Question about 1960

[Lincoln Republican]

In the 1960 presidential election, which turned out to be one of the closest in history, JFK defeated RMN ever so narrowly, with so many states decided by an extremely narrow margin. 

In your view, was there any other Republican at the time who could have defeated JFK in the 1960 election?

Please discuss.   

Thanks.

[True Democrat]

Eisenhower, if permitted

Maybe Rockefeller, was  he old enough?

[Boris]

Were there any other Republicans even running for the nomination? Or was Vice President Nixon the defacto nominee?

[True Democrat]

This site has everything but Republicans 1960:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/classicvotes.html

[PBrunsel]

In 1960 Nelson Rockefeller floated the idea of opposing Nixon, but was talked out of it by Eisenhower.

Goldwater was the target of a draft at the convention, but nothing came of it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, Rockefeller withdrew his name from consideration in December 1959.

[Lincoln Republican]

Thank you all for your input.  Most interesting.

As Vice President for the past 8 years, Nixon was indeed the candidate of the party establishment, and considered by many in the party to have earned the right for the nomination for President in 1960.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, age 52, was the only other serious name for the nomination being floated.  After months of starts and non starts, in May of 1960, Rockefeller let it be known that he would be open for a draft.  This draft movement, of course, was not successful.

In July, 1960, Nixon tried to persuade Rockefeller to be his running mate, which Rockefeller refused. 

Under threat of a floor fight over the platform, Rockefeller ended up having a tremendous influence on the Republican platform of 1960, with a document that came to be known as "The Fifth Avenue Compact."

Whether of not Rockefeller, had he been the nominee in 1960, would have defeated Kennedy, is open to speculation.

One can argue that perhaps Rockefeller would have won Michigan, lost by 2.01%, New Jersey, lost by 0.80%, Pennsylvania, lost by 2.32%, perhaps Delaware lost by 1.64%, and perhaps Illinois, lost by 0.19%.  These are all states where presumably Rockefeller would have gone over well in.  With these states, combined with the states won by Nixon, would have given Rockefeller 317 EV, a clear win.   

Then again, perhaps some more conservative states won by Nixon, especially in the south, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida, Oklahoma, may not have been so favorable to Rockefeller as they were to Nixon.  And who knows how California would have gone, Nixon's home state, which went to Nixon by only 0.55%.  With these states, or some of them, in the Kennedy Camp, Kennedy would still have won.

So 1960 remains a very intriguing election.       

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

[Lincoln Republican]

How could I forget.

Nelson Rockefeller was a very popular New York Governor.  With Rocky as the GOP nominee in 1960, this would have clearly put New York into play for the GOP.

Maybe he could have won.

No one knows.

[adam]

Eisenhower only. Kennedy just had to much swave to work with where as the Republicans were the targets of the growing radical movement. The only reason Nixon came as close as he did was his experience and Eisenhower ensdorsment.

[johnpressman]

By all accounts, 1960 was to be a Democratic year.  The GOP suffered a disastrous 1958, the ONLY bright lights were Rockefeller in NY and Goldwater's re-election in AZ.  It is no coincidence that they were the only two men even marginally considered as opponents to Nixon's lock on the GOP nomination, there was nobody else. 

Rocky. however, having only 18 months as  Governor of NY would be a little light experience-wise, even though he had several appointed foreign service positions.  Nixon had paid his dues to the Party, Rocky had not.  Besides, Rocky represented the Eastern Establishment of the GOP.  Sen. Everett Dirksen's speech at the 1952 GOP Convention pre-empted another NY'er like Dewey from gaining control of the Party.  Much of the GOP in 1960 were
Taft supporters from 1952 and before.  They would be hard-pressed to get out the vote for a tax and spend liberal Governor of NY.  Remember, the Republican Party was only four years away from the Goldwater Revolution. 

