1960 Republican Vice Presidential Choice

[johnpressman]

Hello everyone. In 1960, LBJ, Kennedy's Vice Presidential choice, probably won him the Presidency.  Henry Cabot Lodge was probably the worst Vice Presidential choice of all time (William E. Miller?).

The question is: Could Nixon   have made another choice as his running mate that could have won him the 1960 election?

A follow up question would be:  Could Kennedy have chosen someone else (Symington, Jackson) and still won?

[johnpressman]

Everett!  I wonder why he was never considered.  The other names that I heard were in contention were; Thurston Morton, Gerald Ford, Walter Judd and John Sherman Cooper.  Rockefeller declared himself out of the running early, despite the "Pact of Fifth Avenue".

Speaking of Illinois, William Stratton was a two-term Governor of Illinois, succeding Adlai Stevenson, an obvious choice as Illinois is a "swing Stae"in Presidential politics, yet I have heard little about him.

[johnpressman]

Excellent post, Winfield!  You have done your homework.  I have read "TMOTP 1960" too many times and you have refreshed my memory as to the factors behind Nixon's choice of Lodge.  It was VERY typical of Nixon to put a question before the GOP leaders, only to have really made up his mind  long beforehand (Agnew?).

I do have to disagree with you on all three of your points, however.  You even help my argument on Lodge costing Nixon the election with his announcement that Nixon would choose an African-American Cabinet member.

The election of 1960 was so unbelieveably close that a very few votes in a few states would have easily tipped the election to him.  Although Nixon believed that the nation had watched Lodge on TV during U.N. hearings and that his nomination would focus the campaign on foreign policy, Lodge added NOTHING to the race, costing Nixon votes, if anything, by his off-the-cuff comment.  Although he wasn't the albatross that Eagleton or LeMay were, the Presidential election is won by winning states and their electoral votes.   One could easily make a blanket statement that Lodge could not help Nixon win ANY SINGLE STATE!  I do not understand Nixon's thinking that the choice of Lodge would keep the electorate focused on foreign affairs.  It seems out-of-character for Nixon not to realize that he would not win any New England states by picking Lodge and that he needed a candidate who would help him win certain key states.

A candidate with  strong recognition in the Border or Midwestern States, however, concentrating his campaign in his home quadrant, would have offset LBJ's contibution to the Democratic ticket.  A Dirksen or Ford or a Cooper/Morton choice could have swung key states to Nixon, giving him the win.  One point you might be overlooking is that, with the exception of California, every closely contested state swung to Kennedy! A
little "push" would have easily tipped the election  his way.

As to your point on the 1960 GOP Civil Rights Platform, Nixon was in a no- win situation.  His support of a strong anti-segregation position would not, in any way, have won him any states that would have voted for Kennedy.  He was not going to usurp the Democrats on that issue, winning black or liberal voters that would have voted for JFK.  Taking a more moderate position would not won him any Southern states from LBJ, except possibly Texas.  You may differ with me that a moderate GOP position on the civil rights issue would have offset Johnson's contribution to the Democratic ticket, bringing the Carolinas into the GOP collumn.  I believe, however,  that the only way to win more Southern States is to fight fire with fire; pick a Southerner like Morton or Cooper to go head-to-head with LBJ.


I also believe that had Kennedy had chosen ANY other running mate besides LBJ, he would have lost.  Symington would not have tipped any states to Kennedy save Wisconsin and Jackson would have brought in Washington and possibly Oregon.  The choice of either of these candidates in lieu of LBJ would have brought Texas and the Carolinas into the Nixon collumn.  Remember,  50 votes in the Electoral College is not much when a few votes can tip states' Electoral votes one way or the other, especially on a regional basis.  I just don't understand why Nixon didn't realize that the Northeast and the Deep South were hopeless, the West was safe for the GOP, and that the election would be decided in the Midwest and Border states and that he needed help in one of the two contested quadrants.  This nebulous idea about  keeeping the electorate mindful of foreign policy with Lodge is SO unlike him!  He did learn a lot in 8 years, however.

