The Solid South was really bad for Southern presidential politics

[Oldiesfreak1854]

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.

This is assuming they did.  Much of the reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.  (Much like Nixon's first election in 1968 owed itself in part to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democratic vote.)

Well it has to be wondered if many Dixiecrats would vote for Humphrey, "The Happy Warrior". I mean, the Deep South had already ditched the Dems in 1964, and 1960 showed that both Republicans and faithless electors could win Southern states.

It's not certain if those, who voted TR would automatically vote for Taft.

This is assuming they did.  Much of the reason Wilson won was because Roosevelt and Taft split the Republican vote.  (Much like Nixon's first election in 1968 owed itself in part to Wallace and Humphrey splitting the Democratic vote.)

Well it has to be wondered if many Dixiecrats would vote for Humphrey, "The Happy Warrior". I mean, the Deep South had already ditched the Dems in 1964, and 1960 showed that both Republicans and faithless electors could win Southern states.

Wallace's intervention may even have helped Humphrey.

Had the Wallace vote in Texas gone to Nixon instead, Humphrey could not have carried that state, and of course the five Wallace states would also have gone to Nixon. It is of course conceivable that one or more northern states might have switched the other way (had Wallace voters there chosen Humphrey over Nixon) but by no means certain.

At the beginning of the general election campaign in 1968, the polls looked like this:
Nixon- 42%
Humphrey- 29%
Wallace- 22%

On Election Day, the final popular vote total looked like this:
Nixon- 43.4%
Humphrey- 42.7%
Wallace- 13.5%

Notice that Nixon's total stayed about the same, and as Wallace dropped 8.5%, Humphrey gained 13.7%.  This, along with the fact that all the Wallace and Humphrey's combined totals beat Nixon in all the Nixon states, suggests that Humphrey split the Democratic vote, especially in the South.

[Mikestone8]

Of course, in all but six of the Humphrey states his vote was less than the combined votes for Nixon and Wallace. Of the six, two were Humphrey and Muskie's home states, while in a third, NY, the Humphrey vote exceeded the Nixon/Wallace votes by less than half of one percent.

In the South, Texas was the only state in which Humphrey attained 33% (he actually got 41.4 there, only two percentage points ahead of Nixon), which sounds as though Southern whites were abandoning the Democratic Party in droves, and disagreed only about where to go. So in a straight fight it is unlikely that HHH could have got many of Wallace's Southern votes.

I agree that things might have been different in the North, where Wallace's removal might make Humphrey competitive in states like Ohio and Illinois, but without Texas he has only 166 electoral votes, so needs to find 104 from somewhere - and that's a tall order.