Kennedy v Rockefeller 1964

[Ben.]

Suppose that Kennedy had not been shot… the economy is doing well (as it was at the time), people are confident in Kennedy’s hawkish yet savy handling of relations with the Soviet Bloc and added to this Kennedy’s legislative achievements remain impressive, urban renewal programs, a rise in the minimum wage and a popular tax cut, he has successfully resisted calls from the left of the Democratic Party lead by senators such as Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern for expensive expansions in social security and talks over reducing the scope of the arms race with the Soviet Union, however in the 1964 Democratic Party platform Kennedy stakes his re-election on his successful record over the past four years and pledges to attempt to pass once more his modest proposals to increase the number of people with medical insurance that Congress had vetoed during his first term.

The Republicans are in the midst of a crisis of faith in strake contrast to Kennedy’s unopposed ride to the nomination and the harmonious scenes at the Democratic Convention. After the first few primaries the Republican field had narrowed to the leader of the “liberal” wing of the party Nelson Rockefeller and the leader of the radical rightwing of the party Barry Goldwater despite support from most congressional and other leading republicans Rockefeller seemed caught in a tight fight for the nomination, at one point it almost seemed as though the maverick Goldwater might be able to pull off an upset in Californian’s primary and take the nomination but with a tremendous effort Rockefellers campaign pulled off a win in California and took the GOP nomination.  

…I have pretty solid views as how this election would have played out, but what do you guys think, who would have been Rockefellers’ VP? What would the reaction of all those energised Goldwater supporters have been? Would there have been a rightwing third party candidate? What would have been the implications of this election have been for the Republican Party? The 1968 contest? Vietnam? Would there ever have been a “great society” (doubt it) and what of civil rights?

Any thoughts?    

[JohnFKennedy]

there would be an extreme right wing third party candidate who would hurt Rockefeller more than Kennedy, Kennedy would win and continue the New Frontier and Vietnam.

[Ben.]

there would be an extreme right wing third party candidate who would hurt Rockefeller more than Kennedy, Kennedy would win and continue the New Frontier and Vietnam.

This can seem to many to be a naive idea, but I honestly believe that Kennedy would not have escalated in Vietnam in the same way as LBJ did... I do not see significant numbers of US troops being deployed as a fighting force to oppose the north Vietnamese and communist guerrillas...

I think that had he lived JFK would have maintained the advisors in south Vietnam and probably used Air power and to a lesser extent  naval forces to support for the Saigon Government however i doubt that any serious number of us ground forces would be deployed in any other role than as advisors to the South Vietnamese armed forces under JFK, interestingly this would also probably mean that the USSR and China would probably not themselves pour so much aid into north Vietnam to help it against the south...

However without escalation by either the USA and the USSR and China responding by increasing aid to the Hanoi government ... it might be possible that the North Vietnamese could have still been fighting after 1968 and with a good economy (no massive spending programs such as the great society and the spending on a war in south east Asia) and running on the popular outgoing presidents record LBJ would very possibly win the Democratic nomination and be elected president in 1968, so it is possible that once in power LBJ might have pursue similar polices in dealing with the conflict in Vietnam but simply four or five years later than in reality...

[ShapeShifter]

JFK

He was the People's President

[FreeThinker]

I honestly cannot vote in this poll. The choice between two men of the utmost courage, honor, integrity and talent would have been an agonizing choice for me (if I were a US citizen) and would have forced me to think long and hard before voting

I think this would have been interesting. Voters with conservative positions on civil rights would probably have been turned off by both candidates. I think Rockefeller may have had to move slightly to the right of Kennedy to get elected (even if this was only during the election campaign) and may have selected a more conservative running mate to improve his chances in the South and among disillusioned voters. I don't think Rockefeller would have had much appeal in the South or even in what would later become known as the "Reagan Democrat" states without an effective vice presidential running mate.

If George Wallace had been running in that election, it would have opened up a whole new possible scenario altogether. Wallace would have, in my opinion, secured a significant proportion of the vote but I am uncertain as to whether he would have taken away from Kennedy or Rockefeller more. Wallace hurt Humphrey in 1968 but that was partly because Nixon's strategy was designed to appeal more to the conservative states and therefore he had probably locked in a significant number of voters who may have drifted to Wallace if he had positioned himself as more of a liberal.

