Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

271-221-45

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

271-221-45

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

271-221-45

Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills.

Hm do you really believe Nixon propaganda machine wouldn't be able to paint Eugene as "naive fool, hippie-lover"?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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."
[/quote]

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

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.

I'm not sure if I get a point, if there's any point.