1956: nixon dumped.

[WalterMitty]

in 1956, president eisenhower drops nixon from the ticket.  the two were never particularly close.  ike encourages nixon to go back to california and run for governor.

eisenhower selects sec of defense and former general motors ceo, charlie wilson as his vp running mate.

the eisenhower/wilson ticket has little trouble defeating the ticket of stevenson/kefauver.

he do these events affect the 1960 race?

[DownWithTheLeft]

in 1956, president eisenhower drops nixon from the ticket.  the two were never particularly close.  ike encourages nixon to go back to california and run for governor.

eisenhower selects sec of defense and former general motors ceo, charlie wilson as his vp running mate.

the eisenhower/wilson ticket has little trouble defeating the ticket of stevenson/kefauver.

he do these events affect the 1960 race?

Does Nixon run in 1960?

[Rob]

Rockefeller is nominated by the GOP; I can't see Nixon on a national ticket after being repudiated by Eisenhower.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Going into the election Nixon has the incredibly popular Eisenhower at his side.  But this time, due to Ike's popularity, he decides to pick Goldwater to help deliever the South rather than Cabot from MA.  This time, the GOP contests the results in IL more vigorously and after the fraud is discovered conclusively, IL is handed to Nixon.  Goldwater delievers Nixon NM, TX, and NV.  Due to Ike's popularity he also wins NJ and MO.  Face w/a closer race, AL and LA go for Kennedy.

Nixon/Goldwater 307
Kennedy/Johnson 230

America is spared the horror that is JFK, and hopefully the Kennedy's never become what they are today.

[Dr. Cynic]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

[Lincoln Republican]

Nixon was one of the most driven, ambitious, and capable politicians in U.S. history.  I do not believe anything would have stopped him from seeking the Presidency at some point, whether in 1960 or in 1968.  Being dropped by Eisenhower in 1956 would have made it more difficult for Nixon to run in 1960.  Therefore, I doubt that Nixon would be the nominee in 1960.

Kennedy is still elected in 1960, after 8 years of Republican administration.

Although being dropped from the 1956 Republican ticket would not have helped his presidential ambitions, because he would have been labelled as being "dumped" by Eisenhower, I have no doubt he would still have run for the GOP Presidential nomination at least in 1968.  However, whether he would have been successful in winning the GOP nomination in 1968 or not is another matter.

I give the following explanation as to why it would have been most difficult for Nixon to be the Presidential nominee in 1968.

After being dropped by Eisenhower in 1956, in order to run for Governor of California, Nixon would have to have waited until the gubernatorial election in 1958.  There was already a Republican Governor in California, Goodwin J. Knight, elected in 1954.  Even to win the GOP nomination for Governor in 1958, Nixon would have to have defeated Senator William F. Knowland, the actual Republican candidate in 1958, in the primary.  Nixon and Knowland had been having a long running battle for influence in Republican Party affairs in California.

Even if Nixon were able to defeat Knowland for the GOP gubernatorial nomination in 1958, and that's a big if, Nixon would have been running against Pat Brown in the election.  In the actual election, Brown defeated Knowland by a vote of some 60% to 40%.  Nixon would not likely have won the 1958 Governor's race in California, further damaging his Presidential ambitions.

So being left on the 1956 ticket with Eisenhower was crucial to Nixon's future Presidential ambitions.

What I do say is, Nixon would have run at least for the Presidential nomination.

Nixon may also have considered the option of seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from California for the 1958 Senate election.  In 1958, incumbent Republican Senator William F. Knowland left the Senate to run, unsuccessfully, for Governor.  Therefore, there would be an open nomination for the GOP Senate nomination.  However, Nixon would have to have defeated Governor Goodwin J. Knight for the nomination.  So, again, Nixon would be facing a strong nomination challenge.  In the actual election, the Democrat, Clair Engle, won the Senate seat.

By the way, Eisenhower's pick of Defense Secretary Charles Wilson, former CEO of General Motors, would certainly not have been without controversy.  But Eisenhower and Wilson would have gone on to easily defeat Stevenson and Kefauver, as you point out.

[afleitch]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

Yes, Bay of Pigs was a localised disaster, but the Cuban Missile Crisis and the level headedness of the administration and the President probably accounts for the fact that most of us are actually here today

[George W. Hobbes]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

Getting killed has that effect on people.


Of course, Kennedy was not nearly as bad as downwithdaleft insinuates either.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

You're a lunatic

At least when Kennedy screwed up on the Bay of Pigs, he admitted his RESPONSIBILITY and his mistakes. Are we forgetting the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

You're a lunatic

Yes, of course, not likely JFK makes me a lunatic

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

You're a lunatic

Yes, of course, not likely JFK makes me a lunatic

People on the right will use the BoP (an Eisenhower plan) to attack JFK... but none will use the CMC... hmmm wonder why?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

You're a lunatic

Yes, of course, not likely JFK makes me a lunatic

People on the right will use the BoP (an Eisenhower plan) to attack JFK... but none will use the CMC... hmmm wonder why?

