WI JFK nominated for Veep, 1956?

IOTL he only missed it by 15 votes on the second ballot. Let's say he receives the nomination. Does that line JFK up even more perfectly up for the '60 nomination than OTL or does a backlash develop?
 
Stevenson loses just as bad as he did in the elections of 52 and 56 except that he wins Massachusetts. JFK is tarnished by this electoral loss and the Kennedy legacy/ambition is in the gutter and no other Kennedy will be able to succeed where the eldest brother failed.
 
Well, assuming Stevenson still losses, '60 might be to early for JFK to win the Presidency, but I don't think he would be out of the running. After all, FDR was the VP Pick for the Democrats, who lost in '20, and he managed to win the Presidency 12 years later. I suspect in this senario, JFK could win the Presidency by either '64 or '68, depending on how an ATL Nixon Presidency goes in the 60's (I'm assuming Nixon would win the election in '60 without JFK as his opponent).
 
I'd say that Nixon's election in 1960 becomes essentially assured. Chances are the Democrats would be faced with nominating either Johnson or Humphrey. It's debatable at best whether a quasi-Southerner such as Johnson could have been elected a priori, and Johnson had not-inconsiderable baggage as a wheeler-dealer/used car salesman anyhow. One suspects that a number of moderate northern Democrats, as much as they may have disliked Nixon, would distrust Johnson still more, and cast votes for the man they considered the lesser of two evils.

One interesting side note: without the Kennedys to throw the no-class rocks at Nixon, likely he is far less embittered and ostensibly paranoid. I don't see, as a result, anything remotely like Watergate in the 1961-69 Nixon presidency.

That also sets up 1968 as an interesting election: both presidential candidates might be from Massachusetts. Since Nixon was sort of groomed as an Eisenhower successor, so Nixon might have groomed Lodge.
 
Well, in 1956, it doesn't change much of anything. Ike still clobbers Stevenson.

As for the nomination, I doubt that is less likely. Of course the chief criticism of Kennedy in OTL 1960, was that he was too young and inexperienced to be President. There was also the Catholic question, but I think 1960 showed that it was no longer a question as in 1928. Having had past exposure alongside Stevenson in 1956 would likely have brought up those questions earlier and gotten them out of the way.

Back then primaries mattered somewhat less and the conventions mattered quite a lot more. In fact, only sixteen states had primaries in 1960. Kennedy did fairly well in them, which likely boosted his support for the convention. I believe he would do just as well here. Not all candidates competed in all primaries, and his competition was not very strong.

Lyndon Johnson could not break out of the south. He couldn't engineer any support outside of the southern states at the convention. This gives him a relatively low ceiling of support.

Adlai Stevenson tried to make a showing at the convention and just got clobbered. He was the one with the stink of defeat on him. After 52 and 56, there is no way he gets the nomination again. Actually, it could be a fair question of if he even attempts to seek the nomination, out of some sort of loyalty to his former running mate. I suppose it depends on how much he likes Kennedy after 1956, though it doesn't matter anyway.

Symington and Humphrey meanwhile were non-starters in 1960.

As for whether he gets the victory in the general election, I think that is pretty much guaranteed as well. Possibly, though I'd say its a long shot fear of a former loser could cost him enough votes to lose him the popular vote. As for whether that would be enough to bring Illinois and Texas to Nixon, I doubt it. Daley and Giancana were guaranteeing Illinois for Kennedy. Texas was probably out of reach as well, with Johnson on the ticket.
 
Nixon would not groom Lodge, who was not presidential material, was a Rocky Republican and thus too liberal, and had lost his own seat to JFK in '52. A much better choice would be Hugh Scott (PA) or Ken Keating (NY, RFK's predecessor) both of whom are Catholic and Scott can bring PA (32 EV in 1960) into Nixon's column, thus making Daley irrelevant. Also- defuses the bigots if Catholics are on both tickets.
 
I'd say that Nixon's election in 1960 becomes essentially assured. Chances are the Democrats would be faced with nominating either Johnson or Humphrey. It's debatable at best whether a quasi-Southerner such as Johnson could have been elected a priori, and Johnson had not-inconsiderable baggage as a wheeler-dealer/used car salesman anyhow. One suspects that a number of moderate northern Democrats, as much as they may have disliked Nixon, would distrust Johnson still more, and cast votes for the man they considered the lesser of two evils.