I think we could well have had a repeat of the 1960 presidential election -an outcome too close to call

[JohnFKennedy]

Wallace wouldn't have run. He only became Governor of Alabama in 1963, no way he would have run that soon after it as he wouldn't have had much experience or been particularly well known.

[© tweed]

Kennedy

[PBrunsel]

I would not vote for either. I cast my vote for:
John Kasper/Jesse Stoner: National State's Rights

[bullmoose88]

Rockefeller.

Unless Goldwater wins...

then Kennedy...

I can't believe I just said that.

[Dave from Michigan]

rockefeller

[PBrunsel]

Rockefeller's VP could be Governor Romney of Michigan or Ronald Reagan.

[PBrunsel]

The Civil Rights Act would pass late into Kennedy's second term. LBJ was able to get through his plans becuse he was great at parliamentary procedure. There was a joke that LBJ could pass a bill declaring the sky green.

[JohnFKennedy]

The Civil Rights Act would pass late into Kennedy's second term. LBJ was able to get through his plans becuse he was great at parliamentary procedure. There was a joke that LBJ could pass a bill declaring the sky green.

and in general people were sympathetic to the cause after Kennedy died.

[zachman]

I think Rockefeller.

[PBrunsel]

I wonder what a map for this alternate 1964 would look like.

[PBrunsel]

How do you post maps?

[Ben.]

How do you post maps?

Not sure... I've tried and tried... but don’t seem to be able to get my head around it... I think with Rockefeller v Kennedy you get something like...

Rockefeller…
WY, AZ, NM, OK, CA, OR, AK, CO, ID, IN, KS, ME, NE, NH, ND, UT, VT,
 Electoral Votes; 132


Kennedy…
AR, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IA, KY LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WV, WI:
Electoral Votes; 389      

States Rights (?)…
AL, MS
Electoral Votes; 17

… I think Kennedy v Rockefeller would be very similar to Dole v Clinton in 1996, overall and nationally Rockefeller would be a stronger candidate than Dole, however the circumstances helping Kennedy would be similar to those helping Clinton, in fact Kennedy would have probably been in an even stronger position, abroad Kennedy had stood up communism and not given an inch, voters felt secure and well protected with him as president, Kennedy had introduced tax cuts which had proved popular and at the same time fresh legislation on the minimum wage and government action to assist economically depressed areas and on top of all this the economy was booming having overcome the economic slow down of the late Ike years… Going into 1964 Kennedy would be running on his record as tough on communism, overseeing an economic boom and pledges to continue these polices while also hammering through a new Medicare bill similar to that which had been narrowly defeated in the senate in 1962…  

So I think a very solid win for Kennedy would be very likely…  

[Gustaf]

Ben,

You make a map with one of the electoral calculators on this site, then you right-click somewhere near the map, I usually try between Alaska and mainland, go to propeties, copy the entire adress including all the nubmers and stuff and put them between img and /img in brackets. You can quote my post and look at how it looks.



And you're 9 EVs off, from what I can tell:

Kennedy: 398

Rockefeller: 123

Southern: 17

[PBrunsel]

Kennedy-Johnson (Dem.):392
Rockefeller-Romney (Rep.): 119
Kasper-Stoner (National State's Rights):27

[Ben.]

Ben,

You make a map with one of the electoral calculators on this site, then you right-click somewhere near the map, I usually try between Alaska and mainland, go to propeties, copy the entire adress including all the nubmers and stuff and put them between img and /img in brackets. You can quote my post and look at how it looks.



And you're 9 EVs off, from what I can tell:

Kennedy: 398

Rockefeller: 123

Southern: 17

Sorry I must have miscalculated... I'm not sure about SD and MT and I reckon that Rockeffeler could have done much better, but in the circumstances I reckon Kennedy would have large walked it imho.... PBrunsel is probably right about LA going to a states rights candidates however Kennedy wouldn’t have had the problems that LBJ did in 1964 with the southern wing of the party as while LBJ had many enemies within the party Kennedy was very popular both nationally and within the party... I think however that back in 1964 states like NM and OR would have gone to Rockefeller while traditional republican states like VT which when to Nixon in 1968 would have also gone to Nelson.... while both Indiana and places like Iowa would have been close as with states such as the Dakotas and Montana...but overall I think that it would have been a lot like 1996, a popular, charismatic, moderate incumbent against an experienced, moderate and respected yet dull opponent however in 1964 JFK would have had advantages on foreign policy to boot as well as solid control of the legislature…        

[Gustaf]

Ben,

Though your analyses seems sound on the whole, I thought the reason for JFK picking LBJ was to quell the Southern revolition against him? He was a Catholic, remember...

