Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Past Election What-ifs (US) => Topic started by: Bo on May 31, 2010, 01:11:12 PM



Title: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Bo on May 31, 2010, 01:11:12 PM
Everything else stays the same. You pick the VPs. Discuss, with maps.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on May 31, 2010, 03:47:23 PM
(
)

271-221-45


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on May 31, 2010, 03:51:15 PM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Bo on May 31, 2010, 04:44:25 PM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though? I mean, RFK shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, but was percevied as much more electable.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Oakvale on May 31, 2010, 05:07:30 PM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though? I mean, RFK shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, but was percevied as much more electable.

Let's bear in mind that I <3 Eugene McCarthy in spite of, er, later eccentric views, but he had the charisma of a plank, and was seen as the candidate of the "far-left", which you could argue he was.

Remove the Vietnam issue and McCarthy and Kennedy don't really have all that much in common, really.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 09:54:30 AM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/512709602.html?dids=512709602:512709602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jul+12%2C+1968&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McCarthy+Holds+a+Slim+Lead+Over+Rockefeller+and+Nixon&pqatl=google)

Quote
In the McCarthy-Nixon-Wallace race, McCarthy was favored by 39 per cent of the vote, three percent more than Nixon. Wallace received 18 per cent and the remainder were undecided.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
The senator's supporters also were buoyed by the results of a Gallup poll taken just after the Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon in Miami Beach. It gave Nixon a margin of 45 to 29 per cent over Humphrey and 42 to 37 per cent over McCarthy.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A1EFB3E541B7B93C4A9178FD85F4C8685F9)

Quote
In a survey of voters' preferences for President made Monday and Tuesday by Louis Harris, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon ran behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene J. McCarthy and Vice President Humphrey. The results of the survey were published in yesterday's New York Post.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5NcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cWwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7097,478875&dq=mccarthy+nixon+poll&hl=en)

Quote
A private poll that Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller financed to bolster his presidential prospects at the Republican convention here may turn out to be Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy's secret weapon in Chicago.

The nine-state survey made by Archibald Crossley on Rockefeller's behalf found that McCarthy could carry both New York and California against either the New York governor or Richard M. Nixon.

No candidate who has carried both these states has ever failed to win the presidency.

HHH Loses to Both

On the other hand, the Crossley poll showed Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey losing both New York and California, whether matched against Rockefeller or Nixon.

McCarthy partisans, looking for ammunition to fire at the vice president at the Democratic National Convention, can also find these results in the Rockefeller poll:

  • In Ohio, McCarthy defeats Nixon 38 to 34, but Humphrey loses to him 37 to 35.
  • In Massachusetts, McCarthy defeats Nixon 52 to 29, and Rockefeller, 41 to 40.
  • In Illinois, both Democrats lose, but McCarthy trails Nixon by 5 points, 37-32, while the vice president is 12 points behind, 39-27.


Some of the New York and California figures are close, but they uniformly favor McCarthy. In New York he defeats Nixon 42-41 and Rockefeller 39-37, while Humphrey loses to Nixon 43-38 and to Rockefeller 37-34.

The California figures put McCarthy over Nixon 49-36 and over Rockefeller 41-40, but drop Humphrey behind Nixon 41-40 and behind Rockefeller 45-28.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 09:55:33 AM
Updated.



(
)

337-156-45


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 10:28:28 AM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though? I mean, RFK shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, but was percevied as much more electable.

Let's bear in mind that I <3 Eugene McCarthy in spite of, er, later eccentric views, but he had the charisma of a plank, and was seen as the candidate of the "far-left", which you could argue he was.

The only people who would claim that McCarthy was "far-left" were warmongering idiots, many of them ex-Trotskyites themselves.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 10:35:49 AM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/512709602.html?dids=512709602:512709602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jul+12%2C+1968&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McCarthy+Holds+a+Slim+Lead+Over+Rockefeller+and+Nixon&pqatl=google)

Quote
In the McCarthy-Nixon-Wallace race, McCarthy was favored by 39 per cent of the vote, three percent more than Nixon. Wallace received 18 per cent and the remainder were undecided.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
The senator's supporters also were buoyed by the results of a Gallup poll taken just after the Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon in Miami Beach. It gave Nixon a margin of 45 to 29 per cent over Humphrey and 42 to 37 per cent over McCarthy.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A1EFB3E541B7B93C4A9178FD85F4C8685F9)

Quote
In a survey of voters' preferences for President made Monday and Tuesday by Louis Harris, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon ran behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene J. McCarthy and Vice President Humphrey. The results of the survey were published in yesterday's New York Post.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5NcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cWwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7097,478875&dq=mccarthy+nixon+poll&hl=en)

Quote
A private poll that Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller financed to bolster his presidential prospects at the Republican convention here may turn out to be Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy's secret weapon in Chicago.

