Why did Nixon nearly lose California in 1960?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In 1960, Nixon was the incumbent vice president and was running to replace a popular term-limited incumbent.  California was his home state, and yet he very nearly lost it to Kennedy.  California was originally called for Kennedy, in fact; Nixon only won it after absentee votes were counted.  How did Nixon nearly blow it in his own home state?

[Mr. Smith]

In 1960, Nixon was the incumbent vice president and was running to replace a popular term-limited incumbent.  California was his home state, and yet he very nearly lost it to Kennedy.  California was originally called for Kennedy, in fact; Nixon only won it after absentee votes were counted.  How did Nixon nearly blow it in his own home state?

He only won because he was a native son (and the perfect middle ground between conservative and Rockefeller-esque), and Kennedy didn't do enough Bay Area campaigning.

Really, JFK should've won the entire Bay Area (sans Marin,Sonoma, and Santa Cruz since those were Rocky GOP counties before the '80's)...but he only got San Francisco and the minority heavy East Bay.

The rest went as could be expected in California before Reagan/Bush alienated the state with the far-right insanity [yes Reagan won huge, but there's a good reason Dukakis almost won, and Reagan did worse against Mondale than Carter]:

- The "Solid South" Northern Inland counties went to JFK [though not to the same extent as Truman], except for the more conservative ones (for the same reasons most of The South went to JFK but Virginia and Tennessee didn't)

- The Rocky GOP Bay Area [sans the good East Bay and SF] tilted to Nixon. However, a little more campaigning would've flipped San Mateo and Santa Clara.

- Democratic LA went to Kennedy

- The rest of the state with patterns like the Mountain West favored Nixon.

Finally, JFK did well with immigrants.

If it were JFK vs Rockefeller or Romney, and JFK did as he did with that layout, he would've won...by the same margin Ford beat Carter.

[DS0816]

Dwight Eisenhower, with re-election in 1956, underperformed his percentage margin in having carried California by over four percentage points. (His margin nationwide was 15.40 percent. His carriage of California was 10.88 percent.)

I've mentioned numerous times that Pennsylvania has had a Democratic tilt in every presidential election after the 1940s.

I think much of this has to do with gradual changes, in party preference, with the voting electorate as there became Republican movement in states which were a part of the base for the Democrats and there became Democratic movement in states which were a part of the base for the Republican Party. (In other words, trendings.)

[buritobr]

California was never much more Republican than the rest of the country

Difference to the national margin

1948: R+4.04%
1952: R+3.71%
1956: D+4.29%
1960: R+0.71%
1964: R+4.26%
1968: R+2.38%
1972: D+9.69%
1976: R+3.84%
1980: R+7.04%
1984: D+1.97%
1988: D+4.16%
1992: D+7.83%
1996: D+4.37%
2000: D+11.28%
2004: D+12.41%
2008: D+16.74%
2012: D+19.23%

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Much like Gore in 2000 with TN, Nixon hadn't won an election on his own in the state in 10 years.

The rest went as could be expected in California before Reagan/Bush alienated the state with the far-right insanity [yes Reagan won huge, but there's a good reason Dukakis almost won, and Reagan did worse against Mondale than Carter]

Sitting presidents always do worse in their home states than in their first election.

[sg0508]

Most of the GOP wins there outside of '80 were inside the GOP averages.  It is amazing how they won there so many times in a row. 

CA was one of three blown calls by the networks that night, with the other two being AK and HI.

[TDAS04]

Kennedy wasn't a bad fit for the state at all, and California elections tended to be close at the time.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Most of the GOP wins there outside of '80 were inside the GOP averages.  It is amazing how they won there so many times in a row. 

CA was one of three blown calls by the networks that night, with the other two being AK and HI.

Alaska was called for Kennedy?  I knew that Hawaii and California were called wrong, but Alaska too?

[Mr. Smith]

Most of the GOP wins there outside of '80 were inside the GOP averages.  It is amazing how they won there so many times in a row. 

CA was one of three blown calls by the networks that night, with the other two being AK and HI.

Not really, all the 60's elections had the Democrats at serious disadvantage numbers wise. Ultimately JFK was just a really good fit.

Carter on the other hand was a really bad fit, hence why Ted won the primary and Mondale did better in '84. Frank Church could've flipped it, Scoop Jackson could've flipped it.

Dukakis losing is the big surprise really.

