WI: Nixon in 1960, JFK in 1964?

Let's suppose John F. Kennedy has a health scare in 1960 just before or near the start of the primaries. Nothing major, maybe his Addison's flares up for a bit, but it's enough to keep him off the campaign trail until after the primaries, so let's say Kennedy bows out gracefully in the hopes that he can recuperate for 1964.

Of course, in this scenario, the Democrats, the Democrats would pick Humphrey and probably Johnson at the DNC. Nixon would trounce Humphrey in the general, as Humphrey would come off as too much of a liberal compared to Nixon, the centrist. The Democrats would likely retain Congress, but Nixon and Lodge would nevertheless be in the White House for the next four years.

Now, in this scenario, LBJ would still be Senate Majority Leader, but he wouldn't be able to do much to stop JFK from running again. His guy already failed dramatically, after all, and the party doesn't want another Stevenson situation on their hands. JFK gets the nod, against Johnson's best wishes, and he picks someone like Scoop Jackson as his running mate.

Considering that the Republicans have been in power for the past 12 years at this point, and JFK is a change from all that, would it not be fair to say that Kennedy could win the general and hold the White House for the next four years at least, possibly eight?

How would JFK govern in this scenario? Since the GOP would be responsible ITTL for passing civil rights legislation, the Dixiecrats probably wouldn't split off from the party, and the GOP would likely retain the black vote. How would that affect things?

Additionally, Nixon would probably accept his defeat after four years in power, so I doubt he'd have that much swing over the 1968 primaries. Who would gain the nod in 1968?

How would the religious right movement be affected by this? Imo, if JFK wins in 1964 and again in 1968, he'd at least manage to keep Catholics aligned to the Democrats, and if RFK stayed alive due to butterflies, he'd probably end up gaining evangelical support if he decided to run, especially if he had a southerner on the ticket. But that might not be the case.

How does the GOP evolve too? Imo if they came to power in the 1980s they would undoubtedly adopt neoliberal economics, as they're the party of business and Keynesianism had failed by that point anyway, but I feel like they'd still be quite socially liberal without the religious right in control. At the very least, the Equal Rights Amendment would be ratified, homosexuality would be decriminalised, and there'd be a far better response to the AIDS crisis, but they'd probably do a lot more in terms of socially liberal legislation that I can't think of at the moment.

Anyway, is it feasible that JFK could have won in 1964 if he hadn't run in 1960?
 
Given how Nixon being in office means no reason for the CCC/NAACP to be willing to compromise at all, the way they would under a dem president you could see a scenario with JFK running as Wallace-lite, but with a new england accent. Lots of talking about "law and order", "punishing draft-dodgers", "protecting existing schools".

Addison's disease would probably mean he wouldn't run again in 1968, but 4 years would be enough for JFK to foul up race relations
 
Addison's disease would probably mean he wouldn't run again in 1968

Not going to argue with the rest of your post (it's all plausible), but I kinda have trouble with this and I'll defer to @RogueBeaver's Kennedyarchy on this:

1) If JFK survives Dallas, there is an automatic Addison-Wank. False: no medical evidence supports such a theory.

2) Addison's is fatal long-term: False, it was controlled by medications. There is no cure, and was likely triggered by excessive use of steroids to correct other illnesses in his youth.

That said, you're probably right about the rest of your post. It'll be the Atwater thing, but four years early.

e: actually, fuck, on rereading that I realise that I missed the part where they mentioned that if it wasn't JFK, it'd probably be Joe Jr. In 1960, which is super plausible
 
Hold it. Apart from the GOP having the Oval Office for 12 years, Ventriloquist doesn't cite a reason why the incumbent Nixon wouldn't be re-elected. That fundamental a premise needs to be addressed in detail to make this plausible at all; otherwise, it's not a lot better than a hand-wave-generated Kennedy-wank. I wouldn't suggest using the Bay of Pigs: granted, the CIA under Ike dreamed up the idea, but it's not necessarily a given that Nixon would have given this operation the green light. I don't think you could postulate a more dire outcome to the missile crisis, either: Khrushchev knew he was dealing with a no-nonsense cold warrior in Nixon, and may well not have ordered the missiles sent to Cuba. And if you cite a buildup in Viet Nam, I have to ask when, how and why. Even with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in '64, the US presence in 'Nam didn't really get rolling until 1965. So: what did Nixon do--or not do--that cost him re-election in 1964?
 
So, this is a fun butterfly that others have explored. Things to consider:
Nixon winning in 1960 means he has to address:
Vietnam,
Cuba,
Race relations,
Cold War,
Civil rights,
NATO and France,

I have discussed some of this before, but of all the things I just listed, the only thing I feel can accurately predict is how Nixon would have handled De Gaulle trying to pull out of NATO. It would have never happened. Nixon idolized De Gaulle, seeing him in the holy trinity of politicians, along with Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. For his part, De Gaulle was alleged to have liked Nixon. So the two would have quashed the issues and France would not have bolted and NATO would have had a stronger and broader support in Europe.

