1960--LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies

by David Pietrusza

It was the election that would ultimately give America “Camelot” and its tragic aftermath, a momentous contest when three giants who each would have a chance to shape the nation battled to win the presidency.

Award-winning author David Pietrusza does here for the 1960 presidential race what he did in his previous book, 1920: the Year of the Six Presidents—which Kirkus Reviews selected as one of their Best Books of 2007. Until now, the most authoritative study of the 1960 election was Theodore White’s Pulitzer Prize-winning The Making of the President, 1960. But White, as a trusted insider, didn’t tell all. Here’s the rest of the story, what White could never have known, nor revealed. Finally, it’s all out—including JFK’s poignant comment on why LBJ’s nomination as vice president would be inconsequential: “I’m 43 years old. I’m not going to die in office.”

Combining an engaging narrative with exhaustive research, Pietrusza chronicles the pivotal election of 1960, in which issues of civil rights and religion (Kennedy was only the second major-party Roman Catholic candidate ever) converged. The volatile primary clash between Senate Majority leader LBJ and the young JFK culminated in an improbable fusion ticket. The historic, legendary Kennedy-Nixon debates followed in its wake. The first presidential televised debates, they forever altered American politics when an exhausted Nixon was unkempt and tentative in their first showdown. With 80 million viewers passing judgment, Nixon’s poll numbers dropped as the charismatic Kennedy’s star rose. Nixon learned his lesson—resting before subsequent debates, reluctantly wearing makeup, and challenging JFK with a more aggressive stance—but the damage was done.

There’s no one better to convey the drama of that tumultuous year than Pietrusza. He has 1,000 secrets to spill; a fascinating cast of characters to introduce (including a rogue’s gallery of hangers-on and manipulators); and towering historical events to chronicle. And all of it is built on painstaking research and solid historical scholarship. Pietrusza tracks down every lead to create a winning, engaging, and very readable
account.

With the 2008 elections approaching, politics will be on everyone’s mind, and 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon will transform the way readers see modern American history. 

A sampling of what Theodore White couldn’t chronicle—and David Pietrusza does:

·     Richard Nixon’s tempestuous Iowa backseat blowup, and his  bizarre Election Day road trip

·     The full story of a sympathetic call from JFK to Coretta Scott King

·      John Ehrlichman’s spy missions on the Nelson Rockefeller and Democratic    camps

·      The warnings before Election Day that Chicago’s mayor Daley would try to fix the race’s outcome

·       JFK’s amphetamine-fueled debate performance

Genres: History, Politics, Nonfiction, American History, Presidents, Biography, Us Presidents

544 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

David Pietrusza’s books include 1920: The Year of Six Presidents; Rothstein: The Life, Times, and Murder of the Criminal Genius Who Fixed the 1919 World Series; 1948: Harry Truman's Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America's Role in the World; 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies; and 1932: The Rise of Hitler and FDR—Two Tales of Politics, Betrayal, and Unlikely Destiny. Rothstein was a finalist for an Edgar Award in the Best Fact Crime category, and 1920 was honored by Kirkus Reviews as among their "Books of the Year." Pietrusza has appeared on Good Morning America, Morning Joe, The Voice of America, The History Channel, ESPN, NPR, AMC, and C-SPAN. He has spoken at The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, The National Baseball Hall of Fame, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, the Harry S Truman library and Museum, and various universities and festivals. He lives in Scotia, New York. Visit davidpietrusza.com

Reviews

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

I remember the 1960 election. I also remember watching the Democratic convention on T. V.

The book is well written and researched. Pietrusza goes into great detail about the events leading up to the debates and thereafter. I found the debates the most interesting part. Looking at Nixon from hindsight, I could spot warning signs in his behavior I did not notice at the time. Of course, the author was helpful to point that out. I found it interesting how this one election went on to effect three presidencies.

I read this as an audiobook downloaded from Audible. The book was eighteen hours and forty minutes. Jeff Cummings did an excellent job narrating the book. Cummings is an actor and the 2015 Audie Award Winner for audiobook narration.

[CoachJim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Years later, reading of another multimillionaire, Ross Perot, Rose Kennedy informed a grandson, “I read in the paper that he was going spend $100 million to buy the election. Your grandfather only spent ten.”
1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon by David Pietrusza (Page 406)

In this history of the 1960 presidential election you will only find people and events connected to the campaign or the candidates. The examination of those people and events is broad and deep.