[sg0508]

Most of the GOP wins there outside of '80 were inside the GOP averages.  It is amazing how they won there so many times in a row. 

CA was one of three blown calls by the networks that night, with the other two being AK and HI.

Not really, all the 60's elections had the Democrats at serious disadvantage numbers wise. Ultimately JFK was just a really good fit.

Carter on the other hand was a really bad fit, hence why Ted won the primary and Mondale did better in '84. Frank Church could've flipped it, Scoop Jackson could've flipped it.

Dukakis losing is the big surprise really.

The ole "final gift of Reagan".

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Carter on the other hand was a really bad fit, hence why Ted won the primary and Mondale did better in '84.

Maybe that's one of the reasons why Ford won there in '76.

[Calthrina950]

Much like Gore in 2000 with TN, Nixon hadn't won an election on his own in the state in 10 years.

The rest went as could be expected in California before Reagan/Bush alienated the state with the far-right insanity [yes Reagan won huge, but there's a good reason Dukakis almost won, and Reagan did worse against Mondale than Carter]

Sitting presidents always do worse in their home states than in their first election.

Hate to bump this up, but this isn't true. Franklin Roosevelt did better in New York in 1936 than he had in 1932, winning the state by 21 points as compared to 13.

[morgankingsley]

Even if Eisenhower was still popular there, Nixon was still a heavily mixed person to most people in the country, so I can get why

[MillennialModerate]

Most of the GOP wins there outside of '80 were inside the GOP averages.  It is amazing how they won there so many times in a row.  

CA was one of three blown calls by the networks that night, with the other two being AK and HI.

Alaska was called for Kennedy?  I knew that Hawaii and California were called wrong, but Alaska too?

I was thinking just the opposite; I knew about California, Hawaii but never knew about Alaska. But yes Hawaii was called wrong (by NBC at least) ....




To answer the OP question:

Because JFK was a young, handsome, charismatic candidate. Nixon got a lot of votes simply because he was the home state kid and his attachments to Eisenhower were really the only thing that made the election close. In ‘64, JFK would’ve won California decisively - even if his opponent was Romney or Rockefeller or yes, even Nixon.

[Vosem]

People forget how long the suburban-growth trend towards Republicans lasted in California; relative to the nation, the state's Republicanness peaked sometime around Reagan's first election. Because of how fast it became a Democratic-leaning state after this (it was zooming left in the 1980s, and already a sine qua non for Dukakis), the fact that it was barely if at all right-leaning in the 1940s and 1950s has kind of been forgotten. (It was certainly to the right in the 1964-1980 set of elections, though; 1972 merely showed that left-wing candidates there had a high floor).

[Technocracy Timmy]

What percent of California at the time was catholic?

[Sumner 1868]

Democrats had a big wave in California in 1958. Might have been some lingering effects from that.

[Mr. Smith]

Democrats had a big wave in California in 1958. Might have been some lingering effects from that.

Eh, not that big. It's a shocker to hear in this day and age, but Knowland and Knight were popular where they were, the position switch was costly. It had little to do with R vs D, and they would've easily won if they hadn't switched [ok,ok Knowland would've been...Brown Sr would still have made the gubernatorial against Knight competitive as the good, moderate, token Democrat]

[morgankingsley]

My grandpa was 14 at the time and a cali native. He said that while Nixon was not too well liked in many areas, they at least knew how he handled politics from his past experiences and many were unsure of how well Kennedy could do, even if they thought his personality was quite good

[Calthrina950]

People forget how long the suburban-growth trend towards Republicans lasted in California; relative to the nation, the state's Republicanness peaked sometime around Reagan's first election. Because of how fast it became a Democratic-leaning state after this (it was zooming left in the 1980s, and already a sine qua non for Dukakis), the fact that it was barely if at all right-leaning in the 1940s and 1950s has kind of been forgotten. (It was certainly to the right in the 1964-1980 set of elections, though; 1972 merely showed that left-wing candidates there had a high floor).

It seems as if in almost every election from 1948 through 1992, the nationwide winner did worse in California than his national average. The only exceptions to this were in 1952 (Eisenhower), 1968 (Nixon), and 1980 (Reagan). Stevenson (in 1956), Goldwater, McGovern, and Mondale all did better in California than their national average. Hence, it suggests that there was a relatively high floor for both parties in California during that era. Eisenhower "only" won California by 11% in 1956 and Nixon by 13% in 1972, much less than their 15% and 23% margins of victory nationwide.