There's speculation that JFK would've jumped LBJ from the 1964 ticket had he lived. But how likely was this, really? Would JFK kept LBJ on board for '64, or ditched him for a new running mate?
 
I realize that some people take for granted that JFK would have dumped LBJ in 1964 but the evidence is mixed at best. See my post at https://soc.history.what-if.narkive.com/ADTdAkOO/jfk-retires-1964#post8 (my apologies for any links that may no longer work):

***

There was a lot of talk in late 1963 that LBJ might not be on the ticket, especially in the wake of the Bobby Baker scandal. Evelyn Lincoln in 1968 claimed to remember a conversation with JFK in November 1963 where he told her that he was thinking of having North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford as his running mate in 1964, but that in any case "it will not be Lyndon." http://books.google.com/books?id=0xqrU5lnD7AC&pg=PA605 OTOH, Ben Bradlee claims (in *Conversations with Kennedy*) that in an October 22, 1963 conversation, "As for dumping Lyndon Johnson from the ticket in 1964, the president said 'That's preposterous on the face of it. We've got to carry Texas in '64 and maybe Georgia.'"
http://books.google.com/books?id=E5y77o-G2SYC&pg=PA217

It was undoubtedly unrealistic for JFK to think he might carry Georgia in 1964 (maybe he had in mind that it was the only Deep South state to go for Truman rather than Thurmond in 1948) but Texas was another matter. Polls showed a close Kennedy-Goldwater race there, and I can't see JFK writing off such an important state. For that reason, I don't think he would have dumped LBJ unless some scandal made him really a liability. FWIW, when Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. asked RFK about Lincoln's account, RFK supposedly replied not only that there had never been any intention of dumping LBJ, but "Can you imagine the President ever having a talk with Evelyn about a subject like this?" Schlesinger, *Robert Kennedy and His Times,* p. 605.

Also, JFK supposedly told George Smathers that dumping LBJ would be foolish because it would make the Bobby Baker affair look like a really serious scandal--which JFK insisted it wasn't--that would reflect on the president. LBJ himself wrote his brother that he expected to be re-nominated, that while there were some people around JFK who disliked LBJ, the president himself had always been fair to him. http://books.google.com/books?id=0xqrU5lnD7AC&pg=PA605 (Of course one must note that it was in the interest of RFK in 1968--and of his friends and supporters like Schlesinger--to say there had been no such "dump LBJ" plan in 1963; otherwise, RFK's 1968 campaign against LBJ would look too "personal", too much a "let's dethrone the usurper" campaign, rather than one based on principled differences.)

There is in any event a good reason why despite talk of presidents dumping their vice-presidents in a re-election year, it very rarely happens. Choosing a running mate (yes, technically, the convention does it, but in recent decades the presidential nominee's choice is almost always nominated) is the first and one of the most important decisions a presidential nominee makes. (Although it almost never makes a difference in the election results, since as Steve Chapman points out at http://www.slate.com/id/84823/ "Nobody Votes for the Veep.") In effect, he is choosing his successor should he be elected and die in office. To admit to a misjudgment on such a serious matter would be a huge political embarrassment--normally a much greater one than retaining the vice-president. (Ford-Rockefeller was an unusual situation, Ford never having been elected president and facing a formidable primary challenge, and Rockefeller in any event not being too enthusiastic about the vice-presidency.)

So all in all, I am not convinced that JFK would have dumped LBJ. The best discussion I know of the issue is by Robert Dallek in *Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson and His Times, 1961-1973*, pp. 43-44. http://books.google.com/books?id=G_J3PEegwdYC&pg=PT58 Dallek thinks that JFK may have had *contingency* plans to replace LBJ if the Bobby Baker scandal got too serious. Moreover, he thinks that JFK's alleged words to Evelyn Lincoln may have been authentic, because on November 20, 1963, JFK was angry with LBJ for not doing anything to "iron out any of the problems in Texas" (presumably referring to the split between the Tory Democrats led by John Connally and LBJ himself versus the liberal Democrats led by Ralph Yarborough). "Kennedy's remarks to Lincoln (if he actually made them) may have been no more than a spontaneous expression of his anger toward LBJ. His larger design, especially once it seemed likely that Johnson would ride out the Baker scandal, was to do the politically necessary thing and keep Johnson in place..."

***

I know that since I wrote that post several years ago, Robert Caro has come out in support of the "JFK was going to dump LBJ" position, but I am still skeptical.

(BTW, until some recent research, I hadn't realized that Billy Sol Estes lived until 2013, Bobby Baker until 2017....)
 
Last edited:
There's speculation that JFK would've jumped LBJ from the 1964 ticket had he lived. But how likely was this, really? Would JFK kept LBJ on board for '64, or ditched him for a new running mate?

I doubt it, honestly. There was enough drama surrounding Texas Democrats as it was, and as i'm sure you know a large part of the reason he was even in Dallas on that fateful day was to try and heal the rift between Governor Connally and Senator Yarborough. For Kennedy to then go and alienate LBJ on top of that, a man with deep influence not just in Texas Democratic politics, but throughout the south in general (obviously an important region at that time), wouldn't make much sense to me. Which isn't to say it would be impossible, but I do find it doubtful.

In the event that, for whatever reason, Kennedy does decide to dump Johnson, the most likely choices IMO are Stuart Stymington, Terry Sanford, perhaps Connally, or George Smathers.
 
