Talk:United States presidential election, 1960

Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

Colorized Nixon

For those who would complain that the Nixon pic is black and white, here's a colorized version I did.--Emperor Norton I (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC) http://imageshack.us/m/593/2203/colornix.png

That shade of blue for the jacket wasn't worn until the 70s, and even then, never by a politician like Nixon. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction/Bias in opening paragraph?

The opening paragraph contradicts itself - it states that several factors explain why the election was so close, yet it then gives a long list of reasons why Kennedy ran a superior campaign to Nixon, without ever detailing anything Nixon did right. Logically, if JFK ran such a vastly superior campaign, the results wouldn't have been close. So the rest of the paragraph contradicts the opening sentence. Either the opening sentence needs to be deleted, or maybe the paragraph needs to be rewritten to make it more objective and accurate in supporting the opening sentence. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Margin of Victory and Rounding Error

The vote totals are generally given as 49.7% for Kennedy and 49.6% for Nixon. This suggests a margin of victory of 0.1%. But, while the percentages are correctly rounded to one digit, the actual margin of victory was 0.17%, which rounds to 0.2%. I plan to change the way the figures are rounded to give more consistent numbers. This is complicated by the fact that the count given for Kennedy may be wrong. The article and the cited source give him 34,220,984 votes, but the National Archive article I found (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1960) gives him 34,226,731. However, I hesitate to just change the number, because the National Archive article I found gives incomplete results — it only includes Kennedy and Nixon. One or both figures may fail to account for the results of recounts, so this could get messy. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

re JFK's vote total -- there's a problem with Alabama--where Kennedy was not on the ballot but most of the Dem electors voted for him. Does he get the HIGHEST elector or the AVERAGE elector? Rjensen (talk) 09:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead Photo of Nixon

That lead photo of Nixon is from the late 60s or 70s when he was President. We should use one from when he was Vice President, even if it's black and white. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I keep putting the VP/1960 era Nixon photo up, and people keep playing tug of war with it, putting the 1973 Nixon there. I wish they'd stop. The photo I put up (and the one up as of this writing) is Nixon of this period. It is Nixon as VP. The photo they keep trying to put up is Nixon from 1973. THIRTEEN YEARS after the election of 1960, and very visibly aged and different. That photo gives the illusion that JFK was young and Nixon was this older statesmen, when they were roughly the same age, and is extremely misleading on top of being out and out incorrect and anachronistic.--67.240.156.83 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Morse and Brown as Serious Candidates?

Nowhere in any of the literature on the 1960 campaign have I seen Wayne Morse of Oregon and Pat Brown of California referred to as "major candidates" for the 1960 Democratic presidential nomination, yet they're both listed and described as major candidates in this article. In every book or magazine article I've read on the campaign they're listed as minor or favorite-son candidates who had no chance of winning the nomination. Theodore White's classic book names Humphrey and Symington as weak "major" candidates, and Stevenson, LBJ, and Kennedy as more serious "major" candidates. IMO, given the preponderance of evidence that indicates otherwise, they shouldn't be listed with Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey, etc. as serious contenders for the nomination, because they weren't.

Vice President Nixon ... In Color

I have an image of VP Nixon in color. However, I am unsure of the licensing which is why I did not bring it up until now. http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg39/scaled.php?server=39&filename=richardnixon.png&res=landing

If someone could find the licensing, and see if it's acceptable, then I believe it would be the proper-most image for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.156.83 (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's another http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/2533/nixona1.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.156.83 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Either of these would look better. Any movement on these? They look like official government photos. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)