Ok, them acknowledge Bush did an amazing job of handling 9/11, of course no liberal will

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

You're a lunatic

Yes, of course, not likely JFK makes me a lunatic

People on the right will use the BoP (an Eisenhower plan) to attack JFK... but none will use the CMC... hmmm wonder why?

Ok, them acknowledge Bush did an amazing job of handling 9/11, of course no liberal will

Bush in the immediate aftermath did what every leader should do - he rallied his country. He finally was President.

Then he managed to screw it up from about November on. But in the begining he was doing as good a job as anyone could do.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Oh yes, JFK was so horrible, which is why he is so popular today.

He's only so popular b/c of the assissination, he screwed up Bay of Pigs so bad and his family is the most corrupt in the world.  And public opinion is very high of some awful people.  I don't think there are too many public opinion polls generating his approval level.  Lee Harvey Oswald (or whoever) saved America from going down a path that would have lead to a communist takeover.

You're a lunatic

Yes, of course, not likely JFK makes me a lunatic

People on the right will use the BoP (an Eisenhower plan) to attack JFK... but none will use the CMC... hmmm wonder why?

Ok, them acknowledge Bush did an amazing job of handling 9/11, of course no liberal will

Bush in the immediate aftermath did what every leader should do - he rallied his country. He finally was President.

Then he managed to screw it up from about November on. But in the begining he was doing as good a job as anyone could do.

Bush didn't even do what the Democrats consider "messing up" although late in his first term.  Kennedy handled the immediate effects of the Cuban Missle Crisis as any mediocre leader would do.  Before he could make any grave mistakes, he was killed.  He was elected b/c of fraud not the will of the voters, and served a very short while to be considered a great president.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm just curious - what disasterous mistakes - the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? The Hotline to Moscow which helped bring in Detente under Nixon?


On Bush - by November 2001 - Iraq rumblings were starting to be heard and I started to get nervous. You can't accept that I complemented Bush on his handling of the national trauma of 9/11 and you reduce any complements of JFK to "mediocre"... during one of the most dangerous periods in the history of the world. I assume that you would have agreed with the Chiefs of Staff and invaded Cuba and called Krushchev's bluff?

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm just curious - what disasterous mistakes - the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? The Hotline to Moscow which helped bring in Detente under Nixon?


On Bush - by November 2001 - Iraq rumblings were starting to be heard and I started to get nervous. You can't accept that I complemented Bush on his handling of the national trauma of 9/11 and you reduce any complements of JFK to "mediocre"... during one of the most dangerous periods in the history of the world. I assume that you would have agreed with the Chiefs of Staff and invaded Cuba and called Krushchev's bluff?

Saying Bush would've done what any president would is not a compliment in fact it is the definition of "mediocre".  Kennedy was killed before he had the chance to do any real harm.

[afleitch]

I'm just curious - what disasterous mistakes - the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? The Hotline to Moscow which helped bring in Detente under Nixon?


On Bush - by November 2001 - Iraq rumblings were starting to be heard and I started to get nervous. You can't accept that I complemented Bush on his handling of the national trauma of 9/11 and you reduce any complements of JFK to "mediocre"... during one of the most dangerous periods in the history of the world. I assume that you would have agreed with the Chiefs of Staff and invaded Cuba and called Krushchev's bluff?

Saying Bush would've done what any president would is not a compliment in fact it is the definition of "mediocre".  Kennedy was killed before he had the chance to do any real harm.

I'm sure Jackie in her blood stained brain splattered pink dress and their young children were also relieved you sick ba----d You can disagree with a man like Jack Kennedy's policies and the way he conducts his life, but by god don't revel in his death.

EDITl: Apologies for the profanity. From one relative conservative to another, I hate the fact you keep picking the most 'conservative' positions by default without thinking about them, no matter who you push down in the dirt or offend.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'm just curious - what disasterous mistakes - the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? The Hotline to Moscow which helped bring in Detente under Nixon?


On Bush - by November 2001 - Iraq rumblings were starting to be heard and I started to get nervous. You can't accept that I complemented Bush on his handling of the national trauma of 9/11 and you reduce any complements of JFK to "mediocre"... during one of the most dangerous periods in the history of the world. I assume that you would have agreed with the Chiefs of Staff and invaded Cuba and called Krushchev's bluff?

Saying Bush would've done what any president would is not a compliment in fact it is the definition of "mediocre".  Kennedy was killed before he had the chance to do any real harm.

I'm sure Jackie in her blood stained brain splattered pink dress and their young children were also relieved you sick ba----d You can disagree with a man like Jack Kennedy's policies and the way he conducts his life, but by god don't revel in his death.