The nine-state survey made by Archibald Crossley on Rockefeller's behalf found that McCarthy could carry both New York and California against either the New York governor or Richard M. Nixon.

No candidate who has carried both these states has ever failed to win the presidency.

HHH Loses to Both

On the other hand, the Crossley poll showed Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey losing both New York and California, whether matched against Rockefeller or Nixon.

McCarthy partisans, looking for ammunition to fire at the vice president at the Democratic National Convention, can also find these results in the Rockefeller poll:

  • In Ohio, McCarthy defeats Nixon 38 to 34, but Humphrey loses to him 37 to 35.
  • In Massachusetts, McCarthy defeats Nixon 52 to 29, and Rockefeller, 41 to 40.
  • In Illinois, both Democrats lose, but McCarthy trails Nixon by 5 points, 37-32, while the vice president is 12 points behind, 39-27.


Some of the New York and California figures are close, but they uniformly favor McCarthy. In New York he defeats Nixon 42-41 and Rockefeller 39-37, while Humphrey loses to Nixon 43-38 and to Rockefeller 37-34.

The California figures put McCarthy over Nixon 49-36 and over Rockefeller 41-40, but drop Humphrey behind Nixon 41-40 and behind Rockefeller 45-28.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 10:40:14 AM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/512709602.html?dids=512709602:512709602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jul+12%2C+1968&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McCarthy+Holds+a+Slim+Lead+Over+Rockefeller+and+Nixon&pqatl=google)

Quote
In the McCarthy-Nixon-Wallace race, McCarthy was favored by 39 per cent of the vote, three percent more than Nixon. Wallace received 18 per cent and the remainder were undecided.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
The senator's supporters also were buoyed by the results of a Gallup poll taken just after the Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon in Miami Beach. It gave Nixon a margin of 45 to 29 per cent over Humphrey and 42 to 37 per cent over McCarthy.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A1EFB3E541B7B93C4A9178FD85F4C8685F9)

Quote
In a survey of voters' preferences for President made Monday and Tuesday by Louis Harris, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon ran behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene J. McCarthy and Vice President Humphrey. The results of the survey were published in yesterday's New York Post.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5NcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cWwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7097,478875&dq=mccarthy+nixon+poll&hl=en)

Quote
A private poll that Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller financed to bolster his presidential prospects at the Republican convention here may turn out to be Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy's secret weapon in Chicago.

The nine-state survey made by Archibald Crossley on Rockefeller's behalf found that McCarthy could carry both New York and California against either the New York governor or Richard M. Nixon.

No candidate who has carried both these states has ever failed to win the presidency.

HHH Loses to Both

On the other hand, the Crossley poll showed Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey losing both New York and California, whether matched against Rockefeller or Nixon.

McCarthy partisans, looking for ammunition to fire at the vice president at the Democratic National Convention, can also find these results in the Rockefeller poll:

  • In Ohio, McCarthy defeats Nixon 38 to 34, but Humphrey loses to him 37 to 35.
  • In Massachusetts, McCarthy defeats Nixon 52 to 29, and Rockefeller, 41 to 40.
  • In Illinois, both Democrats lose, but McCarthy trails Nixon by 5 points, 37-32, while the vice president is 12 points behind, 39-27.


Some of the New York and California figures are close, but they uniformly favor McCarthy. In New York he defeats Nixon 42-41 and Rockefeller 39-37, while Humphrey loses to Nixon 43-38 and to Rockefeller 37-34.

The California figures put McCarthy over Nixon 49-36 and over Rockefeller 41-40, but drop Humphrey behind Nixon 41-40 and behind Rockefeller 45-28.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. ???


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 10:42:48 AM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/512709602.html?dids=512709602:512709602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jul+12%2C+1968&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McCarthy+Holds+a+Slim+Lead+Over+Rockefeller+and+Nixon&pqatl=google)

Quote
In the McCarthy-Nixon-Wallace race, McCarthy was favored by 39 per cent of the vote, three percent more than Nixon. Wallace received 18 per cent and the remainder were undecided.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
The senator's supporters also were buoyed by the results of a Gallup poll taken just after the Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon in Miami Beach. It gave Nixon a margin of 45 to 29 per cent over Humphrey and 42 to 37 per cent over McCarthy.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A1EFB3E541B7B93C4A9178FD85F4C8685F9)

Quote
In a survey of voters' preferences for President made Monday and Tuesday by Louis Harris, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon ran behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene J. McCarthy and Vice President Humphrey. The results of the survey were published in yesterday's New York Post.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5NcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cWwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7097,478875&dq=mccarthy+nixon+poll&hl=en)

Quote
A private poll that Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller financed to bolster his presidential prospects at the Republican convention here may turn out to be Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy's secret weapon in Chicago.

