WI: JFK Nominated for Vice-President in 1956

At the 1956 Democratic Convention, JFK came within 20 and 1/2 votes shy of winning the Vice-Presidential nomination. In the end, the Stevenson/Kefauver ticket lost decisively to Eisenhower/Nixon. It's doubtful that JFK's nomination would've helped much against a popular incumbent buoyed by a soaring economy. But what if Kennedy had been nominated? Who do the Democrats nominate in 1960? Might Nixon end up winning that year? Does Kennedy have a future in politics after being put on a losing ticket?
 
At the 1956 Democratic Convention, JFK came within 20 and 1/2 votes shy of winning the Vice-Presidential nomination. In the end, the Stevenson/Kefauver ticket lost decisively to Eisenhower/Nixon. It's doubtful that JFK's nomination would've helped much against a popular incumbent buoyed by a soaring economy. But what if Kennedy had been nominated? Who do the Democrats nominate in 1960? Might Nixon end up winning that year? Does Kennedy have a future in politics after being put on a losing ticket?
Well, he was close to being on the ticket since he was popular. It's doubtful that being on a losing ticket would kill his future prospects and ambitions. Heck, FDR was on one of the biggest loser tickets in 1920 and was elected President 4 times. Kennedy wins in 1960, than it's killed in 1963.
 
Last edited:
Well, he was close to being on the ticket since he was popular. It's doubtful that being on a losing ticket would kill his future prospects and ambitions. Heck, FDR was on one of the biggest loser tickets in 1920 and was elected President 4 times. Kennedy wins in 1960, than it's killed in 1963.

Given how close 1960 was, butterflies could mean that even if JFK was nominated Nixon might have won.
 

Vidal

Donor
I think the consensus view (not to say it isn’t lazy) is that Stevenson and others would blame his loss on Kennedy’s Catholicism. This always struck me as unrealistic given the size of his loss, but I could see it hardening the opposition to JFK among Stevenson loyalists like Eleanor Roosevelt. Then again, one could see a scenario where JFK is the shining star — attracting the biggest crowds, etc. and endearing himself to those loyalists who come to view 1960 as JFK’s turn ITTL.

One interesting butterfly is that RFK worked closely on the Stevenson campaign and learned a lot abt campaign management from that experience (and was also so turned off by Stevenson he voted for Ike). It seems likely ITTL that Bobby would serve as chief of staff to Jack on the trail - a liaison to the other side of the ticket. In that case, he may not learn as much about the strategic aspects of running a national campaign — which could have just enough of an impact on 1960.
 
I think the consensus view (not to say it isn’t lazy) is that Stevenson and others would blame his loss on Kennedy’s Catholicism.
I'm not sure I'd call it lazy. Robert Dallek writes in his biography of JFK that this was a concern of Joe Kennedy at the time, and advised his son against taking a spot on an underdog ticket for exactly this reason.
 

Vidal

Donor
I'm not sure I'd call it lazy. Robert Dallek writes in his biography of JFK that this was a concern of Joe Kennedy at the time, and advised his son against taking a spot on an underdog ticket for exactly this reason.

Fair fair. It's legitimate in that it was a very real concern of folks at the time - and I see why. But in retrospect, it's hard for us to look back now, in my opinion, and say that's true. While I think it's very plausible it would be seen as the reason ITTL and potentially cost Jack his '60 nomination, I think it's hard to say from OTL and our POV that his Catholicism would really be responsible.
 
Fair fair. It's legitimate in that it was a very real concern of folks at the time - and I see why. But in retrospect, it's hard for us to look back now, in my opinion, and say that's true. While I think it's very plausible it would be seen as the reason ITTL and potentially cost Jack his '60 nomination, I think it's hard to say from OTL and our POV that his Catholicism would really be responsible.

I still think that if nominated on a losing ticket in 1956, someone as calculating as JFK would not have run for President four years later.

In that case, who do the Democrats nominate in 1960? Humphrey and Johnson are possibilities, though Symington might emerge as a compromise candidate.
 

Vidal

Donor
I still think that if nominated on a losing ticket in 1956, someone as calculating as JFK would not have run for President four years later.

In that case, who do the Democrats nominate in 1960? Humphrey and Johnson are possibilities, though Symington might emerge as a compromise candidate.

I could see that. I actually think that Johnson is enough of a compromise candidate that he doesn't need Symington. He was a Southerner, yes, but he'd not signed the Manifesto after Brown v. Board of Ed. I may be wrong, but I think he'd do alright on his own as long as he picked someone like Symington who was also not antagonistic to either side.

As for the general -- does Daley's machine get behind LBJ in the way it did for Kennedy? I'd imagine so, but others would know more. If that's the case, he should be fine.

