WI: Humphrey Wins 1960

This scenario commonly gets caught on Humphrey failing to beat Nixon. However, I want to discuss this from the assumption that he does win in 1960. What if Hubert Humphrey had secured the nomination and the presidency, for an administration at least from 1961 to 1965, if not 1969?
 
I'd say he'd serve two terms (unless the Tippecanoe curse does him in ALA JFK) and they go similarly to the terms of JFK and LBJ. The only major difference I see is with regards to Vietnam. I can't see Humphrey botching it as bad as LBJ.
 
I wonder if he'd have handled Cuba differently as well, or gotten a move on with civil rights sooner than Kennedy.
 
I think it is very unlikely that Humphrey would win the Democratic nomination in 1960. He lost to JFK in next-door-to-Minnesota Wisconsin and in overwhelmingly Protestant West Virginia. What's more, some of those who did vote for him, especially in West Virginia, did not want or expect to see him nominated--they just wanted to stop JFK. As Senator Robert Byrd put it, "If you are for Adlai Stevenson, Senator Stuart Symington, Senator Johnson or John Doe, this primary may be your last chance.” https://books.google.com/books?id=Gq4c9XDOSxQC&pg=PA120 (And in Wisconsin many Humphrey voters doubtless preferred Stevenson.) Humphrey's basic problem is that he was anathema to the South on civil rights, yet had no more support among African Americans than other candidates like JFK, while liberal intellectuals (apart from those who had pragmatically cast their lot with JFK, like Schlesinger and Galbraith) still had a sentimental affection for Stevenson. Some big city bosses (though themselves largely Catholic) were worried that JFK's Catholicism could hurt their statewide tickets--but they found Johnson or Symington more their type of candidate. And then, of course, there was Humphrey's money problem.

IMO in the unlikely event he is nominated he loses to Nixon--he does worse than JFK in the South and in the North he may do better than JFK among Preotestants but this will be cancelled out by a poorer showing among Catholics.
 
Humphrey will be inheriting what JFK did from the Eisenhower administration. That being an outdated geopolitical nuclear strategy of going fully nuclear if the Soviets sneeze too badly, and giving too much nuclear authority to generals in the field, too much independence to the Joint Chiefs (Kennedy had to ask what our war plans were and the Joint Chiefs told him no at first, and they turned out to be a blunt, clinical atomic genocide, which disgusted Kennedy), and lax oversight to the president in that regard, which would have resulted in disaster in the event anything like a Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. Debatable that the Cuban Crisis would have but a similar awkward situation was possible. Also, Ike's Joint Chiefs, who were militant and whom Kennedy lacked the clout to get rid of at once (which he planned to do piece meal). There are also the situations in Berlin and Laos, with the additional issue of South Vietnam. That defines how a 1960 president crafts the Cold War. However, it would be Humprey's crafting and definition rather than Kennedy's, drawn from his thinking and personality. This is a critical juncture, and on a note of bias, thank god it was Kennedy who reformed the nuclear strategy to something that had oversight, could be analyzed, and could be managed.
 
Last edited:
Top