1964: Johnson vs Nixon

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

People would ahve still remmebered Nixon's embarrassments from 1960, even if he would ahve ran a better campaign this time around. Also, NV wasn't that Republican--it voted for Bryan three times, voted for Wilson in 1916, voted for FDR all four times, and voted for Truman. BTW, could you please respond to my 1988 scenario?

Bryan was an authentic Western Democrat - and such scenarios have little bearing on elections decades later. All of the West had voted for FDR - having ill memories of Republican administrations, coupled with farming droughts and Hoovervilles. Not to mention, most of the country had voted for Democrats in those years, against laughable opponents. (Especially Wendell Willkie.)

[Bo]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

People would ahve still remmebered Nixon's embarrassments from 1960, even if he would ahve ran a better campaign this time around. Also, NV wasn't that Republican--it voted for Bryan three times, voted for Wilson in 1916, voted for FDR all four times, and voted for Truman. BTW, could you please respond to my 1988 scenario?

Bryan was an authentic Western Democrat - and such scenarios have little bearing on elections decades later. All of the West had voted for FDR - having ill memories of Republican administrations, coupled with farming droughts and Hoovervilles. Not to mention, most of the country had voted for Democrats in those years, against laughable opponents. (Especially Wendell Willkie.)

1916 and 1948 were close elections, though, and NV voted for the Dems both times (even though as you mentioned, the Dems won most of the West both those times, so it's less impressive than in 1960, when the GOP won most of the West.) I guess NV just voted Democratic that year due to Large Latino support for the Democratic ticket and Nixon's boringness. Keep in mind that many other Western states were close in 1960 (MT, ID, OR, WA, CA, AK, and HI). JFK just won a little extra votes in NV (and HI) in order to delvier the state for him. The closest equivalent I can think of off the top of my head is Wilson winning NH in 1916 despite the fact that the rest of New England the the Northeast voted for hughes.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

People would ahve still remmebered Nixon's embarrassments from 1960, even if he would ahve ran a better campaign this time around. Also, NV wasn't that Republican--it voted for Bryan three times, voted for Wilson in 1916, voted for FDR all four times, and voted for Truman. BTW, could you please respond to my 1988 scenario?

Bryan was an authentic Western Democrat - and such scenarios have little bearing on elections decades later. All of the West had voted for FDR - having ill memories of Republican administrations, coupled with farming droughts and Hoovervilles. Not to mention, most of the country had voted for Democrats in those years, against laughable opponents. (Especially Wendell Willkie.)

1916 and 1948 were close elections, though, and NV voted for the Dems both times (even though as you mentioned, the Dems won most of the West both those times, so it's less impressive than in 1960, when the GOP won most of the West.) I guess NV just voted Democratic that year due to Large Latino support for the Democratic ticket and Nixon's boringness. Keep in mind that many other Western states were close in 1960 (MT, ID, OR, WA, CA, AK, and HI). JFK just won a little extra votes in NV (and HI) in order to delvier the state for him. The closest equivalent I can think of off the top of my head is Wilson winning NH in 1916 despite the fact that the rest of New England the the Northeast voted for hughes.

Most likely due to JFK's "working man's Democrat" image.

Wilson winning in "Live free or Die" New Hampshire was always a little disappointing to me (coupled with Roosevelt winning it several times.) Oh well.

[Bo]

Anywhoo.. Here's how I see it.

Being a political chameleon, Nixon could likely cajole the South onto his side. At the eleventh hour, California is called for Nixon, though it does not bring him to victory.

I don't see Nixon winning NJ, CT, CA, or NV. JFK won all those states except CA in 1960, and JFK lost CA by about 0.5%. I could see LBJ winning all those states as the incumbent with a good economy and due to the sympathy vote following JFK's assasination.

Yes, but JFK was a much more dynamic candidate, and CT was 'his back yard' so to speak. The traditionally Republican state of Nevada always was a mystery to me.

It's true that JFK was more charismatic, but LBJ is the incumebtn in this scenario when things are going well in the country. That gives him a huge boost. In addition, the sympathy vote would have also given him a huge boost. Thus, I could see LBJ doing a little better than JFK in all these states, except maybe CT, where he would have done about the same.

