1960 Republican Vice Presidential Choice

[johnpressman]

Hello everyone. In 1960, LBJ, Kennedy's Vice Presidential choice, probably won him the Presidency.  Henry Cabot Lodge was probably the worst Vice Presidential choice of all time (William E. Miller?).

The question is: Could Nixon   have made another choice as his running mate that could have won him the 1960 election?

A follow up question would be:  Could Kennedy have chosen someone else (Symington, Jackson) and still won?

[NewFederalist]

Nixon needed to win Illinois... Everett Dirksen?

[johnpressman]

Everett!  I wonder why he was never considered.  The other names that I heard were in contention were; Thurston Morton, Gerald Ford, Walter Judd and John Sherman Cooper.  Rockefeller declared himself out of the running early, despite the "Pact of Fifth Avenue".

Speaking of Illinois, William Stratton was a two-term Governor of Illinois, succeding Adlai Stevenson, an obvious choice as Illinois is a "swing Stae"in Presidential politics, yet I have heard little about him.

[Lincoln Republican]

John, an interesting subject. (although it has been covered before in this forum, but it doesn't hurt to discuss it again, and thank you for bringing it up again)  I have been meaning to respond to this for some time, but first wanted to refer again to my copy of "The Making Of The President 1960" by Theodore H. White.

At the meeting that took place to discuss the Vice Presidency, White states "He (Nixon) had tentatively chosen Henry Cabot Lodge as his running mate months before, assuming Rockefeller would not accept the post;  but he now gave every man a chance to speak."

White states that Nixon was of the view that his best chance of victory was to fight the election on foreign policy.  Says Nixon, in the meeting that took place to discuss the Vice Presidential choice, "If you ever let them (the Democrats) campaign only on domestic issues, they'll beat us---our only hope is to keep it on foreign policy."  White states that twenty of those present at this meeting agreed with Nixon "that Henry Cabot Lodge was the best man to lift Americans' imagination to the problems of foreign policy and, since this was already Mr. Nixon's prior decision, so it was to be." 

Another very interesting aspect of the 1960 campaign was the Republican plank on civil rights and Nixon's campaign handling of this matter.

White states "Now, in Chicago, Richard M. Nixon found himself faced on the eve of a national campaign for the Presidency with precisely this strategic delemma, shaped over the week end in tactical form.  The original draft plank preapred by the Platform Committee was a moderate one:  it avoided any outright declaration of support for Negro sit-in strikes at Southern lunch counters and omitted any promise of federal intervention to secure Negroes full job equality---both of which the Democrats, at Los Angeles, had promised.  This plank, as written, would almost certainly have carried the Southern states for Nixon and, it seems in retrospect, might have given him victory.  Barry Goldwater now insists that the original "moderate" Republican platform plank on civil rights would have guaranteed a 1960 Republican victory;  and that the Rockefeller-Nixon rewrite of that plank cast victory away.  On Monday, July 25th, it is almost certain, it lay in Nixon's power to reorient the Republican Party toward an axis of Northern-Southern conservatives.  His alone was the choice."

"Nixon made his choice, I believe, more out of conscience than out of strategy.  But conscience is different from a personal code of history or a realization of the shape of great events.  Nixon insisted that the platform committee substitute for the moderate position on civil rights (which probably would have won him the election) the advanced Rockefeller position on civil rights (which might also have won him the election in the North, had he understood the Rockefeller position).  Later, under the strain of the election campaign, in September and October, the temptation of victory came so close that he apparently could not decide whether he was campaigning for Northern electoral votes or Southern electoral votes;  he thus later completely befuzzed his original position in Chicago and succeeded, in the end, in alienating Northern Negro and Southern white, losing both along with the election.  This is one of Nixon's characteristic and fatal flaws---that he presents too often a split image."

I am of the view that it would not have mattered who Nixon had as a running mate.  He was not going to win this election, due to his handling of the civil rights issue. 

Nixon picked Lodge because he believed his best chance of victory was to fight the election on foreign policy, as stated above, and Lodge was the logical choice in this case.  Lodge was, after all, besides being a former Senator from Massachusetts, he was currently at this time the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. 

Of course, as is always the case in picking a running mate for a non incumbent, other names were discussed and bandied about, and you have done a good job in identifying some of them.

