Talk Elections

I've run this a few times on President Elect, and Wallace is doing surprisingly well (winning the popular vote a few times because he wins 2/3rds of the vote in the South). Wallace almost always wins the entire South, Oklahoma, and a few western states (Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, so on)

Any thoughts on how this would turn out?

Write-in Goldwater. Or Reagan. Or Dole. Or Ford. Or Rockefeller. Or even Nixon. Heck, just about the only Republicans i wouldn't write-in are Romney and Agnew...

()

Humphrey          485
Wallace                53

Humphrey has always been my favorite Democratic presidential candidate, and in this scenario he would win soundly.

After crunching this scenario multiple times in President Elect, I have come to the conclusion that Wallace wins it in an electorally close, but popularly decent sized margin of victory.  Even when Humphrey won, Wallace still typically ended up with 51%.  I'd say this makes a fair degree of sense, since Wallace's anti-hippie, law-and-order platform was fairly compatable with Nixon's Republican platform.

Let's call it...

Wallace(R): 281, 53%
Humphrey(D): 257, 47%

()

With all due respect, there is no possible way that much of the country would in reality vote for an avowed segregationist.

They would if he was a Republican in 1968 and there was no Nixon around. :-)

No.

^^^^^^

There's no way Wallace would be the Republican candidate.  Remember he was generally on the left as far as economics goes.

You are giving the people in your Wallace states far too little credit, I'm afraid.  

In real life, outside of possibly five deep south states, Wallace's candidacy would not go over well  at all.  Humphrey would have won in the other 45 states.

The actual 1968 election was between two credible and viable Presidential candidates, former Vice President Richard Nixon, and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and one radical, segregationist, fanatical extremist, George Wallace.

George Wallace was neither credible nor viable as a Presidential candidate.

You are assuming most of the Nixon votes in your Wallace states would go to Wallace.  This would not be the case.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a fact of life by 1968, and accepted in  most of the country.  Most of the Nixon vote, I would say a good majority of the Nixon vote, would have gone to Humphrey.  Nixon was a conservative, but not a segregationist.  

The selection of Wallace by the Republicans as their Presidential candidate in 1968 would have resulted in a disaster for the GOP, and a landslide win for Humphrey.

America would not turn the Presidency over to a radical extremist like Wallace.  It would be like electing Ross Perot in 1992, not that Perot was a segregationist, rather in the sense that Wallace and Perot were both radical and extreme in their own ways, and were in no way qualified to be President.      

who is that in your signature?!

Stacy Keibler, a lady from WWE.

Anyhow, by 1968 Wallace had greatly removed himself from his former segregationist stances and you can be certain that he wouldn't be using that as the basis of a national candidacy.  If the world was turned upside down and he was the Republican ticket, he would have access to a boatload of support that he didn't have access to previously.  And he was pretty darn popular in states outside of the south as well.  He won the Michigan Democratic Primary in 1972 which helped lead to the current caucus system they have today.

You cobble together a law and order platform of Nixon's with a pro-state's rights position, be anti-hippie, downplay segregation, and up play 'peace with honor', give it a nice Republican label.. bada bing bada boom, you have yourself an electoral winning coalition.  And there's no doubt in my mind, and anyone that has studied history and doesn't swallow the Democrat re-written history,  that Wallace couldn't do all of the above.

I would suggest you check out the following maps as well.  Just for a little information:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1972.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1968.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1964.html

And if you've got a problem with the results the program spits out, take it up with the guy that wrote the code for President Elect.

There is one major flaw in your reasoning, in my humble opinion.

That's fine to have a 1968 campaign built on the points you raise -

"law and order platform, pro-state's rights position, anti- hippie, downplay segregtion, up play "peace with honor", give it a nice Republican label"

But in order for this campaign to succeed, these themes would as well have to be delivered by a viable, credible candidate for the Presidency of the United States.  George Wallace did not measure up to these criteria.

Anyway, that's my view, you disagree, and that's fine.

It's just a point I wanted to raise.       

Wallace was already a viable candidate.  He postings in 64, 68, and 72 show he could piece together a national campaign.  The nomination of one of the two big parties gives him the credibility necessary to win and also enhances his viablity at the same time.

Question for Snefix

Who, in your view, would Wallace have picked for a running mate in 1968 to run with against the Humphrey/Muskie ticket?

As well, who would you yourself have put on the ticket if you had a say in the matter?

Remember, it would have to be a Republican who would actually accept the Vice Presidential nomination on the same ticket with Wallace.

I've been having it be any schmoe from California for the scenario computational purposes.  I think Gen. LeMay was from there, who was his running mate in 1968.  I don't see any particular reason why he couldn't use him.  Although I suppose you could pick anyone from the Byrd clan (there have been several, in the VA and WV region).  Perhaps Strom Thurmond.

I personally would've recommended Nelson Rockefeller for his VP in such a scenario, to attempt to soothe the concerns of the northeast establishment Republicans.  He probably would've accepted. Or Governor Romney might not be bad either, I think he would've taken the VP nomination if we're assuming he still made his "brainwashed" comment and was thus politically dead.

Thank you for your reply.

However, Hell would freeze over before either Rockefeller or Romney would run on a ticket with Wallace.

()

Very innovative.

But in reality, Rockefeller or Romney, NO!

You have some set opinions in this matter, and that makes things interesting. 

These forums would be petty dull if everybody thought the same way.

By the way, I have posted a "What If" scenario, Nelson Rockefeller v Hubert Humphrey 1964, and would be very interested to see your take on that election.

Thanks.

()
Humphrey: 435
Wallace: 103

How in the *&^%$#@ would Wallace have been nominated as a Republican?