Was the election of 1968 more modern than the election of 1988?

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

Goldwater won those states against a southern Candidate why would Humphrey win those

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

Goldwater won those states against a southern Candidate why would Humphrey win those

God, EVERYTHING you say or ask is so simplified; surely you recognize this was one of the most complex periods in American political history.  Nixon said in his biography that he could never reach the Wallace voter because of his status as a (publicly) pro-civil rights Republican.  In 1968, there were still a LOT of Southerners who'd simply never vote GOP.  If given the choice between a pro-civil rights Democrat and a pro-civil rights Republican who was making (some race-based) appeals to mostly New South suburbanites, I don't think it's OBVIOUS who your true Yellow Dogs are going to vote for...

Nixon won 70 percent of the vote in the south in 1972 and won states like SC in 1968 which was actually more democratic in the solid south days then any other southern state so if he could take SC he would take the rest . Plus the candidates who won SC usually won Bama ,  Miss , GA and the other Wallace states .For evidence look at 1928 , 1952,1956,1964 when people who won SC won those other Wallace States

[OSR stands with Israel]

1948

[OSR stands with Israel]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

That’s cause George Wallace took votes away from Nixon in the Deep south

[OSR stands with Israel]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

That’s cause George Wallace took votes away from Nixon in the Deep south

Should we have the same conversation again?  LOL

If LBJ lost the Deep South Humphrey certainly would have


Humphrey was a terrible candidate for the Deep south  and Nixon was a great one (espically with Agnew on ticket )