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.
Joe Kennedy was a rum-running whoremonger who was simpathetic to the nazis while serving as ambassador to St. James Court. He also had his daughter lobotomized.
Bad rap? Nah.
He was ambassador to the UK, then got rid of. The successor Winant was some guy.
He would have been re-elected in a heartbeat. No doubt about it. He was going to drop LJB, whom he loathed and had only chosen as VP to get elected in the first place.
There was an air of excitement in those days, of optimism, that we had finally got it right. FINALLY. He was going full force against the mob and he was for equality for blacks, he wanted to make life fair for all Americans, no more poverty.
The Kennedys brought class and glamor and hope. Things were getting better by leaps and bounds. But apparently he stepped on too many toes. If he had been more careful he would have still been around at election time.
Last edited by in_newengland; 02-19-2019 at 07:16 PM..
In 1960 John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon by what was the narrowest margin in the 20th century, 49.72% to 49.55% by popular vote and Electoral vote 303 (22 states) to 219 (26 states)
Popular vote 34,220,984 to 34,108,157.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85
if he wasn't assassinated.
LBJ ran a tank over Barry Goldwater in 1964 who won only 6 states primarily because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. In 1964 it had been 32 years since an incumbent President lost a re-election campaign. Incumbency gives you a massive advantage. The death of JFK had such a huge impact on our culture, that it is difficult to imagine history without it. But AFAIK his popularity was very high, so I would say probably he would have beat Goldwater just as easily as LBJ.
In 1960 John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon by what was the narrowest margin in the 20th century, 49.72% to 49.55% by popular vote and Electoral vote 303 (22 states) to 219 (26 states)
Popular vote 34,220,984 to 34,108,157.
LBJ ran a tank over Barry Goldwater in 1964 who won only 6 states primarily because of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. In 1964 it had been 32 years since an incumbent President lost a re-election campaign. Incumbency gives you a massive advantage. The death of JFK had such a huge impact on our culture, that it is difficult to imagine history without it. But AFAIK his popularity was very high, so I would say probably he would have beat Goldwater just as easily as LBJ.
At that time the USA was ready to move forward. We had the war behind us, we had peace and quiet (and boredom) with Eisenhower, it was time for something to happen, some progress.
JFK gave us that opportunity to move forward. He even gave us the Peace Corps so that young people could play a part in making the world a better place. He drew us all in, he brought us together. I wouldn't have voted for him but once he was president, it was like electricity. We all wanted to run with it, we were on our way. I would have been old enough to vote for his second term and I hate that they had him killed, took our dreams from us. This country wouldn't be in the mess it is today if JFK hadn't been killed. We're still fighting today for things he would have done for us a long time ago. The times are wrong now but the times were right back then.
He would have been re-elected in a heartbeat. No doubt about it. He was going to drop LJB, whom he loathed and had only chosen as VP to get elected in the first place.
There was an air of excitement in those days, of optimism, that we had finally got it right. FINALLY. He was going full force against the mob and he was for equality for blacks, he wanted to make life fair for all Americans, no more poverty.
The Kennedys brought class and glamor and hope. Things were getting better by leaps and bounds. But apparently he stepped on too many toes. If he had been more careful he would have still been around at election time.
Revisionist history at best.
The only thing I agree with is that JFK would have been reelected.
1. It was Bobby Kennedy that didn't like Johnson. JFK was far more neutral about him. In 1960, Bobby famously asked Johnson to take his name off the ticket as VP. Johnson correctly told Bobby that if JFK didn't want him on the ticket he would have to ask himself. JFK made no such request. Johnson was given a number of assignments as Vice President and performed well in them. He was active in promoting the space program. He worked with Congress on behalf of JFK. He went on a trip to Asia that built good will for the USA. In November 1963, LBJ went down to Texas as part of a campaign to build support for the coming presidential race in 1964. They were concerned about Texas. The state had been drifting to the right under Governor John Connally. Before that fateful day in Dallas, the two rode in an open car in parades in San Antonio and I believe Austin. Frankly, under these circumstances removing Johnson from the ticket was unthinkable. JFK was politically savvy enough to understand LBJ was a valuable asset.
