What If: Nixon/Rockefeller vs. Kennedy/Johnson 1960

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Nixon!  After all, this was ages before Watergate.
Also feel free to comment on how you think the election would have gone with a Nixon/Rockefeller ticket for the GOP instead of Nixon/Lodge (the actual ticket).

[Jerseyrules]

Kennedy.  Still two RINOs, and Kennedy was more conservative than Dick.  But I would've supported Goldwater and Knowland in the primaries.  And would've preferred brown for vp on the dem side

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not sure. I like both Nixon and Kennedy, and Rockefeller makes me a little less inclined to support Nixon, but hey, he can't be worse than LBJ.

Nixon victory probably. Not sure how Illinois owuld fall.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I don't think NY would go Nixon. Remember that Dewey barely carried it in 1948, and by 1960 it certainly leaned Democratic. It would be closer, but Kennedy would get out enough Irish and Italian Catholics to pull it off.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Kennedy.  Still two RINOs, and Kennedy was more conservative than Dick.  But I would've supported Goldwater and Knowland in the primaries.  And would've preferred brown for vp on the dem side

I, as a conservative and as a Republican, strongly dislike the term "RINO".  There is plenty of room for varying opinions in both parties.  And even then, they made up the majority of the Republican Party back then.  Nixon was by far the lesser of two evils at that time.  Nixon/Rockefeller would have been a virtually unbeatable ticket, and it is, in my opinion, better to have the victory of some of our policies than the defeat of all of them.  Although I'm conservative, I tend to prefer the demeanor of East Coast Republicans like Rockefeller.

Interestingly enough, with Henry Cabot Lodge as the VP candidate for the Republicans, it was still one of the closest presidential elections in our nation's history...

[Jerseyrules]

Not sure. I like both Nixon and Kennedy, and Rockefeller makes me a little less inclined to support Nixon, but hey, he can't be worse than LBJ.

Nixon victory probably. Not sure how Illinois would fall.

So Rockefeller isn't worse than LBJ?!  At least we had hopes of winning seats in congress in 66 with a democrat in control

[Jerseyrules]

Kennedy.  Still two RINOs, and Kennedy was more conservative than Dick.  But I would've supported Goldwater and Knowland in the primaries.  And would've preferred brown for vp on the dem side

I, as a conservative and as a Republican, strongly dislike the term "RINO".  There is plenty of room for varying opinions in both parties.  And even then, they made up the majority of the Republican Party back then.  Nixon was by far the lesser of two evils at that time.  Nixon/Rockefeller would have been a virtually unbeatable ticket, and it is, in my opinion, better to have the victory of some of our policies than the defeat of all of them.  Although I'm conservative, I tend to prefer the demeanor of East Coast Republicans like Rockefeller.

Interestingly enough, with Henry Cabot Lodge as the VP candidate for the Republicans, it was still one of the closest presidential elections in our nation's history...

But my problem is that JFK was more conservative than Nixon, and more of a hawk on foreign policy (I wouldve been a hawk during the Cold War, and I wish that Castro's botched assassination had been better planned, etc.)

JFK gave us tax cuts, strengthened the Gold Standard, and put us into space.  Nixon would've been less able to boost American morale IMO.  Plus, after sixteen years of GOP control (Nixon would've likely been a two-termer), I think conservatives would be in for a rough ride in 74, 76, and 80

[Oldiesfreak1854]

At least Rockefeller fought for civil rights.  LBJ was an outspoken racist and segregationist who only signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act because public opinion supported it and he didn't want to hand Republicans ammunition with which to attack his policies.  If Nixon had been elected in 1960, not only would the fight for civil rights have been won sooner, but you also would never have had liberal historians and journalists who to this day still schmooze about "Camelot."  Do you really think Nixon would have been less aggressive toward the Soviet Union than Kennedy was?  Nixon sure seemed to make it look like he would stand up to Khrushchev.   Oh, and Bobby Kennedy was his brother's attorney general... talk about nepotism!  Don't get me wrong, Kennedy did some good things as President, such as cut taxes, put us into space, and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was excellent.  As for the gold standard, didn't we get rid of it in the 1930s?  I don't want it to return. 

