1956: nixon dumped.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

OK, Let's start with 1956.  Ike probably would have given Nixon enough notice that he would have been able to run to retake his old Senate seat.  Thus instead of a bruising intra-party squabble in 1958 for the California Governor's race, we have a bruising intra-party squabble in 1956 for the California Senate race.  While Nixon wins the nomination, but loses the election.  The example spares the GOP from makingthe same error in 1958, so Pat Brown does not become governor in 1958 which also knocks out the political career of Jerry Brown as well.

Now on to 1960.  I can't see Engine Charlie running for President in 1960, even though he probably would have avoided making the "draft dodger" remark that caused some controversy for him in 1957, so the GOP nomination would be contested.  Gov. Rockefeller of New York would be facing Gov. Knight of California for the nomination.

Rockfeller wins the nomination and despite the attraction from an alt-hist standpoint of having him select Sen. Prescott Bush of Connecticut as his running mate, the two hated each other politically, so it wouldn't have happened.  So let's have 1960 be Rockefeller/Knight v. Kennedy/Johnson

Now the Alabama slate had 6 Byrd Electors and 5 Kennedy Electors so, assuming we still have he defecting Oklahoma elector the result would be:

Kennedy/Johnson: 266 EV
Rockefeller/Knight: 264 EV
Byrd/Thurmond: 6 EV
Byrd/Goldwater: 1 EV

Rockefeller has a slight edge in the PV but not a majority. With the House delegation split 29-17-4 you'd think that Kennedy would be a shoe in, but instead enough southern delegations play politics that Kennedy can't get the majority he needs, with enough of them voting for Byrd or Rockefeller (on the excuse he won their State as wella s the PV).  In the Senate, Johnson has no such problems and so come January 20, Johnson is inaugurated as Vice President and Acting President pending an election in the House.  By the time a political compromise is worked out, leading to Kennedy finally taking office on March 4, the planning for Operation Zapata is far enough along that the landing site is not changed to the Bay of Pigs and U.S. involvement is not reduced.  The invasion takes place in late March and is initially successful, with Fidel being killed in action in early April, but Raúl Castro manages to escape the island and Che Guevara maintains an insurgency until he is finally killed in 1964.  Even after Che's death, fighting doesn't fully die down until 1967.  As a result of what happens in Cuba, Kennedy does not support an expansion of the U.S. effort in Vietnam past the advisor stage.  It isn't until Goldwater becomes president in 1969 that the U.S. becomes involved in the ground combat there after the Tết Offensive nearly succeeds in toppling the South Vietnamese government.  Because the early successes of Tết caused the North Vietnamese to openly send troops across the DMZ, Goldwater approves a counter invasion.  capturing Vinh by September before settling for an armistice in November, 1969, witha new DMZ established along the 20th parallel, some 200 miles north of the old one along the 17th.

[ATFFL]

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?

Kennedy inherited a plan that was still being developed for the BoP.  He treated it like a finished, fully developed plan and refused to add any of the resources that were asked for (like air cover and more weapons to deal with hardpoints.)

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

On topic - then down I'll get to you.


If Nixon were dropped in '56 it would have been a very messy Primary season for the Reps. Nixon may actually have won - but Kennedy would still have won in 1960.

Down, I was curious do you have ANYTHING complementary to say about any of the 20th Century Democratic presidents, at least I admit I'm a fan of Eisenhower and Nixon did more than any President to end the cold war (yes, I'm including St Ronnie), Coolidge was a good man, Hoover was a decent man, but just missed the point of the depression completely. Of course, not including T. Roosevelt who even his uncle said "Theodore is not a Republican, he's a democrat"

But what do we get from you?

FDR - Evil socialist
JFK - Corrupt, communist sympathiser
LBJ - I've never heard your opinion but since he believed that helping the poor requires more than a tuck under the chin you must think he's satan himself.
Carter -
Clinton - Sleazy

So, we have Wilson, Truman and Carter that you haven't attacked.


