Nixon vs. JFK 1964, with a twist

[Bo]

Read scenario carefully: Nixon narrowly defeats JFK in 1960. Throughout Nixon's Presidency, the unemployment rate decreases from 6.6% in January 1961 to 5.2% in November 1964. Inflation also remains low throughout Nixon's Presidency. Nixon passes civil rights legislation and also creates a Medicare-like program for seniors. Also, there is no Cuban Missile Crisis since Nixon never places American missiles in Turkey and thus the Soviet Union feels unprovoked. Nixon does not send any American troops to Vietnam since he feels that it would be a strategic mistake, and instead prefers to bomb the Viet Cong whenever they cause trouble. Also the Bay of Pigs invasion is a success and Castro is removed from power, to be replaced with an American-leaning capitalist dictator. There are no other major foreign policy crises throughout Nixon's Presidency. The Democrats nominate JFK again in 1964, due to many Democrats' desires to give this rising star another chance against Nixon. You pick the VPs. How would this election turn out?

My map:

Nixon/Lodge-344 EV-53.79%
JFK/Terry Sanford-194 EV-44.91%

[FloridaRepublican]

Why would Florida and Tennessee go for Kennedy?  He lost them in 1960.

[useful idiot]

Why would Florida and Tennessee go for Kennedy?  He lost them in 1960.

He in all likelihood lost Texas too. Maybe if Nixon were the prez that sort of voter fraud wouldn't be allowed?

And if we're saying Nixon won in 1960, we'd probably be saying that Texas and Illinois went for him. I don't know why Texas wouldn't want a second helping of Dick...

[Bo]

Why would Florida and Tennessee go for Kennedy?  He lost them in 1960.

He in all likelihood lost Texas too. Maybe if Nixon were the prez that sort of voter fraud wouldn't be allowed?

And if we're saying Nixon won in 1960, we'd probably be saying that Texas and Illinois went for him. I don't know why Texas wouldn't want a second helping of Dick...

I figured those states would be upset at Nixon for actually having the backbone to pass civil rights legislation and narrowly vote for JFK.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

In the event that this hypothetical actually occurred, Kennedy wouldn't be that stupid in my mind to run against an incredibly popular President, whom, from your alteration of history has become a 20th century demigod. So, with that in mind I'd expect a moderate Southerner to be nominated instead, perhaps Texas Governor John Connally and ultimately lose in a landslide.

[useful idiot]

Why would Florida and Tennessee go for Kennedy?  He lost them in 1960.

He in all likelihood lost Texas too. Maybe if Nixon were the prez that sort of voter fraud wouldn't be allowed?

And if we're saying Nixon won in 1960, we'd probably be saying that Texas and Illinois went for him. I don't know why Texas wouldn't want a second helping of Dick...

I figured those states would be upset at Nixon for actually having the backbone to pass civil rights legislation and narrowly vote for JFK.

Hmm, I see where you're coming from but I doubt JFK would have opposed such legislation. If he had then would the South have stayed firmly Democratic? Would blacks still be Republican by and large as there would have been no Nixonian Southern Strategy? That would be pretty weird...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

An easy win for Nixon, 360-178:

[Bo]

An easy win for Nixon, 360-178:

Your map seems about right, except I would definitely flip Minnesota and Michigan to Nixon (since he lost them by 1-2% in 1960 and thus would probably win them in a larger landslide) and I might flip New York and West Virginia to Nixon as well since he lost them by 4-5% in 1960 and a 2-3% swing to Nixon in this scenario is definitely possible considering the good economy and lack of foreign threats.

[Хahar 🤔]

In the event that this hypothetical actually occurred, Kennedy wouldn't be that stupid in my mind to run against an incredibly popular President, whom, from your alteration of history has become a 20th century demigod. So, with that in mind I'd expect a moderate Southerner to be nominated instead, perhaps Texas Governor John Connally and ultimately lose in a landslide.

Not Connally. Connally was a Johnson man.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Not Connally. Connally was a Johnson man.

Ah, but of course. Connally only came to mind as he was the only somewhat conservative candidate that the Democrats could have potentially nominated as a sacrificial lamb if such a scenario were to have ever occurred. Although thinking about it now George Smathers or 'Scoop' Jackson would have fit the bill perfectly.