Back in the 1960 U.S general election, many felt, including Nixon, that jfk cheated in Illinois. In Otl Nixon didn't call for a recount because he didn't want the legitimacy of the presidency to be in question. What if he did call for one? What would've been the end result?
What if Nixon called for a recount in 1960?
- Thread starter Bullmoose713
- Start date
The thing is though that even if Nixon were to call for a recount in Illinois and the state did go in his favor, that still isn't enough to overtake Kennedy in the electoral college. My guess is if a recount did somehow flip Illinois to Nixon and somehow flipped the national popular vote to Nixon in the process, Kennedy would go into his Presidency as illegitimate, just like GW Bush did after the Florida debacle of 2000.
Knoxville Jim
Banned
I would guess for a couple of reasons. Yes, there was massive over voting in Chicago. However there was over counting in Republican areas, esp. Springfield.
A different outcome was not going to happen in TX. LBJ and Mr. Sam (Rayburn) owned the machine in TX.
Then there was CA, which may or may not have been "stolen" by Nixon's people.
I suspect the most important reason is this; Nixon was a young man who wanted a future in politics. Acting like a sore looser would have killed him (Al Gore made a lot of money but could not have a future other than as the darling of the earth first crowd.) It also would have not have mattered. In that day and age they were not going to overturn an election.
Guess Joe should have paid for a landslide.
A different outcome was not going to happen in TX. LBJ and Mr. Sam (Rayburn) owned the machine in TX.
Then there was CA, which may or may not have been "stolen" by Nixon's people.
I suspect the most important reason is this; Nixon was a young man who wanted a future in politics. Acting like a sore looser would have killed him (Al Gore made a lot of money but could not have a future other than as the darling of the earth first crowd.) It also would have not have mattered. In that day and age they were not going to overturn an election.
Guess Joe should have paid for a landslide.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Since we bring up Al Gore in 2000, he did accept the Supreme Court decision. In fact, as Vice-President and leader of the Senate, he certified the election return.
But on election night, he had made the late night phone call to Bush conceding and then the second phone call saying, let's hold off, we're not so sure.
But even without that, if single-digits think yyou're a spoil sport and they drop off your coalition without equal numbers getting on, does make it less likely you'll win future elections.
But on election night, he had made the late night phone call to Bush conceding and then the second phone call saying, let's hold off, we're not so sure.
But even without that, if single-digits think yyou're a spoil sport and they drop off your coalition without equal numbers getting on, does make it less likely you'll win future elections.
Knoxville Jim
Banned
Yes, he did certify Bush as the new President. Much the way Nixon did for Kennedy. I do not want to go into Gore, as that is sort of a sea lion to me.
My point was, love or hate him Gore acted "snippy" ( that was the word right?) Gore assured he had no future. My point was Nixon made the choice.
jahenders
Banned
I think that, in general, Nixon wouldn't have won because (regardless of the reality), the political machines in Illinois and Texas would have made it impossible to get at the truth. There WERE numerous cases of VERY clear voter fraud in both Illinois and Texas, including several cases where Kennedy received more votes in a precinct than there were voters, but the (all Democratic) state election board was quick to confirm the election even though they could see the disconnects.
If recounts HAD been conducted and resolved some of the issues, Nixon would probably have won Illinois, possibly the popular vote; probably not Texas. To win, the election, he would have had to win both Illinois and Texas. So, Kennedy would likely have won, but been somewhat weakened by a popular vote disconnect, clear signs that his supporters committed voter fraud on a large scale, and the support of mob bosses in Chicago.
So, Nixon may have been right not to call for recounts because:
a) The political machines would be very hard to overcome to get at "the truth"
b) Even if real recounts WERE done, it may not have given him victory
c) It would have made him look like a sore loser
In any case, either in 1960 or in 2000, a disconnect between electoral college result and popular vote does NOT make a President (or Presidency) "illegitimate." Many may say, or think it does, but that usually reflects a lack of understanding of our presidential election process. Other than that it drives the electoral votes, the nationwide popular vote is NOT a factor in selecting the president. That being said, if a president is elected, but loses the popular vote, it may create an IMPRESSION of illegitimacy or, at least, raise questions as to his "mandate."
What if Nixon called for a recount it is up to J Edgar hoover
The Apalachin Meeting of late 1957 made hoover look bad on organized crime.
if he said there clear signs that his supporters committed voter fraud on a large scale, and the support of mob bosses in Chicago helped him win
head lines with JFK in mobs pocket would make 2000 look small
this would make for a fun timeline
The Apalachin Meeting of late 1957 made hoover look bad on organized crime.
if he said there clear signs that his supporters committed voter fraud on a large scale, and the support of mob bosses in Chicago helped him win
head lines with JFK in mobs pocket would make 2000 look small
this would make for a fun timeline
It's a myth that there weren't recounts in 1960. Republicans called for recounts in almost a dozen states, to little effect. Democrats retaliated with one recount in Hawaii, which flipped it to Kennedy.
It is true that Nixon distanced himself from the recount efforts and did not publicly contest the election, letting surrogates do the dirty work on his behalf. Still, the fact that this is a WI on AH.com is a testament to Nixon's political skill at avoiding any opprobrium and spinning the results.