WI: LBJ Stayed in the Senate?

Gore and LBJ despised each other, especially after LBJ's sledding got rougher with the '58 influx of liberal frosh who didn't like constant compromise with the WH. For VP, I think Scoop Jackson is the best choice. He quiets labor doubts about JFK and blunts Nixon's advantage on foreign affairs, plus maybe helping in the Rust Belt. Without LBJ, I still think Nixon picks up enough Southern states- maybe even Texas- to win.
 
LBJ continues on as a powerful, influential Senate Majority Leader until he thinks his health is giving out, circa late Sixties, early Seventies.



I've heard Stuart Symington, George Smathers and Henry Jackson as likelier candidates for the VP slot.

Symington would have been a popular pick with the Truman wing of the party. Smathers and Jackson were both good friends of Kennedy, with Scoop being Bobby's pick for the #2 spot. I personally think that Smathers would be chosen to bring geographic balance to the ticket. It would be similar to Clinton-Gore in that it would emphasize youth and charisma.

As for LBJ, he would probably speed up the approval of many of Kennedy's proposals (CR, tax cuts, education) though he would certainly take credit for it all. He would cement himself as one of the great majority leaders of all time.
 
From the outside looking in, how would LBJ react to Vietnam if it became a war?

Let's add another factor here. Now, this is a discussion alongside a JFK/Democratic Administration scenario. What if it was Nixon who won in 1960?
 
LBJ kept his power being a go between the Dixiecrats of the South and the liberals of the North. Has the Democratic party becomes more liberal on civil rights, what does LBJ do? In real life has President he went pro civil rights. Ruined the south to GOP dammination But does he do that has majority leader? If he does do that, does the south look for a new below the Mason Dixon line leader and can LBJ hold on to power with northern liberal allies? I believe he would loose power in a Democratic presidency that does not need southern votes.
 
LBJ kept his power being a go between the Dixiecrats of the South and the liberals of the North. Has the Democratic party becomes more liberal on civil rights, what does LBJ do? In real life has President he went pro civil rights. Ruined the south to GOP dammination But does he do that has majority leader? If he does do that, does the south look for a new below the Mason Dixon line leader and can LBJ hold on to power with northern liberal allies? I believe he would loose power in a Democratic presidency that does not need southern votes.

He was already losing power after the massive intake of liberal frosh with the Class of '58- one of the reasons he accepted the Veepship IOTL. That process only accelerates to full disintegration in the CR era.
 
Quick Question:

If LBJ was not the Vice Presidential candidate, that could jeopardize the Kennedy ticket's ability to lock up Texas. If JFK loses Texas. If it retained all the same states besides Texas, it'd be just 16 electoral votes ahead of the minimum needed to win (269), and there's the possibility that butterflies could change another state or two, throwing the election to Nixon, or possibly even no electoral majority. There's also the prospect of not discovering Hawaii was for Kennedy (it was originally called for Nixon but the recounts showed it had gone to Kennedy in reality), but whatever.

Could LBJ, off the ticket, manage to get Texas to vote for Kennedy and his VP? Or would it be destined for Nixon?
 
As civil rights becomes more of an issue. Johnson, who would have been an opponent of most civil rights bills, becomes more controversial. If Nixon is president, he is less likely to compromise than Ike. The 60s would have been a frustrating decade for Majority Leader Johnson.
 
Quick Question:

If LBJ was not the Vice Presidential candidate, that could jeopardize the Kennedy ticket's ability to lock up Texas. If JFK loses Texas. If it retained all the same states besides Texas, it'd be just 16 electoral votes ahead of the minimum needed to win (269), and there's the possibility that butterflies could change another state or two, throwing the election to Nixon, or possibly even no electoral majority. There's also the prospect of not discovering Hawaii was for Kennedy (it was originally called for Nixon but the recounts showed it had gone to Kennedy in reality), but whatever.

Could LBJ, off the ticket, manage to get Texas to vote for Kennedy and his VP? Or would it be destined for Nixon?

Without LBJ Nixon swings most of the South his way and is a very likely winner in November. Also, what 037771 said.
 
Symington isn't a Southerner as much as he is a Midwesterner.

Smathers would certainly help, but wouldn't keep TX in JFK's camp.
 
Smathers also has a Dixiecrat reputation, Missouri isn't a Southern state by 1960.

Smathers, at least what I've read of him, comes off as much more of a Moderate than the Dixiecrats. He didn't foam at the mouth with bigotry, though he didn't do anything to stop segregation and inequality.
 
Smathers, at least what I've read of him, comes off as much more of a Moderate than the Dixiecrats. He didn't foam at the mouth with bigotry, though he didn't do anything to stop segregation and inequality.

Smathers was very open to his colleagues about being a "shameless hack," to quote Chris Matthews. He was indeed very moderate, and would have been a very loyal running-mate for Kennedy. They were good friends (they were also close to Nixon while all three were in Congress) and would make a far better pair than Johnson and Kennedy. However, Jack needed Johnson to woo the party leadership and Congressional leaders, something Smathers couldn't do.
 
Top