Oh back on topic again, if Nixon didn't get the nomination in 1960... and Kennedy still won - he would have been frontrunner in '64. Assuming Kennedy isn't assassinated.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

  And I'm not happy he died, I'm just saying it wasn't a bad thing.    The only people I wish death on are al-Qaeda members, unlike most Democrats who wish death on Bush.

Well, there is the comment that shows how even minded you are. "I'm not happy he died... but it wasn't a bad thing" apart from being a revolting thing to say how is that really any different? Do I think Bush had made many many mistakes? Yes Do I think he uses personal attack politics to make his point? Yes Do I think He is trapped in an ideological bubble? Yes Do I wish death upon him? No. I lost a parent and would NEVER NEVER wish that upon anyone. Despite this degree of the politics of personality... not policy.

I apologise for going so off topic - but when someone makes comment so ridiculous verging on offensive I will respond.

[minionofmidas]

Hmm... in 1958, ultraconservative US Senator William Knowland (who later committed suicide, and who despite similar politics was a sworn enemy of Nixon's) won the US nomination for Governor of California after "a brutal primary" according to Wiki - it doesn't say against whom -, while the state's liberal Republican governor, Goodwin Knight (another sworn enemy of both men) ran for Senator to avoid primary defeat by Knowland. Both men lost the general by decisive margins. Knight lost to Clair Engle by 10 points, Knowland lost to Pat Brown by almost 20 points - Brown would of course go on to beat Nixon by 5 points in 62 and then to lose by 15 points to Ronald Reagan.
Both Knowland and Knight's political careers were over as a result of 58, leaving Nixon in control of the state Republican Party. Both had been considered possible future presidential candidates until then.
Had Nixon been eased out as VP in 56 (and it was a real possibility. Very very real) and forced to embroil himself into this mess, it's safe to say he would have suffered the same fate.
But I can also see him challenging Eisenhower for the nomination if he knew he was to be replaced. (Not to mention, staying as far out of the 58 fight as possible even if he's without office). He would have lost that, of course, but he might have survived intact as a potential future conservative challenger.
The 1960 nomination would have been out of reach for a non-VP Nixon no matter what though. It would have probably gone to whoever replaced him as VP, or possibly to Rockefeller. Rockefeller would likely have won, picking up enough additional northeastern states to make up for potential Southern and Western losses.
A conservative low-profile VP would have done quite similar to Nixon, but probably wouldn't have been back in 68.

[DownWithTheLeft]

On topic - then down I'll get to you.


If Nixon were dropped in '56 it would have been a very messy Primary season for the Reps. Nixon may actually have won - but Kennedy would still have won in 1960.

Down, I was curious do you have ANYTHING complementary to say about any of the 20th Century Democratic presidents, at least I admit I'm a fan of Eisenhower and Nixon did more than any President to end the cold war (yes, I'm including St Ronnie), Coolidge was a good man, Hoover was a decent man, but just missed the point of the depression completely. Of course, not including T. Roosevelt who even his uncle said "Theodore is not a Republican, he's a democrat"

But what do we get from you?

FDR - Evil socialist
JFK - Corrupt, communist sympathiser
LBJ - I've never heard your opinion but since he believed that helping the poor requires more than a tuck under the chin you must think he's satan himself.
Carter -
Clinton - Sleazy

So, we have Wilson, Truman and Carter that you haven't attacked.


Oh back on topic again, if Nixon didn't get the nomination in 1960... and Kennedy still won - he would have been frontrunner in '64. Assuming Kennedy isn't assassinated.

Wilson- wasn't really a bad guy, he did what was necessary to help win WWI
Truman- helped a create SS system which seemed like it would work at the time and wasn't afraid to use to atomic bomb
Carter- he gave the canal back to Panama?  Any coincidence the hostages were released the day Reagan came to power?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

On topic - then down I'll get to you.


If Nixon were dropped in '56 it would have been a very messy Primary season for the Reps. Nixon may actually have won - but Kennedy would still have won in 1960.