In 1960, Nixon fell 50 electoral short of victory.  This is a fair number of electoral votes to have to make up in a closely contested election.  Nixon would have had to have won a combination of some of the following states in order to win the election:

Illinois 27 EV lost by 0.19%, Missouri 13 EV lost by 0.52%, New Jersey 16 EV lost by 0.80%, New Mexico 4 EV lost by 0.74%.

Nixon's loss in the 1960 election had nothing to do with Henry Cabot Lodge and no other running mate would have made the difference between defeat and victory.  Nixon's loss was sealed when he vacilated on the civil rights issue as discussed above.

As for Kennedy, you have named some other good choices, Symington and Jackson.  Kennedy would have won the election with either of these as well as with Johnson. 

[johnpressman]

Excellent post, Winfield!  You have done your homework.  I have read "TMOTP 1960" too many times and you have refreshed my memory as to the factors behind Nixon's choice of Lodge.  It was VERY typical of Nixon to put a question before the GOP leaders, only to have really made up his mind  long beforehand (Agnew?).

I do have to disagree with you on all three of your points, however.  You even help my argument on Lodge costing Nixon the election with his announcement that Nixon would choose an African-American Cabinet member.

The election of 1960 was so unbelieveably close that a very few votes in a few states would have easily tipped the election to him.  Although Nixon believed that the nation had watched Lodge on TV during U.N. hearings and that his nomination would focus the campaign on foreign policy, Lodge added NOTHING to the race, costing Nixon votes, if anything, by his off-the-cuff comment.  Although he wasn't the albatross that Eagleton or LeMay were, the Presidential election is won by winning states and their electoral votes.   One could easily make a blanket statement that Lodge could not help Nixon win ANY SINGLE STATE!  I do not understand Nixon's thinking that the choice of Lodge would keep the electorate focused on foreign affairs.  It seems out-of-character for Nixon not to realize that he would not win any New England states by picking Lodge and that he needed a candidate who would help him win certain key states.

A candidate with  strong recognition in the Border or Midwestern States, however, concentrating his campaign in his home quadrant, would have offset LBJ's contibution to the Democratic ticket.  A Dirksen or Ford or a Cooper/Morton choice could have swung key states to Nixon, giving him the win.  One point you might be overlooking is that, with the exception of California, every closely contested state swung to Kennedy! A
little "push" would have easily tipped the election  his way.

As to your point on the 1960 GOP Civil Rights Platform, Nixon was in a no- win situation.  His support of a strong anti-segregation position would not, in any way, have won him any states that would have voted for Kennedy.  He was not going to usurp the Democrats on that issue, winning black or liberal voters that would have voted for JFK.  Taking a more moderate position would not won him any Southern states from LBJ, except possibly Texas.  You may differ with me that a moderate GOP position on the civil rights issue would have offset Johnson's contribution to the Democratic ticket, bringing the Carolinas into the GOP collumn.  I believe, however,  that the only way to win more Southern States is to fight fire with fire; pick a Southerner like Morton or Cooper to go head-to-head with LBJ.


I also believe that had Kennedy had chosen ANY other running mate besides LBJ, he would have lost.  Symington would not have tipped any states to Kennedy save Wisconsin and Jackson would have brought in Washington and possibly Oregon.  The choice of either of these candidates in lieu of LBJ would have brought Texas and the Carolinas into the Nixon collumn.  Remember,  50 votes in the Electoral College is not much when a few votes can tip states' Electoral votes one way or the other, especially on a regional basis.  I just don't understand why Nixon didn't realize that the Northeast and the Deep South were hopeless, the West was safe for the GOP, and that the election would be decided in the Midwest and Border states and that he needed help in one of the two contested quadrants.  This nebulous idea about  keeeping the electorate mindful of foreign policy with Lodge is SO unlike him!  He did learn a lot in 8 years, however.

[Lincoln Republican]

Another interesting and important incident from "The Making of the President 1960" that White points out:

"October 19th......Martin Luther King was arrested with fiffty-two other Negroes in Rich's Department store in Atlanta for refusing to leave a table in its Magnolia Room restaurant.  On the following Monday, all other "sit-ins" arrested in this were released.  King alone was held in jail, and worse, sentenced on a technicality to four months hard labor and thereupon whisked away secretly to the State Penitentiary."