This was an extremely close election and the author wonders why the race was “so damn close”. Kennedy seemed to do many things right and Nixon seemed to do many things wrong. The country was more Democratic than Republican, and while Kennedy was exceedingly charismatic, Nixon seemed shifty and was not well-liked. The author states that issues were not important, and that in the end voters liked Kennedy better than Nixon—but not by much.

The subtitle of this book is “The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies.” John Kennedy, the winner in 1960, would become a much-loved and respected president. A 2021 C-SPAN ranking by presidential historians has Kennedy at number 8. By becoming president after Kennedy’s assassination Johnson inherited the legacy of John Kennedy. It was this legacy that helped him win a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater in 1964. That gave him the mandate to produce the programs that were a part of his Great Society. Yet it was a problem he inherited from Kennedy that would become his downfall: Vietnam. Nixon would in 1968 again be involved in an extremely close election. This time he was the winner over Hubert Humphrey. However, his paranoid style of politics would eventually force him to resign the presidency.

This book and several others published recently have been attempts to counter the history first presented of the 1960 election in Theodore H. While’s Pulitzer Prize winning The Making of the President 1960 . White painted a very attractive portrait of Kennedy and helped spawn the image of the Kennedy administration as Camelot.

This author has written several books about U.S. Presidential elections. I have read his account of the 1948 election, and will probably read some of the others. However, his writing was not always crystal clear. On more than one occasion I had to re-read a sentence to understand what was said. In addition I thought his analysis was lacking. For instance, on the closeness of the election he does not offer a compelling explanation.

This is the first of three books on the 1960 election that I am planning on reading. Maybe these other books will fill in some of the blanks.

[Brett C · Rating 3 out of 5]

This covered the 1960 election of the three political figures: LBJ, JFK, and Nixon. The author did a good job with a brief biography of each figure leading up to that election year. David Pietrusza was able to focus on the various platforms, debates, Gallup polls, and various other focal points associated with the three gentlemen. Throughout the narrative explained the political climate of the 1950s and gave some little lead into the LBJ and Nixon presidencies to come.

The narrative also broke down the popular votes in various states (interesting to me West Virginia), the legacies of the FDR & Eisenhower administrations, the stances of Democrat & Republican, and the effect of the televised debates.

Overall this book covered a lot of material. I liked the book but it was not something I would go back and read again. Nonetheless, recommended to those interested in US politics of the mid-twentieth century. Thanks!

[Al · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Pietrusza’s thing is Election campaigns (well, he’s a baseball historian, too) and his break out book was 1920: The Year of Six Presidents.

He has since written a few books in this style. 1960 works quite well, since it launches Kennedy, Nixon and LBJ.

Pietrusza’s knack is to take the History and drop the reader into the middle. This is the stuff I particularly love. Instead of a dry newspaper retelling, we get to see the personalities and the complete picture with a human side. The benefit of writing this book 50 years later is that he has access to all the memoirs and stories to recreate the time.

Now the second part of this is that since we want the ‘good stuff’ - the human fallibility and all of the sins that come with it. That may give you the expectation of ‘sensational’ and with these three characters, that is surely tempting. If you read Bill O’Reilly’s JFK book, you might be picturing something similar.

But even when the book necessarily brings up Judith Exner, Sam Giancana or Richard Daley, the book sticks with what it knows of the facts. Indeed, asides of Eleanor Roosevelt, Billy Graham and Norman Vincent Peale may not show them in the best light, but fall in line with what others have revealed about them.

It is interesting to see how the primary system worked in 1960 and how nominees for President were picked. It is much different now. The Democratic question is mostly whether the nominee will be JFK or not. He isn’t particularly liked by the Party elders like Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Senators Lyndon Johnson and Stuart Symington have more support than most but certainly aren’t a match for JFK. Hubert Humphrey challenges JFK in the primaries and though he has energy, he is outmatched in every other way.

Adlai Stevenson is (rather passively) seeking his third straight nomination. With so many years passed, many of this generation (myself included) can’t understand why after losing two elections in a row, why he’d even be considered a third, but Pietrusza does a good job of explaining his appeal (not completely unlike Bernie Sanders).

Nixon has little competition- The liberal, rich Nelson Rockefeller on the left and the very early rumblings of the arch-conservative Barry Goldwater on the right. It is also worth noting that even though he was the Vice President, the sitting President Dwight Eisenhower does the bare minimum to help him

From there, we get a good overview of the race, a good time spent on the debates and a really fantastic story. We know who is going to win so the book doesn’t try to play off any angle there, but instead since we know the outcome, he focuses on how Kennedy’s lead disappeared and how JFK did everything right, Nixon seemingly did everything wrong and yet JFK only squeezed out the close victory.

