WI: JFK assassinated exactly a year later?

[TheDetailer]

What if JFK manages to live to see the end of 1963, but exactly an entire year later he still gets assassinated, but this time around on November 22nd, 1964, only a few weeks after the presidential election.

How much could’ve changed over that time? Would JFK have won the election before his untimely death? How does this change things going forward?

 

[daveg1967]

The 1964 election is much more competitive without the assassination. Smaller Great Society. LBJ may actually get reelected in 1968.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Smathers or Wallace is JFK's successor. They probably blame the assasination on "negro insurrectionists".

 

[killertahu22]

Smathers or Wallace is JFK's successor. They probably blame the assasination on "negro insurrectionists".

This makes not a lot of sense to me, why do you think this would happen?

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

This makes not a lot of sense to me, why do you think this would happen?

wanting LBJ off the ticket+probable civil rights-related unrest

 

[ejpsan]

There is no credible source that Kennedy was going to dump Johnson in 1964 the only ones that have been sited has been Kennedy's secretary Evelyn Lincoln who had no real hard first hand information and Arthur Schlesinger who while was an Special Assistant wasn't in the inner circle of the political side.
Every time that an incumbent President is running for re-election there is unfounded speculation that the Vice President is going to be dropped from the ticket.
The last time that the Vice President was dropped from the ticket was when Nelson Rockefeller was dropped in 1976 from the Ford campaign but because both Ford and Rockefeller were not elected but appointed that is a special case.
The last time the elected incumbent President dropped the sitting Vice President from the ticket was in 1944 when Henry Wallace was replaced by Harry Truman.
Back to the OP's question if Kennedy was assassinated a year later doesn't mean that it would have been done by Lee Harvey Oswald as Kennedy would have been somewhere else besides Dallas on that day.
Kennedy should have been coming off a massive landslide win against Goldwater and I am one of the few people who thought it could have been a much bigger win if Kennedy and Goldwater debated because Kennedy would have shredded every last credibility that Goldwater had on live national television.
The assassin would probably been someone like Oswald a malignant narcissist trying to prove that they matter and if they were an extremist right winger then Kennedy
becomes a bigger martyr then IOTL.
There probably wouldn't have been a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution because Kennedy would have waited a few days to get more complete information on what exactly happened.
Without it the President couldn't expand the numbers of troops into Vietnam and the scope of the war that Johnson did in 1965 without debate in Congress.
The mechanism for selecting a replacement nominee after the November election but before the Electors meet at their respective State Capital's to cast their ballots for President and Vice President would have been for the Democratic National Committee to meet and no way that President Johnson wasn't going to be selected to be the replacement Presidential nominee, it is the Vice President nominee that is going to be the battle with RFK being the first choice of everybody else except for Johnson and RFK themselves because Johnson had issues with Bobby and didn't want to be pressured in selecting him and RFK had his own issues about holding any elected office without being actually elected to the office it self as he refused to take the Senate seat that JFK gave up when becomes President.
So that means Johnson would have selected someone else and that is where we can speculate all we want.
My two bits is that it would have been Secretary of the Agriculture Orville Freeman of Minnesota as he had a solid liberal record and very pro civil rights and was very acceptable to all factions of the Democratic Party and most of all a safe choice.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

There is no credible source that Kennedy was going to dump Johnson in 1964

Yabbut did Johnson actually want another term as VP? AIUI, he'd arrived at "Cactus Jack" Garner's opinion of it, and was considering a return to the Senate. He wouldn't challenge Yarborough for re-election in 1964, but he could wait two years for a rematch with Tower. (Johnson defeated Tower in 1960; Tower won the 1961 special election after Johnson resigned.)

 

[bguy]

Smathers or Wallace is JFK's successor. They probably blame the assasination on "negro insurrectionists".

Wait, what? If Kennedy, who has been aggressively pushing for civil rights, gets assassinated (and especially if he's assassinated in the south) absolutely no one is going to believe he was assassinated by "negro insurrectionists."

Furthermore, JFK's successor is going to be his vice president, and if for some reason that isn't LBJ, there's not the slightest chance that Kennedy would replace Johnson with a segregationist like Smathers or Wallace. (There was a reason LBJ did not sign the Southern Manifesto and that he helped push through the 1957 Civil Rights Act and that was because even by the mid 1950s it was already obvious that segregationists were no longer acceptable for a national ticket.)