And you should try and post a map now, I know you got it in you.

[PBrunsel]

Iowa was Republican territory in the 1960's.

[Ben.]

Iowa was Republican territory in the 1960's.

 True but that said so was Kentucky when Clinton won it in 1996 or MA when Reagan won it in 1984 or even Kennedy when he won NJ which was solidly republican and is these days just as solidly democrat...

I think that as i have said Kennedy in 1964 would be a lot like Clinton in 1996 just with even more going for him than Clinton on defence and in terms of legislation passed... so while i don’t think that something along the lines of LBJ's win would happen JFK would have a solid win imho... that said I think even in such a situation where JFK was so very likely to win, states like MT, SD, ND, IA, OR, WA would have been close but with a larger urban population WA would probably have swung to JFK ditto MN (also strong Dem party there)... but overall a solid win for JFK in the popular vote over a well liked and respected GOP candidate (aka Dole) but just no real reason to change presidents at the time (in the end a similar sentiment will probably carry Bush to a slim win in Nov... but i didn’t say that...LOL)... in the electoral college its a near landslide but not quite...

Gustaf I think LBJ much like Cheney provided political credibility in the south, that said LBJ's style antagonised many democrats and while Kennedy was charming and likable LBJ was not, in 1960 LBJ reassured voters in the south and nationally however within the democratic party and particularly the southern part of the party he was disliked by 1964 for his apparent turn to the left on becoming president...so in 1964 i doubt there would have been as much distrust towards JFK as LBJ as JFK would probably have been more cautious on Civil Rights but that’s not the real issue, the real issue is the dixiecrat and republican vote would never have been combined in the south without Goldwater to deliver wins across the deep south and states like GA, LA and SC would have been much closer and probably gone to JFK while a states rights candidate would probably have run and won AL and MS and possibly LA and SC...  
       

[Gustaf]

Iowa was Republican territory in the 1960's.

 True but that said so was Kentucky when Clinton won it in 1996 or MA when Reagan won it in 1984 or even Kennedy when he won NJ which was solidly republican and is these days just as solidly democrat...

I think that as i have said Kennedy in 1964 would be a lot like Clinton in 1996 just with even more going for him than Clinton on defence and in terms of legislation passed... so while i don’t think that something along the lines of LBJ's win would happen JFK would have a solid win imho... that said I think even in such a situation where JFK was so very likely to win, states like MT, SD, ND, IA, OR, WA would have been close but with a larger urban population WA would probably have swung to JFK ditto MN (also strong Dem party there)... but overall a solid win for JFK in the popular vote over a well liked and respected GOP candidate (aka Dole) but just no real reason to change presidents at the time (in the end a similar sentiment will probably carry Bush to a slim win in Nov... but i didn’t say that...LOL)... in the electoral college its a near landslide but not quite...

Gustaf I think LBJ much like Cheney provided political credibility in the south, that said LBJ's style antagonised many democrats and while Kennedy was charming and likable LBJ was not, in 1960 LBJ reassured voters in the south and nationally however within the democratic party and particularly the southern part of the party he was disliked by 1964 for his apparent turn to the left on becoming president...so in 1964 i doubt there would have been as much distrust towards JFK as LBJ as JFK would probably have been more cautious on Civil Rights but that’s not the real issue, the real issue is the dixiecrat and republican vote would never have been combined in the south without Goldwater to deliver wins across the deep south and states like GA, LA and SC would have been much closer and probably gone to JFK while a states rights candidate would probably have run and won AL and MS and possibly LA and SC...  
       

OK.

[Ben.]

Ben,

You make a map with one of the electoral calculators on this site, then you right-click somewhere near the map, I usually try between Alaska and mainland, go to propeties, copy the entire adress including all the nubmers and stuff and put them between img and /img in brackets. You can quote my post and look at how it looks.



And you're 9 EVs off, from what I can tell:

Kennedy: 398

Rockefeller: 123

Southern: 17

sorry just testing ... so gustaf how do you get a map with the 1964 electoral totals?