Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-10975360-20140428163406/@comment-32656-20140502112220

Kind of had to be like that with civil rights - lose otherwise. Known to have been more conservative about that than he had to be otl.

Medicare, doubtful.

Was not very successful with the Dems otl.

The 1960s, imo, would have been even worse that it was during his terms otl. Remember, domestic issues got him nearly impeached. Bet on the same happening, but faster, in the 1960s.

Wasn't content in 1960. Would not have been so in 1964, either.

Economy and Foreign Affairs matter less than you think - there are many more matters in perspective, domestically, to be concerned about.

RFK wasn't famous - JFK and Junior were. That's why they got the Presidency, and was Daddy's favorite, respectively - war heroes, too. Not so with RFK. Without becoming well-known in JFK's administration, he would have had to start from either the House or Senate (House more likely) first. And that takes time.

House for a couple terms starting in 1962, Senate either in 1964 to replace JFK, or more likely, opposing Republican Leverett Saltonstall in 1968.

Correct about Ted. Only time he seriously ran seemed forced.