Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-22-2015, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,977,918 times
Reputation: 2479

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
We've had a number of stimulating alternate scenarios in this forum, but I couldn't find one on this topic.

It needs to be remembered that both Nixon and his running mate Henry Cabot Lodge were moderates and maintained ties to the Eastern Establishment, and that at the time, the agrarian and small-community, small-business coalition that influenced Republican politics in the Midwest was on its last legs. Election of another centrist Republican ticket, combined with a continued, but moderated push on the civil rights issues (Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and I have no doubt that Nixon would have pursued similar policies) would have forestalled the emergence of a polarized conservative coalition. But with Nelson Rockefeller being groomed as a successor in 1968, it seems likely that the Democrats would have returned to power, possibly with less dominance in Congress.

There are many other possible side issues ;

A prolongation of the Cold War, since the agressive stance taken by Ronald Regan would not have emerged

A smaller wave of immigrants, since Lyndon Johnson's "reforms" of the 1960's would not have taken place

Less cultural polarization of the type that emerged in the mid-Sixties (although the "baby boom" generation would still have made itself felt, by the weight of numbers.

And all the issues arising from the civil right movement and shrinkage of the former white majority.

Finally, it would seem likely that the reconstruction of Europe and Japan would still have eroded the previous North American monopoly on intact industrial plant, leading to some of the same economic frustrations we are trying to deal with at present.

Ladies and gentlemen, please lead on.

I wonder if a President Nixon would have said " Before this decade is out, this nation should set the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" . Apollo was a huge and expensive project (Well over 100 billion dollars in todays dollar) that was planned to meet President Kennedy's goal of a manned Moon landing by New Years eve 1968 before Mr Kennedy left office. Given that Mr Nixon set much more modest goals for the nation in space (America did not go on to build a permanent base on the Moon or push off on to a manned Mars landing in the 1980s or 90s as recommended by Nixon's own Space Task Group headed by VP Agnew ) when he did become President in 1969. I think we might still be waiting for an American boot print on the Moon today some 50 year later.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-19-2016, 01:26 PM
 
1 posts, read 957 times
Reputation: 15
Some of Kennedy's appeal might have worked for Nixon. Although we remember JFK for his relative youth, Nixon only was 6 years older. Tricia and Julie were kids then and I think would have appealed as much as Caroline and JohnJohn. Pat Nixon was no slouch in the looks department, either. While I don't think she would shaped fashion to the degree Jackie did, who is to say. Nixon had a strong WWII background, also. I agree Nixon would not have put as high a priority on Apollo. I think you would have seen a more consistent civil rights policy. If Nixon won in 1960 and won re-election in 1964, I doubt JFK would have been President and given LBJ's health problems, I doubt he would have been. Lodge was too starchy to have gone to the White House. Carter, maybe. Ford-doubtful. Reagan I think would have made it, probably sooner. The Bush dynasty and Clinton I don't know. Nixon would have had an adversarial press, though not to the degree he had in his actual term. One thing that makes the water murky is the fact the he did succeed JFK and the Kennedy Presidency influenced him. Would he have been as active promoting the arts and would Mrs. Nixon have focused on White House renovations? Also I am doubtful there would have been an opening to China earlier. Could one imagine the reaction if one tried that in the midst of the Cultural Revolution? But isn't it fun to speculate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2016, 06:03 PM
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
6,105 posts, read 5,977,918 times
Reputation: 2479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Would he have gone to Dallas in Nov 1963?

Dick Nixon wouldn't of had to go to Dallas or anywhere in Texas since Texas in 1963 and 1964 was a Yellow Dog Democratic State whose Democratic Party (in this alternative Nixon won in 1960 world) would have been led by Senate Majority leader Lyndon Baines Johnson and his friend Ralph Yarbourgh (D-TX the junior Senator), the state Government was lead by Democrat John Connelly. and there virually no republican Congressmen. If Nixon had won election in 1960 it would have been without Texas. Nixon would have concentrated in making sure he won in California (with the help of an ambitious actor who was thinking of running for governor in 1966) , Nevada (friends like Senator McCarran ) and Oregon with the help of Mark Hatfield running for re-election for Governor in 1964). Nixon would have been more concerned about winning Illinois, Missouri and Ohio and pulling off that win in Florida that helped send Jack Kennedy to the showers in 1960.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2016, 09:50 AM
 
7,577 posts, read 5,305,884 times
Reputation: 9443
He would have been elected President, and that is about all that anyone can say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-22-2016, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Earth
17,440 posts, read 28,540,053 times
Reputation: 7477
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
We've had a number of stimulating alternate scenarios in this forum, but I couldn't find one on this topic.