Down, I was curious do you have ANYTHING complementary to say about any of the 20th Century Democratic presidents, at least I admit I'm a fan of Eisenhower and Nixon did more than any President to end the cold war (yes, I'm including St Ronnie), Coolidge was a good man, Hoover was a decent man, but just missed the point of the depression completely. Of course, not including T. Roosevelt who even his uncle said "Theodore is not a Republican, he's a democrat"

But what do we get from you?

FDR - Evil socialist
JFK - Corrupt, communist sympathiser
LBJ - I've never heard your opinion but since he believed that helping the poor requires more than a tuck under the chin you must think he's satan himself.
Carter -
Clinton - Sleazy

So, we have Wilson, Truman and Carter that you haven't attacked.


Oh back on topic again, if Nixon didn't get the nomination in 1960... and Kennedy still won - he would have been frontrunner in '64. Assuming Kennedy isn't assassinated.

Wilson- wasn't really a bad guy, he did what was necessary to help win WWI
Truman- helped a create SS system which seemed like it would work at the time and wasn't afraid to use to atomic bomb
Carter- he gave the canal back to Panama?  Any coincidence the hostages were released the day Reagan came to power?

Of course there wasn't a coincidence - the Iranians wanted to give Carter that last twist of the knife.

[Lincoln Republican]

The election between Vice President Charles Wilson/CIA Director Allen Dulles and Senator Lyndon Johnson/Governor Pat Brown results in a comfortable win for the Democratic ticket.   

Johnson/Brown                 359
Wilson/Dulles                    159
Unpledged Electors             19

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Good match-up

[WalterMitty]

okay, winfield,  let me expand this scenario, what if the dixiecrats ran a third party ticket of strom thurmond/john stennis?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The election between Vice President Charles Wilson/CIA Director Allen Dulles and Senator Lyndon Johnson/Governor Pat Brown results in a comfortable win for the Democratic ticket.   

I can't see Brown as being the VP candidate.  He would have been in only his second year as governor in 1960, even assuming he would have been elected.  Given the perturbations of Nixon being dumped back into California politics six years earlier (1956 instead of 1962) than in OTL, even had Pat been elected, his OTL Lt. Gov. Glenn Anderson might not have been.  California was a fairly Republican state in 1958 and it was only the GOP's self inflicted wounds that allowed the Dems to do so well that year.  Without a Lt. Gov. of the same party, there is zero chance that a first term Gov. of any party would be selected as the VP nominee.  The VP slot isn't important enough to sacrifice a governor's mansion for it.

[Lincoln Republican]

This turns out to be one of the closest and most exciting elections in U.S. history.

Legendary outgoing President Eisenhower barnstorms the nation in key areas in behalf of his friend Charlie Wilson.

Incredibly, the Republican and Democratic tickets fight the race down to the wire, with a draw in the electoral college.  

The Dixiecrats make their best showing ever.  Thurmond and Stennis prove to be unbeatable in the deep south.

Wilson manages a razor thin win in Michigan, as voters in that state remember him for the great work he did as President of General Motors, and in bringing lasting and meaningful employment and revenue to the state.

The Republicans take Illinois by an extremely narrow margin.  The shrewd and powerful GOP machine downstate manages to "outsmart" (if you know what I mean) the ruthless Democratic Daley machine upstate and in Chicago and Cook County.

The professional and urbane Wilson goes toe to toe with the downhome and folksy Johnson.

Popular California Governor Pat Brown manages to salvage California for the Democratic ticket by a small margin.

Dulles proves to be a solid campaigner and in command of the issues.  

Charles Wilson/Allen Dulles            228
Lyndon Johnson/Pat Brown            228
Strom Thurmond/John Stennis          81

[Lincoln Republican]

Walter, I am going to introduce another aspect into the "1956:  Nixon Dumped" scenario.

At a stormy meeting in March, 1956 in the Oval Office, between Ike and Dick, Ike tells Dick that he will "reluctantly" be replacing him as the Vice Presidential nominee for the 1956 election.  Ike also tells Dick that he would like him to continue his public service, and to use his "considerable abilities" and offers him the posting of Secretary of State for his second term.  Realizing this may be his only opportunity to continue in public office, Nixon accepts.

