What would it take to make Hubert Humphrey president in 1960? JFK not running? JFK losing West Virginia? Johnson actually running in the primaries? Say Humphrey wins the nomination, who would his vice president be? Lyndon Johnson? George Smathers? Claude Pepper? Who would Nixon choose? Lodge like IOTL? Judd? Ford? What do you think?
President Hubert Humphrey 1960.
- Thread starter rick007
- Start date
Given that JFK, one of the most charismatic politicians in U.S. history, barely beat Nixon I don't think that Humphrey would have won. He could have gotten the nomination if somehow the Kennedy campaign had screwed up in Wisconsin and/or West Virginia.
For both Humphrey and Kennedy the only route to the nomination was through the primaries to show that they had popular support and any defeat would basically end their chances.
Kennedy defeated Humphrey in the Wisconsin Primary and that ended any chance for Humphrey because he lost in a state that was next to his home state of Minnesota.
It was only because Humphrey did better then expected and the vote was more or less decided on religious lines that Humphrey decided to go to West Virginia to challenge Kennedy.
For Humphrey to get the nomination he would had have to beat Kennedy by a very large margin in Wisconsin and then win every other primary that he entered in.
Kennedy defeated Humphrey in the Wisconsin Primary and that ended any chance for Humphrey because he lost in a state that was next to his home state of Minnesota.
It was only because Humphrey did better then expected and the vote was more or less decided on religious lines that Humphrey decided to go to West Virginia to challenge Kennedy.
For Humphrey to get the nomination he would had have to beat Kennedy by a very large margin in Wisconsin and then win every other primary that he entered in.
If we did have a Humphrey/ Johnson administration my the Great Society/ war on poverty have started sooner. Could LBJ have remained master of the Senate as VP?
That's if he gets to be VP ITTL. Humphrey could choose someone else.
Even if Humphrey won the WV primary that would hardly make his nomination likely because so much of his support there was simply a "stop JFK" vote. As Robert Byrd put it, "If you are for Adlai Stevenson, Senator Stuart Symington, Senator Johnson or John Doe, this primary may be your last chance to stop Kennedy." https://books.google.com/books?id=mfYxUPyKPs0C&pg=PT343 (I think this may have backfired, because voters may dislike candidates who they see as simply stalking horses for other candidates.)
Last edited:
US was basically a dem country in 1960. Nixon came so close OTL because of JFK's catholicism. Any other dem besides some hardline dixiecrat probably wins easier.
Although I do think that on balance JFK's Catholicism hurt him more than it helped him (though there have been arguments about that) it doesn't follow that any Protestant Democrat wold have won. The Democratic majorty in Congress was largely dependent on southern whites, for whom Humphrey's close identification with cicil rights was troubling.
a cheap pod but kennedy dies of the infection he developed after his back surgery in 1954, he even fell into a coma and received the last rites otl. otherwise i think it would have been hard for humphrey to beat kennedy to the nomination
Perhaps HHH wins the primaries, but LBJ proves to be a more attractive candidate to the delegates at the convention? A Johnson-Nixon race would be interesting.
i don't understand why people think that without JFK, Nixon would be favored in 1960. It was after all a recession year (a mild recession, yes, but the second in two years), the GOP had been in power for eight years (only in 1988 in the postwar era did a party manage to stay in power for over eight years), and the Democrats were clearly the majority party (as shown by their edge in Congress.) Yes, JFK won the Catholic vote heavily, and much of it had gone to Eisenhower. But Ike's popularity among Catholics (and others) was a personal, not party , matter, and could not be transfered mechanically to Nixon. The Baptist Harry Truman had done about as well among Catholics in 1948 as JFK did in 1960. My guess is that without a JFK candidacy, any Democratic presidential nominee other than the divorced and dovish Stevenson would have won the Catholic vote decisively.
Moroever, there certainly are reasons to think JFK's religion hurt him at least as much as it helped him: How else does one explain how not only in many southern states but in border states like OK JFK acutally did worse than Stevenson had done against the immensely popular Ike in the year of peace and prosperity 1956? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oklahoma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_United_States_presidential_election_in_Oklahoma
This doesn't mean that the Demcorats were wrong to nominate JFK. Once he was a candidate and had won the WI and WV primaries, to reject him at the convention would look like it was done because of his religion and could lead to a Catholic backlash against the party. But if JFK were not a candidate, a Protestant nominee who was not terribly controversial--e.g., Symington--would IMO be favored to defeat Nixon.
bguy
Donor
Wasn't Symington perceived as much more pro-civil rights than Kennedy? (He refused to even speak before segregated audiences.) How's he going to do in the South compared to Kennedy's OTL performance?
Symington suppoorted civil rights but somehow--perhaos because of his reputation as a border-state moderate-liberal--did not have the reputation of a champion of the cause that Humphrey did. LIke JFK, he would probably lose some electoral votes in the Deep South to Byrd, but would I think as a Protestant do better in southern and border states less obsessed with the race issue, like TN (which Stevenson almost carried in 1956), FL, and KY
If Humphrey was elected in 1960 I wonder how he handles Vietnam (JFK did start to send troops there) I wonder who his VP would be and how they would handle it if he's shot in Dallas like JFK?