[morphing libertarian]

34,220,984 34,108,157 nKennedy over Nixon

Chicago held out till last reporting When the DNC chair called mayor daley to ask what was happening, Daley reportedly said, how many votes do you need. Between Sam Giancana and the unions and the democrat city controlled by Daley, no way Kennedy would lose the election.

When told of irregularities, Nixon decided to not take action “for the good of the country.”

[bankwalker]

Nixon decided to not take action “for the good of the country.”

He chose poorly ...

[Verginius Rufus]

Illinois did not have enough electoral votes to change the outcome of the election, but there were reports of voter fraud in Texas. Together Texas and Illinois would have kept Kennedy below the number of electoral votes needed for victory. There were also 15 electoral votes cast for Sen. Harry F. Byrd of Virginia.

If Kennedy had picked Stuart Symington as he had planned to, LBJ might not have pulled strings to make sure Texas went for the ticket.

Whether Kennedy actually had a popular vote plurality depends, I think, on counting all of Alabama's Democrat votes as votes for Kennedy, although the electoral votes were split between Kennedy and Byrd. I don't know if there is a way to determine how many Alabama Democrats preferred Kennedy--or if anyone has ever tried to investigate the matter.