I had a friend of mine read Robert Caro's Passage of Power in his LBJ series, and he's at the part of the 1960 DNC, Kennedy's offer to LBJ, and Johnson quickly snatching up the vice presidential nomination. So we were discussing a little bit about how the '60s and politics thereafter might have gone had LBJ declined JFK's proposal (for whatever reason), and I figured hey, why not take this to the good people of ah.com. So, what are your thoughts? Who would replace Johnson as Kennedy's running mate? Was Johnson's impact great enough that Nixon would defeat Kennedy without him in 1960? How does a Kennedy presidency sans Johnson, or a Nixon presidency in 1960, develop?
What if LBJ declined the Vice Presidential Nomination?
- Thread starter Monopolist
- Start date
Unless there's an alternate running mate that can hold/shaw up Texas, the Carolinas, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Mexico (and maybe even more such states), the Democratic ticket loses in the fall. I've never seen any convincing case that such an electorally powerful alternate running mate--particularly RE the ability to top-up the campaign's finances--exists, not if we're talking about someone who's also acceptable to the rest of the nation.
(And I must reiterate what I wrote on Chat the other day; IMO timelines aren't legit cites for blanket speculation from that point of devergence. I hate to be that guy, but I can't go quiet on that so soon after I argued it.)
(And I must reiterate what I wrote on Chat the other day; IMO timelines aren't legit cites for blanket speculation from that point of devergence. I hate to be that guy, but I can't go quiet on that so soon after I argued it.)
cpip
Gone Fishin'
Isn't Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson a straightforward multivolume biography of the same sort as, say, Edmund Morris's Theodore Roosevelt trilogy?
Wait, did I do something? I didn't cite anyone's timeline to speculate about my question. I just asked a question and then a couple follow-up questions based on the conversation I was having - is that against forum etiquette now? I'm so confused.
EDIT: Passage of Power is part of a biography series on LBJ, not a timeline on this site
From Chat:
And if you want to know just what I know about the book OPer's friend is reading, check the search function for the dozens of times I've mentioned Robert Caro on this site. Why, I mentioned Caro's work just an hour or so ago.
See, what I was doing was cautioning people not to respond to my observation here, about how this POD elects Richard Nixon, by saying, please, don't just link to one of After 1900's fictional scenarios to give OPer something to ponder.
How very odd that two separate people could think I was actually suggesting Robert Caro's books are or aren't "legit cites for blanket speculation from that point of devergence." Hint: He doesn't write counterfactualism, ergo he isn't addressing any POD suggested by me or OPer.
And if you want to know just what I know about the book OPer's friend is reading, check the search function for the dozens of times I've mentioned Robert Caro on this site. Why, I mentioned Caro's work just an hour or so ago.
See, what I was doing was cautioning people not to respond to my observation here, about how this POD elects Richard Nixon, by saying, please, don't just link to one of After 1900's fictional scenarios to give OPer something to ponder.
How very odd that two separate people could think I was actually suggesting Robert Caro's books are or aren't "legit cites for blanket speculation from that point of devergence." Hint: He doesn't write counterfactualism, ergo he isn't addressing any POD suggested by me or OPer.
Would Kennedy straight up lose to Nixon, or would the lack of LBJ on the ticket lead to the unpledged electors winning more votes in the South and being capable of deadlocking the electoral college?
Maybe you should not have said something like that until somehow actually did what you were warning against?
Well I didn't mean to offend you. I had assumed that most people that comment regularly on this part of the site had read or were familiar with Caro, but I rarely spend time on After 1900, so I'm not as familiar with what posters here have and haven't read. It seemed like you were commenting on how I phrased the OP, which seemed bizarre to me. But yes, I would like to avoid simply being linked timelines in After 1900 on this POD - I'm sure it's been discussed before (and I know there are Nixon in 1960 timelines), but I'd like this to be a discussion on its own.
Now, back on topic...:
My personal guess is that it would be Symington.
