WI: Kennedy is assassinated by Pavlick 12/11/60

Who would be sworn in as president? The electoral college had not yet voted and could split Kennedy's votes between Johnson and a northerner like Stevenson. Who would be the vice president? Could Nixon win? What would be the effects on the 60s?
 
I highly doubt anyone would want to alter the results of the elections due to an assassination. Nixon would not accept the office under those circumstances and no Democrat is going to try and supplant Johnson as VP.

If need be I think Nixon could accept being formally elected president by either the Electoral College or House with Johnson as vice president and then immediately resign after taking the oath so that LBJ would be president. Congress could then appoint a replacement VP.
 
There's no way Nixon could win. None of the Democratic electors would vote for him, and the majority of House delegations were controlled by Democrats.
 
Michigan's 20 EV are pledged to Kennedy -- thanks to their faithless elector law, they literally cannot count electoral ballots for anyone else, oops.

So there are only 283 EV left in play, and you need 269 to win. If 14 or more electors in other states don't pick the same replacement candidate as everyone else, the election will fall to the House. There will be a Democrat elected President, but anybody's guess who.

(Not even 14, if the 5 unbound Kennedy electors in Mississippi change to Byrd).
 
Last edited:
My guess is that the Democratic national committee meets and proclaims LBJ the Democratic presidential candidate, and that Democratic electors will almost unanimously go along. (After all, they had been willing to accept that he would become president if anything happened to JFK after he became president, so they can hardly say he's unqualified. Even liberals with some doubts about LBJ will not want to do anything that could lead to the election going into the House. And a few unpledged Democratic electors who voted for Byrd in OTL might be willing to vote for LBJ--"he's really one of us, he's just pretending to go along with the liberal party platform" etc. )

Not sure about vice-president, though...
 
There's no way Nixon could win. None of the Democratic electors would vote for him, and the majority of House delegations were controlled by Democrats.

Nixon had other Issue, a nasty knee infection that put him in hospital and out of campaign race.

in case who successor for JFK, is Lyndon B. Johnson.
in 1960 Democratic presidential primaries, LBJ ended Second after Kennedy later Vice presidential candidate.
He will become prime presidential candidate, follow by his choice for Vice President
I think he would go for Hubert Horatio Humphrey
 
I dunno, all it takes is the Massachusetts delegation to pick Bobby, and the Texas delegation to go 'Hell no' ...

RFK had just turned 35 on November 25, and would not be taken seriously as a presidential or even vice-presidential prospect at this time by anyone, in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
 
I highly doubt anyone would want to alter the results of the elections due to an assassination. Nixon would not accept the office under those circumstances and no Democrat is going to try and supplant Johnson as VP.

If need be I think Nixon could accept being formally elected president by either the Electoral College or House with Johnson as vice president and then immediately resign after taking the oath so that LBJ would be president. Congress could then appoint a replacement VP.
I don't think the law to assign a replacement vice president was in place yet. Besides it seems convoluted to nominate Nixon and Johnson, when electors could just vote for Johnson and an alternative vice president. I'm wondering more so if the situation could be thrown to the house and end up with someone other than Johnson winning.
 
Michigan's 20 EV are pledged to Kennedy -- thanks to their faithless elector law, they literally cannot count electoral ballots for anyone else, oops.

So there are only 283 EV left in play, and you need 269 to win. If 14 or more electors in other states don't pick the same replacement candidate as everyone else, the election will fall to the House. There will be a Democrat elected President, but anybody's guess who.

(Not even 14, if the 5 unbound Kennedy electors in Mississippi change to Byrd).
What is the plausibility of the what you described happening, but with the Massachusetts delegation pledging in favor of Bobby Kennedy or the Illinois delegation pledging in favor of Stevenson, thereby throwing it into the house between Nixon-Johnson-Byrd or Nixon-Johnson-Stevenson?
 
I don’t see much likely opposition from nominating LBJ, he refused to sign the Southern Manifesto and he was Senate Majority Leader as well as the runner-up in the primaries.

Only Northern Faithless Electors would be people being either unreasonably anti-Southern or supporting somebody else as the first Catholic President. His liberalism would not be an issue (JFK himself was uncomfortable with being called a liberal and distanced himself from liberals in Congress, even if he campaigned for their votes and ultimately shifted to the Left as POTUS).
 
What is the plausibility of the what you described happening, but with the Massachusetts delegation pledging in favor of Bobby Kennedy or the Illinois delegation pledging in favor of Stevenson, thereby throwing it into the house between Nixon-Johnson-Byrd or Nixon-Johnson-Stevenson?

David T pointed out how unlikely Bobby is in 1960 (vs 1968). Stevenson was a has-been by 1960; he and Stuart Symington both only got 5% of the convention votes.

