Stop Kennedy

Since I don't want to clutter up the forum, here's 4 PODs that I had in mind in the same thread. WI any of these had won the Democratic nomination in 1960 and then defeated Nixon:

1) Hubert Humphrey

2) Lyndon Johnson

3) Adlai Stevenson

4) Stuart Symington
 
Since I don't want to clutter up the forum, here's 4 PODs that I had in mind in the same thread. WI any of these had won the Democratic nomination in 1960 and then defeated Nixon:

1) Hubert Humphrey

2) Lyndon Johnson

3) Adlai Stevenson

4) Stuart Symington

Well, my personal preference will always lean towards HHH, but there's a way to do it with all four.

HUMPHREY - Humphrey carries the primaries instead of Kennedy and uses this impetus to gather endorsements from powerful anti-Kennedy people such as Stevenson and LBJ. Granted, he would have a hell of a road to overcome but if he took the primaries he needed to take, he could've done it.

JOHNSON - He needs to control the traditional Democratic machine. He needs to keep the compromise negotiated by bosses like David Lawrence from happening. With that, he has a good track to the nod.

STEVENSON - He just has to express an interest in it. Stevenson, though would be approaching old hat at that point and this would be his last chance either way. He just needs to say that he wants it and he could beat Kennedy.

SYMINGTON - As a compromise candidate would be his best chance to get in. Not exciting and gray-haired, Stu Symington would have to get in by way of a deadlocked convention, or some long protracted negotiations.
 
JOHNSON - He needs to control the traditional Democratic machine. He needs to keep the compromise negotiated by bosses like David Lawrence from happening. With that, he has a good track to the nod.

But that's what he was planning on doing in our time, that's why he thought he could wait until the convention. He thought he could put together a machine coalition at Los Angeles. Bad mistake.

OTOH I'm convinced he has a good chance of beating JFK should he run a serious primary campaign in 1960.

I think if he just wins West Virginia and Florida and California*, plus one other MidWest/Atlantic state, then Kennedy's victories won't appear particularly impressive to the balance of delegates who make the decision at the convention. In fact I have a hard time seeing Kennedy winning the nomination should he suffer any losses to LBJ in contested states outside the NorthEast and the industrial MidWest. For Kennedy, losing Florida** to the Texan isn't as survivable as losing a farm state to HHH is.

The PoD for all this happening is not so much Johnson deciding in 1959 that he can only win the nomination through the primaries, but that he can only win the White House by first demonstrating his abilities through the primary season.


*Of course going as far as Cali means extending the actual primary battle, which in OTL was over by then.

And I think 1960 California is good territory for a motivated, well funded LBJ, it's the right POTUS primary election for the last of the old school conservative Dems to want to vote in--Okies, Sam Yorty, Ronald Reagan!. I see them deciding to cast a vote against ADA liberalism, aka the thing they naturally assume JFK is running on. Between this and LBJ being a strong enough campaigner to hold JFK's advantage with moderate liberal Brown Democrats and Hispanics to a minimum I can see Johnson getting the edge in the state. I also see LBJ getting the lion's share of labor endorsements.

The lack of a choice in the GOP presidential primary would contribute to this dynamic, IMO.

Even if they're undecided about voting for the Texan in the general, LBJ wins California if the centre-Right electors want a general election without JFK on the ballot.


**George Smathers was favourite son on the ballot there in OTL, though in a contested Florida primary I assume his numbers fall to that of Stevenson in Illinois, if he's still in the race that is. Same with Pat Brown in the California ballot.
 
Top