Daniel M. Shea - Presidential Campaigns: Documents Decoded

Daniel M. Shea

Brian M. Harward

Copyright 2013 by ABC-CLIO, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Shea, Daniel M.

Presidential Campaigns: Documents Decoded / Daniel M. Shea and Brian M. Harward.

pages cm. (Documents decoded)

Includes index.

ISBN 978-1-61069-192-5 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN 978-1-61069-193-2 (ebook)

1. Political campaignsUnited StatesHistory. 2. Presidential candidatesUnited StatesLanguage. 3. PresidentsUnited StatesElectionHistory. 4. Speeches, addresses, etc., AmericanHistory and criticism. 5. Communication in politicsUnited StatesHistory. 6. United StatesPolitics and governmentSources. 7. Mass mediaPolitical aspectsUnited StatesHistory. 8. RhetoricPolitical aspectsUnited StatesHistory. 9. English languageUnited StatesDiscourse analysis. I. Harward, Brian M. II. Title.

JK2281.S495 2013

324.70973dc23 2013006048

ISBN: 978-1-61069-192-5
EISBN: 978-1-61069-193-2

17 16 15 14 13 1 2 3 4 5

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook.
Visit www.abc-clio.com for details.

ABC-CLIO, LLC
130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911
Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Manufactured in the United States of America

Every reasonable effort has been made to trace the owners of copyright materials in this book, but in some instances this has proven impossible. The editors and publishers will be glad to receive information leading to more complete acknowledgments in subsequent printings of the book and in the meantime extend their apologies for any omissions.

Titles in ABC-CLIOs Documents Decoded series

Presidential Campaigns: Documents Decoded

Daniel M. Shea and Brian M. Harward

Death Penalty: Documents Decoded

Joseph A. Melusky and Keith Alan Pesto

Womens Rights: Documents Decoded

Aimee D. Shouse

The ABC-CLIO series Documents Decoded guides readers on a hunt for new secrets through an expertly curated selection of primary sources. Each book pairs key documents with in-depth analysis, all in an original and visually engaging side-by-side format. But Documents Decoded authors do more than just explain each sources context and significancethey give readers a front-row seat to their own investigation and interpretation of each essential document line-by-line.

Daniel M. Shea
and
Brian M. Harward

Documents Decoded

ABC-CLIO

Most observers knew that the 1960 race for the White House would be close. Democrats had an advantage in national voter registration numbers as well as in control of a majority of state and local elected offices. The New Deal Coalitionthe bundle of groups that had created a Democratic majority since the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932had a few cracks, but it was still strong. The Democrats were the majority party in 1960, yet Republicans seemed to have an advantage with the foremost issue, the ongoing struggle against communism, as the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was at its height. Many voters believed that the Democrats were stronger on domestic policy matters and therefore wished to leave Congress in their hands, but they also thought that Republicans were stronger on foreign affairs and national defense.

Taking a bit of a gamble, the Democrats settled on John F. Kennedy as their nominee. He was a young, dynamic senator from Massachusetts who had shown party leaders his tenacity in his aggressive campaigning. If elected, he would be the first Catholic president, which seemed to give these leaders pause in the early phase of the nomination process but did not seem to be a major issue as the campaign progressed. As his vice presidential running mate, Kennedy selected the Senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson of Texas. Many thought the so-called Boston-Austin ticket would be formidable.

On the Republican side, Dwight Eisenhowers vice president, Richard Nixon, secured his partys nomination after a divisive battle. Nixon had honed foreign policy experience and was also a good campaigner. He was perhaps a bit less charismatic than Kennedy but had been in the White House for eight years. Nixon also came from a critically important state for the electoral collegeCalifornia. Nixon then chose former Massachusetts senator and United Nations ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. as his vice presidential running mate. Together, Nixon and Lodge suggested experience, continuity, and a steady hand.

As the autumn campaign progressed, polling revealed that several states were going to be too close to call. As with all modern presidential elections, candidates focus their attention on swing states as the race comes to an end. Rather than aim to win more total votes than the opponents, candidates and their managers realize that the electoral college compels a focus on winning particular states. This is because of the unit rule, where the winner of the state is granted all that states electors (a system also called winner take all). The strategy is to amass, state by state, 270 electoral votes. Conversely, it makes little sense to spend resources campaigning in states where the outcome is more or less certain. In most presidential elections, candidates focus the lions share of their effort in about a dozen states. The same was true in the final weeks of the 1960 election.

But that is not the whole story. Two months earlier at the Republican National Convention in Chicago, Nixon had offered a pledge to the delegates: I announce to you tonight, and I pledge to you, that I, personally, will carry this campaign into every one of the 50 states of this nation between now and November the 8th. At the time it seemed to make sense, and the crowd cheered with approval. Nixon would be a president for all Americans, not just particular interests in particular states. He and his aides also thought that this pledge would build unity after a fractious nomination battle in Chicago. But by early November, it became clear that the pledge was a colossal mistake, as Nixon had neglected to visit a number of far-flung states scattered across the nation, including Alaska and Hawaii. Even with airplanes, visiting these states would take days and draw his attention away from the all-important swing states at a critical time. But because of his commitment to carry the campaign to each of the 50 states, Nixon had no choice. It was not until November 6just two days before the electionthat Nixon visited Alaska, officially completing his tour and living up to his 50-state pledge.

In the end, 1960 proved to be one of the closest elections in American history. Kennedy topped Nixon with 303 electoral votes to 219. But in the national popular vote, Kennedy defeated Nixon by just a 10th of 1 percent. More important, Kennedy had won a dozen states by less than 3 percentage points. In several states, such as Missouri, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Texas, Kennedy had won by less than 1 percentage point. In Illinois, Kennedy beat Nixon by a scant 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million castor a margin of 0.2 percent.