What if Stuart Symington as VP in '60, President after Nov. 22, 1963

[DTF955Baseballfan]

I didn’t see any what-ifs in seatching on Stuart Symington as President?

Had JFK picked him, he’d probably still have won, I think. Symington didn’t want to speak to segregated crowds according to Wikipedia, which doomed him for the VP slot, but what if he’s just a little more willing to keep his real views hidden for a while.

How does a President Symington handle things in ’64 onward? Let’s figure LBJ’s still in the Senate, which I’ve no doubt he would be, possibly even hoping to get the VP nod in ’64.

[DTF955Baseballfan]

Well, I'll post one comment just to add some info, I imagine not many know of Symington; I only know what I've read lately in this what-if.

Symington made a name for himself standing up to Sen. McCarthy in 1954. He also was a major hawk on Vietnam at first, who turned into a major dove.

Now, what I'm wondering is, after the debacle of the '66 elections, when the Democrats probably still lose huge numbers of seats, does he decide that both public opinion has turned against it and the possibility of winning has evaporated? How do things work for him if he pulls out by 1/1/1968 or so? Remember, JFK is probably still shot because he'd have even more reason in this TL to need to shore up Southern support. And, Symington, like LBJ, could run again in '68, as it wouldn't be 10 full years from 11/22/63.

I'm thinking LBJ turns down the '64 VP figuring he'd have a better chance at the Presidency in '68, when he's only 60. However, while he might challenge Symington, he'd have been just as hawkish on Vietnam earlier.

Who does Symington pick as his VP in '64? Humphrey perhaps?

I would be a close convention race in '68, but I think if Symington's won otherwise, it becomes like Ted Kennedy in 1980. Interestingly, this leaves RFK possibly alive to run in '72 or '76.

OTOH, RFK might still anger Sirhan Sirhan over his support of Israel - I think that's why he shot him, IIRC. Because, Symington might even pick RFK in '64 as VP, and I think RJK would still run as a compromise if he saw Symington as too vulnerable, and LBJ as too liberal. (Not sure that he would, it seems RFK's political ideas were still being formed, remember that he was quite young at the time.)

Or, does anyone think Symington would have chosen a different road? Or maybe JFK's not in Dallas that day in this TL.

[Wendell]

Kennedy quite possibly could have lost without Johnson to deliver Texas and other states.

[Tgibbs]

This is interesting, because Symington probably doesn't help Kennedy carry any additional states. Kennedy carried Missouri and Illinois narrowly. Symington might help Kennedy increase his margin in both states, but that doesn't help any in the Electoral College. And I doubt Symington helps Kennedy carry the staunchly Republican Great Plains states (Kansas, Nebraska, etc.)

The Kennedy-Symington ticket probably doesn't carry Texas. But by itself, that doesn't make the difference. Kennedy still wins, though it's a lot closer in the Electoral College. Any slip-ups anywhere, and Nixon wins.

If Symington did become president on 11-22-63, he would have more military knowledge than JFK or LBJ, because of his years as Secretary of the Air Force under Truman. He would probably pursue a different strategy. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Maybe he concludes the war isn't winnable earlier. Maybe he comes to the opposite conclusion and expands the war. We'll never know.

I doubt Symington picks Hubert Humphrey as his running mate in 1964, since he wouldn't need a fellow Midwesterner. He probably picks an Easterner. Actually, he'd be much more likely to pick Robert Kennedy than LBJ ever was. Maybe he picks a Southerner to offset Goldwater's strength in the South, like Governor Carl Sanders of Georgia or Senator Albert Gore, Sr. of Tennessee.

[Tgibbs]

One other thought: Kennedy might not even be in Dallas on 11-22-63 if Lyndon Johnson isn't vice president. Kennedy went there to raise money and to try to heal a split between the Johnson-Connally Democrats and the Ralph Yarborough Democrats.
Without LBJ on the team, Texas is not as important to Kennedy, he gets less money from there, and it's not as intregal to his 1964 winning strategy. Thus, he might not be there on 11-22-63, he doesn't get shot, and Symington doesn't become president anyway -- at least not then.

[Wendell]

This is interesting, because Symington probably doesn't help Kennedy carry any additional states. Kennedy carried Missouri and Illinois narrowly. Symington might help Kennedy increase his margin in both states, but that doesn't help any in the Electoral College. And I doubt Symington helps Kennedy carry the staunchly Republican Great Plains states (Kansas, Nebraska, etc.)

The Kennedy-Symington ticket probably doesn't carry Texas. But by itself, that doesn't make the difference. Kennedy still wins, though it's a lot closer in the Electoral College. Any slip-ups anywhere, and Nixon wins.

If Symington did become president on 11-22-63, he would have more military knowledge than JFK or LBJ, because of his years as Secretary of the Air Force under Truman. He would probably pursue a different strategy. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. Maybe he concludes the war isn't winnable earlier. Maybe he comes to the opposite conclusion and expands the war. We'll never know.

I doubt Symington picks Hubert Humphrey as his running mate in 1964, since he wouldn't need a fellow Midwesterner. He probably picks an Easterner. Actually, he'd be much more likely to pick Robert Kennedy than LBJ ever was. Maybe he picks a Southerner to offset Goldwater's strength in the South, like Governor Carl Sanders of Georgia or Senator Albert Gore, Sr. of Tennessee.

Texas and New Jersey were also narrowly won by Kennedy IOTL.