After considering advice, Kennedy "without consulting anyone, he placed a long-distance telephone call to Mrs. Martin Luther King, assured her of his interest and concern in her suffering and, if necessary, his intervention."

Word quickly spread to the press "that Kennedy had intervened to protect the imprisoned Negro leader."  Because of this intervention, King was released on Thursday.

The episode received scant attention from the population in general but in the black community the actions of Kennedy were received with overwhelming approval. 

The father of Martin Luther King Jr. had endorsed Nixon a few weeks earlier on religious grounds, but after Kennedy's compassionate actions, switched his support to Kennedy.  Kennedy's actions and King Sr.'s endorsement rang loud and clear across the country in the black community.

Says White "One cannot identify in the narrowness of American voting of 1960 any one particular episode or decision as being more important than any other in final tallies:  yet when one reflects that Illinois was carried by only 9,000 votes and that 250,000 Negroes are estiamted to have voted for Kennedy;  that Michigan was carried by 67,000 votes and that an estimated 250,000 Negroes voted for Kennedy;  that South Carolina was carried by 10,000 votes and that an estimated 40,000 Negroes there voted for Kennedy, the candidate's instinctive decision must be ranked among the most crucial of the last few weeks."

Possibly another small but crucial reason for Kennedy's win and for Nixon's loss in 1960.

Food for thought.

As everyone knows, Nixon did alright politically, being elected President in 1968 and re-elected in 1972 in one of the biggest landslides in history.

Nixon was probably one of the most prepared and most capable men to have ever been elected to the Presidency.

It was Nixon's own folly that brought him down, and kept him from becoming one of the great American Presidents.   

       

[johnpressman]

You make a convincing argument that a more pro-active handling of the Civil Rights issue by Nixon in 1960 would have won him the election.  Ted Whites' pointing out the number of African-American voters that could have tipped the results in certain key states,  the issue, however, cuts both ways.

The 1960 election was unique in that both candidates were positioning themselves to the center of the American political spectrum.  Kennedy had overwhelming advantages in party registration, an ability to appeal to the urban Northeast while holding on to the last vestiges of the "Solid South", and with an unsual situation of being able to campaign against the GOP  without denouncing the still-popular Eisenhower.  His perceived liability of inexperience  was put to bed in the first televised debate where he trounced Nixon.  The only issue standing between JFK and a substantial victory in 1960 was his Catholicism.

Nixon, even with the GOP's pro-civil rights position, was NOT going to preempt the Democrats on the issue.   A stronger Nixon rhetoric on civil rights MIGHT have won him a small percentage of black voters that would have voted for Kennedy, by the way, Jackie Robinson did campaign heavily for Nixon and the GOP in 1960, but subtract from that total the number of white voters that might have stayed with the Democrats in the border states and it would have MORE than balanced out.  A shift of a few percentage points in the Black vote  would have been wiped out by a small shift in the overwhelmingly larger white vote in key states such as Tennesee, Virginia, Kentucky or Florida.  In other words, a shift of 10% in the Black vote across the board would have been counterbalanced by a shift of less than 2% of the White vote in those key states.  Subtraction by addition, one might call it.

My call that a different Vice Presidential choice would have won the election for Nixon comes from a belief that Lodge added NOTHING to the GOP ticket.  Lodge's  attempt to appeal to Black voters by announcing that Nixon would appoint a Negro to the Cabinet HURT the ticket!  It was thought to cost the GOP white votes in key Southern and Border states without winning Nixon any liberal or Black votes that were conceded to the Democrats.  Almost ANY other choice would have added valuable Electoral votes to Nixon without subtracting any states from his total.

Lastly, Goldwater's claim that a more moderate position on Civil Rights would have won Nixon the election has some merit.  Nixon would have probably won a few key Southern and border states without losing any of his states to Kennedy, but it is a hard call to see him defending a more moderate position on Civil Rights in the debates and before the eyes of the liberal, Northeast-based media.  So, once again, it cuts both ways.

There are many "if's" behind the Election of 1960.  Ike's lack of support or his gaffe regarding Nixon's contributions.  Nixon's horrible performance in the first televised debate.  His decision to campaign in all 50 states, etc..  But the one glaring and forseeable mistake was his choice of a weak Vice Presidential candidiate.  Henry Cabot Lodge, who lost his Senate seat to Kennedy, who came from a  state and a region that he could NOT influence for his party, who was a terrible campaigner, making a major misstatement, versus JFK's choice of Johnson, who added tremendously to the Democrats with his singlehandedly bringing in Texas and holding on to the Old South for the win.