As far as the book itself, this rivals 1920 in readability. Political junkies will love it.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a detailed account of events leading up to and culminating in the 1960 presidential election. Much attention is paid to the primaries, the conventions in Los Angeles and Chicago, the selection of running mates Johnson and Lodge, and the first televised debates. Having started with this material back when I was ten with White's 'The Making of the President 1960', I didn't find much new here except in the lengthy, but interesting, description of the debates, some of which I remember watching with my parents.

[Nick Bonnema · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

Spoiler alert: JFK wins the election, LBJ "wins" the veepstakes and Nixon loses (for eight years anyways).

While not as good as The Making of the President 1960 by Theodore H. White, this book benefits from being published decades after the election took place as opposed to a few months later. This provides a more historical perspective rather than on-the-ground journalistic perspective. Thanks to this there is a more in depth treatment of turning points that distinguish this campaign from previous presidential campaigns as the country entered the era of television and political campaign as spectacle.

Something that this books does as well as White's, and maybe better, is to make various observations on the racial and religious bigotry surrounding the 1960 election. Nixon here is a tragic figure, one who appears to have had a moral identification with the growing civil rights movement, but due to his overall lack of a moral compass he glossed over racial tensions and made dog whistle calls to the south in hopes of winning the presidency and outdoing Ike in the south. (Side note: boy did Ike have a lot of disrespect to shovel onto Nixon) Nixon later put his Machiavellian views on southern whites to full use with the 1968 Southern strategy, which fits together with a quote from LBJ in this book on the racism he saw in the south, "I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it, if you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." Unfortunately the politics of resentment are still with us today.

The most interesting part of reading both White's and this book’s look at the 1960 election were parallels to the 2016 election that I am still putting together. The discussion of the West Virginia contest between H.H. Humphrey and JFK in particular has stuck with me. This quote in particular seems important "...instead of identifying with the woman who was like them - Muriel Humphrey - they identified with the Princess. You could tell they wanted Jackie. They had a wondrous look in their eyes when they saw her." Many voters it seemed chose a version of who they wanted to be rather than identify with a politician who was running on a platform to better address their present needs and by background should have been better able to identify with them. Together with how many voters saw the candidates on television as "watching two rival suitors in a Hollywood romantic comedy", it seems that the election of 1960 was pivotal in ushering in a new political era more focused on soundbites than white papers and appearances than ideas. Yes, this book may bring out the cynic in you.

One major criticism I have of this book is that the author seems to shoehorn in too many of the more provocative JFK stories (and conspiracy theories) regarding infidelity and mafia connections, likely to differentiate this book from White's (and the dozens of other written about this campaign and these three historical figures). But unfortunately this takes away from what is otherwise a highly recommended book for anyone who enjoys the campaign genre, presidential politics, and exploring turning points in history.

[Shawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

As this is my third Pietrusza book, I think it's high time I thought about why his writing works for me. Clearly, it does.
I now have 1920, 1949, and 1960 under my belt - and for the record would be up for reading any more of this author's works. The one thing that marks these works is an extraordinary amount of detail drawn from a rich variety of primary sources. For many, I would fear that exhaustive historical detail would be off-putting. What makes these work for me (and I would hope for others) is the sardonic wit that the author weaves into his delivery. Whether examining the postwar race to redefine America in 1920 or 1949 or the more recent and well-covered battle between Nixon and Kennedy in some of the first televised debates, Peitrusza creates an engaging and well-narrated curation of electoral campaign life at the highest echelon of American politics. He tells the tale well. The author creates an original recitation of material, some of which may well be familiar, but presented uniquely and combined with some fresh and anecdotal chunks delivers a superb read.
Pietrusza has an evident knack for choosing lovely hinge points in American political history, as well as colourful characters.
This particular work is substantial, accompanied by a good selection of visual imagery and a surprisingly concise focus on the campaign itself. The author swerves off to give an appropriate background on the various characters. There is a substantial collection of characters - the dramatis personae introduce us all to them at the outset. Unlike many works where I might have skipped this, I made a point of reading through, leading to my only major criticism of this work. After going through the extensive list of people I am warned I will meet, I had a sense I knew the main point that the subsequent narrative would deliver. And alas, I was right. The author seems to have chosen a particularly pithy quote or opinion that defined the subsequent telling. As introduced, the author would repeat it in the narrative and the captions on each of the photos. This approach resulted in a recognisable and slightly irritating repetition of this magical key and defining point - pithy quote - defining judgments. The author seemed determined to drive home again and again and again. Did the author feel that readers are lazy and miss if he didn't repeat or deliver in different means? Did he lack confidence in his delivery or suffer a lack of respect of the reader? It's all good material, and the repetition didn't always feel like filler. Still, maybe I was a closer reader than the author expected. Dangerously, the repetition leads a reader to sense that these opinions become defining moments and possibly define the author's own opinion anchoring him to a unidimensional appreciation of the subject. This is unfortunate.
As far as the content is concerned, it fulfills its promise - with the exception of LBJ. 1960 is generally seen through the lens of the first debate of the 1960 Presidential campaign. It's about Nixon and Kennedy. Pietrusza adopts an appropriately substantiated position that the campaign had multiple dimensions behind this one defining event. The introduction of LBJ speaks to this promise. Although Johnson is discussed and his character analysed, the multidimensional aspect of this campaign falls by the wayside - possibly because Cabot Lodge is largely a non-runner and without a subsequent role has fallen by the historical wayside. However, the promise was made and from the reader's perspective, I would have to say that there was some unrealised potential here in exposing LBJ's broader role and how his subsequent career was shaped by this particular experience.
Pietrusza is readable, engaging, and colourful. I recommend the three books I have read thus far and would boldly suggest that they can appeal beyond those particularly drawn to political history. Lest one think my quibble might have put me off, I am off to choose a fourth read.

