Deleted member 189829
JFK was almost became the vice-presidential candidate in 1956 at the Democratic national convention. He actually won the second ballot, and only narrowly lost the final ballot to Estes Kefauver. JFK remarked on March 15, 1958 that:
'I am grateful to my father for his support – but I am even more grateful to "Mr. Sam" Rayburn. At the last Democratic Convention, if he had not recognized the Tennessee and Oklahoma delegations when he did, I might have won that race with Senator Kefauver – and my political career would now be over.'
Indeed, the 1956 was a landslide victory for Eisenhower. 457 to 73. In fact, with Kennedy on the ballot, it is likely that the Democratic ticket would perform even worse, as due to Kennedy's catholic and privileged background the incredibly close states of North Carolina and Missouri would go for Eisenhower.
In my opinion this rules out JFK in 1960. No previous failed vice-presidential candidate has managed to run for president and win four years later. And assuming Kefauver still decides not to run despite not being on the ticket in 1956, I suspect we get Nixon from 1961–1969. LBJ would be the nominee in 1960, and Humphrey in 1964.
However, I do not believe JFK’s presidential chances are over with a loss in 1956—FDR was the vice presidential nominee in 1920 in a landslide defeat and managed to win 12 years later in 1932.
JFK could continue in the senate and run in 1968. Or, if we are emulating FDR, we could have him run for Governor of Massachusetts in 1964. John Volpe, the incumbent Republican Governor, only narrowly lost the 1962 gubernatorial election by 5000 votes. He would run again in 1964 and only narrowly win 50.27% to 49.29%. We could have Volpe win in 1962 and lose to Kennedy in 1964, which sets him nicely up for a 1968 presidential run.
JFK also appears to be a shoe-in for the democratic primary (and presidency considering the GOP have occupied for the executive for 16 years). Humphrey, Johnson, and RFK are obviously not in the running.
'I am grateful to my father for his support – but I am even more grateful to "Mr. Sam" Rayburn. At the last Democratic Convention, if he had not recognized the Tennessee and Oklahoma delegations when he did, I might have won that race with Senator Kefauver – and my political career would now be over.'
Indeed, the 1956 was a landslide victory for Eisenhower. 457 to 73. In fact, with Kennedy on the ballot, it is likely that the Democratic ticket would perform even worse, as due to Kennedy's catholic and privileged background the incredibly close states of North Carolina and Missouri would go for Eisenhower.
In my opinion this rules out JFK in 1960. No previous failed vice-presidential candidate has managed to run for president and win four years later. And assuming Kefauver still decides not to run despite not being on the ticket in 1956, I suspect we get Nixon from 1961–1969. LBJ would be the nominee in 1960, and Humphrey in 1964.
However, I do not believe JFK’s presidential chances are over with a loss in 1956—FDR was the vice presidential nominee in 1920 in a landslide defeat and managed to win 12 years later in 1932.
JFK could continue in the senate and run in 1968. Or, if we are emulating FDR, we could have him run for Governor of Massachusetts in 1964. John Volpe, the incumbent Republican Governor, only narrowly lost the 1962 gubernatorial election by 5000 votes. He would run again in 1964 and only narrowly win 50.27% to 49.29%. We could have Volpe win in 1962 and lose to Kennedy in 1964, which sets him nicely up for a 1968 presidential run.
JFK also appears to be a shoe-in for the democratic primary (and presidency considering the GOP have occupied for the executive for 16 years). Humphrey, Johnson, and RFK are obviously not in the running.
