw from Vietnam, but something happens in the conflict that requires further American involvement (like the Tonkin Incident in August of 1964 in OTL), and Kennedy is shown going back on a campaign promise before he's even won.

 

[Han]

Or actually, that map is probably the best case scenario for Barry. Worse case, JFK picks up VA, NC, TN, AR, ND, and SD.

 

[Han]

And if Kennedy was still alive, Nixon would use the campaign strategy that he had gotten practically nothing done in his term but almost bringing the country to nuclear war. Whether that's true or not, look at the success that Republicans are getting saying that Obama has done nothing in his term so far.

Kennedy most likely would've gotten the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed had he lived. That would've been a MAJOR accomplishment that Nixon most likely wouldn't criticize.

 

[RogueBeaver]

You can't extrapolate 2010 circumstances to ATL 1964, because they are two completely different worlds. By November 1963 JFK's approval rating was at 59%, which is not the 76% of January or 91% of 1961 but certainly nothing to be ashamed of- Bill Clinton's second-term numbers were only a few points higher. JFK was polling a plurality of Republican voters. Also, Nixon will have the taint of a loser. Doing nothing will fall flat, because if with a purring economy and a popular incumbent, the voters will simply not give a damn.

How many times must I repeat: the media operated completely differently pre-Watergate, and Nixon himself in 1960 was the one who refused to have a Bush v. Gore scenario 40 years early, despite the entreaties of his advisers, his family, and Ike himself. The reason is partially to avoid the taint of a sore loser and retain a patina of viability for 1968, partially because the Republicans cheated as much downstate as Hizzonor did in Chicago. Nor did Illinois decide the election- you would need to flip a 46,000 vote margin in Texas, which is ASB.

 

[Apollo 20]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Nixon's loss in 1962 in the California governor's race. That has to go away, either by Nixon winning or by him not running at all. After 1962, Nixon was considered politically dead; the idea that he could run and win just a year after having his political obituary written would require some extraordinary circumstances. He got such extraordinary circumstances by 1968, but 1964 was still a relatively tranquil time, without the divisions that would develop later in the decade.

 

[Cook]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Nixon's loss in 1962 in the California governor's race...

You won’t have Richard Nixon to kick around any more.

 

[wilcoxchar]

How many times must I repeat: the media operated completely differently pre-Watergate, and Nixon himself in 1960 was the one who refused to have a Bush v. Gore scenario 40 years early, despite the entreaties of his advisers, his family, and Ike himself. The reason is partially to avoid the taint of a sore loser and retain a patina of viability for 1968, partially because the Republicans cheated as much downstate as Hizzonor did in Chicago. Nor did Illinois decide the election- you would need to flip a 46,000 vote margin in Texas, which is ASB.

So what you're saying is that the media could never attack the incumbents at all before 1973? Then why did LBJ have such difficulties in his relations with the media during his presidency, and why did the media keep attacking Nixon during Eisenhower's presidency? And it doesn't matter if the Republicans cheated as much in Illinois as the Dems if the public does not find out about it.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Nixon's loss in 1962 in the California governor's race. That has to go away, either by Nixon winning or by him not running at all. After 1962, Nixon was considered politically dead; the idea that he could run and win just a year after having his political obituary written would require some extraordinary circumstances. He got such extraordinary circumstances by 1968, but 1964 was still a relatively tranquil time, without the divisions that would develop later in the decade.

Yeah, it was this loss that gave Nixon the reputation of being a loser, not the loss to Kennedy in 1960.


RogueBeaver, you are still not seeing that the overwhelming support for Johnson in 1964 came out of a fear of the ultraconservative Goldwater and out of the sympathy vote after Kennedy's assassination. Take away the assassination and Kennedy isn't elevated to this high pedestal and his approval numbers will probably be around 50% by the election following the trend that was going on (maybe closer to 55% if the Civil Rights Act gets through). But without Goldwater to drive away the moderate Republicans, Nixon will stand a chance at reversing the 1960 result.

 

[thevaliant]

There is another way for Nixon in '64. Surely an earlier POD, say Stevenson wins in 1956 which leads to an eight year Democrat President before Nixon bounces back in 1964.

Of course, this means that events discussed (Cuba) and people (JFK - what's he up to) can be altered radically.

 

[wilcoxchar]

There is another way for Nixon in '64. Surely an earlier POD, say Stevenson wins in 1956 which leads to an eight year Democrat President before Nixon bounces back in 1964.

Of course, this means that events discussed (Cuba) and people (JFK - what's he up to) can be altered radically.

Yeah, I didn't want to have that many butterflies. The earliest POD I'd prefer would be 1963, so it's after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

[Claudius]

As has been noted, 1964 was a whole different world. As a POD, the assassination in Dallas fails or does not occur. Let's say Nixon's people find out about (and get to friendly reporters) some of JFK's rather insanely risky sexual behavior with some credible evidence. This would have the most impact in the Deep South, the Democratic heartland in those days. If JFK's poll numbers before the news comes out were at circa 52-54% it could lead to a very close election. Remember, Nelson Rockefeller's chances for the Republican nomination sank when he divorced his long-time wife and quickly remarried. Such things had a lot more impact in those days. Also, don't take as a given a Civil Rights Act in 1964 if JFK is alive. It is very likely he would have postponed that until he was safely re-elected. Again, all those very important EVs in the South.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I've been thinking today about who Nixon's VP should be for '64. Goldwater is out for obvious reasons, and Rockefeller is out due to the backlash from his divorce and remarriage in '63 (though maybe that doesn't happen). Talking with a friend, we settled on William Warren Scranton of Pennsylvania. Scranton was an assistant to Dulles in 1959 and won election to Congress in a largely Democratic district in Pennsylvania in 1960. He elevated quickly and became governor of PA in 1963 and would get a lot of the moderate Republicans in the Northeast.

 

[wilcoxchar]

Here's a draft election map for 1964.

Richard Nixon (R-CA)/William Scranton (R-PA): 53% PV, 288 EV
John F. Kennedy (D-MA)/Lyndon Johnson (D-TX): 47% PV, 250 EV

 

[Claudius]

I've been thinking today about who Nixon's VP should be for '64. Goldwater is out for obvious reasons, and Rockefeller is out due to the backlash from his divorce and remarriage in '63 (though maybe that doesn't happen). Talking with a friend, we settled on William Warren Scranton of Pennsylvania. Scranton was an assistant to Dulles in 1959 and won election to Congress in a largely Democratic district in Pennsylvania in 1960. He elevated quickly and became governor of PA in 1963 and would get a lot of the moderate Republicans in the Northeast.

What did you think of George Romney? He would have brought in an important midwestern state and was a self-made man. His Mormon faith was probably less likely to have been a factor then than now

 

[RogueBeaver]

JFK would still win because Nixon cannot carry Deep Southern states. Let's not forget in 1964 Nixon was still seen as a civil rights liberal, and even in 1968 Nixon was in third place in Louisiana behind Wallace and Humphrey. Minnesota is far too liberal- a solid Blue state then as now. Nixon carrying NY is also ASB, since it was a solid Blue state. The map is frankly ASB and the outcome with a post-Dallas domestic POD is borderline ASB. Period. Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but those are the facts as I (and other Sixtologists) know them.

Here's a relatively close election as I see it.

(D) John F. Kennedy/ Lyndon B. Johnson: 296 EV, 50.8%
(R) Richard M. Nixon/ William W. Scranton: 242 EV, 49.1%

Incumbent President: John Kennedy (D)