1960 Nixon//Rockefeller vs Kennedy/Freeman

[Lincoln Republican]

It is widely accepted that Senator Lyndon Johnson was crucual to the victory of Senator John Kennedy in the 1960 Presidential election. 

In this scenario, Kennedy goes with someone he knew he would be comfortable with and for whom he had a great deal of respect, Governor Orville Freeman of Minnesota.

Nixon asks Governor Nelson Rockefeller to run on the ticket, and, unlike in real life when  asked, in this scenario, Rockefeller accepts.

How does this election go?

Please discuss, using maps if you wish.   

[Lincoln Republican]

I guess I'll have to handle this.

Big mistake for Kennedy not to pick Johnson.

Worse case for Nixon -

Rockefeller brings in New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois.
Freeman does not help the Democratic ticket.

Nixon/Rockefeller                283
Kennedy/Freeman               235
Unpledged Electors               19

Best case for Nixon -

Nixon takes more southern states

Nixon/Rockefeller              374
Kennedy/Freeman             144
Unpledged Electors             19

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Basically, I agree, but Texas is a problem. Would Kennedy really carry Texas without LBJ? Even under your best case scenario.

Well, of course Rockefeller wasn't really the guy Texans loved.

[Lincoln Republican]

Thanks for your insight.

Yes, I believe it is likely that RMN takes Texas, as well as North and South Carolina, had LBJ not been on the ticket with JFK, even with NAR  as his running mate.

Many southern voters clearly voted for Kennedy because they were comfortable with the fact that LBJ was on the ticket.

It is documented that Nixon did try persistently and fervently to get Rocky on the ticket, but was turned down.  Kennedy's pick of Johnson really threw a wrench into the Nixon campaign planning.  Rockefeller on the Nixon ticket  could very well have helped to swing New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois to Nixon, to compensate for the loss of southern states that Kennedy would carry because of Johnson.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Thanks for your insight.

Yes, I believe it is likely that RMN takes Texas, as well as North and South Carolina, had LBJ not been on the ticket with JFK, even with NAR  as his running mate.

Many southern voters clearly voted for Kennedy because they were comfortable with the fact that LBJ was on the ticket.

It is documented that Nixon did try persistently and fervently to get Rocky on the ticket, but was turned down.  Kennedy's pick of Johnson really threw a wrench into the Nixon campaign planning.  Rockefeller on the Nixon ticket  could very well have helped to swing New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois to Nixon, to compensate for the loss of southern states that Kennedy would carry because of Johnson.

I agree that Nixon/Rockefeller ticket would be far superior. Without having TX, it would be hard for JFK to win the election, and I can't see a way for him to carrying the Texas without LBJ and his machine help.

And yes, with Rockefeller, several Northern states that narrowly, by more legal or illegal way (I guess no one here have doubts Kennedy victory was a clean business).

I wonder, also, what would be best choice for Kennedy if not LBJ. Not that it could help him win, but the best possibility?