What Should Hubert Humprey Have Done in Order to Win in 1968?

[Bo]

I'd say distance himself from LBJ's Vietnam policy sooner and also talk much more about the good economy and JFK's and LBJ's good economic record. Unemployment in 1968 was very low (at about 3.5%) and inflation was also low (between 4-5%).

[Sewer]

McGovern for vp!!

[Psychic Octopus]

McGovern for vp!!

No, Muskie was probably his best choice. Humphrey even said once, "If you don't like me, vote for the second spot!". Muskie was touted as presidential timber and was sometimes regarded as a second Lincoln. No one was better for the spot then Ed Muskie.

[Dr. Cynic]

Ed Muskie was the best choice Humphrey could've made. He appeared in stark contrast to Agnew and Muskie even invited protestors onto the stage to debate him. Muskie was an inspired choice.

The one mistake Humphrey made was not distancing himself from the Vietnam policy sooner. Had he done so just a few days earlier, he probably would've won, that by Nixon's own admission. Humphrey came on strong in the final weeks, and attacked Nixon mercilessly for refusing to debate him. That and other things bumped Humphrey up, but the distancing just did not happen in time.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

HHH should have stepped down since he was a horrible candidate and would have made a horrible president.

[Cassius Dio]

HHH should have stepped down since he was a horrible candidate and would have made a horrible president.

I'm no big fan of Humphrey, but he would have made a decent President.

[Bo]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

[President Mitt]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

Or he could have just opposed the Vietnam War entirely.

[Bo]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

Or he could have just opposed the Vietnam War entirely.

Didn't he kinda do that during the campaign, though? He said he'd end the war as soon as possible.

[Dr. Cynic]

HHH should have stepped down since he was a horrible candidate and would have made a horrible president.

You're no prince yourself.

[President Mitt]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

Or he could have just opposed the Vietnam War entirely.

Didn't he kinda do that on the campaign, though? He said he'd end the war as soon as possible.

Not really. If I recall, at the end of the campaign, he only inched a tad to the left of LBJ. He mostly ignored the Vietnam War entirely, which was stupid. If he was a critic of Johnson's Vietnam policy, he would have gained a large amount of support, and probably not losing much, if any at all either. Anti-War-ism wasn't exclusive among the new left, quite the contrary, it was a middle class phenomenon as well.

[Dr. Cynic]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

Or he could have just opposed the Vietnam War entirely.

Didn't he kinda do that on the campaign, though? He said he'd end the war as soon as possible.

He personally wanted to end the war quickly, however, LBJ threatened to hold the Democratic machine away from him, and he desperately needed the funds. So he had to walk a fine line.

[Cassius Dio]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

People are not only voting on the economy. It would have given him maybe some voters more, but not enought to win.

[Bo]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

People are not only voting on the economy. It would have given him maybe some voters more, but not enought to win.

Humphrey only needed about 1.5% more of the popular vote to flip in order to win (since that would have flipped NJ, MO, and AK, and sent the election to the House, where Humphrey would have won). Talking more about the good economy (unemployment was at a 15-year low in 1968) might have allowe Humphrey to get a 1.5-2% swing of the popular vote in his favor.

[President Mitt]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

People are not only voting on the economy. It would have given him maybe some voters more, but not enought to win.

Humphrey only needed about 1.5% more of the popular vote to flip in order to win (since that would have flipped NJ, MO, and AK, and sent the election to the House, where Humphrey would have won). Talking more about the good economy (unemployment was at a 15-year low in 1968) might have allowe Humphrey to get a 1.5-2% swing of the popular vote in his favor.

The people didn't really care about the economy. They were more concerned with the butchering of American soldiers in Vietnam. That's why they elected Nixon, who had been able to conceal himself as the "Peace" candidate.

[Bo]

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

People are not only voting on the economy. It would have given him maybe some voters more, but not enought to win.

Humphrey only needed about 1.5% more of the popular vote to flip in order to win (since that would have flipped NJ, MO, and AK, and sent the election to the House, where Humphrey would have won). Talking more about the good economy (unemployment was at a 15-year low in 1968) might have allowe Humphrey to get a 1.5-2% swing of the popular vote in his favor.

The people didn't really care about the economy. They were more concerned with the butchering of American soldiers in Vietnam. That's why they elected Nixon, who had been able to conceal himself as the "Peace" candidate.

Many people didn't care, but many people also did care about the economy and if Humphrey talked more about the issue he might have won much more undecided voters, for many of whom it could have been the decisive factor.

[Хahar 🤔]

Distance himself from LBJ faster.

What about talking more about the good economy? I'm sure the economy mattered to many voters in 1968. If Humphrey would have talked more about JFK's and LBJ's economic record and about how he'll continue it, I'm pretty sure he would have gotten some voters that were unhappy with Vietnam due to their desire to keep the prosperity going.

People are not only voting on the economy. It would have given him maybe some voters more, but not enought to win.

Humphrey only needed about 1.5% more of the popular vote to flip in order to win (since that would have flipped NJ, MO, and AK, and sent the election to the House, where Humphrey would have won). Talking more about the good economy (unemployment was at a 15-year low in 1968) might have allowe Humphrey to get a 1.5-2% swing of the popular vote in his favor.

The people didn't really care about the economy. They were more concerned with the butchering of American soldiers in Vietnam. That's why they elected Nixon, who had been able to conceal himself as the "Peace" candidate.

Many people didn't care, but many people also did care about the economy and if Humphrey talked more about the issue he might have won much more undecided voters, for many of whom it could have been the decisive factor.

No, the war was paramount.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The one mistake Humphrey made was not distancing himself from the Vietnam policy sooner. Had he done so just a few days earlier, he probably would've won, that by Nixon's own admission. Humphrey came on strong in the final weeks, and attacked Nixon mercilessly for refusing to debate him. That and other things bumped Humphrey up, but the distancing just did not happen in time.

Still, LBJ stopping of bombing gave him boots. Probably, had Johnson announced it earlier, HHH woudl win.