[Joseph Meyer · Rating 3 out of 5]

1960: two young men sought after the highest office in the land. John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Two names that need no introduction to most Americans, tho the events that made them so well-known are not until the future. It was a close election, the closest in modern history in terms of the popular vote. Some claimed fraud, others snapped back at the notion. It was the first election with televised debates. 1960 was the first modern presidential election.

David Pietrusza takes the reader through those tense months in 1960 and behind-the-scenes in the Kennedy & Nixon camps. His style is engaging and flowing, though it does get muddled some during the conventions with a flurry of names, meetings, etc. His star shines bright during the debates, the shining moment of 1960.

While it's never explicitly stated, it's noticed that the author does have a bit of a bias toward JFK in terms of approach & coverage within the book. In the whole book, probably 60% of it is dedicated to Kennedy, 30% to Nixon, and the remaining 10% to Johnson (why he was included in the title is somewhat intriguing to me considering he gets an opening chapter, and then only appearances in the rest of the book.) The author also seems to come at the story with a pre-disposition against Nixon, not commenting on whether it is correct or not, but that is the attitude I picked up from the book.

Regardless, the book is a good one to add to anyone looking to pick up presidential election history books. It provides insight into the campaigns, tho it does not really analyze the claims of election fraud or other irregularities (if such existed) with only brief explanations in rhe final chapter. I would recommend it, but I personally would not re-read.

[Anthony Bergen · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Review originally posted on Dead Presidents)

1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon - The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies
By David Pietrusza
Hardcover. 523 pp.
2008. Union Square Press

After the last of four historic Presidential debates in 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon shook hands with his opponent, Senator John F. Kennedy, and said, "It sure goes by fast, doesn't it?". 

As I was reading David Pietrusza's 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon - The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies (2008, Union Square Press) I found myself thinking the same thing: It sure goes by fast.

David Pietrusza writes history the way that novelists strive to write fiction.  Pietrusza takes a seminal event, introduces us to a broad, fascinating cast of characters, and ties together numerous stories filled with drama and even humor to create an exciting, addictive tale.  The most rewarding thing about it is that Pietrusza is writing about something that actually happened and that makes the story even more interesting.  He writes about something that is real and, in the case of 1960, Pietrusza is writing about an election featuring three of the most dominant politicians and leaders of the 20th Century -- an election which shaped the last half of the American Century and changed Presidential politics forever.

I flew through this book -- partly because I couldn't put it down and partly because it is supremely readable.  Pietrusza's research brings us amazing quotes, and the book features complex characters who are full of enough stories that it's easy to get lost in a book about each of them individually.  In 1960, these individuals are playing a part in the same drama and there is never a moment where you wish the author would switch back to something more interesting.  Every story he tells is interesting.

Among the bold-faced names which give 1960 an all-star cast are Nixon, Kennedy, Kennedy's running mate Lyndon Johnson, current President Dwight Eisenhower, Nixon's running mate Henry Cabot Lodge, Hubert Humphrey, Nelson Rockefeller, Bobby Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr., mobster Sam Giancana, Barry Goldwater, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, Martin Luther King Jr., Tip O'Neill, Harry Truman, Stuart Symington, Eleanor Roosevelt, Adlai Stevenson, Jackie Robinson, and more.  These are big names with big stories, and during the 1960 Presidential campaign they all played major roles.

