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."
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.