I doubt it, honestly. There was enough drama surrounding Texas Democrats as it was, and as i'm sure you know a large part of the reason he was even in Dallas on that fateful day was to try and heal the rift between Governor Connally and Senator Yarborough. For Kennedy to then go and alienate LBJ on top of that, a man with deep influence not just in Texas Democratic politics, but throughout the south in general (obviously an important region at that time), wouldn't make much sense to me. Which isn't to say it would be impossible, but I do find it doubtful.

In the event that, for whatever reason, Kennedy does decide to dump Johnson, the most likely choices IMO are Stuart Stymington, Terry Sanford, perhaps Connally, or George Smathers.

Connally would be a good choice if he wants to keep Texas in play. But IMO Kennedy would only dump Johnson if he became a serious liability. Otherwise LBJ stays on the ticket and begins laying the groundwork for a run in 1968.
 
Here are some links which might help in the speculation on this topic.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/sex-in-the-senate-bobby-baker-099530?o=1

Bobby Baker:
“And on November 22 … after lunch, in the Senate Rules Committee investigation [of] Bobby Baker, Don Reynolds was going to really spill his guts. But when President Kennedy was killed, it basically killed the Baker investigation. You know, President Johnson acted like he did not know me. … I think the Reynolds testimony plus the absolute hatred of Bobby Kennedy of Johnson [would have forced LBJ off the 1964 Democratic ticket if Kennedy had lived]. Poor old Walter [Jenkins, one of Johnson’s most trusted aides, who had worked with Reynolds to buy the advertising time on the Johnson station], had President Kennedy not been killed, he either would have had to take the Fifth Amendment and quit, or tell the truth and Vice President Johnson would have definitely been off the ticket in 1964, had it [been] shown that he had really been the party in the back of this.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/it-will-not-be-lyndon-why-jfk-wanted-to-drop-lbj-for-reelection
According to the writer,
"Considering this, and Lincoln’s well known dislike of Johnson, I was skeptical of her account until I discovered in her personal papers in the John F. Kennedy Library two sheets of four by five and a half inch memorandum paper headed “THE WHITE HOUSE – Washington,” and dated “Nov 19, 1963.” She had written on both sides in shorthand, and a transcription showed that Kennedy’s words were exactly as she had reported them in her book."
 
The impression I have gotten is that while JFK's inner circle despised Johnson (looking at you, RFK), Kennedy himself respected Johnson. If JFK lived and stuck with his instincts, he would have kept LBJ on board.
 
The impression I have gotten is that while JFK's inner circle despised Johnson (looking at you, RFK), Kennedy himself respected Johnson. If JFK lived and stuck with his instincts, he would have kept LBJ on board.

That makes LBJ the frontrunner for 1968. If nominated, would Johnson win the general election?
 
Any way Jack and Lyndon might have come to a mutual agreement, and then come up with a face-saving reason Lyndon could give when he announced that he himself was withdrawing from the ticket?

Maybe Lyndon could run for Texas Governor. (who back then was elected every 2 years)
 
Any way Jack and Lyndon might have come to a mutual agreement, and then come up with a face-saving reason Lyndon could give when he announced that he himself was withdrawing from the ticket?

Maybe Lyndon could run for Texas Governor. (who back then was elected every 2 years)

In order for that to work you'd have to get Connally out of the way, which could be done by offering him the VP slot.
 
In order for that to work you'd have to get Connally out of the way, which could be done by offering him the VP slot.
Might be a little bit too much of the Texas Two-Step! ;)

But I think you're right. You'd have to do something like this in order to pull it off.
 
In the event that, for whatever reason, Kennedy does decide to dump Johnson, the most likely choices IMO are Stuart Stymington, Terry Sanford, perhaps Connally, or George Smathers.

The fact people are throwing around these unnominatable Dixiecrat choices as Southron alternatives to LBJ are themselves a solid argument against a drop.

Anyhow, Dave T has spoken, so we don't need to go down this route.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why Smathers' name keeps coming up here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-kennedy-jackson-1960.454526/#post-17782751

I have my doubts that JFK intended to replace LBJ, but if he did, Sanford would make a lot more sense than Smathers.

Hence the reason he's at the end of the list. I understand that as a committed Dixiecrat, and one who built his career in black baiting at that, he's a hugely doubtful choice. But I have heard his name floated in this situation before, so I added him. No need to nitpick.
 
In the event that, for whatever reason, Kennedy does decide to dump Johnson, the most likely choices IMO are Stuart Stymington, Terry Sanford, perhaps Connally, or George Smathers.

Connally and Sanford would be the finalists. Symington is technically a midwesterner and Smathers signed the Southern Manifesto, so one would be offensive to the South and the other to the North. Connally is a Texan like LBJ, while Sanford represents the New South. Either one would be a fine choice, though I doubt either man would be on the '64 ticket unless LBJ really became so toxic that he had to be dumped.
 
Connally wasn't a Massive Resistance type on civil rights, but he was a quiet, but public opponent. There's no way JFK tries to replace LBJ with someone who is functionally Dixiecrat on civil rights; that's not a viable national ticket for 1964. Not in the heat of civil rights.

He, y'know, later became a Nixon Republican for a reason. The same reason why his 1980 campaign was politically based in Strong Thermal's endorsement, and subsequent cachet in the Senator's state. Sanford's prominence in these discussions is precisely because of his pro-civil rights gubernatorial record making him (theoretically) nationally viable.
 
Last edited:
LBJ was a Southener* who was passionatley for Civil Rights.
He was also a powerful man, with a massive political base who could make trouble for Kennedy if dumped. In an era when party lines were not as stark as they are now.
Why would Kennedy want to take a bazooka to his own foot?

*The only other one I can think off was Lee Harvey Oswald? :eek:
 
Top