[mondale84]

At least Rockefeller fought for civil rights.  LBJ was an outspoken racist and segregationist who only signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act because public opinion supported it and he didn't want to hand Republicans ammunition with which to attack his policies.  If Nixon had been elected in 1960, not only would the fight for civil rights been won sooner, but you also would never have had liberal historians and journalists who to this day still schmooze about "Camelot."  Do you really think Nixon would have been less aggressive toward the Soviet Union than Kennedy was?  Nixon sure seemed to make it look like he would stand up to Khrushchev.   Oh, and Bobby Kennedy was his brother's attorney general... talk about nepotism!  Don't get me wrong, Kennedy did some good things as President, such as cut taxes, put us into space, and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was excellent.  As for the gold standard, didn't we get rid of it in the 1930s?  I don't want it to return. 

What are you smoking? Because I think we all need some...

Nixon, one of the most racist and prejudiced presidents of all time would have pushed Civil Rights faster?! Are you f*****g kidding me??!!  And Kennedy handled the missile crisis well??!! He brought us to the brink of nuclear war three times!!!

Nothing personal against you, but you should seriously re-evaluate...

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

First off, I would object to the idea that LBJ only passed the CRA's because of public opinion. The impression I always got was that he had kept his views quiet in Texas, but viewed his massive power as President as the only chance he hadh to do what he felt was necessary.

On the other hand, Eisenhower was actually worried about Nixon's "liberalism" on Civil Rights. Though both were pro-Civil Rights in the 1960 election, JFK was actually anti-Civil Rights in the Senate and was considered as a possible "States Rights" candidate for VP. It was only around early 1963 in the face of massive Civil Rights protests that JFK seemed to "get it" and planned on passing a CRA. Not to say Nixon wasn't racist, but I can see some version of Civil Rights being passed during an early 60's presidency.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Not sure. I like both Nixon and Kennedy, and Rockefeller makes me a little less inclined to support Nixon, but hey, he can't be worse than LBJ.

Nixon victory probably. Not sure how Illinois would fall.

So Rockefeller isn't worse than LBJ?!  At least we had hopes of winning seats in congress in 66 with a democrat in control

We probably would've seen a much more effective foreign policy and maybe pressure to actually handle the growing deficit. Wasn't the nuclear testing ban passed during the Kennedy years?

The one advantage I see to Johnson over Rocky is his background. I hear he has some pretty funny quotes.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

At least Rockefeller fought for civil rights.  LBJ was an outspoken racist and segregationist who only signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act because public opinion supported it and he didn't want to hand Republicans ammunition with which to attack his policies.  If Nixon had been elected in 1960, not only would the fight for civil rights been won sooner, but you also would never have had liberal historians and journalists who to this day still schmooze about "Camelot."  Do you really think Nixon would have been less aggressive toward the Soviet Union than Kennedy was?  Nixon sure seemed to make it look like he would stand up to Khrushchev.   Oh, and Bobby Kennedy was his brother's attorney general... talk about nepotism!  Don't get me wrong, Kennedy did some good things as President, such as cut taxes, put us into space, and his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was excellent.  As for the gold standard, didn't we get rid of it in the 1930s?  I don't want it to return. 

What are you smoking? Because I think we all need some...

Nixon, one of the most racist and prejudiced presidents of all time would have pushed Civil Rights faster?! Are you f*****g kidding me??!!  And Kennedy handled the missile crisis well??!! He brought us to the brink of nuclear war three times!!!

Nothing personal against you, but you should seriously re-evaluate...

Nixon was not a racist.  In both his first bid for the presidency in 1960 and in his first inaugural address in 1969 (I suggest you read it) he spoke out in strong support for civil rights.  He appointed more minorities to his administration than any of his predecessors, includng Lyndon Johnson.  He was instrumental in passing the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts as VP and was personally thanked by Martin Luther King for his efforts. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

First off, I would object to the idea that LBJ only passed the CRA's because of public opinion. The impression I always got was that he had kept his views quiet in Texas, but viewed his massive power as President as the only chance he hadh to do what he felt was necessary.

On the other hand, Eisenhower was actually worried about Nixon's "liberalism" on Civil Rights. Though both were pro-Civil Rights in the 1960 election, JFK was actually anti-Civil Rights in the Senate and was considered as a possible "States Rights" candidate for VP. It was only around early 1963 in the face of massive Civil Rights protests that JFK seemed to "get it" and planned on passing a CRA. Not to say Nixon wasn't racist, but I can see some version of Civil Rights being passed during an early 60's presidency.