One interesting side note: without the Kennedys to throw the no-class rocks at Nixon, likely he is far less embittered and ostensibly paranoid. I don't see, as a result, anything remotely like Watergate in the 1961-69 Nixon presidency.

That also sets up 1968 as an interesting election: both presidential candidates might be from Massachusetts. Since Nixon was sort of groomed as an Eisenhower successor, so Nixon might have groomed Lodge.

Nixon was on perfectly reasonable terms with JFK until the 1960 election. That's when they started taking potshots at each other, but what most enraged Kennedy was when Nixon said: "it's not Jack's money they're spending" (in reference to public, not campaign expenditures) which was nothing but the truth. Then there was "I know what it means to be poor". In '68 Nixon limited himself to "maturity and experience", both of which could boomerang back to Nixon quite easily.
 
Hmm, although Massachusetts & Rhode Island will definatley got to Stevenson in '56, I wonder if Jack's charisma(eh, Pappa Joe's political connects) can actually secure a big state for the Democrats, like the heavily Catholic Pennsylvania?

But as for Butterflies down the line, I do agree that It will probably be best for Jack to wait it out till '64 or '68(I think maybe pushing it after 20 years in Congress, the sense of freshness might be gone). As for the Democratic Nominee in 1960, Estes very well could try to go for the nod a final time, Johnson is interesting not for his ability to beat Nixon(Which I doubt, but LBJ was also one hell of a campaigner)but his Southern dominance might make Nixon more willing to embrace Civil Rights in the campaign in and in his presidency. In a 1960 Race, without a clear Democratic Frontrunner...Rocky may decide to to push forward with his plan to challenge Nixon for the Nomination. And as Electric Monk showed us, He definatley had the financial and political pull to make things a hell of a lot more interesting on the GOP Side.
 
Rocky is always too liberal for the base and Nixon has it locked up for reasons we all know- his prodigious political activity in Ike's second term. At best Rocky becomes Dole to Nixon's Bush I in 1988- an opponent but certainly not a challenger with a chance of coming anywhere near the nomination. Ike hated Rocky, JFK and LBJ far more than he distrusted Nixon.
 
Well just this scenario bring Nixon to victory in 1960 then by 1968 a two term President Nixon would have many more options for somebody to groom than to have to deal with a lukewarm relationship such as Rockefeller or Lodge. Unless butterflies completely screw with the careers of George Romney, George H.W. Bush, Spiro Agnew. Maybe even somebody such as John Volpe or Jim Rhodes? Harold Stassen could even be taken seriously again if he becomes a link between the civil rights movement and the Nixon administration.

A timeline without the Kennedy administration, assassination, and the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater rout could have many different options for Nixon's protege that in OTL never got very far in their political careers.

Of course, what route do the Democrats take after 1960 if Kennedy is rejected, either at the convention or defeated by Nixon? Since 1963, so much of Democrat politics has been dominated by the ghost of John F. Kennedy. First, among family members, Bobby, then Teddy, and even John Jr. the heir apparent until that unfortunate summer day in 1999.

Even beyond the Kennedys themselves, the popularity of Camelot has played a role in so many of their primaries. It is one of the reasons that Democrats tend to reject longtime incumbents and appeals to experience and leadership in favor of young charismatic dark horse candidates with messages of change.

Carter, Clinton, and Obama were all hailed as the coming of a new Camelot, although their administrations have/are proven/proving otherwise. (Which is natural. Carter, Clinton and Obama are not John F. Kennedy. They are Carter, Clinton, and Obama. Different men are bound to provide something different) Even the failures among Democratic nominees - Dukakis and Kerry both heavily adhered to the Kennedy theme, of course hailing from his home state.

Since 1964, only 1984 and 2000 have gone without the legacy of John F. Kennedy playing a significant role that I can see in the choice of Democrat candidate. Who instead emerges in a party for whom young and dynamic has not been a source of major success? Does the legacy of FDR still hold the greatest sway? Do Southern Democrats come to decide the strongest platforms of the party?
 
Top