One of the most interesting aspects of 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon is the ambition of the Kennedy family as a whole, which is matched by the ambition of Richard Nixon as an individual.  Kennedy family patriarch Joseph P. Kennedy is focused on getting his son, Jack, elected President in 1960 and he's willing to pay any price to do so.  Nixon is similarly focused on the Presidency, but he doesn't have wealth to back him up, charm to open doors, or the support of his mentor President Eisenhower to give him strength.  Nixon attempts to do it all on his own, and what is so shocking, even in retrospect, is how very close Nixon came to beating JFK in 1960.

Beginning with the battle between JFK and Hubert Humphrey in several state primary contests, the Democratic Presidential nomination comes down to a last-second challenge to JFK from Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas.  When JFK triumphs in Los Angeles and wins the nomination he astonishes everyone by offering the Vice Presidency to LBJ.  From there the campaign -- and the book -- takes off.

1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon is strongest when Pietrusza shares little-known backroom facts and inside secrets, as well as when he disputes myths that have surrounded the 1960 campaign, JFK, LBJ and Nixon.  We learn more details about JFK's unsavory connections with Frank Sinatra and, through Sinatra, Sam Giancana and the Chicago Mafia.  LBJ's insecurities as a leader and as a candidate are exposed.  The tenacity and abrasiveness of Bobby Kennedy are spotlighted.  Richard Nixon's strengths and weaknesses -- a foreshadowing of what would eventually finally get him elected President and then eventually topple his career in disgrace -- are obvious as he isolates himself and obsesses over campaign details while overlooking big-picture items.

All great historians are able to translate stories about events and facts into stories about people.  All history is personal, and David Pietrusza's 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon is a wonderful book about a transcendent event populated by extraordinary human beings who faced achievements and adversity, triumphs and tragedies.  We know what happened to John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon once they moved into the White House, but this is how they got to that point.  It's a story about America and Americans, and about how 1960 was a turning point for politics and politicians in this country -- the beginning of a New Frontier, a Great Society, and a Silent Majority, and the end of American innocence.

As I first learned with his previous book (1920: The Year of the Six Presidents) I love the way David Pietrusza writes history and this is a book about three of the Presidents who fascinate me most.  I highly recommend 1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon - The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies.  Get it at your local bookstore, Amazon, or through the Sterling Publishing website.

[Noah Goats · Rating 4 out of 5]

A month or so ago I read a book called American Maelstrom about the 1968 election, and this felt like a prequel. A lot of the same protagonists are involved: LBJ, Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and a bunch of Kennedys.

The 1960 election represented a shift from Ike's 50s to the turbulent 1960s. The country was given the choice between two relatively young men, both of them deeply flawed. Nixon was widely hated for being Ike's hatchet man, a red baiter, and a person who just seemed like a creep. Kennedy was handsome and had a sort of likability, but in this particular election Nixon was not the man running the most corrupt campaign. Liberals viewed JFK with suspicion (his family had significant connections with Joe McCarthy), and southerners weren't so sure about his Catholicism.

There were huge issues at play in the 1960 election: The Cold War, tensions with China, a faltering economy, and the civil rights struggle. 1960 was not as feverish as the Vietnam-fueled 1968 election would be, but there still seemed to be a lot riding on it. The possibility of nuclear war loomed over everything back then. It was the election of Eisenhower's remarkably tepid support for his vice president, the election of JFK's connections with the mob, the election where it was decided that a Catholic could become president of the United States, and it was the first election to feature televised presidential debates. There was a lot going on, in other words, and David Pietrusza tells the old story well.

[Kenneth Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have read 1920 and 1948 all by Pietrusza and now 1960, once again confirming my belief that he is a great historian and researcher. I was 15 years old when the Kennedy-Nixon debates were televised and yes, my family watched them. This book brings out all of the background information, the behind the scene fighting and political dirty tricks. It is an excellent book!

[Andy Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

A disappointing telling of the 1960 Presidential election. True, many books have been written about that campaign, but the author's premise was promising, telling it from the perspective of the three candidates who would eventually become President.

However, the author seemed to quick to make superficial comments to distinguish this narrative from the others--and they typically didn't add up. For example, the book dismisses Lyndon Johnson's father as "nothing but a drunkard" Every biography I have read has painted a complex picture of Johnson's father while acknowledging alcohol issues, many talk of his integrity, his alliance with Sam Rayburn in battling against lobbyists while in the state legislature. It was as if the author was more interested in being glib than being accurate

Another example is his quote of Clare Booth Luce in describing Wayne Morse after Morse opposed her nomination as ambassador to Brazil, that her difficulties with Morse started"when he was kicked in the head by a horse" While the quote was accurate it was used to describe a general consensus of feeling toward Morse, of course the use of the quote takes on a whole different context when you learn that Luce had to resign the job within a couple of days of the quote because of what she said. The book did not include the reaction to Luce's quote which is another example of author being more interested in being glib than being accurate.