It needs to be remembered that both Nixon and his running mate Henry Cabot Lodge were moderates and maintained ties to the Eastern Establishment, and that at the time, the agrarian and small-community, small-business coalition that influenced Republican politics in the Midwest was on its last legs. Election of another centrist Republican ticket, combined with a continued, but moderated push on the civil rights issues (Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and I have no doubt that Nixon would have pursued similar policies) would have forestalled the emergence of a polarized conservative coalition. But with Nelson Rockefeller being groomed as a successor in 1968, it seems likely that the Democrats would have returned to power, possibly with less dominance in Congress.

There are many other possible side issues ;

A prolongation of the Cold War, since the agressive stance taken by Ronald Regan would not have emerged

A smaller wave of immigrants, since Lyndon Johnson's "reforms" of the 1960's would not have taken place

Less cultural polarization of the type that emerged in the mid-Sixties (although the "baby boom" generation would still have made itself felt, by the weight of numbers.

And all the issues arising from the civil right movement and shrinkage of the former white majority.

Finally, it would seem likely that the reconstruction of Europe and Japan would still have eroded the previous North American monopoly on intact industrial plant, leading to some of the same economic frustrations we are trying to deal with at present.

Ladies and gentlemen, please lead on.
The 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Act was popular, had wide bipartisan support, and only the Dixiecrats opposed it, why do you think it would have been different if Nixon had been president (presuming he would have been re-elected in 1964)?

The '60s counterculture was going to happen regardless, as was the rise of Europe and Japan.

If Nixon had won in 1960, there would not have been a Southern Strategy, and it's quite possible that the African-American population would be more evenly distributed between the political parties, like Italian-Americans are, rather than being overwhelmingly Dem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 09:25 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,471,413 times
Reputation: 24780
Default What if Nixon had Won in 1960?

ooh!

ooh!

I have a better one!

What if Orval Faubus would have won in 1960?

Think about the consequences!

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 10:44 AM
509
 
6,323 posts, read 6,999,048 times
Reputation: 9444
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
He would have been elected President, and that is about all that anyone can say.
I think Nixon was "elected" President in 1960. Unfortunately, for him they kept finding "new" ballots in Chicago!!

You would NOT have had the Cuban Missile Crises. Whatever, you think of Nixon nobody thought him a lightweight which was the impression of Kennedy outside this country.

Kennedy's ONLY achievement of significance was the moon shot. That might be enough to keep him from just being a footnote in the history books. I am not sure that Kennedy was all that hot about space. think it was more of a political manuver at the time. Nixon, might have done the same thing. I think the only thing we can safely say is that America really didn't care about space exploration once the Soviets dropped out.

Kennedy set in motion the Vietnam War.

THAT changed everything in this country. A horrible decision whose effects we are still dealing with almost 60 years later. It is interesting that Kennedy's death really fueled the opposition to the war that HE started and nurtured.

If you were to judge a Nixon Presidency in 1960....the question is how he would have handled Vietnam?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 11:08 AM
 
Location: near bears but at least no snakes
26,650 posts, read 28,563,001 times
Reputation: 50477
What an informative thread! Having lived through that era (my mother took me to see Henry Cabot Lodge the night before the election) I never really thought about this alternative topic. It was all about JFK and the counter culture from that day forward.

I wasn't old enough to vote but from what I could gather, Nixon would have been the better man for the job. I do remember the outrage when he lost and the screaming for a recount. Interesting observation that JFK only won due to his money! Also, we found out much later that his father's connection with the mob also helped him win. And those mob connections may have played a part in his assassination.

But, as I was in the right age group, I don't think the counter culture movement would have been so strong. JFK SPOKE to the young people, much as Bernie Sanders speaks to them today. It was to be the dawn of a new generation. "...ask what YOU can do for your country" was the challenging phrase from his speech that ignited our political fervor. He started the Peace Corps and a lot of us wanted to join up. It was all about making a better world.

So JFK turned us into activists who should get involved--something we had never even thought about before. It's up to US??? Young people heard his message, he united us and we forgot all about any Nixon or Lodge. Killing him off shattered our lives and our ambitions for a better world.

After that we had no leader, it was every man for himself. We got stuck with LJB and would have hated him no matter what he did, even if maybe he was just a scapegoat for the outrage we felt.

The murder of JFK created a vacuum and I think that vacuum was filled by the leaders of the anti war movement and other young leaders who had new, alternative ideas. It was like an explosion of causes and much of it was chaotic. None of it would have been needed if JFK had still been there leading us. There was much division between the generations now and even within the boomer generation.

If Nixon had been elected, I think things would have proceeded as usual. Continuation of Eisenhower ideas, nothing too radical or exciting. No counter culture, just a rather boring life as usual. The boomer generation would have made its impact felt somehow simply because of their numbers but it wouldn't have been anything radical.