Should Rocky have somehow won the nomination, a contest vs JFK would be a repeat of the 1958 "Battle of the Millionaires" race for governor between Rocky and W. Averill Harriman.
The 1960 race between JFK and Nixon should have been a runaway for the Dems.  Two factors made it close: 

1. Kennedy's Catholicism AND
2. The public's identification with Nixon as the common man vs JFK, born to wealth.

Rocky might have taken NY and NJ but his low totals in the South might have sparked either a third-party candidacy or, at the very least, magnified the scope of the "delegates revolt" in AL, MS and OK to other states  I cannot see Rocky taking CA, TN, KY and VA from Kennedy-Johnson.  I believe a lot of more conservative voters would stay home for this one.
                     

[Erc]

Eisenhower only. Kennedy just had to much swave to work with where as the Republicans were the targets of the growing radical movement. The only reason Nixon came as close as he did was his experience and Eisenhower ensdorsment.

Arguably, one of the reasons Nixon lost was because Ike didn't seem to give him enough support--Ike's infamous "If you give me a while, I might be able to think of something" commnent that got taken the wrong way, most notably.

[johnpressman]

The involvment, or lack thereof, of Ike in Nixon's 1960 campaign remains an enigma to this day.  Nixon writes that Ike was eager for an all-out campaign, but Maime Eisenhower and his physican convinced Nixon to downplay Ike's role in the campaign for health reasons.  Eisenhower's famous "If you give me a week, I might think of one" was a response to a reporter's question about whether any suggestions made by Nixon were adopted by Ike.  His off-putting answer was atributed to fatigue and his famous scrambled syntax.  Ike was responding that the press conference was over and he would answer the question next week.  It sounded pretty bad.

I believe that for all accounts 1960 was to be a Democratic year.  The GOP had NO viable Presidential candidates save Nixon, slim pickings for potential VP candidates, low registration and very low numbers in the House and Senate.  After eight years of Ike, the american electorate saw the year 1960  as a watershed.  They were leaving the post-war era and demanded change.  The election was close only due to Kennedy's religion.  He very well might have lost had he not picked LBJ for to run with him, but that's another story.

[Lincoln Republican]

I agree with the details as noted by johnpressman.

If I may, I would like to make mention of another issue that likely led to the defeat of Nixon in 1960, that of the civil rights plank in the Republican platform.

My reference is from "The Making Of The President 1960" by Theodore H. White, which I have read.

Says White

"Nixon insisted that the platform committee substitute for the moderate position on civil rights (which probably would have won him the election) the advanced Rockefeller position on civil rights (which might also have won him the election in the North, had he understood the Rockefeller postiion).  Later, under the strain of the election campaign, in September and October, the temptation of victory came so close that he apparently could not decide whether he was campaigning for Northern electoral votes or Southern electoral votes;  he thus later completely befuzzed his original position in Chicago and succeeded, in the end, in alienating Northern Negro and Southern white, losing both along with the election.  This is one of Nixon's characteristic and fatal flaws--that he presents too often a split image."

It is interesting to speculate that had Nixon been consistent with his civil rights statements, in particular if he had made the decision to go with the moderate plank instead of the more advanced Rockefeller position, and had stuck to it, if he would have won in 1960.

[johnpressman]

Tammany Hall  Republican,  you have done your homework.  I have read and re-read "The Making of the President 1960" countless times and I believe that Ted White was wrong when he said that this issue cost Nixon the election.

By 1960, the Black vote was solidly in the Democratic camp.  No GOP stance on civil rights, one way or the other,  was going to convince many minority voters to pick Nixon over Kennedy, or vice/versa.  I do realize that there were still a core of Black Republicans (Jackie Robinson, for one).  I remember Martin Luther King Sr. saying that he was going to get out the vote for Kennedy after JFK reacted stongly to Dr. King, Jr.'s imprisonment during the 1960 campaign, but I thought that was grandstanding as I believe that Dr. King would support the Democratic ticket anyway.   

Nixon fought his heart out in 1960, driving himself to exhaustion.  Whether better makeup during the televised debates, or a strong endorsement from IKE, or spending more time in IL, or TX might have made the differnce, no one knows.  The ONE factor I have brought up, that Nixon chose a terrible running mate, one who could not influence one single state for the GOP cause, while JFK chose the strongest possible VP, who made a significant contribution to their victory, that alone made the difference between winning and losing.

[pragmatic liberal]

Tammany Hall  Republican,  you have done your homework.  I have read and re-read "The Making of the President 1960" countless times and I believe that Ted White was wrong when he said that this issue cost Nixon the election.

