In all the “what if” scenarios I’ve seen where JFK avoids getting assassinated, it is assumed that he would go on to win a second term(and in some scenarios, a third). Was a Kennedy reelection that much of a sure thing? What Republicans had a chance against him during that era?
Well, presumably not Nixon.
If Kennedy pressed ahead with civil rights legislation the way LBJ did, I think the chances of Goldwater being the challenger again are pretty good. Goldwater was so reactionary to civil rights that I think having Kennedy or LBJ is pretty much a wash. Also, if Kennedy gets shot but isn’t killed, I think his chances skyrocket; there’s nothing like a failed assassination attempt to pump your approval ratings.
GDP grew by something like 20% over the four years 1960-1964, unemployment was low, Kennedy’s party kept huge majorities in Congress during the '62 midterms. His average approval rating was 70% and it never went below 50. Assuming no major screw-ups, I don’t think there’s much reason to doubt he would’ve been re-elected.
What about the Viet Nam war factor? I know that there was tight control of the media during the first half of his first term, but would it have held until after the next election?
I don’t think it was in the bag. In addition to the normal Republican opposition, the civil rights issue was dividing the Democratic Party. Kennedy’s death created a wave of sympathy that helped the Democrats. If Kennedy himself had been running, I think he would have had a harder time of it.
But I think in the end, Kennedy would have won in 1964. Incumbents usually win and there were no overwhelming strikes against Kennedy. And Goldwater was an arch-conservative, which would have given Kennedy an opening to run against him as the moderate candidate of the center.
There were numerous scandals involving womanizing that could have bubbled to the service during the campaign-could he have kept a lid on those?
Things were well enough in 1964 that Kennedy was in good shape to be re-elected. He likely would have faced Goldwater as Johnson did and won just as handily. I don’t think Kennedy would have pushed through civil rights legislation before the election without substantial cover in the Republican party so that wouldn’t have been a factor. The economy looked strong, and there were indications of a better relationship with the Soviets. Even if Kennedy had increased involvement in Vietnam as Johnson did it hadn’t become the defining issue yet. And Washington had too many sexual skeletons in the closet among all parties to have any one become a campaign issue. Even if Goldwater wasn’t the Republican nominee it would have still been someone from the conservative end of the spectrum, so Kennedy may have lost a few more states than Johnson did against Goldwater, but not enough to make a difference.
Back then, yes.
The press just wouldn’t report it. They stuck to actual issues then.
In the recent film about FDR “Hyde Park on the Hudson”. There is a great bit near the end. The press with cameras are all standing outside waiting for the president. Now FDR was wheel chair bound and frequently was carried by a man from here to there. The man carries out FDR and sets him in the car. When FDR is in place and ready, then the press takes photos. Nobody takes of photo of him being carried. It’s just not done.
How on Earth could someone predict he’d win a 3rd term when there was no 2nd term to gauge?
How on Earth could someone predict he’d win a 3rd term when the 22nd Amendment had already banned them?
It’s astonishing to realize that Roosevelt was a public figure for twenty-four years after he was paralyzed, including twelve years as President. There were literally thousands of pictures taken of him - but only two pictures of him in a wheelchair exist.
Because LHO’s parcel of curtain rods fell out of the 3rd-floor window, bounced off the grassy knoll, caught on the bottom of a flying saucer, were knocked off on the gun turrets atop the Capitol and obliterated those lines of the Constitution.
WRT his womanizing, I’m sure you’re right. But what if it were his pill problem?
Probably that, too. It was the last era when personal and private applied even to the lofty personage of da Prez.
I think that if we should all pit Nixon to the utmost for anything, it’s for shattering the shell of respect for the office of the presidency. As much as I believe in transparency and open government and right to know… I think we’d be better off if even the President could maintain a bubble of privacy, personal distance and respect.
Call me naive, but I can’t see how a President keeping his personal life private has a downside.
In 1964?
The US was not that heavily involved in Vietnam so it’s really doubtful that it would have been that much of an impact, particularly when facing a challenger who joked about “lobbing one into the men’s room at the Kremlin.”
I sort of figured that everyone knew about his womanizing, and just didn’t care.
Would Kennedy have even faced Goldwater if there had been no Civil Rights Act? I thought Goldwater was reacting strongly to the Civil Rights movement. Honestly, if Kennedy hadn’t put through the Civil Rights Act, you probably wouldn’t see the huge realignment away from the Dixiecrat norm that had dominated Southern politics since the Civil War.
I agree Kennedy wouldn’t have pushed for civil rights the way Johnson did. In my opinion, Kennedy would have stopped before splitting the party over the issue. Johnson, through a mix of real belief in civil rights and personal egotism, pushed on.
I think the split in the Republican Party would still have been there. Like the Democrats, the Republicans had a growing split between the left and right wings of their party - with Rockefeller leading one side and Goldwater leading the other. When Rockefeller’s campaign collapsed (ironically for personal issues although Rockefeller’s “sins” were minor in comparison to Kennedy’s) Goldwater was the only contender left.
BrainGlutton, the article you linked to may be correct, but I question this part:
Since mood disorders are generally non-psychotic, I question the use of an anti-psychotic drug. But I’m not a doctor and I’m unsure of how extreme mood disorders can become.
The general public was unaware of his daliances with women. It was just unthinkable. Perfect wife. Perfect little kids.
He was an enormously popular president and it was generally assumed that he would be reelected. He and Goldwater had considered actually campaigning together if Goldwater ran against him. They would present differing sides of the issues at their campaign stops.
Everything seemed a little more civilized back then. People trusted presidents more.
His death just threw those of my generation who were young adults at the time.
Pretty much as **Nemo **said, and I indicated in my post, Kennedy wouldn’t have pushed as hard on civil rights, and he still would have faced someone from the conservative end of the party. Nixon’s loss guaranteed that, he wasn’t considered conservative enough by the GOP. I don’t think Rockefeller had much of a chance. He represented the northeast Country Club image of the Republicans that were losing their hold on the party and still have never regained it.
Of course all of this presumes there were no disastrous economic or world events. Kennedy’s death knocked a lot of the timeline out of kilter for a while and had a lasting impact. The USSR was worried about being blamed for the assasination and may have been somewhat subdued in pushing the Cold War at that point. Internally some things like the success of the space program may have been stimulated by the assasination. However, the economy was quite strong and it took profligate spending by Johnson to start the tail spin that wouldn’t become clear until after he left office.