[Lincoln Republican]

John, you make some good arguments on this interesting historical issue, no doubt.

Please do up a 1960 electoral map how you think the race would go with

John Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson
Richard Nixon/Thurston Morton

[johnpressman]

I'd love to do a map, Winfield.  Can you show me how?

[Lincoln Republican]

John

Click reply for thread you want to reply to
Click EVCALC (electoral vote calculator)  This brings up the electoral maps
Click calculator for another year if you want another year.  If you don't click calculator for another year, you will be using the 2004 map
Pick your year, in this case 1960
Click retrieve
Make any changes you want by clicking beside each state name
Click show map link
Left click 3 times on the map link
Right click
Left click copy
Click red X in corner to get rid of link
Click back button to reply box
Right click in box
Left click paste 

There's your map 

[RJ]

Kennedy was a darkhorse who came on late in the nomination process in 1960. Johnson was the odds on favorite for ythe longest time in that race. If Johnson had been the Democratic nominee in 1960, the Democrats would have lost the election.

That being said, I'm not so sure Johnson "won the election" for Kennedy. It certainly helped, but Kennedy still could have won woth an average candidate as the VP.

[johnpressman]

JFK was anything BUT a dark horse candidate in 1960.  His (unsuccessful) floor fight for the 1956 Vice Presidential Nomination and his stirring speech urging unity, kick-started his campaign.  His landslide re-election victory 1n 1958, his Pulitzer Prize for "Profiles In Courage", his primary victories over Humphrey, etc.,  made him the front-runner from the start of the race.

Johnson's campaign was a late-starting, behind the scenes effort, largely focusing on attacking and stopping Kennedy.  ANY Presidential candidate from south of the Mason Dixon Line was a longshot in 1960, and LBJ knew it, portraying himself as a Westerner!

As for Johnson's contribution to JFK's win, consider this; with JFK being a  strong pro-Civil Rights Catholic rich man's son from Massachusettes, how would he have won Texas, North Carolina or South Carolina without LBJ? As it was, even with Johnson on the ticket, Democratic Electors in Mississippi and Alabama bolted, voting for Harry Byrd.  Without LBJ on the ticket and his strong regional campaign, Nixon would have won crucial Southern states coupled with more Democratic Electors joining the mini-revolt, losing JFK the election.
 

[gorkay]

I agree that LBJ was Kennedy's strongest choice as running mate. Nixon was hamstrung in part by the fact that the Democrats had won the Congressional elections in 1956 and 1958 and also a majority of the governorships, which winnowed down his possibilities quite a bit. Rockefeller would have been the strongest pick, but he wouldn't accept the nomination. I don't think someone like Thruston (not Thurston) Morton, who wasn't very well known, would have helped him much. Christian Herter, who had tried to get Nixon off the ticket in '56, is another possibility.
Here's another hypothetical question about the '60 election. Kennedy barely got enough votes for the nomination on the first ballot, and it has been speculated that if he had been stopped on the first ballot, he may not have gotten the nomination. It has also been speculated that the main beneficiary of a Kennedy failure on the first ballot would have been Adlai Stevenson, who was the sentimental favorite of many delegates and the second choice of most of the delegates committed on the early ballots to other candidates. Suppose Stevenson got the nomination in 1960 and gave Kennedy the Vice-Presidential nomination as a consolation prize. How would they have fared against a Nixon-Lodge ticket?

[johnpressman]

That is an interesting scenario: If Kennedy had been stopped on the first ballot in 1960, who would have won the nomination and would they have won the general election?

I cannot see Adlai winning in 1960.  After two unscucessful tries, being out of office for eight years and the 1960 Democratic nomination having great value with Ike retiring, putting Adlai up  a third consecutive time (unlike William Jennings Bryan) doesn't make sense.  Adlai may have been  a sentimental favorite in 1960 but even Democrats are practical.  I also cannont  see Adlai offering the Vice Pressidential nomination to JFK and him accepting it.  There was too much bad blood between them.   JFK and Adlai had grown to hate one another, their political and personal styles rubbed each other the wrong way.