That's an interesting way to take this question; I hadn't even considered the possibility. Without LBJ on the ticket, could there be enough unpledged electors in the south to throw the election to the House?
303, that's OTL's electoral college tally for Kennedy/Johnson; 219 for Nixon/Lodge.
15 others (Byrd); of those, one was from GOP-carried Oklahoma, a protest by a Republican delegate at Nixon losing.
Mississippi's 8 votes were a solid Democratic ticket IIRC, it's just they weren't pledged to K/J; Alabama was a convoluted plural vote, where all of the 6 delegates were elected separately, via each voter having 11 individual ballots (RCP's Sean Trende explains here.)
Could happen that unpledged electors in Mis, Alabama, perhaps also Louisiana, decide this AltElection. But Kennedy has to make sure the absence of LBJ from the ticket doesn't set the ball rolling in those three or so distinct Southern/SouthWestern regions that are at risk, otherwise Nixon will get to 270 in no time. And I have a hard time believing Nixon can campaign worse than he did in OTL. The only way is up for him.
But if the election is hung, I assume the deal to elect Nixon goes down in the electoral college, not the House? Those deep South Dems were anti-Kennedy for a reason.
15 others (Byrd); of those, one was from GOP-carried Oklahoma, a protest by a Republican delegate at Nixon losing.
Mississippi's 8 votes were a solid Democratic ticket IIRC, it's just they weren't pledged to K/J; Alabama was a convoluted plural vote, where all of the 6 delegates were elected separately, via each voter having 11 individual ballots (RCP's Sean Trende explains here.)
Could happen that unpledged electors in Mis, Alabama, perhaps also Louisiana, decide this AltElection. But Kennedy has to make sure the absence of LBJ from the ticket doesn't set the ball rolling in those three or so distinct Southern/SouthWestern regions that are at risk, otherwise Nixon will get to 270 in no time. And I have a hard time believing Nixon can campaign worse than he did in OTL. The only way is up for him.
But if the election is hung, I assume the deal to elect Nixon goes down in the electoral college, not the House? Those deep South Dems were anti-Kennedy for a reason.
I don't blame you, I should have realised just how ambiguous that read.
Nixon probably improves his standing in the south simply by Symington (assuming he's the VP in Johnson's stead) being on the ticket. After all, the man wouldn't speak to segregated audiences. Would it be enough for Nixon to get those states' electoral votes though? Texas is the only state that I feel confident would definitely flip to Nixon, the rest I'm kind of uncertain, though it seems possible.
Oh, and interesting article.
Yes, now that I think about it, you're right - they'd have to be pledged for it to be thrown to the House. Derp.
I imagine if this is the case that Nixon would make a deal with southern electors to get their votes, maybe promising that he would veto any kind of civil rights bill? A corrupt bargain in 1960... would that be on the table? If that were the case, 1964 might become a "revenge" election totally focused on the civil rights issue, with maybe a Kennedy-Nixon rematch or maybe Humphrey-Nixon....
A possible outcome is Kennedy goes with George Smathers as his running mate (whom he was considering IOTL). Smathers helps him gain more support from southerners who are uncomfortable with Kennedy, a northeastern Catholic. Kennedy/Smathers run on a more moderate platform than Kennedy/Johnson IOTL focusing mainly on the economy and the cold war and practically ignoring civil rights. As a result, the MLK phone call likely is butterflied out. Nevertheless, Kennedy still wins with the entire still pretty solid "solid south" (he wins Florida and Virginia, as well as Mississippi and all EVs in Alabama which he lost IOTL) as well as crucial swing states in the Midwest (Illinois, Michigan) due to his appeal to white working class voters. On the other hand, Nixon wins Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, and maybe even New York.
