The Kennedy dynasty of 1961-1977

Assuming JFK is not assassinated could JFK have served out both his terms with his brother Robert then running in 1968 and also being elected twice?

Could the Kennedy Dynasty have been an almost literal ruling dynasty?
 

Bomster

Banned
Although JFK was a fantastic president in my eyes I believe that another term with him wouldn’t have been good for his legacy. He wasn’t very popular before his assassination, especially in the South. His brother was even more hated. Not only that but JFK’s philandering would have in some way or another become a scandal. It was JFK’s assassination that really propelled him into martyrdom. Robert became a much more compassionate man after the assassination, which strengthened the qualities that we remembered most of him. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that JFK died, but I am saying that both he and his brother wouldn’t have been remembered as fondly. So this hurts the chances of there being a Kennedy dynasty, also the American people would not like anything resembling a “dynasty” so if this version of RFK wants to pursue office he should wait until JFK nostalgia kicks in, maybe 1972-1980.
 
if the goal is to make a Kennedy Dynasty, why not have Ted be president from 1977 to 1985, a full 24 years of Kennedy
 
Now we just need a couple people to bridge the gap before JFK jr is old enough to run.

In 1988 Joseph P. Kennedy II would be old enough, inbetween him and Ted you could have JFK/RFK/TMK's brother in law (and IOTL 1972 VP candidate) Sargent Shirver for a term or two, then after JPK you could have Patrick J Kennedy, and then JFK jr.
assuming all serve 2 terms it would look like this

1961-1969: John F Kennedy
1969-1977: Robert F Kennedy
1977-1985: Ted M Kennedy
1985-1993: Sargent Shirver
1993-2001: Joseph P. Kennedy II
2001-2009: Patrick J. Kennedy
2009-2017: John F kennedy II

half a century of kennedy's :openedeyewink:
maybe have Ted jr after JFK jr before Joe III can ran
 
No. I can't see any other Kennedys becoming president. JFK's death took the spotlight off the bad behavior the male Kennedys enjoy engaging in. JFK would serve two terms and be seen as a medicore president at best.

Also, does Chappaquiddick still happen? I can't see Ted getting out of that if JFK is alive. He'd have died in jail and the family legacy would be boot leggers, a so so president, and immoral conduct.
 
RFK wasn't destined for a career in elected office and remember, he ran for that Senate seat so he could carry on his brother's work after the assassination. If JFK is still in office in 1968 I don't think Bobby runs. In "A Thousand Days" Schlesinger briefly mentioned the possibility that McNamara could have run as JFK's successor.

If RFK does go into elected office, it would be in 1970 at the earliest. He'll face a similar choice as OTL: New York Senate or Massachusetts Governorship, but this time he'll also have the option of challenging Rockefeller for the New York Governorship. Rocky might be seen as too popular to beat (and that's if Rocky hasn't become President or Vice-President in 1969). If the Senate is open RFK would try for it, he greatly preferred that to the MA Governor's mansion.
 
Also, does Chappaquiddick still happen? I can't see Ted getting out of that if JFK is alive. He'd have died in jail and the family legacy would be boot leggers, a so so president, and immoral conduct.

First of all, the bootlegging charge is a myth created by Joe Sr's former mob allies to smear the family after Bobby started hounding them in the 60's. The elder Kennedy did deal in liquor, but that was in conjunction with FDR's son once prohibition was lifted. Secondly, the reason Chappaquiddick happened is that Ted met Mary Jo at a party held by the Boiler Room Girls who worked for Bobby's campaign. The party was one of several in the past year held in honor of the campaign. So no JFK assassination means no RFK assassination (see the reasons I posted above as to why Bobby would not have run had Jack lived) which means no Chappaquiddick.
 
In 1988 Joseph P. Kennedy II would be old enough, inbetween him and Ted you could have JFK/RFK/TMK's brother in law (and IOTL 1972 VP candidate) Sargent Shirver for a term or two, then after JPK you could have Patrick J Kennedy, and then JFK jr.
assuming all serve 2 terms it would look like this

1961-1969: John F Kennedy
1969-1977: Robert F Kennedy
1977-1985: Ted M Kennedy
1985-1993: Sargent Shirver
1993-2001: Joseph P. Kennedy II
2001-2009: Patrick J. Kennedy
2009-2017: John F kennedy II

half a century of kennedy's :openedeyewink:
maybe have Ted jr after JFK jr before Joe III can ran

ASB TL when?

JFK sets up a dictatorship.
 

Marc

Donor
Although JFK was a fantastic president in my eyes I believe that another term with him wouldn’t have been good for his legacy. He wasn’t very popular before his assassination, especially in the South. His brother was even more hated. Not only that but JFK’s philandering would have in some way or another become a scandal. It was JFK’s assassination that really propelled him into martyrdom. Robert became a much more compassionate man after the assassination, which strengthened the qualities that we remembered most of him. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that JFK died, but I am saying that both he and his brother wouldn’t have been remembered as fondly. So this hurts the chances of there being a Kennedy dynasty, also the American people would not like anything resembling a “dynasty” so if this version of RFK wants to pursue office he should wait until JFK nostalgia kicks in, maybe 1972-1980.

I would have to disagree about the American public disliking political dynasties - which would in my view include political families, not just a patrilineal connection. On the presidential level there have been the two Adams, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, and the Bushes. On the level just below that - senators and governors - there have been literally dozens of families that have filled those and similar offices for generations. For example: two of the most famous families are the Udalls and the Tafts; both families over multiple generations and in various States around the country.
In fact, coming from a known political dynasty seems to be a strategic advantage in the public's eye. They know your people - to use an old-fashioned but still valid, for most, expression.
 
1977-1985: Ted M Kennedy

Ted really didn't want to be President, he only ran in 1980 because he and the rest of the Democratic leadership hated Carter for his fiscal conservatism, incompetence, and awful relationship with Congress. When Roger Mudd asked EMK why he wanted to be President, Kennedy gave this unsure and meandering non-answer that only confirmed what many rightfully suspected. Bobby was the last hope the Kennedys had to recapture the White House, at least in the twentieth century.
 
As others have observed the problem with RFK in 68 is the assumption that somehow JFK would have a more successful 65-69 term than LBJ did.

Kennedy benefits from not having to deal with the problems of Vietnam as well as the general chaos of the late 60's. RFK had serious issues with younger voters in 68 because of his role in JFK/LBJ administrations, he would have even more if JFK was the outgoing POTUS
 
Top