I would guess that Symington would have been a compromise choice in 1960.  LBJ would never win enough delegates from the eastern states that dominated the Democratic Convention in 1960. He would have been perceived as a regional candidate with little chance to win the general election at the top of the ticket.  Humphrey as too liberal and as a weak candidate after losing to JFK in the primaries.

Who would Symington pick for VP?  If he was smart, LBJ! 

[Dr. Cynic]

Well, if JFK had been stopped, the logical choice would be Stu Symington, who was rather colorless, but deeply respected. Stevenson would've made a great President, but his timing in 1952 and 1956 was just bad. Symington with the nod, he would've wanted someone with a bit more charisma... The logical choice would've been Kennedy, as Symington was from Missouri, he wouldn't need a southerner (LBJ) or a fellow midwesterner (HHH). A Northeastern running mate would balance the ticket.

In the general, I can see Symington winning out of his true integrity compared to Nixon's. Both men weren't really charismatic, so it would boil down to trust. The public would trust Symington over Nixon, in my opinion.

[johnpressman]

Dr. Cynic, I don't know if JFK would have taken the vice presidential nomination in 1960, even though he wanted it badly in 1956.  It's a hard one to call, as no one thought LBJ wanted the VP slot in 1960.  However, I still believe that LBJ was the best choice, as the Northeast was in no danger of voting for Nixon in 1960 and JFK's religon was a liability in the South which would be a battleground outside of Symington's reach.   LBJ helped prevent Texas, the Carolinas, etc. from voting Republican and JFK's absence on the ticket would probably switch Tennesee, Kentucky, Florida and  Virginia from Nixon to the Democrats as well as keeping the Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors from defecting.     

Why did JFK nix Symington as his VP choice?  In "The Making of the President 1960", JFK says that Symington and him were "too similar".  I don't understand this.  Symington was from the Midwest, more conservative than JFK, and MUCH older. 

There was a surplus of possible Democratic Vice Presidential choices in 1960 but a dearth of Republican possiblities to run with Nixon.  Who do you think Nixon should have chosen in 1960 and which selection could have made the difference in the election? 

[Dr. Cynic]

I dunno... It was just my gut reaction. When JFK said Symington was "Too Similar", he was thinking of views. Symington was not really a conservative, but a moderate. Their views on many vital issues mirrored one another. That would be my best guess to that one.

A good choice for Nixon would've been Nelson Rockefeller or Bill Scranton.

I think either of those running mates might've helped Nixon, and if he had, then Symington would need JFK in the Northeast. LBJ wouldn't have been a good balance for Symington at all.

[johnpressman]

I've got to disagree with you, Cynic.  Rockefeller would not take the VP slot with Nixon under any circumstances.  Nixon tried hard to persuade him, leading to the "Compact of Fifth Avenue".  As for Scranton, you must be thinking of 1964.  In 1959 William Scranton was appointed by Ike as an advisor to John Foster Dulles and Christan Herter, he first ran for Congress in 1960, winning the PA governorship in 1962.  Neither Rocky or Scranton were VP possibilities in 1960.

As for Symington, I still believe that the Northeast was in no danger of going Republican in 1960.  PA and NJ were close. but NY, MA, CT, etc were safely in the Democratic fold.  The Western and farm-belt states were safely Republican, that left the Midwest, Border, Pacific  Coast and Southern States as the battleground.  Symington, coming from a midwest/border state would need help in the South, where many states had defected to the GOP in 1952 and 1956.  Also, he needed a charismatic runningmate who would be a strong campaigner to offset his bland personal style.  LBJ all the way!!  1960 was an obvious Democratic year.  Kennedy's Catholicism was the deciding factor in making the election as close as it was.  Bringing him on the ticket would help Symington only in the Northeast and among ethnic Catholic voters in the large cities that were already solidly committed to the Democratic Party.

So, who could have Nixon realistically chosen to run with him in 1960 that could have made the difference against Kennedy/Johnson? Dirksen? Morton? Cooper? Ford? Judd?, it's an amazingly short list!

[Dr. Cynic]

But LBJ wasn't charismatic... He had a style, but it wasn't really charisma. I think if Nixon chose a more well known northern running mate, then the North would be in danger of being lost... I think Symington would've been strong enough to hold the South.

I think Rockefeller would've been Nixon's best option, getting along notwithstanding. Dirksen would've been the next best choice. Other than that, there really was no one, I agree.