It'd be more likely that Missouri went for Symington (losing 13 EV), and two of the Mississippi electors switched to Byrd, losing 2 more and throwing the election to the House even though everyone else switched to LBJ.
 
David T pointed out how unlikely Bobby is in 1960 (vs 1968). Stevenson was a has-been by 1960; he and Stuart Symington both only got 5% of the convention votes.

It'd be more likely that Missouri went for Symington (losing 13 EV), and two of the Mississippi electors switched to Byrd, losing 2 more and throwing the election to the House even though everyone else switched to LBJ.
Good point, Symingtom seems much more likely. Another question is would the south try to squeeze concessions out of Johnson while it's in the House, and who would be the other vice presidential candidate voted on by the Senate.
 
David T pointed out how unlikely Bobby is in 1960 (vs 1968). Stevenson was a has-been by 1960; he and Stuart Symington both only got 5% of the convention votes.

It'd be more likely that Missouri went for Symington (losing 13 EV), and two of the Mississippi electors switched to Byrd, losing 2 more and throwing the election to the House even though everyone else switched to LBJ.

(1) It is much more likely that southern electors would switch from Byrd to LBJ rather than to Byrd. To southerners LBJ was one of them, even if he had to (for the sake of seeking the nomination for president) make some concessions on civil rights and other issues. The South voted strongly for LBJ at the Democratic National Convention, and some LBJ delegates were not mollified by JFK's choice of LBJ as running mate. "Many Dixie delegates demonstrated their contempt for the 'sellout' by wearing their 'all the way with LBJ' buttons. There were men of principle on both sides of the struggle. As Senator Olin Johnston put it. "I voted for Lyndon. but I'm against Kennedy and against the platform. This ticket is like the tail wagging the dog'..." Victor Lasky, JFK: The Man and the Myth, p. 402.

Remember that the "unpledged Democratic" electors that won in Mississippi (and constituted part of the Alabama Democratic slate) were not committed beforehand to Byrd. They simply were not pledged to vote for JFK, and could easily justify voting for LBJ instead. And as for southern electors pledged to JFK--it defies all reason that they would find the Massachusetts Catholic JFK acceptable, but not the Texas Protestant LBJ who was if anything slightly to JFK's right politically.

(2) The idea of Illinois electors going for Stevenson is laughable. Of course the electors were picked by Daley (and in lesser numbers Downstate Democratic bosses) for party loyalty, which in this context meant supporting LBJ.

(3) Missouri electors might like to see Symington elected, but they knew there was no chance of that, and why would they have any objection to LBJ? (They were generally grouped together as relatively moderate Democrats. Sure, Symington was a bit more liberal on civil rights, but that is understandable given the difference between Texas and Missouri.)

There might be one or two defections from very liberal electors somewhere--but it is noteworthy that in OTL as far as I know not a single elector voted for JFK without also voting for LBJ for vice-president. (Indeed, the only faithless elector in 1960 was an Oklahoma Republican who voted for Byrd and Goldwater.) If the liberals disliked LBJ that much, you'd think one or two would refuse to vote for him even as VP.
 
Good points all, I'm just handwaving possible ways it could've gone to the House, given that it'd only take 14 defectors (I do think there might be the threat to not vote LBJ as an extortionary tactic, but in the end the electors probably pick him)
 
OK so Johnson is almost guaranteed the win, but who would be the replacement vice president? I know Humphrey is one possibility, but who else could democratic electors have chosen?
 
I always liked NJ Gov Robert Meyner as a potential LBJ VP in ‘64 for some inexplicable reason (well not completely, I feel like Johnson would have seen him as somewhat more capable and aligned with him than Humphrey, with his veteran status, focus on social issues, making him a potentially strong Great Society surrogate, and the fact he won the Governorship in a race that leaned GOP).

Honestly, VP Meyner in ‘68 is a really solid candidate and a more direct and obvious successor to Johnson than Humphrey was (assuming Johnson wins re-election and is popular enough with the party establishment, which I think is likely under these circumstances).
 
The VP is a big question mark. I can see it going a couple ways -- it's possible that electors would name Henry Cabot Lodge, seeing as how he got nearly as many VP votes as LBJ, yknow? Could be like a unity thing in the wake of national tragedy. But we're really talking about uncharted territory here, in any case. So all bets are off.
 

Marc

Donor
This is an interesting and still not really resolved issue, or rather a set of related issues.