This most likely butterflies out Kennedy's assassination. Due to him being afraid of losing the southern support that helped him get elected the first time, he puts civil rights off angering many voters. This as well as having a segregationist for a VP causes him to lose minority support and re-election to a strongly pro-civil rights Republican, perhaps Nelson Rockefeller, or the more conservative Bill Knowland, or very ironically Henry Cabot Lodge (whom he unseated to win his senate seat in 1952, deja vu JFK?). Maybe even a Nixon re-match?
Now if Kennedy gets assassinated, and Smathers becomes president, this would be a much different situation. He vetoes the Civil Rights Act (but it still fortunately passes as there is more than a 2/3 majority that supports it) and loses in a blowout similar to OTL 1964 but reverse parties to basically whomever the Republicans put up.
This most likely butterflies out Kennedy's assassination. Due to him being afraid of losing the southern support that helped him get elected the first time, he puts civil rights off angering many voters. This as well as having a segregationist for a VP causes him to lose minority support and re-election to a strongly pro-civil rights Republican, perhaps Nelson Rockefeller, or the more conservative Bill Knowland, or very ironically Henry Cabot Lodge (whom he unseated to win his senate seat in 1952, deja vu JFK?). Maybe even a Nixon re-match?
Now if Kennedy gets assassinated, and Smathers becomes president, this would be a much different situation. He vetoes the Civil Rights Act (but it still fortunately passes as there is more than a 2/3 majority that supports it) and loses in a blowout similar to OTL 1964 but reverse parties to basically whomever the Republicans put up.
For example:
1960 U.S. Presidential Election
Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA) / Senator George Smathers (D-FL) - 301 EV
Vice-President Richard M. Nixon (R-CA) / Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R-MA) - 236 EV
1960 U.S. Presidential Election
Senator John F. Kennedy (D-MA) / Senator George Smathers (D-FL) - 301 EV
Vice-President Richard M. Nixon (R-CA) / Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. (R-MA) - 236 EV
Danger zone right there--down to 279.
<calling David Tenner>We need to know whether those unpledged electors in those two/three states were allowed by state law to cast their EC ballots for a Republican, I think.
Such laws probably wouldn't be constitutional, but it's still a factor to consider.</DT>
But now this brings up the problem of Northern liberal ambivalence towards Kennedy (which did exist), and the need for AA turnout in the midwest, New Jersey, even the need to make California competitive. The campaign didn't write off Ohio before the election, AFAIK.
A Democratic nominee who decides to ignore civil rights in 1960 is more than just a throwback to Stevenson--it's as serious a threat to Democratic unity going forward as any Dixecrat revolt at the time is. I assume you grok this when you mention Rockefeller as a future problem.
Of course it can be as simple as this.
I'm still intrigued by the unpledged electors deciding the result in the EC itself, I've never considered it before. It must have been discussed here before, right?
Symington is the most likely alternative. I think JFK will still win. LBJ's refusal may cost JFK Texas, but even if it costs him that state and South Carolina (which next to Texas was JFK's narrowest southern victory), JFK would still get 271 electoral votes--more than enough to win. http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1960.txt And even if JFK loses North Carolina as well (52.1-47.9 for JFK in OTL) that doesn't mean Nixon wins; rather, the race goes into the House (with each delegation having one vote) where JFK has the advantage, as I explain at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/GgIKHDCwhEo/7W1UrFH6cDQJ
Or another possibility would be Scoop Jackson of Washington, who might enable JFK to carry that state. Although both Jackson and Symington voted for civil rights, neither were thought of as "extreme" liberals on that or other issues, and neither would be nearly as offensive to the South as, say, Humphrey would be.
The one scenario in which not having LBJ on the ticket would elect Nixon is if Nixon carries not only Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina, but Louisiana as well. The reason this is (just barely) plausible is that while JFK won it pretty comfortably in OTL--by 50.4 percent to 28.6 percent for Nixon and the rest for unpledged electors--the state Democratic committee only narrowly voted to back JFK over unpledged (presumably pro-Byrd) electors. If not for the choice of LBJ, it might have chosen the latter, so that JFK would in effect be a "third party" candidate in Louisiana, the Byrd forces having the official Democratic designation. But even then I don't see how Nixon, who only got 28.6 percent of the vote in the state in OTL can carry the state. And for Louisiana to go to the unpledged electors will not make any difference if the race is going into the House anyway. (Moreover, even without official party support, JFK would still have a good chance to carry Louisiana in a three-way race, because unlike most other southern states, there is a substantial Catholic vote.)