EDITl: Apologies for the profanity. From one relative conservative to another, I hate the fact you keep picking the most 'conservative' positions by default without thinking about them, no matter who you push down in the dirt or offend.

I think all positions through, and this country would be much better off Nixon would have won in 1960.  And I'm not happy he died, I'm just saying it wasn't a bad thing.  Just as I don't wish death on Jon Corzine, but the state of NJ would be much better off if he wasn't governor.  The only people I wish death on are al-Qaeda members, unlike most Democrats who wish death on Bush.

[Lincoln Republican]

The discussion in this thread has gotten WAY off topic, and not at all dealing with the question asked by the author, and that question is, as some seem to have forgotten

Eisenhower drops Nixon from the 1956 Republican ticket, and replaces him with Defense Secretary Charlie Wilson.

How does this affect the 1960 election?

That is the question.  Get back on topic.

If you want to debate the virtues and failures of Kennedy and Bush, then start a new thread dealing with that.  

[afleitch]

The only people I wish death on are al-Qaeda members, unlike most Democrats who wish death on Bush.

See this is what I mean. This is why I can't take anything you say seriously, no matter how much you say you believe in it. Democrats either in the mainstream or in this forum do not wish death on Bush, what a strange and unfounded accusation to make. It shows not only a lack of knowledge but also a lack of maturity if you can do is hurl around school yard insults.

Winfield, Apologies, i'm posting this here because I had started it before you replied It's my final post on the matter.

[DownWithTheLeft]

My original map still stands.

[Lincoln Republican]

Going into the election Nixon has the incredibly popular Eisenhower at his side.  But this time, due to Ike's popularity, he decides to pick Goldwater to help deliever the South rather than Cabot from MA.  This time, the GOP contests the results in IL more vigorously and after the fraud is discovered conclusively, IL is handed to Nixon.  Goldwater delievers Nixon NM, TX, and NV.  Due to Ike's popularity he also wins NJ and MO.  Face w/a closer race, AL and LA go for Kennedy.

Nixon/Goldwater 307
Kennedy/Johnson 230

America is spared the horror that is JFK, and hopefully the Kennedy's never become what they are today.

I find your map exaggerated.  After having been dropped as VP candidate in 1956, no way Nixon comes storming back in 1960 to win a solid win over Kennedy like 307 to 230, endorsed by Eisenhower or not.

Nixon likely would have  been without any public office since January 1957, unless in the unlikelyhood he had succeeded in becoming Governor or Senator for California.

Absolute tops Nixon could win would be 256 EV, compared to 262 for Kennedy, and the 19 unpledged electors.  With Goldwater on the ticket, Nixon does not win New Jersey, and loses support in the northeast and parts of the midwest.

Actually, Lodge was a good pick for Nixon in 1960, as Nixon wanted to fight the election mainly on foreign policy issues, which is where he believed he had the best chance of winning.  Lodge fit into this plan very well, and they almost won.

Kennedy still wins.

Bottom line, with Nixon being dropped from the 1956 Republican ticket, his prospects of ever becoming President are drastically diminished, possibly damaged beyond repair.   

       

This map gives Kennedy 262, Nixon 256, unpledged electors 19.  This is the best case scenario if Nixon was still Vice President in 1960 with Lodge as his running mate.  With Nixon dropped from the ticket in 1956, no way he comes close to this result.

[Joe Republic]

This time, the GOP contests the results in IL more vigorously and after the fraud is discovered conclusively, IL is handed to Nixon.

You really should know that both campaigns conducted electoral fraud in Illinois in 1960.  While the Daley machine was busy manufacturing votes for Kennedy upstate, the powerful IL GOP was just as busy manufacturing votes for Nixon downstate.  It just so happened that the Democrats were apparently better at it.

[WalterMitty]

president eisenhower spends most of 1959 trying to convince his younger brother milton to run for the presidency.  milton wants no part of it and refuses him every time.

by early 1960, eisenhower reluctantly supports his vice president, charlie wilson, who is itching to run.

with eisenhower's public support, wilson makes quick work of liberal new york governor, nelson rockefeller in the primaries.

after being nominated at the convention, the american public wonders who wilson will select as his running mate.  most frequently mentioned are rockefeller, sec of state christian herter, and even former vice president nixon (who opted not to run for california governor in 1958).

wilson surprises everyone by selecting the head of the cia, allen dulles as his running mate.  dulles has a reputation as being a social animal and a ladies man.

on the democrat side, young massachusetts democrat, john kennedy decides to sit out the race.  publically he declines to run do to family obligations.  however. the real reason he doesnt enter the race is due to his poor health, which is a closely guarded secret.

the democrats nominate senate majority leader, lyndon johnson.  lbj selects liberal california governor, pat brown as his running mate.

any maps on how this race would turn out?