I could see him losing Hawaii (3) and NJ (16), which Kennedy barely won, but picking up Florida (10), which puts him at 294 electoral votes. Perhaps with Texas not being nearly as competitive ITTL, the Johnson campaign is free to spend more resources and time in other close states, gaining Montana (4) and maybe Wisconsin (12). Another question is how strong is Johnson's Southern-ness? Meaning - does it flip TN (11), which JFK lost by 7.15% and VA (12), which JFK lost by 5.5%?
 
I could see that. I actually think that Johnson is enough of a compromise candidate that he doesn't need Symington. He was a Southerner, yes, but he'd not signed the Manifesto after Brown v. Board of Ed. I may be wrong, but I think he'd do alright on his own as long as he picked someone like Symington who was also not antagonistic to either side.

As for the general -- does Daley's machine get behind LBJ in the way it did for Kennedy? I'd imagine so, but others would know more. If that's the case, he should be fine.

I could see him losing Hawaii (3) and NJ (16), which Kennedy barely won, but picking up Florida (10), which puts him at 294 electoral votes. Perhaps with Texas not being nearly as competitive ITTL, the Johnson campaign is free to spend more resources and time in other close states, gaining Montana (4) and maybe Wisconsin (12). Another question is how strong is Johnson's Southern-ness? Meaning - does it flip TN (11), which JFK lost by 7.15% and VA (12), which JFK lost by 5.5%?

Johnson would certainly do better in the South, but would he do as well in the North? LBJ didn't have Kennedy's charisma or skill with TV. He was also disliked by labor unions.
 

Vidal

Donor
Johnson would certainly do better in the South, but would he do as well in the North? LBJ didn't have Kennedy's charisma or skill with TV. He was also disliked by labor unions.

I actually think he can hold the rest belt - which were the closer states. But I did overestimate how well Kennedy did in the North. For example, I don't think a 30-point swing is realistic in MA to give the state to Nixon - plus the state was the only New England state to go to Truman over Dewey in 48.

That said, New York was a 5-point state, and I could see Nixon taking it. That means Johnson needs to find 45 electoral votes. FL (10) + MT (4) + TN (11) + VA (12) is only 37 EV's. He needs 8 more. I also think if he loses NY, he's losing NJ which was even closer. That gives him 51-vote deficit, which I think is frankly impossible to make up - especially if you were to contend that he is going to lose closer Rust Belt states like MI and PA.
 
I actually think he can hold the rest belt - which were the closer states. But I did overestimate how well Kennedy did in the North. For example, I don't think a 30-point swing is realistic in MA to give the state to Nixon - plus the state was the only New England state to go to Truman over Dewey in 48.

That said, New York was a 5-point state, and I could see Nixon taking it. That means Johnson needs to find 45 electoral votes. FL (10) + MT (4) + TN (11) + VA (12) is only 37 EV's. He needs 8 more. I also think if he loses NY, he's losing NJ which was even closer. That gives him 51-vote deficit, which I think is frankly impossible to make up - especially if you were to contend that he is going to lose closer Rust Belt states like MI and PA.

Rhode Island also went to Truman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_presidential_election_in_Rhode_Island
 
If Johnson had been the '60 Dem nominee (Kennedy sitting out after the 1956 loss, waiting for a more propitious time), I suspect strongly Nixon would have won. I can't see Daley and his buddies voting every tombstone in Chicago to help a Texan as they did an appealing Irish Catholic guy who they (rightly or otherwise) saw as one of their own. What I can see is that a Nixon/Johnson campaign would be one of the nastiest to date. IOTL, as I recall (OK, I was 8 at the time), both sides kept it fairly decent in 1960. But I suspect Johnson would have no such scruples: he was an arrogant, ambitious bastard, and he would have stopped at very little. My guess is that he would have fired the first shot in the dirty campaign wars, and it would have spiraled down from there. In the end, Johnson would have wound up shooting himself in the foot: all Nixon would have had to do was take something of a high road, refusing (mostly) to respond in kind, and focus on issues.
 
Reviving my thread to add another question. Let's say JFK sits out 1960 and Nixon wins. Does JFK take on President Nixon in 1964?
 
Well, he was close to being on the ticket since he was popular. It's doubtful that being on a losing ticket would kill his future prospects and ambitions. Heck, FDR was on one of the biggest loser tickets in 1920 and was elected President 4 times. Kennedy wins in 1960, than it's killed in 1963.