Regarding President Johnson and civil rights, it would be nice to believe the best about a former President, especially one who had some successes in passing civil rights legislation; however, the evidence is to the contrary.  I have a long list of racist quotes from LBJ as well as votes he made against civil rights legislation in both houses of Congress.  If you would like me to give you some of them, I would be more than happy to share them in one of my future posts on this topic.  Even during the March on Washington in 1963 (in which Martin Luther King gave the "I Have A Dream" speech), President Kennedy expressed concerns that the protesters would "sh*t" on the Washington Monument.  On the other hand, Eisenhower's civil rights record was pretty strong.  He enforced Truman's executive order to desegregate the military (which had previously been ignored), fought for passage of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, and sent in Federal Marshals to racially integrate Little Rock Central High School after the Democratic Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, sent in the National Guard to stop it.  (This was about three years after Brown v. Board of Education.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

First off, I would object to the idea that LBJ only passed the CRA's because of public opinion. The impression I always got was that he had kept his views quiet in Texas, but viewed his massive power as President as the only chance he hadh to do what he felt was necessary.

On the other hand, Eisenhower was actually worried about Nixon's "liberalism" on Civil Rights. Though both were pro-Civil Rights in the 1960 election, JFK was actually anti-Civil Rights in the Senate and was considered as a possible "States Rights" candidate for VP. It was only around early 1963 in the face of massive Civil Rights protests that JFK seemed to "get it" and planned on passing a CRA. Not to say Nixon wasn't racist, but I can see some version of Civil Rights being passed during an early 60's presidency.

Regarding President Johnson and civil rights, it would be nice to believe the best about a former President, especially one who had some successes in passing civil rights legislation; however, the evidence is to the contrary.  I have a long list of racist quotes from LBJ as well as votes he made against civil rights legislation in both houses of Congress.  If you would like me to give you some of them, I would be more than happy to share them in one of my future posts on this topic.  Even during the March on Washington in 1963 (in which Martin Luther King gave the "I Have A Dream" speech), President Kennedy expressed concerns that the protesters would "sh*t" on the Washington Monument.  On the other hand, Eisenhower's civil rights record was pretty strong.  He enforced Truman's executive order to desegregate the military (which had previously been ignored), fought for passage of the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, and sent in Federal Marshals to racially integrate Little Rock Central High School after the Democratic Governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, sent in the National Guard to stop it.  (This was about three years after Brown v. Board of Education.)

I thought mine was a pretty good electoral map. It really does come down to Cook county.

I would agree.

[ask_not]

this scenario reminds me of  all along the watch tower form a.h..com

[Jerseyrules]

This TL is on ah.com by the way.

EDIT: That's it; all along the watchtower.

[johnpressman]

First, there was NO WAY that Nelson Rockefeller would accept the V.P. candidacy on a Nixon ticket. Nixon even prevailed upon Eisenhower to ask Rocky to take be the VP slot (Ike refused).  I am one that believes that, great campaigner that he was,  Rockefeller would not have been able to swing New York to Nixon and the Republican ticket would have lost. Also, he would have undermined Nixon's "common man" appeal vs Kennedy as the name "Rockefeller" is synonymous with great wealth, even eclipsing that of "Kennedy" who was not as well known at the time.  As for Henry Cabot Lodge, the less said the better.

Only a candidate with strong ties to the Midwest, running a regional campaign akin to LBJ's, could have tipped two or three of the crucial states; Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and/or Missouri to the Nixon column and given him the victory in 1960.  Everett Dirksen, anyone?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

First, there was NO WAY that Nelson Rockefeller would accept the V.P. candidacy on a Nixon ticket. Nixon even prevailed upon Eisenhower to ask Rocky to take be the VP slot (Ike refused).  I am one that believes that, great campaigner that he was,  Rockefeller would not have been able to swing New York to Nixon and the Republican ticket would have lost. Also, he would have undermined Nixon's "common man" appeal vs Kennedy as the name "Rockefeller" is synonymous with great wealth, even eclipsing that of "Kennedy" who was not as well known at the time.  As for Henry Cabot Lodge, the less said the better.

Only a candidate with strong ties to the Midwest, running a regional campaign akin to LBJ's, could have tipped two or three of the crucial states; Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and/or Missouri to the Nixon column and given him the victory in 1960.  Everett Dirksen, anyone?

Dirksen would've been a great choice in my opinion. Moderate to conservative, pro-civil rights, and hawkish.

[ask_not]

I find  nixon as 35th president and rocky as v.p a interesting idea.