The nine-state survey made by Archibald Crossley on Rockefeller's behalf found that McCarthy could carry both New York and California against either the New York governor or Richard M. Nixon.

No candidate who has carried both these states has ever failed to win the presidency.

HHH Loses to Both

On the other hand, the Crossley poll showed Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey losing both New York and California, whether matched against Rockefeller or Nixon.

McCarthy partisans, looking for ammunition to fire at the vice president at the Democratic National Convention, can also find these results in the Rockefeller poll:

  • In Ohio, McCarthy defeats Nixon 38 to 34, but Humphrey loses to him 37 to 35.
  • In Massachusetts, McCarthy defeats Nixon 52 to 29, and Rockefeller, 41 to 40.
  • In Illinois, both Democrats lose, but McCarthy trails Nixon by 5 points, 37-32, while the vice president is 12 points behind, 39-27.


Some of the New York and California figures are close, but they uniformly favor McCarthy. In New York he defeats Nixon 42-41 and Rockefeller 39-37, while Humphrey loses to Nixon 43-38 and to Rockefeller 37-34.

The California figures put McCarthy over Nixon 49-36 and over Rockefeller 41-40, but drop Humphrey behind Nixon 41-40 and behind Rockefeller 45-28.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. ???

Hm do you really believe Nixon propaganda machine wouldn't be able to paint Eugene as "naive fool, hippie-lover"?


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 10:51:20 AM

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/512709602.html?dids=512709602:512709602&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jul+12%2C+1968&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=McCarthy+Holds+a+Slim+Lead+Over+Rockefeller+and+Nixon&pqatl=google)

Quote
In the McCarthy-Nixon-Wallace race, McCarthy was favored by 39 per cent of the vote, three percent more than Nixon. Wallace received 18 per cent and the remainder were undecided.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
The senator's supporters also were buoyed by the results of a Gallup poll taken just after the Republicans nominated Richard M. Nixon in Miami Beach. It gave Nixon a margin of 45 to 29 per cent over Humphrey and 42 to 37 per cent over McCarthy.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60A1EFB3E541B7B93C4A9178FD85F4C8685F9)

Quote
In a survey of voters' preferences for President made Monday and Tuesday by Louis Harris, former Vice President Richard M. Nixon ran behind Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene J. McCarthy and Vice President Humphrey. The results of the survey were published in yesterday's New York Post.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=5NcNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cWwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7097,478875&dq=mccarthy+nixon+poll&hl=en)

Quote
A private poll that Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller financed to bolster his presidential prospects at the Republican convention here may turn out to be Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy's secret weapon in Chicago.

The nine-state survey made by Archibald Crossley on Rockefeller's behalf found that McCarthy could carry both New York and California against either the New York governor or Richard M. Nixon.

No candidate who has carried both these states has ever failed to win the presidency.

HHH Loses to Both

On the other hand, the Crossley poll showed Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey losing both New York and California, whether matched against Rockefeller or Nixon.

McCarthy partisans, looking for ammunition to fire at the vice president at the Democratic National Convention, can also find these results in the Rockefeller poll:

  • In Ohio, McCarthy defeats Nixon 38 to 34, but Humphrey loses to him 37 to 35.
  • In Massachusetts, McCarthy defeats Nixon 52 to 29, and Rockefeller, 41 to 40.
  • In Illinois, both Democrats lose, but McCarthy trails Nixon by 5 points, 37-32, while the vice president is 12 points behind, 39-27.


Some of the New York and California figures are close, but they uniformly favor McCarthy. In New York he defeats Nixon 42-41 and Rockefeller 39-37, while Humphrey loses to Nixon 43-38 and to Rockefeller 37-34.

The California figures put McCarthy over Nixon 49-36 and over Rockefeller 41-40, but drop Humphrey behind Nixon 41-40 and behind Rockefeller 45-28.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. ???

