1960 Republican Vice Presidential Choice?

[johnpressman]

I am new to this board.  One question that has always puzzled me was why Nixon chose Henry Cabot Lodge as his running mate in 1960?  Could there have been ANYONE weaker?  Lodge was the former Senator from Mass, (beaten by Kennedy, of all people in 1952),  therfore, obviously unable to carry even his home state, or probably any other states in the Industrial Northeast.  In addition,  Lodge was a dilletante and  a terrible campaigner.

So why would Nixon, in a percieved close race, pick a candidate unable to win him ANY states and a poor campainer too boot?  For the record, Kennedy had his choice of Johnson (probably the reason he won), Symington, Humphrey, Henry Jackson,  etc., etc.

 Who would have made a better Vice Presidential Candidate?  Could another candidate have helped Nixon win?  No way was Rockefeller going to take the second spot, so I would not consider him? Any ideas?

[Lincoln Republican]

Welcome to the forums.

You raise an interesting point.

Nelson Rockefeller would not accept the VP nomination, and Nixon had therefore reportedly picked Henry Cabot Lodge months before the convention.

Nixon believed he could not win the election if the Democrats were allowed to keep the election focused on domestic policy.  Nixon believed his best hope in winning was to have the campaign based on foreign policy.  Henry Cabot Lodge was seen as the best VP candidate who could focus the minds and imaginations of Americans on the problems of foreign policy.

Lodge had been serving as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. since 1953, and he was seen as somewhat of an authority in the field of foreign policy.

I am not aware of any other names that were being considered by Nixon for the VP candidate.

Perhaps Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois could have helped to bring Illinois into the Nixon column, and maybe some other close, moderate states as well.  No one knows.

An interesting quote from the book, "The Making of the President 1960," by Theodore H. White, in which Nixon had to choose the civil rights plank for the GOP platform, and as to why White believes Nixon may have lost the election:

"Nixon made his choice, I believe, more out of conscience than out of strategy.  But conscience is different from a personal code of history or a realization of the shape of great events.  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 position).  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 alientating Northern Negro and Southern white, losing both along with the election.  This is one Nixon's characteristic and fatal flaws - that he presents too often a split image." 

   

[johnpressman]

Thanks for the reply.  I have read "The Making of the President 1960" many times.  I am still puzzled by Nixon's choice of Lodge in 1960.   

Nixon was a master politician, always thinking politics FIRST, yet he picks a candidate who cannot win him ONE SINGLE STATE!  Remember, Lodge LOST to Kennedy in 1952!  Nixon was not going to win Mass, what other states was Lodge going to bring into the Nixon collumn? Conn? NH? VT? ME?  Would Lodge help Nixon in the Midwest, the South, the West??  jI just don't get it!

I admit, the Republican Party was in pretty bad shape after the elections of 1958, despite Eisenhower's popularity.  Even with the slim pickings available, almost any of the other potential candidates would have been more helpful:  Rep. Walter Judd might have carried Minn or, being a Pentacostal Minister, some of the BIble Belt or Southern states; Rep. Gerald Ford could have caried Michigan; Sen. Everett Dirksen could have tipped Illinois to Nixon; KY Sens. John Sherman Cooper or Thurston Morton could have helped Nixon counter LBJ in the South and Border states, etc.  In addition, ALL of the above were MUCH better campaingers then Lodge who was considered lazy and aloof!  Again, I just don't get it!

[CPT MikeyMike]

Thanks for the reply.  I have read "The Making of the President 1960" many times.  I am still puzzled by Nixon's choice of Lodge in 1960.   

Nixon was a master politician, always thinking politics FIRST, yet he picks a candidate who cannot win him ONE SINGLE STATE!  Remember, Lodge LOST to Kennedy in 1952!  Nixon was not going to win Mass, what other states was Lodge going to bring into the Nixon collumn? Conn? NH? VT? ME?  Would Lodge help Nixon in the Midwest, the South, the West??  jI just don't get it!

I admit, the Republican Party was in pretty bad shape after the elections of 1958, despite Eisenhower's popularity.  Even with the slim pickings available, almost any of the other potential candidates would have been more helpful:  Rep. Walter Judd might have carried Minn or, being a Pentacostal Minister, some of the BIble Belt or Southern states; Rep. Gerald Ford could have caried Michigan; Sen. Everett Dirksen could have tipped Illinois to Nixon; KY Sens. John Sherman Cooper or Thurston Morton could have helped Nixon counter LBJ in the South and Border states, etc.  In addition, ALL of the above were MUCH better campaingers then Lodge who was considered lazy and aloof!  Again, I just don't get it!

John - I agree nobody gets it.

I think in selection of a running mate, this was the biggest mistake in presidential election history. I know Ford was on Nixon's short list as was Cooper and Dirksen. They would have indeed have done better than Lodge.

[Lincoln Republican]

A presidential candidate picks someone they will be comfortable with, someone they will be able to work with should they be elected.

A choice they have to make, do they want someone they are comfortable with and with whom they can work for 4 or 8 years, or do they want someone who brings some political expediency to the ticket, i.e. are they able to swing close states to the ticket?

All of these cases would be desirable, but sometimes not always possible. 

Look at George W and Dick Cheney.  Cheney brought foreign policy gravitas to the ticket.  Cheney certainly brought no states he could swing to the ticket that Bush would not have won anyway.

In the 1960 election, this was one of the few, very few elections, where the VP candidate actually helped put the presidential candidate over the top, when JFK picked LBJ, who was crucial to the JFK victory.

VP picks almost never influence the electorate enough to spell the difference between victory and defeat for the presidential candidate.  The key is not to pick a VP candidate who will actually hurt the ticket.

In 1960, given the closeness of the election, I doubt very much that Lodge hurt the Nixon campaign, and it was certainly not Lodge who lost the election for Nixon.  As stated, Nixon picked Lodge for his foreign policy experience, not that Lodge was able to swing extra states into the Nixon column.   

Of the states won by JFK in 1960 by under under 1%, IL, MO, NJ, NM, Nixon would had to have won at least IL, MO, and NJ to have won the election.  This is not likely under any scenario, no matter who his running mate was.

Nixon was 50 EV short of winning.  Dirksen may have brought in IL, Ford may have brought in MI, Nixon already won the border states of KY, TN, VA.  Very unlikely, in fact, almost impossible, that a change in the VP candidate would bring in enough EV to win. 

Lodge did not hurt the Nixon ticket in 1960, IMHO.  Voters focus on the top of the ticket, not the bottom.  Maybe Lodge was not the best campaigner, however, any other VP candidate would not have altered the final results appreciably.

Perhaps the selection of Lodge was puzzling, however, looked at in the context that Nixon wanted to focus the major part of the campaign on foreign policy, which is where he believed he had a better chance of victory, the selection of Lodge made sense, moreso than Dirksen, Ford, Judd, Sherman, or Morton.   

To win, Nixon would have had to stick to the civil rights plank, from which he deviated, thus losing northern black votes and southern white votes, and as a result, losing the election.    

[johnpressman]

Thanks for your informed reply to my question, however, I have to disagree with you, Lodge did indeed hurt Nixon's chance to win in 1960.  If you will recall, Lodge promised to name an African-American to the Cabinet should Nixon win, causing much embarassment for the Republicans.  He added NOTHING to the race, being an indifferent campaigner.

On the other hand, bringing in a large Midwestern state such as Illinois or Michigan and possibly spilling over into Minnesota or Missouri could have won the election for Nixon.  Adding a southerner such as Cooper or Morton could have brought in  Texas (VERY close, despite LBJ) and/or  North and South Carolina.  Judd might have been a good choice as a midwesterner AND as a minister, reminding voters that Kennedy was Catholic.

[J. J.]

I don't see anything about Judd being a Pentacostalist minister, though he was a missionary doctor.

I do agree that there were a lot of better choices than Lodge.

[johnpressman]

You are right, J.J., Walter Judd was a missonary doctor.  I read that he was offered the 1960 Republican Vice Presidential Nomination but turned it down beacuse he had  a pockmarked face!??

 

[Lincoln Republican]

My understanding is that Walter Judd was "considered" as a "potential" Vice Presidential candidate, for both Eisenhower and for Nixon, but not necessarily "offered" the candidacy.

I seem to remember as well that Senator Margaret Chase Smith of Maine may have been "considered" as a possible Vice Presidential candidate on the 1960 Republican ticket.

I could be mistaken, but these are my understandings.

[johnpressman]

Yes, Judd was considered a possible running mate for Eisenhower in 1956 should Nixon have "charted his own course".  However, it seems that Mass. Gov. Christian Herter was the front-runner for the 1956 Republican ticket, that is if Stassen's "Dump Nixon" plan had succeded.

As for Margret Chase Smith, I doubt that she was seriously considered.  A woman in 1960, especially one from the tiny, Republican state of Maine, would be a non-starter.