|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 08, 2020, 10:27:41 am
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Dalla Piccola, Apocrypha)
  Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968  (Read 7425 times)
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 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 Smiley

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 Smiley

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.
Logged
hcallega
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,523
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.10, S: -3.90

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,310
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
hantheguitarman
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,025


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines