Nixon vs. Kennedy 1960, with a twist

[Bo]

The tickets remain the same. However, Eisenhower decides to campaign for Nixon in the last two months of the campaign. In addition, Nixon talks much more about the good economy and Eisenhower's economic record and how he will continue the peace and prosperity of the 1950s and make it even greater and more accessible to everybody. Finally, Nixon emphasizes his own common roots and attacks Kennedy for being an out of touch elitist. How would this election turn out? Discuss, with maps.

I think Nixon would narrowly win.

[Vosem]

A 3% swing to Nixon results in a Nixon victory larger than one might expect.

Nixon 384
Kennedy 134
unpledged 19

[Bo]

A 3% swing to Nixon results in a Nixon victory larger than one might expect.

Nixon 384
Kennedy 134
unpledged 19

No, I would have expected that. I know many states in 1960 were very close. I think both candidates received at least 45% in a majority of the states. Kennedy even won 45% in Utah, a state Bush Jr. won in 71% in 2004. Do you think that Nixon would have received 3% more of the vote in this scenario? If not, how much of the vote do you think Nixon is going to get (in this scenario)?

[Psychic Octopus]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

[Bo]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, and the Democrats would have probably nominated Kennedy again. Nixon could have screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well. On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy. It wasn't so muc the economy that would be the issue, more so The Spread of Communism. If Kennedy or the Democrat (With the Help of the Media) could portray Nixon as soft on communism, he's probably dead.

My bet is a narrow Nixon loss. 

[Bo]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, and the Democrats would have probably nominated Kennedy again. Nixon could have screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well. On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy. It wasn't so muc the economy that would be the issue, more so The Spread of Communism. If Kennedy or the Democrat (With the Help of the Media) could portray Nixon as soft on communism, he's probably dead.

My bet is a narrow Nixon loss. 

I think it would have been hard for the Democrats to portray Nixon as soft on Communism, since Nixon was considered a staunch anti-Communist in Congress and as VP, and he will probably try to maintain that image if elected President (even if his actual policies will not reflect that). I actually don't think there would have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Nixon won in 1960. I seriously doubt Nixon would have been stupid enough to place American missiles in Turkey (which borders the Soviet Union) and thus the Soviet Union would not feel provoked and would not place its missiles in Cuba (the only reason why they did so in RL is because they wanted the U.S. to remove its missiles from Turkey). I also don't think that Nixon would have screwed up the Bay of Pigs, since he knew it would have been stupid to promise the Cuban rebels air support and then not provide it. Thus, I don't see how Nixon would lose reelection if the economy is good and there are no major foreign crises. Also, I don't think the Democrats would ever nominate John F. Kennedy again after him losing in 1960, since many polls showed that he was supposed to win that election. Maybe the Democrats would have nominated Bobby or Ted Kennedy sometime in the future in this scenario, but not JFK.

[Psychic Octopus]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, and the Democrats would have probably nominated Kennedy again. Nixon could have screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well. On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy. It wasn't so muc the economy that would be the issue, more so The Spread of Communism. If Kennedy or the Democrat (With the Help of the Media) could portray Nixon as soft on communism, he's probably dead.

My bet is a narrow Nixon loss. 

I think it would have been hard for the Democrats to portray Nixon as soft on Communism, since Nixon was considered a staunch anti-Communist in Congress and as VP, and he will probably try to maintain that image if elected President (even if his actual policies will not reflect that). I actually don't think there would have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Nixon won in 1960. I seriously doubt Nixon would have been stupid enough to place American missiles in Turkey (which borders the Soviet Union) and thus the Soviet Union would not feel provoked and would not place its missiles in Cuba (the only reason why they did so in RL is because they wanted the U.S. to remove its missiles from Turkey). I also don't think that Nixon would have screwed up the Bay of Pigs, since he knew it would have been stupid to promise the Cuban rebels air support and then not provide it. Thus, I don't see how Nixon would lose reelection if the economy is good and there are no major foreign crises. Also, I don't think the Democrats would ever nominate John F. Kennedy again after him losing in 1960, since many polls showed that he was supposed to win that election. Maybe the Democrats would have nominated Bobby or Ted Kennedy sometime in the future in this scenario, but not JFK.

First off, the Kennedy clan is top-bottom. The oldest always goes first, at least in case with the brothers. The polls didn't show he would win, it was a very, very close election that could have gone either way. Nixon wasn't stupid, but don't doubt that Nixon would put missiles in Turkey. He was a hawk, and probably would have. For the Bay of Pigs, that is such wishful thinking. The Bay of Pigs was going to be a failure, no matter what spin you put on it. The Mission was going to continue as is from Eisenhower, and no president would effect the outcome of it. (It's a lot how many people believe that had we elected Gore, 9/11 wouldn't happen). After 12 years of Republican rule, the election goes to a Democrat, albeit narrowly. You can't presume there would be no crises sans-1963 with Nixon, per the butterfly effect.

Besides, Nixon might not even be alive in 1964. (Although I think he would be).

[Bo]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, and the Democrats would have probably nominated Kennedy again. Nixon could have screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well. On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy. It wasn't so muc the economy that would be the issue, more so The Spread of Communism. If Kennedy or the Democrat (With the Help of the Media) could portray Nixon as soft on communism, he's probably dead.

My bet is a narrow Nixon loss. 

I think it would have been hard for the Democrats to portray Nixon as soft on Communism, since Nixon was considered a staunch anti-Communist in Congress and as VP, and he will probably try to maintain that image if elected President (even if his actual policies will not reflect that). I actually don't think there would have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Nixon won in 1960. I seriously doubt Nixon would have been stupid enough to place American missiles in Turkey (which borders the Soviet Union) and thus the Soviet Union would not feel provoked and would not place its missiles in Cuba (the only reason why they did so in RL is because they wanted the U.S. to remove its missiles from Turkey). I also don't think that Nixon would have screwed up the Bay of Pigs, since he knew it would have been stupid to promise the Cuban rebels air support and then not provide it. Thus, I don't see how Nixon would lose reelection if the economy is good and there are no major foreign crises. Also, I don't think the Democrats would ever nominate John F. Kennedy again after him losing in 1960, since many polls showed that he was supposed to win that election. Maybe the Democrats would have nominated Bobby or Ted Kennedy sometime in the future in this scenario, but not JFK.

First off, the Kennedy clan is top-bottom. The oldest always goes first, at least in case with the brothers. The polls didn't show he would win, it was a very, very close election that could have gone either way. Nixon wasn't stupid, but don't doubt that Nixon would put missiles in Turkey. He was a hawk, and probably would have. For the Bay of Pigs, that is such wishful thinking. The Bay of Pigs was going to be a failure, no matter what spin you put on it. The Mission was going to continue as is from Eisenhower, and no president would effect the outcome of it. (It's a lot how many people believe that had we elected Gore, 9/11 wouldn't happen). After 12 years of Republican rule, the election goes to a Democrat, albeit narrowly. You can't presume there would be no crises sans-1963 with Nixon, per the butterfly effect.

Besides, Nixon might not even be alive in 1964. (Although I think he would be).

Nixon's hawkishness is overrated. When he was actually President he withdrew U.S. troops from Vietnam and essentially allowed the Soviets to take it over. Nixon did not send troops anywhere else during his Presidency, and the only country he bombed was Cambodia (as part of the Vietnam War).  Also, didn't the Bay of Pigs fail because Kennedy promised the Cuban rebels air support and then the air support did not arrive on time? Also, your point with the Republican fatigue would probably apply in 1968 if Nixon won in 1960, since it is rare for an incumbent President to lose reelection. I can't assume that there wouldn't have been any crises after 1963 or that Nixon wouldn't be assasinated, but you have to keep in mind that Nixon was much more of a foreign policy realist than Kennedy and probably knew how to handle difficult situations better. As for Nixon possibly being assasinated, I think that in this case Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. would heavily capitalize on the public sympathy following his assasination and win his own term by a (comparatively) large margin in 1964.

[Хahar 🤔]

On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy.

It's not just something that one might think. Nixon did run to Kennedy's left.

[Mechaman]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, and the Democrats would have probably nominated Kennedy again. Nixon could have screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well. On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy. It wasn't so muc the economy that would be the issue, more so The Spread of Communism. If Kennedy or the Democrat (With the Help of the Media) could portray Nixon as soft on communism, he's probably dead.

My bet is a narrow Nixon loss. 

The Democrats were in power for 20 years when Eisenhower got elected president. FYI.

[Scam of God]

Yeah, basically the map above. Nixon would have preformed well, and would probably lose in 1964.

Why would he lose in 1964? In RL, the economy recovered from the Recession of 1961 by 1964, and since Nixon and Kennedy were about the same on the economy on the campaign trail (they both supported Keynesian economics, the New Deal, and large social programs), I don't see the economy being much worse than in RL if Nixon won in 1960.

Republicans would have been in power for 12 years, and the Democrats would have probably nominated Kennedy again. Nixon could have screwed up the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well. On the campaign trail, one might think that Nixon actually ran to the left of Kennedy. It wasn't so muc the economy that would be the issue, more so The Spread of Communism. If Kennedy or the Democrat (With the Help of the Media) could portray Nixon as soft on communism, he's probably dead.

My bet is a narrow Nixon loss. 

The Democrats were in power for 20 years when Eisenhower got elected president. FYI.

But unlike Roosevelt, Eisenhower had no permanent coalition to sustain any future successors from his wing of the GOP. Unfortunately.

[Derek]

Eisenhower is one of the highest regarded presidents in history. Up there with Reagan.