[johnpressman]

You make a convincing argument that a more pro-active handling of the Civil Rights issue by Nixon in 1960 would have won him the election.  Ted Whites' pointing out the number of African-American voters that could have tipped the results in certain key states,  the issue, however, cuts both ways.

The 1960 election was unique in that both candidates were positioning themselves to the center of the American political spectrum.  Kennedy had overwhelming advantages in party registration, an ability to appeal to the urban Northeast while holding on to the last vestiges of the "Solid South", and with an unsual situation of being able to campaign against the GOP  without denouncing the still-popular Eisenhower.  His perceived liability of inexperience  was put to bed in the first televised debate where he trounced Nixon.  The only issue standing between JFK and a substantial victory in 1960 was his Catholicism.

Nixon, even with the GOP's pro-civil rights position, was NOT going to preempt the Democrats on the issue.   A stronger Nixon rhetoric on civil rights MIGHT have won him a small percentage of black voters that would have voted for Kennedy, by the way, Jackie Robinson did campaign heavily for Nixon and the GOP in 1960, but subtract from that total the number of white voters that might have stayed with the Democrats in the border states and it would have MORE than balanced out.  A shift of a few percentage points in the Black vote  would have been wiped out by a small shift in the overwhelmingly larger white vote in key states such as Tennesee, Virginia, Kentucky or Florida.  In other words, a shift of 10% in the Black vote across the board would have been counterbalanced by a shift of less than 2% of the White vote in those key states.  Subtraction by addition, one might call it.

My call that a different Vice Presidential choice would have won the election for Nixon comes from a belief that Lodge added NOTHING to the GOP ticket.  Lodge's  attempt to appeal to Black voters by announcing that Nixon would appoint a Negro to the Cabinet HURT the ticket!  It was thought to cost the GOP white votes in key Southern and Border states without winning Nixon any liberal or Black votes that were conceded to the Democrats.  Almost ANY other choice would have added valuable Electoral votes to Nixon without subtracting any states from his total.

Lastly, Goldwater's claim that a more moderate position on Civil Rights would have won Nixon the election has some merit.  Nixon would have probably won a few key Southern and border states without losing any of his states to Kennedy, but it is a hard call to see him defending a more moderate position on Civil Rights in the debates and before the eyes of the liberal, Northeast-based media.  So, once again, it cuts both ways.

There are many "if's" behind the Election of 1960.  Ike's lack of support or his gaffe regarding Nixon's contributions.  Nixon's horrible performance in the first televised debate.  His decision to campaign in all 50 states, etc..  But the one glaring and forseeable mistake was his choice of a weak Vice Presidential candidiate.  Henry Cabot Lodge, who lost his Senate seat to Kennedy, who came from a  state and a region that he could NOT influence for his party, who was a terrible campaigner, making a major misstatement, versus JFK's choice of Johnson, who added tremendously to the Democrats with his singlehandedly bringing in Texas and holding on to the Old South for the win.

[johnpressman]

I'd love to do a map, Winfield.  Can you show me how?

[johnpressman]

JFK was anything BUT a dark horse candidate in 1960.  His (unsuccessful) floor fight for the 1956 Vice Presidential Nomination and his stirring speech urging unity, kick-started his campaign.  His landslide re-election victory 1n 1958, his Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles In Courage", his primary victories over Humphrey, etc.,  made him the front-runner from the start of the race.

Johnson's campaign was a late-starting, behind the scenes effort, largely focusing on attacking and stopping Kennedy.  ANY Presidential candidate from south of the Mason Dixon Line was a longshot in 1960, and LBJ knew it, portraying himself as a Westerner!