The news is presented to the public as a matter that Eisenhower wanted Nixon to use his "outstanding abilities" as Secretary of State "to continue to move our foreign policy forward,"and that Nixon willingly accepted the offer to "continue to serve the nation."

Nixon goes on to become Secretary of State for Ike's second term, and is exemplary in his capacity as the nation's chief dipolmat.  Nixon wins praise from all quarters for his foreign policy vision and for his and remarkable record and for his outstanding achievements as Secretary of State.

Question for all

Can Nixon take his outstanding record as Secretary of State and translate it into winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 1960?  As well, can Nixon use his record and remarkable achievements as Secretary of State, and his vast experience in public life, Congressman, Senator, Vice President, Secretary of State, in convincing Americans to elect him President in 1960?
 

[Lincoln Republican]

Walter, I am going to introduce another aspect into the "1956:  Nixon Dumped" scenario.

At a stormy meeting in March, 1956 in the Oval Office, between Ike and Dick, Ike tells Dick that he will "reluctantly" be replacing him as the Vice Presidential nominee for the 1956 election.  Ike also tells Dick that he would like him to continue his public service, and to use his "considerable abilities" and offers him the posting of Secretary of State for his second term.  Realizing this may be his only opportunity to continue in public office, Nixon accepts.

The news is presented to the public as a matter that Eisenhower wanted Nixon to use his "outstanding abilities" as Secretary of State "to continue to move our foreign policy forward,"and that Nixon willingly accepted the offer to "continue to serve the nation."

Nixon goes on to become Secretary of State for Ike's second term, and is exemplary in his capacity as the nation's chief dipolmat.  Nixon wins praise from all quarters for his foreign policy vision and for his and remarkable record and for his outstanding achievements as Secretary of State.

Question for all

Can Nixon take his outstanding record as Secretary of State and translate it into winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 1960?  As well, can Nixon use his record and remarkable achievements as Secretary of State, and his vast experience in public life, Congressman, Senator, Vice President, Secretary of State, in convincing Americans to elect him President in 1960?
 

Well?  Anyone care to hazard an opinion or viewpoint in this matter?

[minionofmidas]

Well, anybody's record would be "outstanding" compared to John Foster Dulles'... what happens to Dulles in this scenario?

[Lincoln Republican]

Actually, Dulles had quite a ramarkable career. 

In any case, in this scenario, Dulles tells Ike he wants to return to private life anyway, to get back to making some "real money."

Now, what about Nixon?

[Boris]

I honestly don't think it would've made a whole lot of difference in 1960 Winfield, assuming that the Democrats nominated John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

Nixon stressed foreign policy during his 1960 campaign as the incumbent Vice President. And I believe voters would've seen Nixon's strength as foreign policy regardless. But once again, as we enter the television age of politics, JFK is simply more charismatic and looks better on TV than Nixon.

Same result. Nixon loses one of the closest elections in history.

[Lincoln Republican]

Thank you Boris.

You're probably right.

But this way, Nixon would at least have had a high profile public office from which to campaign.  The original scenario was that Nixon was dumped as VP in 1956, meaning in all likelihood he would have been completely out of any public office whatsoever at the time of the 1960 election.

My own view is that as Secretary of State this would have given Nixon a better chance of at least gaining the GOP nomination in 1960 rather than if he had simply been dropped as VP in 1956 and was without any public office in 1960.

But I agree with you, Nixon would still likely have gone to defeat to JFK in 1960.   

Thank you for your comments.

[Boris]

Another interesting aspect of your scenario, Winfield, is that if Nixon were to run for President as Secretary of State, he would've revived the old tradition of the Secretary of State being first in line for the presidential nomination. Nixon was really the person who transformed the Vice Presidency and pretty much made it the defacto position to capture the nomination after the incumbent President had finished.

Without Nixon's two terms as VP, it's quite possible that the Vice Presidency wouldn't be the same position that it is today.