Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
charlesbensham

"What if" scenarios

Recommended Posts

I have not posted before but have been working on a fantasy "What if" scenario and I am wondering whether it is of interest to others. I have adapted someone's existing effort so I hope that there are no copyrights on any of these things.

My scenario is...

What if Lee Harvey Oswald had missed!

The year is 1964 and President Kennedy is seeking re-election against Goldwater! The numbers are close and with Goldwater's views on the potential use of Nuclear Weapons in Vietnam the whole world is looking on to see if a new and dangerous era is about to begin!

Would people be interested?

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe you could consider whether the gop would put up such a radical against jfk

i cant defend it but maybe they would have gone with the moderate-liberal rockefeller or the center-right governor scranton. maybe they would have seen them as being able to rival jfks appeal... i dunno

also i think, pending some major scandal or catastrophe, jfk would have slaughtered goldwater

lbj beat him 486-52 without the charm, youth, and personality

just a thought, otherwise, it sounds like a cool scenario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good but I'd rather have one with RFK running for President instead of LBJ in 64 or perhaps his second term run in 72 (if he hadn't died and had beaten nixon in 68) Or the primary between LBJ and RFK in 64. can you tell I like RFK and don't like LBJ? lol. anyways, that's my suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have thought about RFK in 1968 and may well work on that when I get the time. I would appreciate any ideas particularly from RFK fans LOL.

As for Goldwater, whether he would have been selected is an interesting suggestion and I am working on adding some additional candidates from the primaries that year.

It is worth noting that JFK's popularity was suffering and was part of the motivation behind the visit to Dallas in the first place. The Johnson election in 1964 was effected by the swing that always comes following an event like the assassination and the concept amoung people who believe in democracy that while they may wish to replace their politicians it is done by the power of the pencil on the ballot paper rather than by the bullet from a gun.

The thing I like about these "What if" scenarios is that it is pure opinion and therefore we can all be right!!!

For your information I have been working on another one which involves "What if" the Confederate States were to get sudden independence. 17 states plus Puerto Rico for the new CSA. Currently working on who would be the leading figures in such a scenario.

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, people label Kennedy as the greatest president of the 1900's...

Had Nixon faced Kennedy in 64, Kennedy would have lost, or it would have been even closer than 1960...

He is overrated because he was killed...

Rosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were much more popular...

Had Reagan, Clinton, Eisenhower been killed, they would have been more famous and respected than Kennedy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude are u crazy? first thing Nixon wasn't going to run in 64 because he knew Kennedy couldn't be beat (y do u think he didn't run). thanks to Kennedy Nixon didn't even win i think either governor or a senate seat in his own state. second Kennedy pretty much stopped world war 3 during the Cuban missile crisis. third he took steps in civil right that his predecessor choose not to deal with. Kennedy wasn't the greatest president of the 1900s because he didn't have a second term but i think if he did have a second term he would have been the greatest.

now like i said about jefferson i don't think he was a great person personally and i do believe there was some foul play involved in the 1960 election but he was one of the greatest presidents ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on the civil rights. Kennedy was definitely fantastic there. and I also agree that he would have butchered nixon in 1964 (although I like Nixon more) however I don't think he "stopped world war III" as you put it. the Cuban Missile Crisis was just as much our faults as the soviets. and we made bigger concessions than they did just to appease them. and kennedy just spun it to be "they blinked first." Well I think most people could have handled that situation just as well and maybe better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"....Kennedy wasn't the greatest president of the 1900s because he didn't have a second term but i think if he did have a second term he would have been the greatest."

"....but he was one of the greatest presidents ever"

SSVegeta123243,

Which statement is it my friend?? Let's not "wear" flip-flops around hear. :) Just kidding. Glad to see everyone is well. Personally, I don't think Kennedy was the greatest. He was too imperialistic for me. Although and the Govt. did steer clear of WWIII, still, he is overrated, like my friend, YoungCTrep, said.

God Bless yall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although this has barley any standing on his role as president, JFL was basically a sleeze who treated Jackie like dirt...she knew he cheated on her, with many, many women

Plus the reason Nixon didnt run in 64 is beacuase LBJ was undeaftable, after JFK died...NOT because JFK was unbeatable...Get your fact straight, nixon would have beaten Kennedy in round 2....

LBJ would have beaten nixon.....

however if JFK was never shot Nixon could have beaten any democrat...see '68 and '72 .... '72 was a masacre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I do seem to have started something!!! I am, personally, a JFK fan who was ahead of his time in relation to Civil Rights and a number of other policies. However, being a good politician doesn't necessarily mean that you are popular and many Presidents (or Prime Ministers as I am a Brit actually) are more popular in hindsight than they are at the time.

An early and untimely death often sends a person to the position of greatness and almost sainthood. In Britain we have had a similar situation in relation to Diana, Princess of Wales. Interestingly, on the morning that she was killed some of the Sunday newspapers were carrying stories about her involvement with sleeze and an illicit relationship with Dodi al Fayad. Quickly the newspapers pulled those stories and since then hardly a bad word has been said of her.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with my original post but I like to think that it is at least of interest so I will email the scenario off when I get a chance to complete it and hope that you enjoy it.

By the way, Tim Henman is on a march to win the US Open! :D

Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, also why he beat an incumbent prez in his own party....

Reagan was much better prez than kennedy....

if you dont admit it you are too biased....

GHW Bush wasnt as good as Clinton....

And beating Monadale 60-40 is a a$$ whoopin'

R.Kennedy was very popular indeed, and could have beaten Nixon.... but Nixon didnt run in 64 becasue he knew it would be his last hurrah, and he had a 90% chance of losing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't say reagan wasn't a better president than kennedy (which he wasn't) i said if reagan ran against kennedy he would have lost. like i said before it's hard to compare kennedy's presidency with others because he didn't get his second term but i would say he had one of the best first terms ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude what are u talking about. I'm biased? tough reelection? Did u see how much LBJ won by in 64? do u think Kennedy would have done much worst? U make idiotic points with no logic behind them as long as they go with your view point. and Kennedy was assasinated because some crazy guy with a gun wanted to commit a political assasination. i'm not saying reagan was a bad president (he was the best republican president since ike) i'm just saying kennedy did more in his first 3 and a half years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright u tell me who was going to beat kennedy in 64 nixon wasn't going to run. and look in the mirror before u call somebody biased hard right because u fail to even consider anybodies views that differ from your own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

talk about me bieng biased and yet u say something foolish like "kennedy faced a tough reelection in 64". i've already said carter was an idiot and thats why reagan destroyed him. speaking of getting mauling i'm doing plenty of it on this board

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×