As for Johnson's contribution to JFK's win, consider this; with JFK being a  strong pro-Civil Rights Catholic rich man's son from Massachusettes, how would he have won Texas, North Carolina or South Carolina without LBJ? As it was, even with Johnson on the ticket, Democratic Electors in Mississippi and Alabama bolted, voting for Harry Byrd.  Without LBJ on the ticket and his strong regional campaign, Nixon would have won crucial Southern states coupled with more Democratic Electors joining the mini-revolt, losing JFK the election.
 

[johnpressman]

That is an interesting scenario: If Kennedy had been stopped on the first ballot in 1960, who would have won the nomination and would they have won the general election?

I cannot see Adlai winning in 1960.  After two unscucessful tries, being out of office for eight years and the 1960 Democratic nomination having great value with Ike retiring, putting Adlai up  a third consecutive time (unlike William Jennings Bryan) doesn't make sense.  Adlai may have been  a sentimental favorite in 1960 but even Democrats are practical.  I also cannont  see Adlai offering the Vice Pressidential nomination to JFK and him accepting it.  There was too much bad blood between them.   JFK and Adlai had grown to hate one another, their political and personal styles rubbed each other the wrong way.

I would guess that Symington would have been a compromise choice in 1960.  LBJ would never win enough delegates from the eastern states that dominated the Democratic Convention in 1960. He would have been perceived as a regional candidate with little chance to win the general election at the top of the ticket.  Humphrey as too liberal and as a weak candidate after losing to JFK in the primaries.

Who would Symington pick for VP?  If he was smart, LBJ! 

[johnpressman]

Dr. Cynic, I don't know if JFK would have taken the vice presidential nomination in 1960, even though he wanted it badly in 1956.  It's a hard one to call, as no one thought LBJ wanted the VP slot in 1960.  However, I still believe that LBJ was the best choice, as the Northeast was in no danger of voting for Nixon in 1960 and JFK's religon was a liability in the South which would be a battleground outside of Symington's reach.   LBJ helped prevent Texas, the Carolinas, etc. from voting Republican and JFK's absence on the ticket would probably switch Tennesee, Kentucky, Florida and  Virginia from Nixon to the Democrats as well as keeping the Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors from defecting.     

Why did JFK nix Symington as his VP choice?  In "The Making of the President 1960", JFK says that Symington and him were "too similar".  I don't understand this.  Symington was from the Midwest, more conservative than JFK, and MUCH older. 

There was a surplus of possible Democratic Vice Presidential choices in 1960 but a dearth of Republican possiblities to run with Nixon.  Who do you think Nixon should have chosen in 1960 and which selection could have made the difference in the election? 

[johnpressman]

I've got to disagree with you, Cynic.  Rockefeller would not take the VP slot with Nixon under any circumstances.  Nixon tried hard to persuade him, leading to the "Compact of Fifth Avenue".  As for Scranton, you must be thinking of 1964.  In 1959 William Scranton was appointed by Ike as an advisor to John Foster Dulles and Christan Herter, he first ran for Congress in 1960, winning the PA governorship in 1962.  Neither Rocky or Scranton were VP possibilities in 1960.

As for Symington, I still believe that the Northeast was in no danger of going Republican in 1960.  PA and NJ were close. but NY, MA, CT, etc were safely in the Democratic fold.  The Western and farm-belt states were safely Republican, that left the Midwest, Border, Pacific  Coast and Southern States as the battleground.  Symington, coming from a midwest/border state would need help in the South, where many states had defected to the GOP in 1952 and 1956.  Also, he needed a charismatic runningmate who would be a strong campaigner to offset his bland personal style.  LBJ all the way!!  1960 was an obvious Democratic year.  Kennedy's Catholicism was the deciding factor in making the election as close as it was.  Bringing him on the ticket would help Symington only in the Northeast and among ethnic Catholic voters in the large cities that were already solidly committed to the Democratic Party.

So, who could have Nixon realistically chosen to run with him in 1960 that could have made the difference against Kennedy/Johnson? Dirksen? Morton? Cooper? Ford? Judd?, it's an amazingly short list!