The whole tone of the book was somewhat gossipy, while there were interesting tidbits such as a political argument between Frank Sintra and John Wayne, the triumph of gossip and glib over depth and analysis left me with a two star review for the book

[TrumanCoyote · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting style, but it paled a bit after a while. Don't get me wrong, injecting a little vigor and readability into political books is just what the doctor ordered (if only more of them didn't sound all terminally stodgy, like theses rotting away on some university shelf), but it was hard to know how to take his attitude sometimes. Like when he lambasts the supposed shallowness of the era of the TV presidential debate as "Government by gotcha." I mean, is he really that snide? Or is he that dense? Either way, it's a bit off-putting (and USA Today-ish), and I found myself not quite trusting him by the end of the read (this was incidentally enforced by the utterly pointless final chapter). At the start of things I found it perhaps refreshing to read a sentence in such a book like: "The day [JFK's] older brother Joe was blown to bits." Later on though it started to seem a bit gimmicky and cheap.

But of course it was a heck of a contest, and time (and all that). Particularly diverting was reading of Nixon's impromptu junket to Tijuana at the end of the campaign. The Trickster hardly got any wackier than that! (it was like the 1970 Lincoln Memorial dawn all over again, only it came first of course).

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is well-written and easy to read, and the author goes to some effort to be objective about all three candidates, as well as the others mentioned in the book. Unfortunately, this pursuit of objectivity results in the author sometimes telling events without helping us interpret their meaning or significance. Towards the end of the book, I could start to figure out the significance myself. Maybe I'm getting better at politics! Okay, maybe not.

For those who are not as familiar with John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, or Richard M. Nixon as they would like to be, this book provides a decent background and detailed coverage of the 1960 election, as well as super-quick references to future events you already have to be familiar with to understand. As I read this, I realized that none of the candidates should ever have been president, though ironically all three were. The level to which they were corrupt and/or mentally unstable was surprising.

[Shauna · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was fascinating. It's not something I'd typically read--I prefer fiction, and the nonfiction I do read is never related to politics--but I was taken in by the author's engaging writing style. It was at times a bit too distractingly metaphorical, but that made it all the more fun to read. I learned a lot about the election, and about the three candidates vying for presidency. At times the book may have been a little too thorough--I learned more than I ever needed to know about people I hadn't heard of--but as it presented a very detailed account of the events leading up to the election, I was okay with that.

My favorite (darkly amusing) parts: JFK proclaimed that the vice-presidency doesn't matter because he's young and isn't going to die in office. And, just before becoming vice president, LBJ said that one in four presidents have died in office and that he's "a gamblin' man."

[Mr. Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for fans of presidential campaigns and for fans of that era. Lots of interesting tidbits.

[Porter Broyles · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listened to the AudioBooks version of this book and I have to comment on that before I discuss the merits of the book itself.

The book talks about a very contentious period in our nation’s history. It was the age of civil rights movement and the transition from WWII to the Cold War. Language was much less restrictive then. By this I mean sexist language, racist language, and ‘colorful’ language that is no longer tolerated was the norm. The author of the book correctly incorporated this language in the book. He quoted people who used terms unacceptable today. As a historical work, this is important, it helps to understand the people involved and the culture of the times. To white wash this history does not serve us well.

Like I said, there is some sexist language in there and an occasional n-word. What you will not find, however, are any F-Bombs. The reason you will not hear any F-Bombs is because the producers deemed that word so offensive that they literally beeped it out. You can hear the narrator saying “F---beeep-ing” or “F-beep-er” so you know exactly what was said, but the language is heightened because of the annoying beep the producers had to insert into the audio version. Other arguably more offensive words/phrases such as “God Damn” or “Nigger” were left in the audio unaltered.

Like I said, I do not mind the language in the book, it helps to set the tone, what I did mind is the producer (audible?) accentuating a word by literally beeping it out. For this reason, I cannot recommend the audio version of this book.

As for the book itself?

Fascinating subject! It contains 4 extremely colorful personalities.