I can envision Johnson winning NV in this scenario, but I went under the assumption that Nixon did not repeat his ill-fated "visit every 50 states" strategy, which gives him more time to concentrate on EV-rich states like California, New Jersey, and so forth. Nixon also, under these assumptions, does not perform poorly in debates, get sick, etc.

People would ahve still remmebered Nixon's embarrassments from 1960, even if he would ahve ran a better campaign this time around. Also, NV wasn't that Republican--it voted for Bryan three times, voted for Wilson in 1916, voted for FDR all four times, and voted for Truman. BTW, could you please respond to my 1988 scenario?

Bryan was an authentic Western Democrat - and such scenarios have little bearing on elections decades later. All of the West had voted for FDR - having ill memories of Republican administrations, coupled with farming droughts and Hoovervilles. Not to mention, most of the country had voted for Democrats in those years, against laughable opponents. (Especially Wendell Willkie.)

1916 and 1948 were close elections, though, and NV voted for the Dems both times (even though as you mentioned, the Dems won most of the West both those times, so it's less impressive than in 1960, when the GOP won most of the West.) I guess NV just voted Democratic that year due to Large Latino support for the Democratic ticket and Nixon's boringness. Keep in mind that many other Western states were close in 1960 (MT, ID, OR, WA, CA, AK, and HI). JFK just won a little extra votes in NV (and HI) in order to delvier the state for him. The closest equivalent I can think of off the top of my head is Wilson winning NH in 1916 despite the fact that the rest of New England the the Northeast voted for hughes.

Most likely due to JFK's "working man's Democrat" image.

Wilson winning in "Live free or Die" New Hampshire was always a little disappointing to me (coupled with Roosevelt winning it several times.) Oh well.

If it makes you feel better, Hughes would have won NH had he ran a better campaign. He only lost it by 54 votes (1/10 the margin of Al Gore's loss in FL 84 years later).

[Derek]

That boom ^^ is what Johnson would've shown if Nixon ran as well.

lol. LBJ had 70% approval ratings in late 1964. He would ahve easily crushed Nixon.

That's being short sighted. Think about why and it's because he was being compared to Barry Goldwater who was a victim of far left attacks. The democratic party pretty much used a nuclear bomb on his campaign by putting that little girl in the ad. He was portrayed as an extremist in the south and a segregationist in the north. Richard Nixon was much better known and those who did approve of Johnson would've seen Nixon as a return to what was before JFK which was popular too at the time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You all underestimated Johnson. Under similar circumstances, Nixon's more moderate stances wouldn't prevent a landslide defeat.

Johnson : 56%, 440 EVs
Nixon : 43%, 98 EVs

[Bo]

That boom ^^ is what Johnson would've shown if Nixon ran as well.

lol. LBJ had 70% approval ratings in late 1964. He would ahve easily crushed Nixon.

That's being short sighted. Think about why and it's because he was being compared to Barry Goldwater who was a victim of far left attacks. The democratic party pretty much used a nuclear bomb on his campaign by putting that little girl in the ad. He was portrayed as an extremist in the south and a segregationist in the north. Richard Nixon was much better known and those who did approve of Johnson would've seen Nixon as a return to what was before JFK which was popular too at the time.

Statistically, there is a close correlation between a President's approval rating and the % of the vote they receive in their reelection bids. A President with a 55% approval or higher has over a 90% chance of being reelected, and a President with approvals of 70% will win in a landslide.

[President Mitt]

I don't understand why everybody is giving the Deep South to Nixon. They rejected Nixon in 1968 even when Nixon pulled to the Right. In 1964, there was no backlash against New Deal Liberalism, in actuality, it was practically the opposite, with New Deal Liberalism at the peak of political power, so you won't be seeing Nixon pushing to the right. Richard Nixon would probably pull on the mask of the 'Me Too' Republican, claiming he could run the Great Society more efficiently than Johnson. Obviously, this isn't what the South wants. While it is true that the South favored the Republicans over the Democrats by this point (at the presidential level), the South is not prone to lining up behind the "lesser of two evils" as they saw it.

So some Southern Third Party runs and grabs the Deep South. Nixon is really only able to hold on to the West by running an efficient campaign, and is practically shut out everywhere else. Johnson landslide. Honestly though, a Nixon vs LBJ campaign would probably have been one of the dirtiest political campaigns ever.