Everything else - roll the dice, because Nixon was a pair of dice and you never knew which way he would roll. The things he could prepare for, he did, but when push came to shove, Nixon could not think well on his feet - so he would blurt things, to try sound powerful and in-charge. The man could be capable of well-thought out position papers on the future of Red China in Asia and US interests in the region, but then would grab a highball and talk about the differences between Mexican- and African-Americans as if he was your drunkest racist step-uncle.

As for the right-wing in US in the above scenario. They would be gloriously confused. The 1960 GOP loss unleashed the Goldwater wave, and although they kamikazed themselves in the '64 election, the activists remained and transformed the party. And here is a raving centrist and (to the high-priests of capital "C" Conservatism) borderline RINO Nixon showing everyone how to win as a centrist Republican. Now, the Goldwater Militant Tendency does not simply disappear, but it sure loses a lot of ground and intellectual support.

Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side of the fence, LBJ will be drawing his own conclusions, wrong as they possibly are. And Humphrey will be repainting himself into a centrist, leaving JFK where exactly? And would LBJ allow himself to step into the same rake twice, underestimating JFK and the Kennedy machine in two elections, even if JFK withdraws early? LBJ's life ambition was the White House and with JFK showing his hand in 1960 would get him added to the enemies list. Can LBJ prevent JFK nom in 1964? Maybe, maybe not. But not from a lack of trying, I can tell you. And would the Democrats allow this sort of thing to go as it did before, with 12 years of out of power? Or would they force through a shiny liberal to pass the litmus test of the activists chomping at the bit?

Adding to the confusion, the domestic situation, which faces Nixonian indifference (Nixon was bored to tears by 99% of the domestic legislative agenda and thought of it as Congressional nonsense that needs some help from the White House come elections) and the powder keg of race relations, civil rights and many other things.

In 1967 Nixon, a private if prominent citizen, withdrew from the public eye, because he saw that there was racial tension set to explode. He hid out and read the tea leaves, analyzing the situation. Nixon was very good at analysis, if you gave him time and let him run scenarios in his head. But in the White House in 1960... on the clock... no idea how Nixon would have reacted and the chain reaction he could have caused.
 
Even with a health scare in 1969, a JFK loss would create a narrative that the country wasn't ready for a Catholic President, so someone else us nominated in 1964. A Kennedy brother might win in 1968 - assuming Nixon wins a second term and it goes as badly as LBJ's full term. Similar to 2008 in OTL. The joke was W screwed up so bad, he made it impossible for a white guy to win.

But that scenario is more likely to benefit Wallace than Kennedy. Ugh.
 
JFK would probably counter the arguments about not ready for a catholic POTUS by moving hard on race, anti-communism and being vocally pro-war even by the standards of the time. Perhaps Wallace as VP in a 1964 Kennedy run.
 
There's no particular reason to assume that a second Nixon term from '65 to '69 would go as badly as Johnson's full term at the same time. Remember, Nixon was a consummate cold warrior, and the potential opposition in Viet Nam would not have underestimated him. Thus, developments there are likely quite different. As to civil rights: seeing as that's a domestic issue which largely bored Nixon, I could see him delegating that to congressional GOP leadership (Everett Dirksen; Gerald Ford) with encouragement to work with (and perhaps co-opt?) Democratic leadership. Since that would have the side effect of galling the hell out of Johnson (he'd be in a no-win situation: either cooperate and quite likely get pushed toward the background, or refuse, and suddenly get lumped in with run of the mill southern Dems from whom he'd spent much time/energy separating himself), I could definitely see that happening. Thus, a noticeable fraction of the black vote remains on the GOP side, and perhaps with bipartisan support for expanded civil rights, the racial flare-ups of the late '60s are mitigated noticeably.
 
Let's suppose John F. Kennedy has a health scare in 1960 just before or near the start of the primaries. Nothing major, maybe his Addison's flares up for a bit, but it's enough to keep him off the campaign trail until after the primaries, so let's say Kennedy bows out gracefully in the hopes that he can recuperate for 1964.

Of course, in this scenario, the Democrats, the Democrats would pick Humphrey and probably Johnson at the DNC. Nixon would trounce Humphrey in the general, as Humphrey would come off as too much of a liberal compared to Nixon, the centrist

Sorry for thr the late reply but, it's unlikely that Humphrey would have won the nomination if John F. Kennedy hadn't run, read https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-humphrey-vs-nixon-in-1960.460839/#post-18338998.
Indeed, some of the vote that he got in our timeline's came from general anti-John F. Kennedy voters, not from voters that supported him.
 
Top