By 1960, the Black vote was solidly in the Democratic camp.  No GOP stance on civil rights, one way or the other,  was going to convince many minority voters to pick Nixon over Kennedy, or vice/versa.  I do realize that there were still a core of Black Republicans (Jackie Robinson, for one).  I remember Martin Luther King Sr. saying that he was going to get out the vote for Kennedy after JFK reacted stongly to Dr. King, Jr.'s imprisonment during the 1960 campaign, but I thought that was grandstanding as I believe that Dr. King would support the Democratic ticket anyway.   

Nixon fought his heart out in 1960, driving himself to exhaustion.  Whether better makeup during the televised debates, or a strong endorsement from IKE, or spending more time in IL, or TX might have made the differnce, no one knows.  The ONE factor I have brought up, that Nixon chose a terrible running mate, one who could not influence one single state for the GOP cause, while JFK chose the strongest possible VP, who made a significant contribution to their victory, that alone made the difference between winning and losing.

Interestingly, at least according to TIME Magazine (which may not have been an unbiased source; it was very openly Republican for much of its history), Lodge was seen at the time as being an excellent choice, as this cover story indicates:



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,897588-1,00.html
When the black convertible pulled up to the speakers' platform erected for the occasion, there was an outburst of cheering and applause, almost drowning out a well-dressed woman's shout to her husband: "He's so handsome!" Youngsters set up a "We Want Lodge!" chant, and the grownups joined in. Somebody handed the candidate's smiling wife a massive bouquet of four dozen roses, and as the cheers continued Henry Cabot Lodge, the G.O.P.'s choice for vice president, raised his arms to form a V. "This was Nixon territory," Illinois' Congresswoman Marguerite Stitt Church boomed into the microphone. "Now it's also Lodge territory !"

The great American game of politics was taking on a mid-season look. The roars at Skokie toward the end of Lodge's first full week of campaigning, however, were the kind that a vice-presidential candidate rarely gets.

High Rating. The extent of Cabot Lodge's popularity with the U.S. public is the greatest surprise of the campaign so far. "Tremendous! Tremendous!" gloats Leonard Hall, sometime G.O.P. National Chairman, now co-manager of the Nixon-Lodge campaign. Says Michigan's Republican National Committeeman John B. Martin: "The reaction to Lodge is the most extraordinary thing in the whole campaign in Michigan. Republican groups, Negro organizations, women's clubs—they all want Lodge." A Gallup poll designed to measure the degree of voter enthusiasm for each candidate gave Lodge a higher rating than Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon. So many urgent requests for Lodge to speak have poured into G.O.P. headquarters in Washington that Lodge has had to abandon his hope of keeping his weekends free during the campaign to rest and relax at his home on Massachusetts Bay.

<snip>

Upset Calculations. Few G.O.P. politicians realized, until after he was nominated, how widespread was the U.S. awareness and approval of Lodge's U.N. performance. In polls showing presidential preferences among Republican voters during 1959 and the early months of 1960, Lodge consistently ran third, after Nixon and Rockefeller, though he had done nothing at all to stir up political interest in himself. One G.O.P. politician who did grasp the meaning of those polls was Richard Nixon who long before the conventions decided to make his stand on foreign policy. That made Lodge an obvious vice-presidential prospect, and Lodge was plainly receptive.

At Chicago—and in the famous Treaty of Fifth Avenue huddle—Nixon went all out to make New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller his running mate, aware of his crowd-pleasing talents, his appeal to independents, and the need for his help to swing New York's 45 electoral votes. Rockefeller refused to join the ticket, but agreed to support Nixon. The Midwestern Republicans, still resentful of Lodge's role in derailing Ohio's Taft in 1952, wanted Nixon to pick Kentucky's Senator Thruston B. Morton, G.O.P. National Chairman, for his Vice President. Everybody agreed he would add to Republican appeal in the South. But after Kennedy's surprise choice of Texas' Lyndon B. Johnson as his running mate, dismayed Nixonmen shared Kennedy's feelings that the South was lost to the Republicans. That made it all the more necessary to push the foreign-policy issue, in an effort to swing votes outside the South. His own mind made up, Nixon got the unanimous ratification of Lodge (who was Eisenhower's favorite choice even during the Rockefeller boom) in a two-hour session with party leaders after the presidential nomination. "This is the first time." says a top Nixon staffer, "that a vice-presidential nominee was chosen without any hope of his carrying his own state."*