Lynden B Johnson---a Southern Texas Democrat who literally took pride in the fact that he was known to cheat in elections. He did what it took to get elected and did what was necessary to get ahead. A politician who earned the nickname “Landslide” because he arranged to have one county turn in their ballots late and he won that county by a “Landslide” which put him over the top.

Richard Nixon --- a Californian who was known for bending/breaking the rules to get elected---who early in his career earned the nickname “Tricky Dick” for election shenanigans. He later had to resign from the White House due to the Watergate scandal.

John F Kennedy --- a Massachusetts millionaire whose father would stop at nothing to get one of his kids into the white house. Whose father arranged to have a janitor run against his son because the Janitor had the same name as JFK’s primary opponent, thus creating confusion inside the ballot box.

Robert Kennedy – JFK’s brother who is known to be a colorful person and was a ruthless campaign advisor.

With these four individuals involved in the 1960 election what could go wrong? What bending of the rules might occur? What made the 1960 election monumental?

This book covers those questions.

The book was well written and enjoyable, I only wish that the author provided novel insight into the primaries--specifically the LBJ/JFK/Hubert Humphries primary. After the primaries it seemed a little rushed and , if you’ve read biographies on Kennedy/Nixon, rehashed. There was not much new to the JFK/Nixon campaign that isn't covered in every other book.

Still I rather enjoyed this book.

[Sylvie V · Rating 4 out of 5]

In 1960: LBJ vs JFK vs Nixon, David Pietrusza writes about the election of 1960 and its candidates. The book briefly covers each candidate’s early life and careers, then it jumps straight into the race. Each chapter title is a quote that is later mentioned in the chapter. There is a lot of information about not only the big three candidates but others as well (Stevenson, Goldwater, Rockefeller etc) Many direct quotes really brought the book to life and made it quite interesting. At some points it read more like fiction, and it was not boring. Oftentimes the author writes about an event, like something a candidate said or did, then includes the reactions from different people around the country, so nothing feels incomplete and it gives the reader a wide perspective of the effects of the event. My favorite parts were the debates for being suspenseful and detailed. The author talks about many issues surrounding the election such as civil rights, Cold War, religion etc. What I really liked was, a “cast of characters” section with all of the main people, which is really helpful in nonfiction books where it’s sometimes hard to keep track of everyone. It is nice to have a section with a brief description of key people you can check once in a while.
Overall, a good book to learn more about the 1960 election and the campaigns and lives of three individual candidates, as well as the many behind the scenes. It’s also a useful tool to learn more about the politics and culture of the 1950s. I enjoyed it but it was slow at times. However, for not being so long it was very detailed and gave a lot of good information, while being entertaining at the same time. I think I’m probably going to check out some of his other books, maybe 1920: the year of the six presidents because it seems like it’d have the same style.

[Ugo Marsolais · Rating 4 out of 5]

The 1960 U.S. presidential election is largely viewed today as an era-defining election, with JFK coming into power on an irresistible wave of change. Well, this book does nuance that idyllic view quite significantly and that's what make it an interesting and enjoyable read. For starters, the election was anything but a landslide for Kennedy, who barely squeezed a tiny 100,000 votes majority over Nixon on a total 70 millions votes cast. Secondly, for all its charismatic and telegenic proprieties, JFK only really won the first of the four TV debates, although it's the only one people remember now.

One of the thing that I found so difficult to do throughout the book: not seeing Nixon distorted by what we now know about Watergate. But I am not alone as I found the author David Pietrusza himself seemed to have a tendency to portray Nixon as quite a dark man, even though 1974 hasn't arrived yet. Pietrusza does a good job of carrying the story starting more or less a year before the election, going chronologically thought the main highlights of the election campaign.

I removed a star because the sub-heading of this book (The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies) made me expect much more development and thought around the connections between those 3 presidencies (Kennedy 1960, Johnson 1964, and Nixon 1968). But Pietrusza doesn't really do that, except in a few rushed pages in the last chapter. He does explore in more details the complicated Kennedy-Johnson relationship, especially as it happened at the Democratic convention when Kennedy, to the surprise of everyone and himself too, selected LBJ as his running mate.

[Kenneth Barber · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book chronicles the campaign for the presidency in 1960. While the focus of the book centers on Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson, the author details the efforts of all the men who contended for the nomination. Particularly interesting was the primary contests between Humphrey and Kennedy culminating in West Virginia.
The author exposes all the warts in the candidate’s characters and how they ran their campaigns. The influence of Joseph Kennedy, his money and under world connections were detailed. The importance of Hollywood stars on behalf of JFK was enlightening.
Nixon didn’t have the primary challenges that Kennedy had but his brief challenge from Rockefeller was interesting.
The campaign of both candidates was then followed with all the strategies and miscalculations make for great reading. The author does inform the reader of the darker side of the political process. If one has an interest in presidential campaigns, this book is worth reading. We discover that our political candidates are not always the persons we think they are.

