Nixon in '64?

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.

genusmap.php


(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)
Minnesota wasn't as solid blue as you seem to think it is. It only went to Kennedy by 1.43% in 1960, and if Nixon gets someone like Harold Stassen more active in the campaign there, it could easily swing Minnesota's electoral votes to Nixon in '64. I might give you New York, but I was picturing a more involved Nelson Rockefeller since Goldwater is not running, and in 1963 New York had a largely Republican representation in Congress. Additionally, Scranton will pick up more votes with the Mid-Atlantic, so you can give New Jersey and maybe Maryland to Nixon.

On the South, I think they would definitely not vote for Kennedy since he is pushing through the Civil Rights Act, or perhaps passed it by the time of the election. Would Wallace throw his endorsement to Nixon in 1964 if Kennedy isn't assassinated, assuming that Wallace does as well in the Democratic primaries as he did in OTL? And if Kennedy tries to delay its passage until after the election to keep the deep South, there goes Kennedy's refutation to Nixon's claim that all he's done is bring the country to the brink of nuclear war.


So, Nixon only needs 28 electoral votes to get the election. New Jersey gives 17, and Minnesota and... say Kentucky, since it had a Republican Senate at the time, gives Nixon the presidency. Or just give Nixon Ohio and Alaska, which he won in 1960.
 
Last edited:
You forgot that New Jersey has a large Catholic population, along with the Hughes machine. Maryland also has a large Catholic population. And Ohio would render the map 270-268 Kennedy. ;)

The South voted Democratic not just on race, but on habit because of the entrenched anti-Republican mythology dating back over a century. Even in 1968, after all that happened for civil rights during Johnson's presidency, the race riots and Vietnam, Nixon came in third in Louisiana behind Wallace and Hubert Humphrey. Wallace would never endorse Nixon- in 1968 he said that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" and attacked Nixon for his role at Little Rock in 1957. Don't forget LBJ was on the ticket as well, and the Democratic governors would swing their states to JFK because even at minimum, they want federal patronage. Mississippi received 3 times more in federal aid than taxes they sent to Washington. You do the math. JFK's image was beginning to soften a bit in the South by 1963- some moderate Dixiecrats saw JFK as an anchor of moderate stability and gradual change. To quote an Arkansas Gazette editorial from November 1963: "the President has not come here to do battle with anyone." Around the same time, in another Southern paper: "the Republicans would be premature in adding up all those electoral votes for a solid Republican South." Most of the Southern governors were at least somewhat friendly to the administration- in fact all of them were except Wallace and Barnett.
 
A final point: Nixon had absolutely no desire to run in 1964, which he discusses in some detail in his memoirs, for both political and personal reasons. He ran for governor in '62 precisely so he could make the pledge to serve out his term and avoid being drafted in '64. Nixon, Rovian as he was, also knew that it would be Rocky v. Barry, they would destroy each other and then LBJ would destroy the winner, leaving Nixon in control of the party once again. JFK living doesn't change this scenario.
 
You forgot that New Jersey has a large Catholic population, along with the Hughes machine. Maryland also has a large Catholic population. And Ohio would render the map 270-268 Kennedy. ;)
The Catholic population and the Hughes machine (are you talking about Howard Hughes here, because he gave a lot to the Nixon campaigns as well? :confused:) only got Kennedy a 0.80% margin in the state in 1960. And if you don't like Minnesota, then I could change that to Wisconsin which Nixon won in 1960 or Missouri which he lost by a 0.52% margin in 1960.
 
No, I'm talking about Gov. Dick Hughes, second only to Hizzonor as the top Democratic boss. You still haven't addressed my last post, nor my points about the South.
Ah, I wasn't sure who you were talking about. That still doesn't refute the evidence that New Jersey was a very close state at the time and could likely swing either way, barely going for Kennedy in 1960 and going for Nixon in 1968.

I haven't addressed your points about the South because I'm conceding the argument to you, and accepting your proposal for what the Deep South would look like. :)

And about Nixon not wanting to run in 1964, that would defeat the point of the exercise now wouldn't it. ;)
 
If Nixon somehow won in 1964, Vietnam and the cities would fall into his lap. So in 1964, RFK decides to decline the Pentagon which he was due to inherit in Jack's second term, resign from Justice and run for Senate. His personal resources and those of the state party are more than enough for a comfortable win. So by 1968 Vietnam is sinking or at least similar to Iraq c. 2006, the cities are in flames, and Nixon will face RFK in the general, and with burdens only slightly less than those faced by LBJ IOTL, loses to Bobby. Check and mate, or as RFK would have it, intercept and touchdown. ;)
 
It depends, I don't see Nixon pulling to the right the way he did in 1968. He'd probably run as a centrist, Rockefeller Republican. I think the deep South, in an election between Nixon and JFK, would go unpledged. Maybe George Wallace makes a third party run.
 
Alright, I'm going to have to reverse you on Georgia. In the OTL election of 1964, Georgia cast its votes for Goldwater with an 8.25% majority. This was the first time Georgia EVER voted Republican. If the assassination of JFK and Barry Goldwater can't keep Georgia from switching parties, then what makes you think Nixon running will make them vote Democrat?
 
Okay, I revised the 1964 election map. If you're still annoyed with Nixon winning Georgia, swap it out for Missouri or Wisconsin.

Nixon_64-1.png


Richard Nixon (R-CA)/William Scranton (R-PA): 280 EV, 50.6%
John F. Kennedy (D-MA)/Lyndon Johnson (D-TX): 258 EV, 49.4%



Now then, what happens during Nixon's presidency, assuming the Civil Rights Act has already been passed?
 
LBJ's problems with the media could be summarized as too much spin, and too many lies. Anyone who does a search for pre-WG media threads will see my lengthy elaborations on the media's relationship with presidents and the Kennedys specifically. FDR treated them with contempt (NYT backed Willkie in '40 and FDR lukewarmly because he wasn't Dewey in '44) and like Reagan, could easily talk over their heads to the voters. Truman had a cordial, informal relationship. Ike was simply God, verbal gaffes aside. LBJ was basically acting like a spurned lover- the media didn't want to like him, but at least at the outset he wanted to like them. The media was also voluntarily using themselves to torque up the LBJ-RFK feud, by making it a "he said, you, said, comment" repeated ad infinitum. Not that either of them objected to this, but there were certainly more productive ways of using time. When you already have a dozen phosphorous grenades heading towards that ammo depot, you don't need the kitchen matches the media provided.

As for Nixon: the media hated him ever since '52, because Checkers allowed him to go over their heads and use the public to defeat their narrative, which was saying that Nixon should resign on unproven charges because the media said so. :rolleyes: A preview of the Silent Majority (TM) trick he used as POTUS.

Nixon in '64: CRA gets passed in 1965-6, and now both parites are irrevocably tarred as "traitors to the South" by Wallace & Co, but the Dems will lose the South to the GOP on ideology by the late '70s/early '80s.
 
Top