<snip>

Better than Nixon? Soon after the conventions, both parties discovered that they had miscalculated the political appeal of both vice-presidential nominees. Lyndon Johnson may have avoided a defection of Southern leaders, but far from rallying to him, many Southerners—and many Southern editorialists—denounced Johnson as a traitor to the South. In sharp contrast, when G.O.P. politicians got home, they discovered that Lodge was highly popular among the voters—and possibly even a better candidate for their needs than Rockefeller. Says North Dakota Lawyer Robert Chesrown, a local Republican leader: "Until I came back from the convention I never realized how much Lodge meant to the party. People here were really talking about him. It began to dawn on me that Lodge is just as well as, maybe even better liked in this area than Nixon."

Nixon, making the most of Lodge's popularity, proclaimed that if elected, he would give Lodge more powers than any Vice President in history. He promised to make him the director of all nonmilitary aspects of the cold war—political, diplomatic, economic and propagandistic.

Matinee Show. G.O.P. soundings indicate that Lodge has a special appeal to the nation's housewives, who made up a large part of his afternoon U.N. audience. Result: campaign planners expect to put Lodge on at least one nationwide TV broadcast at a novel afternoon time. Lodge also seems to appeal to Negroes. Explains Detroit's Dr. Junius Taylor, a Negro physician who considers himself a political independent but this year is heading an outfit called Greater Detroit Volunteers for Nixon and Lodge: "Lodge had to deal with all the peoples of the world, and though they are not all Negroes, he understands what it means. His fairness in dealing with these peoples greatly impresses us."

[Lincoln Republican]

Thank you pragmatic liberal for that excellent Time article.  Most intriguing.

That goes right along with what Theodore H. White says in his book, The Making of the President 1960, and which I have mentioned on this forum in the past on more than one occasion, that Nixon believed strongly in 1960 that the only way the Republicans could win would be to have the election centered on foreign policy, not domestic policy.  Nixon said that if the election was based on domestic policy, that the Democrats win.

In view of the fact Nixon wanted to have a foreign policy emphasis on the election, the choice of Lodge made complete sense, as I have said before.       


 

[johnpressman]

Now you've done it.  Interesting article.  Despite the wonderful endorsements from the GOP leadership, there is a sentence here that fortells the disaster that the Lodge candidacy was to become: So many urgent requests for Lodge to speak have poured into G.O.P. headquarters in Washington that Lodge has had to abandon his hope of keeping his weekends free during the campaign to rest and relax at his home on Massachusetts Bay.   

KEEPING HIS WEEKENDS FREE???  What Vice Presidential Candidate would tell the press he intended to keeps his weekends free during a hard-fought campaign such as the one looming in 1960??  I bet that sat well with Nixon who drove himself to the point of exhaustion, ending up in the hospital during a crucial time in the campaign!

The other quote I found interesting was that a Nixon staffer said that this was the first time a vice-presidential nominee was chosen without any hope of his carrying his own state???  What?? Last time I looked, that is how a President is elected, by carrying states' electoral votes!  In 1960, the world and this nation was much bigger place.  The identification a voter had to his state and region, each with it's own specific issues, was much greater.  The practice of "balancing the ticket" with a Westerner, or a Southerner  to run with a Presidential Candidate from the Northeast was a given.  LBJ added Texas and most of the Old Confederacy plus MO to JFK's Northeastern base.  Lodge added NOTHING.  I don't buy "that he kept the focus on foreign policy by voters remembering him on TV, representing the US at the United Nations ".  Lodge could not bring in a single state that would have voted for Nixon anyway, in other words, Nixon, running alone would have won the exact same states he won with Lodge as VP.  Nixon needed  help either in the Midwest or South, the West was his, he had to win CA, his  home state, by himself.  The Northeast was Kennedy's, the battlegrounds were to be the Midwest and South.     

