WI: Other Presidents in 1960

We have a great deal on Kennedy surviving, not in terms of actual timelines but in terms of discussion. We have a great deal on Nixon winning 1960. And we have seen timelines on Johnson becoming president in 1960. However, outside of this roster, there has been less discussion. However, I am interested in discussing the other possibilities. Not even necessarily Humphrey and Rockefeller, although those could be people discussed here. I am more interested in regards to Stuart Symington, Adlai Stevenson, Wayne Morse, George Smathers, and the assorted list of other people who may have considered running but did not, or who could have run but did not. How would these people fare were they elected in 1960, and how would the course of history have unfolded?
 
If Eisenhower removes Nixon and replaces him with Anderson in 1956, he would the likely Republican nominee. Ike also tried to convince Anderson to run against Nixon for the nomination, but he decided not to run.
 
Sen Stuart Symington D-MO could have won the Democratic nomination if he had competed in the Indiana and Nebraska primaries and defeated Kennedy.
But he was just a little bit lazy and wanted the nomination handed to him.
 
If Eisenhower removes Nixon and replaces him with Anderson in 1956, he would the likely Republican nominee. Ike also tried to convince Anderson to run against Nixon for the nomination, but he decided not to run.
That would have been intriguing indeed had Robert Anderson been the GOP nominee in 1960: he was from TX, which would have turned that state into a no-holds-barred battleground. Multiply that by 100 had it been Anderson against Lyndon Johnson. There's an interesting premise for a timeline...
 
Of all the alternatives to JFK or LBJ, Symington--"everyone's second choice"--probably had the best chance to get the nomination. To quote an old soc.history.what-if post of mine:

***

According to Theodore Sorensen's *Kennedy*, p. 145, "Privately, he [JFK]
thought that Symington, had he organized earlier, might have been able to
defeat him among the more conservative Democrats of Indiana or Nebraska;
and one defeat would have been enough to deny Kennedy the nomination."
(Remember, LBJ at this time was officially not a candidate and said that
his duties as Majority Leader precluded campaigning, so Symington would
have no active competition among relatively-conservative Protestant
Democrats had he campaigned.) But Symington wanted to avoid any risk of
pre-convention defeat (I guess he figured that if he didn't campaign--and
indeed officially denied he was a candidate, though allowing his name to
be placed on the ballot--his doing poorly in the primaries wouldn't be
considered a defeat, whereas if somehow he would do well in any of them,
this would be considered noteworthy)--which of course was itself a risky
strategy since it hazarded everything on there being a convention
deadlock.

All the same, I can't say that there was no chance the strategy would have
worked. Just because time after time the oft-predicted brokered
conventions have failed to emerge in the twentieth century doesn't mean
they never could have done so, and this had a better chance of happening
in 1960 than in later years, when primaries became more important. In
spite of all JFK's primary victories, his nomination on the first ballot
was a close thing. See my discussion at
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/1f78cee90165d362
about how it might have been prevented if Iowa had been required by the
convention Parliamentarian to vote for its favorite son (Governor Herschel
Loveless) on the first ballot. And *if* JFK had fallen short on the second
ballot as well, anything could happen...

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/NfgAk5LUW4Q/_jb658pTYI8J
 
Top