2. JFK wanted a civil rights bill and an end to poverty. The problem was he was extremely ineffective as a president in getting his agenda through Congress. Its one thing to give a charismatic speech to the American people. It was a totally different thing to work with 535 legislators from different parts of the country and different political persuasions. The reality was that JFK's legislative record was dismal. Civil rights had not passed the Congress. There was no war on poverty being created as was done under Johnson a year later.
3. Things were getting better by leaps and bounds, but it was largely the result of an economy where America faced little foreign competition. From 1945 through about 1973, the American economy raced along on steroids. JFK got credit for that as did President Eisenhower.
4. We will never agree on the Kennedy Assassination. Suffice it to say that many people--like myself--believe Oswald acted alone.
5. People say JFK brought "glamor and class" to the presidency. I've never understood why this was important. Maybe I am too practical a person, but I far prefer the practical achievements of Johnson during the first two years of his presidency.
I suggest anyone who wants to really understand this period and Johnson's relationship to JFK ought to read the latest Robert Caro book about Johnson entitled Dallas: November 22, 1963. Many myths are dispelled.
Suffice it to say that many people--like myself--believe Oswald acted alone.
If the very strong evidence put by this British made documentary was presented in a trial of Oswald, he would have walked out free. Even De Gaulle mocked the Warren report.
This doc' goes into the Corsican link. The French say the alleged killer, Sarti, was in prison at the time. Some say that was a French cover up to save embarrassment. If the Corsicans were not involved, much of the documentary strongly points to an organised coup de tat.
The only thing I agree with is that JFK would have been reelected.
1. It was Bobby Kennedy that didn't like Johnson. JFK was far more neutral about him. In 1960, Bobby famously asked Johnson to take his name off the ticket as VP. Johnson correctly told Bobby that if JFK didn't want him on the ticket he would have to ask himself. JFK made no such request. Johnson was given a number of assignments as Vice President and performed well in them. He was active in promoting the space program. He worked with Congress on behalf of JFK. He went on a trip to Asia that built good will for the USA. In November 1963, LBJ went down to Texas as part of a campaign to build support for the coming presidential race in 1964. They were concerned about Texas. The state had been drifting to the right under Governor John Connally. Before that fateful day in Dallas, the two rode in an open car in parades in San Antonio and I believe Austin. Frankly, under these circumstances removing Johnson from the ticket was unthinkable. JFK was politically savvy enough to understand LBJ was a valuable asset.
2. JFK wanted a civil rights bill and an end to poverty. The problem was he was extremely ineffective as a president in getting his agenda through Congress. Its one thing to give a charismatic speech to the American people. It was a totally different thing to work with 535 legislators from different parts of the country and different political persuasions. The reality was that JFK's legislative record was dismal. Civil rights had not passed the Congress. There was no war on poverty being created as was done under Johnson a year later.
3. Things were getting better by leaps and bounds, but it was largely the result of an economy where America faced little foreign competition. From 1945 through about 1973, the American economy raced along on steroids. JFK got credit for that as did President Eisenhower.
4. We will never agree on the Kennedy Assassination. Suffice it to say that many people--like myself--believe Oswald acted alone.
5. People say JFK brought "glamor and class" to the presidency. I've never understood why this was important. Maybe I am too practical a person, but I far prefer the practical achievements of Johnson during the first two years of his presidency.
I suggest anyone who wants to really understand this period and Johnson's relationship to JFK ought to read the latest Robert Caro book about Johnson entitled Dallas: November 22, 1963. Many myths are dispelled.
They both didn't like Johnson and Johnson was slime. But JFK knew that he needed Johnson in order to win.
To repeat what I already said: the time was right. We'd had the war and then the boring Eisenhower years and it was time for something to happen. Things were going well. JFK deserved what credit he got because he had new ideas and yes, it does matter how it is presented to the American people. His speeches brought us together. It's like Reagan--lousy president, "trickle down economics" but he presented it well and people fell for it. Or even Trump with his hollering and name calling--it carries well with a certain segment of the population.
I know you won't read it, but "JFK and the Unspeakable. What Happened and Why it Matters." and it matters because it was an example of what Ike warned us about--beware of the military industrial complex. CIA is owned by big bankers wanting profits from wars. If Kennedy had been 100% Go on the military and wars, he would have been around for the next election.
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.
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.