This article is a time capsule.  Lodge turned out to be a liability.  A lacklustre and lazy campaigner, he made a promise to appoint a Negro (sic) to the Cabinent if Nixon was elected, forcing Dick to back pedal and curse the day he selected Henry Cabot!

[Lincoln Republican]

John, very good critique of the Time article by you.

I see you picked up on two interesting aspects of the article, weekends off, and no chance of carrying his home state.

As well, an excellent analysis on your part of why you believe Lodge eventually turned out to be a drag on the ticket.

But there is no way that Henry Cabot can be blamed for "losing" the election for Nixon.  he may not have turned out to be the greatest asset, but he did not cause Nixon's defeat in 1960.  1960 was shaping up to be a Democratic year, after 8 years of the Republicans in the White House. 

Didn't Nixon end up in hospital, though, during the campaign, because he banged his knee on a car door, injuring it seriously, and required treatment?

Another crucial aspect of the 1960 Nixon campaign was that Dick made the insane promise to campaign in all 50 states.  I believe it was near the end of the campaign when Nixon was wasting valuable campaign time in Alaska, no offence to Alaska, it's a great place, but which was his regardless, and Kennedy was making last minute barnstorming tours and shoring up votes in big electoral states like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.   

The choice of LBJ by JFK was either a stroke of political genius, or straight dumb luck in getting Johnson on the ticket, and staying on the ticket.  The way I understand it is JFK felt he had to offer the Vice Presidency to Johnson, as he was the other main contender for the Democratic nomination, he was Senate Majority Leader, he was considered to be more moderate than JFK, he was from the south, and he had a sizeable following in the party.  The JFK brain trust believed LBJ should be offered the VP nomination, but that for sure LBJ would turn it down, as everyone knew that there was a great deal of animosity between the two.  They reasoned as well that LBJ had more power and influence as Senate Majority Leader than he would have as VP, and that LBJ would therefore turn down the VP offer.

To the shock of all in the JFK camp, LBJ accepted the offer.  Robert Kennedy was then dispatched to meet with LBJ, to have LBJ withdraw as the VP nominee.  LBJ, understandably irate, more or less told RFK to take a hike, that JFK offered him the VP nomination, and that only JFK could withdraw the offer.

Of course, at this point, JFK was not about to withdraw the offer, knowing the chaos that would surely ensue, following such a move.

As you and others have said, LBJ turned out to be crucial for the JFK win.

The only "Republican LBJ" I can possibly see in 1960 is Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, who in fact may have been instrumental in helping Nixon on to victory, and who Nixon tried to get as the VP nominee, but Rocky turned down the offer. 

Some close states where Rocky would have gone over well in and where he would conceivably have helped Nixon win

Delaware           3 EV         lost by 1.64%
Illinois              27 EV         lost by 0.19%
New Jersey      16 EV         lost by 0.80%
Pennsylvania   32 EV         lost by 2.32%

And dare I say it

New York         45 EV         lost by 5.26%

Although New York would have required a sizeable swing, and I'm not sure even Guv Rocky could have pulled that one off.

Nonetheless, interesting numbers, and interesting food for thought.

But Dick Nixon did all right.  He won the Presidency eight years later, at a crucial and controversial time in the nation's and in the world's history.   

[johnpressman]

No, I agree that Lodge did not lose the election for Nixon,  only JFK's religon made what should have been a runaway, a close race.

Yes, Rocky could have been a "Republican LBJ", however, coming from one of America's wealthiest families, he might have removed some of the "common man" appeal from Nixon.  Aside from that aspect,  a charismatic figure and a tremendous campaigner, he would have been the strongest possible GOP vice presidential candidiate in 1960.  I agree with your assesment of the states he might have brought into the Republican collumn.

That being said, there WAS NO WAY he would have accepted the vice presidential nod from Nixon.  If memory serves, Nixon even offered to be a one-term President, allowing Rocky to run for the big job in 1964.  Rocky said no, and the subsequent "Pact of Fifth Avenue" made Nixon look weak, agreeing to changes in the Republican Party's platform to gain the support of a governor with less than two year's tenure??!!  Was there any possibility that Rocky would bolt and support Kennedy for President in 1960???