It is true that FDR was nominated and elected after the Cox-FDR ticket had lost badly. But that was twelve years later, and in the meantime FDR had shown his vote-getting prowess as governor of New Yotk. Perhaps more important, there was no plausible way to blame Cox's loss even partly on FDR whereas it might plausibly--even if largely wrongly--be argued that JFK's Catholicism hurt Stevenson. People would say, "look, at least in 1952, Stevenson was able to carry WV and KY, but he lost them with a Catholic on the ticket." And very likely Stevenson's only gain from 1952--MO--would go for Ike with JFK as Adlai's running mate. (Not that I think JFK's Catholicism would cost Stevenson many votes in MO. But it doesn't have to--Stevenson only won the state by 0.22 percentage points.) Moreover, the most heavily Catholic states went for Ike so overwhelmingly in 1956 --he won in MA by 54.22-45.46 in 1952 but 59.32-40.37 in 1956--that it would be commonly observed "Kennedy didn't help Adlai even in Catholic states, even his own --the ticket with him on it did worse in MA than in 1952!" (I think JFK would help the ticket in MA but not enough even to enable it to match even its 1952 showing.)

One has to remember that the myth of Smith having lost in 1928 because he was a Catholic still heavily influenced leading Democrats in the 1950s. For Stevenson-Kennedy to lose (as it would) worse than Stevenson- Sparkman woud just tend to reenforce this.
 
Last edited:
A few tidbits for thought:
* In 1962, Arthur Schlesinger released a historical ranking of the Presidents (the first of its kind since 1948). Dwight Eisenhower came in at 21st, tied with Chester Arthur, below Herbert Hoover (19) and Benjamin Harrison (20) and just ahead of Andrew Johnson (22) and Zachary Taylor (23).
* Allan Lichtman's Thirteen Keys to the White House gave nine (!!!) negative keys towards the incumbent (Republican) party going into the 1960 election, including recession, no policy change, and the perception of a foreign military failure. To be honest, that foreign military failure key seems a bit debatable to me. I think it was the U-2 spy plane being shot down and the escalation of the Cold War. Since 1860, the only other election to have that many negative keys against the incumbent party was 1876. To contrast, Eisenhower's 1956 reelection campaign only had one negative key, the fewest of any election save for 1904.

Dwight Eisenhower may be a venerable figure today but by 1960 the country was ready for a change.

I'll go one step farther: I think Richard Nixon is just about the worst candidate for 1960 because it requires him to do something he's basically incapable of doing: run a positive campaign. Sitting Vice Presidents generally do a terrible job running for President because they have to establish themselves as their own man while singing the praises of their President and portraying their opponent as dangerous. There's a reason George H.W. Bush did it and Richard Nixon couldn't. By 1988, the Cold War was ending. By 1960, the perception was that it was out of control, and that took the best tool that Richard Nixon had out of his tool box. Richard Nixon was a brilliant Red Baiter. His best campaigns were 1946 an 1950, running against a perceived corrupt Democratic establishment. How do any of those tools help him in 1960 where he had to be the candidate for a different establishment, let alone a different establishment that was perceived as being weak on Communism?

The best thing Richard Nixon had going for him was that Barry Goldwater didn't run and the GOP did not have a protracted nomination contest. The party was generally aligned behind Nixon.

All of which to say, I don't think any Republican save for Eisenhower could have won.

What does John F. Kennedy's Vice Presidential selection mean?

Jack being chosen as VP drops Bobby in the middle of Stevenson's campaign, and Bobby is going to annoy the living shit out of everybody on board. Stevenson's high-mindedness and Bobby's real politik aren't going to mix at all, despite the fact that Bobby is going to be right about everything.

It's easy to envision a scenario where Adlai Stevenson spends more time running against his own running mate(s) than Ike, which will produce one of two scenarios: it'll make Stevenson so annoyed at the two of them that he runs a more aggressive campaign in 1960 or he says "Fuck this, I'm done." and stays out of 1960.

Either way, if John F. Kennedy is chosen as Stevenson's running mate in 1956, it's unlikely to be harmonious behind the scenes and it's very possible that it lights up a warning flare within the Democratic establishment of how they do business and everyone is just a little more prepared for the Kennedy's in 1960.

Maybe a Johnson/Humphrey ticket in 1960?
 
Last edited:
A few tidbits for thought:
* In 1962, Arthur Schlesinger released a historical ranking of the Presidents (the first of its kind since 1948). Dwight Eisenhower came in at 21st, tied with Chester Arthur, below Herbert Hoover (19) and Benjamin Harrison (20) and just ahead of Andrew Johnson (22) and Zachary Taylor (23).
* Allan Lichtman's Thirteen Keys to the White House gave nine (!!!) negative keys towards the incumbent (Republican) party going into the 1960 election, including recession, no policy change, and the perception of a foreign military failure. To be honest, that foreign military failure key seems a bit debatable to me. I think it was the U-2 spy plane being shot down and the escalation of the Cold War. Since 1860, the only other election to have that many negative keys against the incumbent party was 1876. To contrast, Eisenhower's 1956 reelection campaign only had one negative key, the fewest of any election save for 1904.