[Derek]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

[Bo]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

[Derek]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

It would not have been at 70% if Nixon was running because he'd have been seen as a return to the Ike era.

[Bo]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

It would not have been at 70% if Nixon was running because he'd have been seen as a return to the Ike era.

No. It would have still been at 70% due to the good economy and the popularity of the Vietnam War. And despite the fact taht Ike was reasonably popular in 1960 and that Nixon was seen as a continuation to the Ike era, Nixon still lost.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

It would not have been at 70% if Nixon was running because he'd have been seen as a return to the Ike era.

No. It would have still been at 70% due to the good economy and the popularity of the Vietnam War. And despite the fact taht Ike was reasonably popular in 1960 and that Nixon was seen as a continuation to the Ike era, Nixon still lost.

[derek]BUT JFK STOLE THE  ELECTION !!![/derek]

[Derek]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

It would not have been at 70% if Nixon was running because he'd have been seen as a return to the Ike era.

No. It would have still been at 70% due to the good economy and the popularity of the Vietnam War. And despite the fact taht Ike was reasonably popular in 1960 and that Nixon was seen as a continuation to the Ike era, Nixon still lost.

[derek]BUT JFK STOLE THE  ELECTION !!![/derek]

What? Alot of people think he did with his ties to the mafia but I'm not commenting on it one way or the other. Instead I'm reporting you for libel.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

It would not have been at 70% if Nixon was running because he'd have been seen as a return to the Ike era.

No. It would have still been at 70% due to the good economy and the popularity of the Vietnam War. And despite the fact taht Ike was reasonably popular in 1960 and that Nixon was seen as a continuation to the Ike era, Nixon still lost.

[derek]BUT JFK STOLE THE  ELECTION !!![/derek]

What? Alot of people think he did with his ties to the mafia but I'm not commenting on it one way or the other. Instead I'm reporting you for libel.

Then report also this : you are a pathetic unfunny joke.

[Bo]

Johnson wouldn't have been able to use the little girl and the flower against Nixon so the south would be in play. Nixon was not a segregationist so the north would've been in play. Without the vile attacks from the left, it would've been a close race.

lol. No, it would not ahve been a close race because LBJ's approval ratings were at about 70%. And without a Southern third party (and in this scenario there is none), Nixon wins most of the South since Southerners would be pissed at LBJ and since Nixon was against affiramtive action and forced busing (unlike LBJ, who favored it).

It would not have been at 70% if Nixon was running because he'd have been seen as a return to the Ike era.

No. It would have still been at 70% due to the good economy and the popularity of the Vietnam War. And despite the fact taht Ike was reasonably popular in 1960 and that Nixon was seen as a continuation to the Ike era, Nixon still lost.

[derek]BUT JFK STOLE THE  ELECTION !!![/derek]

What? Alot of people think he did with his ties to the mafia but I'm not commenting on it one way or the other. Instead I'm reporting you for libel.

Then report also this : you are a pathetic unfunny joke.

I second what Antonio just said.

[Derek]

That boom ^^ is what Johnson would've shown if Nixon ran as well.

lol. LBJ had 70% approval ratings in late 1964. He would ahve easily crushed Nixon.

That's being short sighted. Think about why and it's because he was being compared to Barry Goldwater who was a victim of far left attacks. The democratic party pretty much used a nuclear bomb on his campaign by putting that little girl in the ad. He was portrayed as an extremist in the south and a segregationist in the north. Richard Nixon was much better known and those who did approve of Johnson would've seen Nixon as a return to what was before JFK which was popular too at the time.

Statistically, there is a close correlation between a President's approval rating and the % of the vote they receive in their reelection bids. A President with a 55% approval or higher has over a 90% chance of being reelected, and a President with approvals of 70% will win in a landslide.

Yes but when have we ever had a president with a 70% approval rating other than 1964? Johnson got 61%? That's 9 points lower. The higher the approval rating, the more of a drop you'll see because there are people who won't vote for someone in the other party for a federal office. Take Carter for example. His approval rating was much lower than what he received. There would've been democrats refusing to vote for a Republican for the white house. I can never stress enough how important it is to vote your party for the presidency and for very good reasons.