The basic problem with the theory that "no LBJ on the ticket means Nixon wins" is that there were not very many southern states which Nixon lost *narrowly* in OTL. He either won them (Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida) or else he lost them decisively, either to JFK or unpledged electors (or in Alabama to a slate containing both JFK *and* unpledged electors). The only exceptions, as I said, were Texas and the Carolinas, and they were not enough by themselves to elect Nixon.
Or another possibility would be Scoop Jackson of Washington, who might enable JFK to carry that state. Although both Jackson and Symington voted for civil rights, neither were thought of as "extreme" liberals on that or other issues, and neither would be nearly as offensive to the South as, say, Humphrey would be.
The one scenario in which not having LBJ on the ticket would elect Nixon is if Nixon carries not only Texas, North Carolina, and South Carolina, but Louisiana as well. The reason this is (just barely) plausible is that while JFK won it pretty comfortably in OTL--by 50.4 percent to 28.6 percent for Nixon and the rest for unpledged electors--the state Democratic committee only narrowly voted to back JFK over unpledged (presumably pro-Byrd) electors. If not for the choice of LBJ, it might have chosen the latter, so that JFK would in effect be a "third party" candidate in Louisiana, the Byrd forces having the official Democratic designation. But even then I don't see how Nixon, who only got 28.6 percent of the vote in the state in OTL can carry the state. And for Louisiana to go to the unpledged electors will not make any difference if the race is going into the House anyway. (Moreover, even without official party support, JFK would still have a good chance to carry Louisiana in a three-way race, because unlike most other southern states, there is a substantial Catholic vote.)
The basic problem with the theory that "no LBJ on the ticket means Nixon wins" is that there were not very many southern states which Nixon lost *narrowly* in OTL. He either won them (Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida) or else he lost them decisively, either to JFK or unpledged electors (or in Alabama to a slate containing both JFK *and* unpledged electors). The only exceptions, as I said, were Texas and the Carolinas, and they were not enough by themselves to elect Nixon.
These scenarios are predicated on the Mississippi and Alabama unpledged delegates still voting for Byrd in the electoral college, even in the event of Nixon winning the national popular vote, winning a plurality of pledged EC votes?
I have a hard time seeing why we should accept that as a given, particularly when you raise the prospect of a 'hung' result otherwise going to the House.
Those upper South results for Nixon '60 are why I think Goldwater had a very good chance to sweep the entire ex-confederacy in the event of Kennedy v. Goldwater '64.
Three things to consider here: (1) You have to take religion into account when considering 1960. By 1964 it would be obvious enough that JFK had not put the Pope in the White House. (2) Goldwater's opposition to the TVA might make it hard for him to carry Tennessee in 1964 even against JFK. (3) In 1960, if anyone was the "safe" choice in foreign policy, it was Nixon, who portrayed himself as more mature and experienced than JFK. In 1964, foreign policy strongly favors the Democrats. Worries about Goldwater and nuclear war did not suddenly stop at the Mason-Dixon line. It's just that in the Deep South they were more than counterbalanced by resentment over civil rights. In the Upper South, while civil rights still hurt the Democrats, it was much less of an obsession.
All the same, Goldwater, besides the Deep South states he carried in OTL, would probably carry Florida (despite the Social Security issue, he almost carried it in OTL) and (with Harry Byrd's tacit support) Virginia against JFK. I am less sure about North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas. (Polls in late 1963 showed Texas close in the event of a JFK vs. Goldwater race--but this was before the barrage of attacks on Goldwater as a warmonger, enemy of Social Security, etc.)