I'll keep reading this thread; so far there's been a lot of interesting, intelligent opinions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,771,669 times
Reputation: 40161
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
I think Nixon was "elected" President in 1960. Unfortunately, for him they kept finding "new" ballots in Chicago!!
Nixon's associates scoured Chicago for votes. They found almost as many Nixon overcounts as those for Kennedy, and nowhere near enough net to have turned the state in Nixon's favor. Also, legal challenges to the votes were heard by numerous local, state and federal boards and judges of all political stripes. In every case, the ruling was that Kennedy had won Chicago. So now you're basically telling us that it was a vast bipartisan conspiracy to deny Illinois to Nixon. And your evidence for this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But you've heard it repeated so many times, you assume it's true.

Oh, and Kennedy won the Electoral College 303-219. Now, let's just pretend you're not just blowing smoke and give the 27 Illinois Electors to Nixon. Do the math. (here's a hint - it still doesn't add up to a Nixon victory)

Quote:
You would NOT have had the Cuban Missile Crises. Whatever, you think of Nixon nobody thought him a lightweight which was the impression of Kennedy outside this country.
Because you think Nixon administration demonstrated that communists just shrunk in abject terror from Richard Nixon? Uh huh. I think your familiarity with the Nixon Presidency is right up there with your understanding of the 1960 election.

Quote:
If you were to judge a Nixon Presidency in 1960....the question is how he would have handled Vietnam?
We know the answer to that. He pursued 'peace with honor', which was a euphemism for pulling out but not before enough bellicosity and delay that his reelection chances weren't hurt. Oh, and the 20000+ dead GIs that happened before he got around to winding things down? Just the price of doing political business.

By the way, the fact that you simultaneously insist that Nixon would have struck such fear in the hearts of communists that Khruschev would have never dared put missiles in Cuba, while also blithely dismissing the Domino Effect and letting the communists have South Vietnam, is utterly nonsensical. You should try and make sure that your various Nixon apologia aren't contradictory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2016, 11:46 AM
509
 
6,323 posts, read 6,999,048 times
Reputation: 9444
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
What an informative thread! Having lived through that era (my mother took me to see Henry Cabot Lodge the night before the election) I never really thought about this alternative topic. It was all about JFK and the counter culture from that day forward.

I wasn't old enough to vote but from what I could gather, Nixon would have been the better man for the job. I do remember the outrage when he lost and the screaming for a recount. Interesting observation that JFK only won due to his money! Also, we found out much later that his father's connection with the mob also helped him win. And those mob connections may have played a part in his assassination.

But, as I was in the right age group, I don't think the counter culture movement would have been so strong. JFK SPOKE to the young people, much as Bernie Sanders speaks to them today. It was to be the dawn of a new generation. "...ask what YOU can do for your country" was the challenging phrase from his speech that ignited our political fervor. He started the Peace Corps and a lot of us wanted to join up. It was all about making a better world.

So JFK turned us into activists who should get involved--something we had never even thought about before. It's up to US??? Young people heard his message, he united us and we forgot all about any Nixon or Lodge. Killing him off shattered our lives and our ambitions for a better world.

After that we had no leader, it was every man for himself. We got stuck with LJB and would have hated him no matter what he did, even if maybe he was just a scapegoat for the outrage we felt.

The murder of JFK created a vacuum and I think that vacuum was filled by the leaders of the anti war movement and other young leaders who had new, alternative ideas. It was like an explosion of causes and much of it was chaotic. None of it would have been needed if JFK had still been there leading us. There was much division between the generations now and even within the boomer generation.

If Nixon had been elected, I think things would have proceeded as usual. Continuation of Eisenhower ideas, nothing too radical or exciting. No counter culture, just a rather boring life as usual. The boomer generation would have made its impact felt somehow simply because of their numbers but it wouldn't have been anything radical.

I'll keep reading this thread; so far there's been a lot of interesting, intelligent opinions.
I think your right on JFK turning the country into activists.

But JFK was pretty committed to the Vietnam War. He even overthrew the government there in an attempt to "win" the war.

What are your thoughts IF Kennedy had lived and continued the war?? Would the kids have lined up to sign up for the military to fight in Vietnam??

I was living in Berkeley when Nixon started the draft lottery. It was amazing how many people lost interest in the Vietnam War at the point.

On other issues:

One thing about Nixon is that his administration signed into law ALMOST All the major environmental laws in this country. IF he had been elected in 1960 I am not sure that would have happened. In fact, reading books by Nixon and on his administration it is difficult information on WHY this happened.

Nixon is the "most environmentally significant" President in the history of this country!! Inquiring minds want to know why??

Unsettomati.....did you read Kruschev's, Kissinger's and Nixon's books?? Nixon wrote a pile of books it would be interesting for someone to sit down and do a timeline on his views.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top