More likely, a choice of Sens. Thurston Morton or John Sherman Cooper, both of KY, or Reps. Walter Judd of MN or Gerald Ford of MI (my choice) might have tipped enough crucial states in the South or Midwest to Nixon for the win.  All of the former were ready and willing to take the job, although Judd deferred because he believed his face was too pock-marked.  An interesting possibility, albeit a shadowy figure in political history, was Gov. William Stratton of
Illinois.  the KEY state in this and most Presidential elections, I know little of this two term governor.  Why was he not mentioned as a possible VP candidate? 

Your account of the circumstances surrounding the choice of LBJ for VP is accurate, except I believe that it was Sam Rayburn in LBJ's hotel suite that barked profanities and demanded that JFK be called to the phone to explain RFK's actions.  Bobby said words to the effect that "I took the Vice Presidential nomination out of my pocket, showed it to him, and before I put it back, he grabbed it!"  This goes to the root of Johnson's hatred of Bobby.  He could not admit to himself that it was JFK who sent his brother back to take the nomination from him, he had to make himself believe that it was Bobby's idea to renege on his brother's offer.  JFK didn't do Bobby's case any favors when he told LBJ on the phone that "Bobby dosen't know what's going on, if you want to be on the ticket then I want you".

Why LBJ agreed to swap his position as Majority Leader for the thankless job of Vice President is open for speculation.  Whether Lady Bird, mindful of Johnson's heart condition, thought it would be a less stressful job, or whether he thought his influence as Majority Leader would wane with a Democratic President, or whether he thought that JFK, in poor health, might not survive two terms, (LBJ said that he was a betting man on the last one) no one can be sure.  Supposedly he even thought that with his influence and force of personality, he could re-make the Vice Presidency into a position of power.   

As for Nixon, he DID drive himself to exhaustion, losing his voice in the process and flying to Alaska in the last days of the campaign to fulfill his 50 state promise.  It is interesting to note, and I wrote a paper on it at the time, the stiking contrast to the Nixon of 1960, virtually self-managing his campaign, showing his vulnerability and the scripted, "cool" campaign he ran in 1968.  My paper was entitled "Is There a New Nixon?".

[Lincoln Republican]

(A note, Rockefeller may also have helped in Michigan, 20 EV, lost by 2.01%.)

John, thank you for your as usual interesting, enlightening, and informative further details on this fascinating campaign.

I have read that Senators Thruston B Morton and John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky, and Congressmen Walter Judd of Minnesota and Gerald Ford of Michigan had been considered as possible VP runing mates for Nixon in 1960.  It seems to me Judd may have been considred too abrasive and too controversial in some of his statements.  Cooper was up for re-election to the Senate in 1960, and would likely rather have run for a relatively safe re-election to the Senate than an uncertain run for Vice President.  Morton or Ford may have been good picks, with Morton helping more in the south, and Ford helping more in the midwest, both crucial battlegrounds in 1960.  Likely Governor Stratton of Illinois was not considered to be of sufficient political weight to be considred for VP, even though he was from a crucial swing state. 

I cannot imagine a man of Nixon's political drive and ambition entertaining the idea of serving only 1 term as President, should he achieve a first term, but the Pact of Fifth Avenue was certainly a coup for Rockefeller, no doubt about that.  Harboring future designs on the Republican nomination, I doubt very much that Rockefeller would ever have supported JFK in 1960. 

I am sure your paper, "Is There a New Nixon?" must be a fascinating work. 

[Lincoln Republican]

One thing that I believe has not been mentioned in this discussion about the 1960 campaign are the debates.

I have read or heard that people who only heard the debates on radio thought that Nixon had won the debates.

Those who saw the debates on television thought that Kennedy had won the debates.

On television, Nixon apparently looked pale and drawn, whereas Kennedy looked tanned and sure of himself.  I believe Kennedy made a last minute decision to change from a white shirt into a blue shirt, giving him a darker shirt so he would not look washed out on the cameras such as they were in 1960, while Nixon appeared in a white shirt, causing him to look more pale.  Kennedy came off on camera looking much better that did Nixon.