[Pietro Rossi · Rating 4 out of 5]

An authoritative review of the 1960 US presidential election from pre-primaries to election day itself. Of curious interest is that three of the main participants in the 1960 election went on to win the presidency during the decade.

The book concentrates too much on John F Kennedy, perhaps it's because he was the winner. It would have been good to have had as clear an insight into the Nixon campaign.

But it was an eye opener in many regards. Bobby Kennedy doesn't come out of this well, for example. One could say he was fucussed, I suppose. Another is the black vote leaning towards the GOP, probably due to Lincoln a century earlier. The registered votes on the day was equally eye opening!

The US is a huge country, or alternatively 50 states which can be seen as countries. Trying to bind it together is difficult and this is well illustrated in the book. Well worth a read, a fascinating insight into US politicalhistory. 8/10

Scoring: 0 bad; 1-3 poor; 4-6 average; 7-9 good; 10 excellent.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my earliest memories was waking up on the Wednesday after the election of 1960 to find that Kennedy had defeated Nixon for the presidency. I had assumed that Nixon would win for the simple reason that my parents voted for him!

This began my interest in politics that I have retained to this day. I learned much about that election from this book including insights into Kennedy's family and his affairs and Nixon's rather inept campaigning that still almost won him the presidency.

In 1968, I worked for the Republican party in Idaho. I even had a Nixon poster in my bedroom. All that changed after Watergate.

I still am a Democrat and still work to help candidates in my home state of Oklahoma. 1960 saw the political gene burrow its way deep into my psyche.

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this book which is much more expansive than the title would suggest. Sure, it does focus on the 1960 election but the author does a great job of profiling the three 'protagonists' and many of those lurking in the wings. It's certainly written in a non-partisan fashion ... JFK, LBJ nor Nixon come out smelling of roses. Incredible how much social mores have changed though ... JFK's catholicism wouldn't probably rate a mention these days. As for the end result, some 120,000 votes made all the difference and you have to wonder if the scales (which easily could have) tipped the other way. Bay of Pigs? (possibly). Vietnam? (likely). Watergate? (probably not).

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating read without question. Politics breeds untruths, deception, lies, and corruption. It always has and always will. This work directs specifically to the 196o's on three principle characters, JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon it is very worth reading, however, the fate of these three men does not end here but to serve as examples to future politician's who still do not listen or adhere to this sad commentary. Power, money and greed still awaits and still captures and will still cause defeat. Kudos to David Pietrusza on a very fine piece of writing.

[Tom Rice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book, and not a boring page among the lot. Learned a ton about all 3 presidents, none of it was too flattering. I already knew most of the stuff about Nixon, but Kennedy and LBJ's sheer amount philandering was stunning. Neither could be president today, nor should they be. Supposedly JFK and Jackie would have separated if he hadn't won the nomination in 1960...and I also had no idea the enormous influence that Joe Kennedy had, and the large amount of distaste that everyone outside the Kennedy circle had for RFK...

I learned a lot, which is the sign of a good book!!

[Nick Harriss · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an excellent book. I think the biggest take from this was that while Nixon and Johnson have both gone down in history as bad guys due to Watergate and Vietnam, this book highlights that JFK and RFK were just as devious and unpleasant, their tragic deaths providing a significant gloss over of their failings. While I was familiar with the general events around the 1960 election, this provided much greater detail, but managed to achieve this without ever being boring.

[robert casullo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Growing up through these evwnts

Growing up a youngster during this time period and living through and experiencing first hand these events I can only be thankful that my parents and grandparents aren't alive to witness the social media coverage of our candidates today! Perhaps none of these three could or would have survived the scrutiny!

[Wesley Kushner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Much like his other election histories, Pietrusza gives us an expansive behind-the-scenes look at the campaigns. Wonderfully written and often very funny, we come to understand the men behind the legends. And we trace where the legends come from. We see everything, warts and all.

[Kerrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a bad read. Nixon's campaign story is way more interesting than Kennedy's. Thr book was great at showing how all three candidates didnt care about any issues whatsoever, but just winning. This also showcases JFK's hawkish foreign policy views, making Nixon look like a peacenik by comparison.

[RK Byers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Being a History Buff is a Plus Here

this is pretty much a spectacularly detailed accounting of a lot of stuff that most people know already. if you’re a novice to this period, this book might not work for you.