Hm do you really believe Nixon propaganda machine wouldn't be able to paint Eugene as "naive fool, hippie-lover"?
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 10:56:49 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
[/quote]

Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 11:02:16 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 11:08:37 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 11:12:47 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 11:14:21 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 11:17:28 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 11:21:00 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 11:24:12 AM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 01, 2010, 11:30:18 AM
(
)

Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: MASHED POTATOES. VOTE! on June 01, 2010, 12:53:44 PM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.

I'm not sure if I get a point, if there's any point.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 01:11:13 PM
(
)

Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.

lol wut


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Oakvale on June 01, 2010, 02:00:31 PM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.

Not that it's necessarily relevant to his general election prospects, but I've always found it interesting that the majority of McCarthy's vote in the New Hampshire primary came from those who though Johnson was doing too little to win in Vietnam, i.e. a vote for Eugene McCarthy was more of a protest vote against Johnson, for whatever reason, than an anti-war vote, per se.

Anyway, let's not confuse "should have won" with "would have won". If McCarthy, by some sprinkling of fairy dust, was nominated by the Democratic convention [1] for President, it might have been nice for him to win, but would he? A man perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an "out of touch" radical? We saw what happened to George McGovern four years later. McCarthy may have generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst his supporters, but they were a small group indeed.

"By May it was clear that the next President would be either Gene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy and that the War would be over by Christmas...”



[1] Sadly, this would never, ever, have happened.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: #CriminalizeSobriety on June 01, 2010, 02:07:24 PM
(
)

Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.

lol wut

???

Nixon was a filthy campaigner, and would have painted McCarthy as the "hippie" candidate, much like he did to George McGovern four years later. McCarthy bleeds to both Nixon and Wallace.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on June 01, 2010, 02:17:53 PM
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom :)

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same :)

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.

Not that it's necessarily relevant to his general election prospects, but I've always found it interesting that the majority of McCarthy's vote in the New Hampshire primary came from those who though Johnson was doing too little to win in Vietnam, i.e. a vote for Eugene McCarthy was more of a protest vote against Johnson, for whatever reason, than an anti-war vote, per se.

Anyway, let's not confuse "should have won" with "would have won". If McCarthy, by some sprinkling of fairy dust, was nominated by the Democratic convention [1] for President, it might have been nice for him to win, but would he? A man perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an "out of touch" radical? We saw what happened to George McGovern four years later. McCarthy may have generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst his supporters, but they were a small group indeed.

"By May it was clear that the next President would be either Gene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy and that the War would be over by Christmas...”



[1] Sadly, this would never, ever, have happened.

Did you see the poll numbers I posted?

1972 was different. Nixon was at that point an unbeatable incumbent. Polls had Nixon holding a solid lead in head-to-head match-ups against Humphrey, Muskie, (Ted) Kennedy, and McCarthy as well as McGovern. Nixon had an approval rating around 60% in mid-1972.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: hcallega on June 01, 2010, 04:10:19 PM
Gene McCarthy would have gotten his ass kicked by Nixon.

By in large you can't be an anti-military candidate and win elections. You have to moderate your views to win. McCarthy had a lot of radical views outside of his support for a unilateral withdrawal from Vietnam. He believed in moving African-Americans into the suburbs, a position that Robert Kennedy essentially called ridiculous in the debates.

Libertas, imagine 1968 as it was, but take away pretty much every white-working class vote in the midwest and northeast and give it to Nixon or Wallace. Also, take away every southerner or rural voter. You could add some young anti-war folks, but it would have been a pretty bad loss. Not 1972 bad, but then again there are few candidates as bad as McGovern.

Also, Rocham, there was a big difference between RFK and McCarthy on the war. RFK was much more Kissinger-esque in the sense that he believed in real politic. He would have exhausted all options before withdrawing, though I do believe we would have been out of Nam by the time the 1970 midterms rolled around. He was not perceived as radical, and if anything was more "mainstream" or at least perceived so then Humphrey.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Phony Moderate on June 14, 2010, 01:55:57 PM
(
)

Nixon - 288
McCarthy - 211
Wallace - 39

Nixon wins by narrowly winning Ohio, Illinois and California. Turnout would be moderately higher than it was in the Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace race. Wallace does worse due to some of his supporters switching to Nixon to keep McCarthy out.


Title: Re: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
Post by: Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey on June 14, 2010, 01:58:48 PM
(
)

Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.

This, but I share Dallas' reservations about NY and WV. I could see Nixon carrying SC though. It would be interesting to see a less paranoid Nixon take office given his landslide, although perhaps Nixon was already paranoid as it was already, so perhaps Watergate would still have happened.