WI: Kennedy/Humphrey In 1960

Deleted member 180541

What if instead of JFK picking LBJ in 1960 to appeal to the South, he went all in on winning the North and picked Humphrey in 1960? And what if it payed off?

1660928401281.png

John F. Kennedy | Hubert H. Humphrey | 306 EV
Richard M. Nixon | Henry C. Lodge Jr. | 181 EV
Harry F. Byrd | 49 EV

Moreover, because JFK has placed less importance on attracting the southern vote, would this not butterfly away his visit to Texas in 1963 and his assassination?

1660928259939.png

John F. Kennedy | Hubert H. Humphrey | 360 EV
Barry M. Goldwater | William E. Miller | 178 EV

Furthermore, terrified at the prospect of a Reagan presidency and seeing a pretty clear party realignment, does Nelson Rockefeller give into attempts to draft a Humphrey/Rockefeller ticket in 1968?

1660928822185.png

Hubert H. Humphrey | Nelson A. Rockefeller | 350 EV
Ronald W. Reagan | James A. Rhodes | 188 EV

Lastly, does Humphrey decide to not seek re-election in 1972 due to his bladder cancer? Does Rockefeller get the nod?


 

David T

The idea that having Humphrey on the ticket would enable JFK to carry OH, OR, MT, WA and WI in 1960 is very dubious. None of these states was super-close. In particular, OH wasn't close at all: 53.28-46.72. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio Why would Humphrey enable JFK to close a 6.56 point gap? (Or for that matter the 5.3 point gap in OR?) Humphrey might be popular with Black voters but after the call to Mrs. King, they were ovewhrlmingly pro-JFK anyway. Liberals hated Nixon and would vote for JFK simpy fot that reason, regardless of his running mate.. Some conservative Democrats in Ohio's Appalaxchia might actually prefer LBJ on the ticket. CA *was* very close, and i suppose Humphrey might lead a few Stevensonians who didn't vote in OTL to vote for JFK--but OTOH LBJ had some appeal among the treanplanted Texans and "Okies" of the Central Valley.

IMO Humphrey hurts the Democrats considerably in the South and helps them very little (if at all) in the North.
 

Deleted member 180541

David T said:
The idea that having Humphrey on the ticket would enable JFK to carry OH, OR, MT, WA and WI in 1960 is very dubious. None of these states was super-close. In particular, OH wasn't close at all: 53.28-46.72. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Ohio Why would Humphrey enable JFK to close a 6.56 point gap? (Or for that matter the 5.3 point gap in OR?) Humphrey might be popular with Black voters but after the call to Mrs. King, they were ovewhrlmingly pro-JFK anyway. Liberals hated Nixon and would vote for JFK simpy fot that reason, regardless of his running mate.. Some conservative Democrats in Ohio's Appalaxchia might actually prefer LBJ on the ticket. CA *was* very close, and i suppose Humphrey might lead a few Stevensonians who didn't vote in OTL to vote for JFK--but OTOH LBJ had some appeal among the treanplanted Texans and "Okies" of the Central Valley.

IMO Humphrey hurts the Democrats considerably in the South and helps them very little (if at all) in the North.
Click to expand...
Humphrey was heavily despised by the Southern Democrats, so more emphasis is placed on campaigning in the Midwest and Northeast, and the liberal stardom enjoyed by Humphrey pushes turnout. Moreover, and most importantly, Harry Byrd in the election acts as a spoiler, siphoning away votes from GOP conservatives.
 

David T

Abbé Faria said:
Humphrey was heavily despised by the Southern Democrats, so more emphasis is placed on campaigning in the Midwest and Northeast, and the liberal stardom enjoyed by Humphrey pushes turnout. Moreover, and most importantly, Harry Byrd in the election acts as a spoiler, siphoning away votes from GOP conservatives.
Click to expand...
JFK campaigned plenty in Ohio in 1960. He was later to joke "There is no city in the United States in which I get a warmer welcome and fewer votes than Columbus, Ohio."

As for Byrd, he wanted Nixon to win, regardless of JFK's eunning mate. Why would he want to spoil Nixon';s chances in SC (which Nixon almost won in OTL and almost certainly qouls have won witg a JFK-Humphrey ticket)?.
 

Deleted member 180541

The
David T said:
JFK campaigned plenty in Ohio in 1960. He was later to joke "There is no city in the United States in which I get a warmer welcome and fewer votes than Columbus, Ohio."

As for Byrd, he wanted Nixon to win, regardless of JFK's eunning mate. Why would he want to spoil Nixon';s chances in SC (which Nixon almost won in OTL and almost certainly qouls have won witg a JFK-Humphrey ticket)?.
Click to expand...
The ambition for Byrd is not to have Nixon win, but to show the power of the South by sending the election to the House, similar to George Wallace in 1968.

I would like to see the context for the Ohio comment, as it reads as more as a joke then a serious comment. Regardless, JFK ignoring the South and not campaigning in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia completely changes the dynamics of the election, and even more campaigning in Ohio plus the other factors stated above is enough to flip the state, in my opinion. Even if you still view it as unrealistic, we can give Ohio to Nixon and still have JFK win.
 

David T

Abbé Faria said:
The

The ambition for Byrd is not to have Nixon win, but to show the power of the South by sending the election to the House, similar to George Wallace in 1968.

I would like to see the context for the Ohio comment, as it reads as more as a joke then a serious comment. Regardless, JFK ignoring the South and not campaigning in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia completely changes the dynamics of the election, and even more campaigning in Ohio plus the other factors stated above is enough to flip the state, in my opinion. Even if you still view it as unrealistic, we can give Ohio to Nixon and still have JFK win.
Click to expand...

No, Byrd wanted Nicon to win, just as he wanted Ike to win in 1952 and 1956. It was proverbial that his "golden silence" gave VA to GOP presidential candidates. Byrd was concerned with economic conservatism to a greater degree than Wallace.

There's not much point talking about the rest. If you think a state that's lost by four or five points can be won simply by one side doing "more campaigning"--after all, the other side can do more campignng there, too! If Nixon can take the South for granted, he, too, can pour more reosurces into the North.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 180541

peeter said:
Humphrey in 1960 wasn’t a big enough name to justify picking him over LBJ full stop
Click to expand...
He was literally the runner-up to Kennedy in the primaries? And was a finalist at the vice presidential convention?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top