1. Two days before the election, a major party candidate suffers a fatal heart attack. Congress has the Constitutional authority, under Articles 1, Section 2, to postpone the election (It would be one hell of a scramble to get the legislation done in time). However, they can't postpone it past the official end of office. Which makes life very complicated for the party that has lost its candidate. Supposedly, in the Democratic Party nowadays is a convention provision that in this case, the Convention reconvenes asap and votes again, the deceased candidate electors are free to vote as they will. How that would work in 1960 is problematical - assuming it was the case back then.
2. Elected, but dies before the Electoral Collage meets. This has been discussed above. All I can say, the Electors will have the power, not the parties, or any other branch of government. For the first, and definitely for the last time.
3. Elected but dies before assuming office. This one is actually resolved through the 12 Amendment, in that if there is no vice-presidential candidate with a majority of the Electors, then the Senates chooses between the two top vote gatherers. That person is first sworn in as Vice-President, then immediately thereafter as President. Back in 1960 that would 4 years without a Vice-President, but that isn't particularly dangerous (my humble opinion), and if is felt otherwise, The Federal Government and the States can fast-track the 25th Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Greenfield actually wrote a short story about this very premise, which dealt with the short-term implications on the presidency and the geopolitics of the time.

Rocked by both the shock of the tragedy of JFK's death, and the constitutional crisis wrought by the fact that people don't know exactly what is supposed to happen in this situation, the U.S. government scrambles to decide what to do. Ultimately, however, it ends with it being decided that the president's vice presidential running-mate is the logical choice to become president. Lyndon Johnson is elected in JFK's stead, and is sworn in promising to heal the country and honor JFK's legacy. Ultimately, he settles on Hubert Humphrey as Vice President.

LBJ comes into office facing a country still reeling from the tragedy of what's happening, and finding himself unable to inspire the country the way Kennedy could. He decides he needs to make up for it by being consequential and healing the racial issues that have been percolating. Much like OTL 1964, he invokes JFK's memory to tirelessly wheel and deal with Congress, gather enough support, and, three years ahead of schedule, push through the Civil Rights Act of 1961, with all the same extensiveness as OTL Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a cause of much liberal rejoicing. He can still feel the country's malaise, however, making him vow to earn the American people's gratitude by being the next FDR.

However, foreign affairs get in the way. LBJ inherits from the Eisenhower Administration the CIA's plot to land counter-revolutionaries in Cuba and overthrow Castro. Deciding to split the difference between plausible deniability and anti-communist action, he ends up making pretty much the same mistake as OTL JFK: not calling off the Bay of Pigs invasion, but not offering it enough support for it to succeed either. The Bay of Pigs invasion happens on schedule, and ends in disaster just like OTL.

LBJ meets Khrushchev at the Vienna Summit. Unlike OTL, which ended with Khrushchev perceiving JFK as a pushover, LBJ instead tries to stand up to the Soviet Premier, and gives him the full-bore Johnson Treatment, putting his characteristic aggressive persuasion and use of physical stature to try to, in his own unique way, convince Khrushchev why interfering in Cuba certainly wouldn't serve either of their interests and the Soviets best watch themselves and call things off. LBJ walks away thinking the summit had been a success, completely unaware that Khrushchev has instead walked away convinced that the American President was trying to intimidate him into surrender, and that under no circumstances could he back down to the United States going forward.

As the fall of 1962 rolls around, LBJ is warned that American spy planes had discovered that the Soviets were building nuclear missile bases on Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis happens on schedule. But two crucial differences are at play from OTL: Khrushchev is now more determined not to back down, and LBJ himself has taken the Bay of Pigs disaster as a lesson that the CIA were a bunch of overeducated upstarts and he'd much rather listen to the experience of seasoned senior military leaders.

Tensions spill over, LBJ authorizes an attack on the Cuban bases to knock out the missiles, prompting the Soviets to authorize a nuclear strike against the American base at Guantanamo. Nuclear weapons have now been used in combat for the first time since World War II. In the stress of all that is happening, LBJ suffers a heart attack, and is disabled. Only the last-minute act of Hubert Humphrey acting in LBJ's stead is enough to prevent full-blown nuclear war, though Humphrey warns Khrushchev that, given the strike on Guantanamo, the United States has no choice but to launch an equivalent retaliatory nuclear strike on the Soviet naval base at Sevastopol. The strike is carried out, ending the Cuban Missile Exchange.

Turnout in the 1962 midterm elections is miserable, but the Republicans are poised to gain big. Overseas, the shock of the Cuban Missile Exchange has caused the Soviet Union and China to nip in the bud their growing tensions and reaffirm their alliance, preventing the Sino-Soviet split. LBJ is disabled and on the sidelines from his heart attack. And into 1963, people can't help but notice that America has entered a climate of massive pessimism and a feeling that its best days are behind it.
 
Last edited:
Top