These debates no doubt gave Kennedy a campaign boost, showing he could go toe to toe with the Vice President of the United States, and showing as well that he looked better on camera than the Vice President. 

John, or anyone, do you have any details or thoughts of how these debates influenced the 1960 election?

I would be interested to know others views.     

[Lincoln Republican]

Question for johnpressman

Is your paper "Is There a New Nixon?" available on the internet?

I would love to read it.

[Lincoln Republican]

Note for johnpressman, and anyone else who may be reading this

Re. Senator John J. Williams of Delaware, born 1904, so age 56 in 1960, U.S. Senator 1947-1970

He established himself as an opponent of government waste and bureaucracy, supported tax cuts, worked to root out corruption in the Internal Revenue Service, exposing the illegal activities of two hundred employees of the Treasury Department.

Senator Williams was considered as a possible VP running mate for Eisenhower in 1952, as a possible VP running mate for Goldwater in 1964, and was considered as a possible replacement for Spiro Agnew when Agnew resigned the Vice Presidency in 1973.

In your view, john, or anyone else

1.  Could such a Senator as Williams have been a better VP nominee for Nixon in 1960 than Lodge was?

2.  Could Williams have helped Nixon gain a greater share of the eletoral votes?

3.  Outside chance no doubt, but could Williams have provided the little extra push Nixon needed to go over the top in 1960?

Thoughts?     

[johnpressman]

Hey, Tammany Hall  Republican, it's you and me.  The 1960 Presidential Debates, some of which I caught live as a kid, were indicative of the power of TV.  This event sort of legitimized TV as, with these televised debates, the medium directly influenced the nation's choice of  it's President.

The contrast between the pale, underweight  Nixon vs Kennedy's tanned picture of health has often been discussed.   I, for one, have always been perplexed over Nixon's using  only "Lazy Shave", a beard stick, rather then the TV makeup Kennedy favored.  It can be written off as some macho gesture Nixon wanted to make, to be reported the next day, except that Nixon was a master of this new medium, he should have known that the stuff would run and streak under the hot TV lights and make him look terrible!

There is also some grounds for sabotage by the liberal media as new Orthicon tubes were mounted in the TV cameras, giving an almost X-Ray effect to Nixon's pale skin, magnifying his 5 o'clock shadow.  Also, the backgrdrop for the debates was to be painted a particular shade of gray, on the dark side.  Nixon showed up with ONE suit, a light gray one to stand out from the dark background (Very few color TV sets existed that year).  The background dried to a light color, Nixon's people had it re-painted, it still dried light, making Nixon blend in and JFK stand out.  No, JFK wore a white shirt that day.  The white shirt made his tan stand out.

Nixon's tactics in the debate added to his dismal showing.  He addressed Kennedy, trying to score debater's points, while JFK mostly ignored him, speaking directly to the camera.

As for your questions, no, my paper was a high school project, I'm not THAT old, and, while I remember Sen. Williams, he was kind of a colorless guy, sort of a gadfly, and  from a VERY small state.  Nixon needed help in either the South or the Midwest.  He needed a  VP candidiate who could concentrate his campaign in his home region (just like LBJ), and tip the balance in enough key states to win the election for the GOP.  It's a long shot, while the 1960 election was close in the popular vote, JFK's electoral vote margin was substantial.  The ideal GOP VP Candidiate for 1960 had to pull in enough key states in his region of strength to get a majority, but almost ANYONE would have been better than Lodge, that stiff!

Oh, by the way, the SECOND time that a VP candidate was picked who couldn't bring in his home state was William E. Miller of the GOP in 1964.  Two in a row!  And the WORST pick for VP in modern times, you say Sen. Thomas Eagleton for the Dems in 1972??  I say Gen. Curtis LeMay (ret.) for the American Independant Party in 1968.  Wallace was gaining on Humphrey until LeMay opened his mouth about using nukes during his initasl press conference!  (read that sentence again, I'm sure Nixon would have liked to use nukes at many of his press conferences!) Anyway, old George's campaign went south (no pun)  after that!   

[Lincoln Republican]

Thank you John.

The debate details you have noted in your post are most interesing and appreciated.