Dwight Eisenhower may be a venerable figure today but by 1960 the country was ready for a change.

I'll go one step farther: I think Richard Nixon is just about the worst candidate for 1960 because it requires him to do something he's basically incapable of doing: run a positive campaign. Sitting Vice Presidents generally do a terrible job running for President because they have to establish themselves as their own man while singing the praises of their President and portraying their opponent as dangerous. There's a reason George H.W. Bush did it and Richard Nixon couldn't. By 1988, the Cold War was ending. By 1960, the perception was that it was out of control, and that took the best tool that Richard Nixon had out of his tool box. Richard Nixon was a brilliant Red Baiter. His best campaigns were 1946 an 1950, running against a perceived corrupt Democratic establishment. How do any of those tools help him in 1960 where he had to be the candidate for a different establishment, let alone a different establishment that was perceived as being weak on Communism?

The best thing Richard Nixon had going for him was that Barry Goldwater didn't run and the GOP did not have a protracted nomination contest. The party was generally aligned behind Nixon.

All of which to say, I don't think any Republican save for Eisenhower could have won.

What does John F. Kennedy's Vice Presidential selection mean?

Jack being chosen as VP drops Bobby in the middle of Stevenson's campaign, and Bobby is going to annoy the living shit out of everybody on board. Stevenson's high-mindedness and Bobby's real politik aren't going to mix at all, despite the fact that Bobby is going to be right about everything.

It's easy to envision a scenario where Adlai Stevenson spends more time running against his own running mate(s) than Ike, which will produce one of two scenarios: it'll make Stevenson so annoyed at the two of them that he runs a more aggressive campaign in 1960 or he says "Fuck this, I'm done." and stays out of 1960.

Either way, if John F. Kennedy is chosen as Stevenson's running mate in 1956, it's unlikely to be harmonious behind the scenes and it's very possible that it lights up a warning flare within the Democratic establishment of how they do business and everyone is just a little more prepared for the Kennedy's in 1960.

Maybe a Johnson/Humphrey ticket in 1960?

I find your central thesis doubtful. Polls showed both candidates in a dead heat throughout the race. Moreover, Kennedy won so narrowly that any number of factors would have swung the election to Nixon: if Nixon had decided not to campaign in all 50 states, if Nixon had not debated JFK, if Nixon had picked a better running mate than Lodge (who was gaffe-prone and did nothing to help Nixon win Massachusetts, where Kennedy had beaten Lodge for the Senate in '52), if Kennedy had picked any running mate other than LBJ (who was most likely the one reason Kennedy carried Texas), if Ike had not been so tepid in his support for Nixon, etc.

In spite of the recession, many Americans were still satisfied with where the country was going under Eisenhower and Nixon could very much have won had he made different decisions during the campaign.
 
If the received wisdom was that JFK's Catholicism hurt the ticket, how long might the Democrats be wary of nominating another Catholic? Is there still a space for someone to make the case that "I am not the Catholic candidate for president, I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens to be a Catholic", or would the Democratic Party be skeptical into the 70s or even beyond?
 
If the received wisdom was that JFK's Catholicism hurt the ticket, how long might the Democrats be wary of nominating another Catholic? Is there still a space for someone to make the case that "I am not the Catholic candidate for president, I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens to be a Catholic", or would the Democratic Party be skeptical into the 70s or even beyond?

It depends. Perhaps JFK could argue "we lost because of Ike, peace and prosperity - not my religion. Because of my work for the ticket, we made x gains with Catholics and ethnic voters compared to 1952." It's possible that JFK could spin the defeat by saying that it's due to his work for Stevenson that the ticket lost by 15-17 points instead of an even larger margin.

Even so, his chances of being nominated for President are scuttled (at least for 1960). I think if he sits out 1960 he could be nominated in 1964.
 
It depends. Perhaps JFK could argue "we lost because of Ike, peace and prosperity - not my religion. Because of my work for the ticket, we made x gains with Catholics and ethnic voters compared to 1952." It's possible that JFK could spin the defeat by saying that it's due to his work for Stevenson that the ticket lost by 15-17 points instead of an even larger margin.

Even so, his chances of being nominated for President are scuttled (at least for 1960). I think if he sits out 1960 he could be nominated in 1964.
Certainly Kennedy's career is harmed (if not derailed entirely), but I was mostly thinking about other, non-Kennedy Catholics. Would (say) a Pat Brown candidacy be seen as a complete non-starter in '60 or '64? If so, how long would it be before Catholic candidates are viewed as viable?
 
Last edited:
Top