1968

[Democratic Hawk]

Who would have won the 1968 Presidential Election had Wallace not run?

Dave

[skybridge]

Was Wallace really the determining factor?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Was Wallace really the determining factor?

Probably. What's often forgotton about Wallace is that he did well with working class white voters (his platform was very pro-labor) in the North.

[Democratic Hawk]

Was Wallace really the determining factor?

I think so, while few would deny that Wallaces' power base was in the Deep South (where he picked 46 electoral votes), he polled significantly well in many electorally large states to affect their outcome

NIXON

California (40): Nixon 47.82%, Humphrey 44.74%, Wallace 6.72%
Illinois (26): Nixon 47.08%, Humphrey 44.15%, Wallace 8.46%
New Jersey (17): Nixon 46.1%, Humphrey 43.97%, Wallace 9.12%
Ohio (26): Nixon 45.23%, Humphrey 42.95%, Wallace 11.81%

HUMPHREY

Michigan (21): Humphrey 48.15%, Nixon 41.46%, Wallace 10.04%
Pennsylvania (29): Humphrey 47.59%, Nixon 44.02%, Wallace 7.97%
Texas (23): Humphrey 41.14%, Nixon 39.87%, Wallace 18.97%

Result: Nixon 301 EV, Humphrey 191 EV and Wallace 46 EV.

Had Wallace not ran, the balance may have shifted in many of those states, which might have changed the overall outcome

Dave

[True Democrat]

HUMPHREY!!

[dazzleman]

Wallace took votes from Nixon.  Without Wallace in the race, Nixon would have won a more decisive victory.

[J. J.]

I hate to say it, but I never liked Nixon; I would have voted for Humphrey.  Nixon would have won, in any event.

[True Democrat]

Wallace took votes from Nixon. Without Wallace in the race, Nixon would have won a more decisive victory.

I don't think that is true.  In the south, Nixon would have probably won most of the Wallace votes.  However, in the north, the Wallace probably would have gone to Nixon, giving him the win.  I'm thinking something like this:



This is a 278 to 260 win by Humphrey.

[Dr. Cynic]

Wallace took votes from both men, but I think without him, many of the rank and file Democrats would support him. I think a nailbiter Humphrey win W/O Wallace.

[Rob]

State changes from actual election:

Wallace to Nixon- Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia.

Humphrey to Nixon- Texas.

Nixon to Humphrey- Missouri, Illinois, New Jersey.

Final result: 317-221 Nixon win.

[minionofmidas]

Impossible to tell who would have won, especially since the campaign might have been a lot different if Wallace hadn't run.
Had it looked anything like it did, the PV would have been very close, with a likely Nixon win in the EV.
As for the Southern states, I'm pretty sure Arkansas would have gone for Humphrey, and Texas would have probably stayed with him. The others should be Nixon's by varying margins, though.
Bob mentions Missouri, what was the result there? (Don't bother, I'll look it up myself). Ohio is also a likely Humphrey pickup - more likely than Illinois, in fact.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

MO was very, very close IIRC... and Wallace's best area was the usually Democratic "boot heel"

[Colin]

Wallace took votes from Nixon. Without Wallace in the race, Nixon would have won a more decisive victory.

I don't think that is true.  In the south, Nixon would have probably won most of the Wallace votes.  However, in the north, the Wallace probably would have gone to Nixon, giving him the win.  I'm thinking something like this:



This is a 278 to 260 win by Humphrey.

Nixon would win California. Most of the Wallace votes would go toward Nixon since he was the candidate who would probably have appealed more toward Wallace voters.

[Erc]

Wallace certainly didn't take votes solely from the Democrats...my father (who was living in CA at the time) supported Wallace up until mid-October or so (when the bottom began to drop out of Wallace's campaign) and then supported Nixon come November.

The real question is whether the South would have stayed loyal to the Democrats (in which event Wallace was simply a spoiler) or whether Nixon could have pulled off his '72 Southern Strategy four years earlier.  Personally, I feel Nixon would have been able to concentrate there and pull it off.  Heck, they voted against LBJ, a Texan and would have no problem voting a liberal from Minnesota.
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic:
VT, NH:  Solid Nixon
MA, RI, ME:  Solid Humphrey
CT:  In order to take the state from Humphrey, he'd need to take 93% of the Wallace vote.  Not gonna happen.  Solid Humphrey.
NY:  Solid Humphrey (Humphrey doesn't have a solid majority, but he has a solid plurality)
NJ:  Humphrey needs 62% of the Wallace vote here.  Possible, but a bit of a stretch.  Leans Nixon.  Note that Wallace performed substantially better in the South of the state, in the PA suburbs.
PA:  Nixon needs 72% of the Wallace vote to win.  Humphrey.
DE:  Humphrey needs 63% of the Wallace vote here.  Similar situation to NJ, but further South.  Interestingly enough, Wallace performed best in New Castle.  Leans Nixon.
MD:  Nixon needs 56% of the Wallace vote to take the state.  Quite potentially a Nixon pickup.
WV:  Nixon need 96% of the Wallace vote.  Solid Humphrey.

The South:
Again, how each state will generally fall will depend on how the South as a whole falls.
VA:  Humphrey needs 74.  Even if the South breaks against him, he's still got the state.
NC:  Humphrey needs 64.
SC:  Humphrey needs 63.
GA:  Humphrey needs 54.
FL:  Humphrey needs 67.
AL:  Nixon needs 63.
MS:  Nixon needs 57.
LA:  Nixon needs 55.
TX:  Nixon needs 53 to steal the state from Humphrey.
OK:  Humphrey needs 89.  Nixon country.
AR:  Humphrey needs 51.
TN:  Humphrey needs 64.
KY:  Humphrey needs 67.
MO:  Humphrey needs 55.

Great Lakes / Midwest:
IN, IA: Solid Nixon
MN: Solid Humphrey
OH:  Humphrey needs 60.
MI:  Nixon needs 83.  Humphreyland.
WI:  Humphrey needs 74.  How Nixon did so well in WI always amazes me.
IL:  Humphrey needs 67.

West:
NV:  Humphrey needs 81.
WA:  Nixon needs 64.
OR:  Humphrey needs all but 57 of the Wallace votes.  Nixonland.
CA:  Humphrey needs 73.
AK:  Humphrey needs 61.


Since we're having such a difficulty deciding who they'll break to, let's say that 1968 voters couldn't either.  Wallace doesn't break for either side by more than a 2-1 margin.


209 Nixon
147 Humphrey
182 Tossups

Dividing them evenly...


Humphrey 218
Nixon 320

60-40 in favor of Humphrey

274-264 for Humphrey.

Assuming Nixon pulls off a Southern Strategy...then Humphrey's pretty much screwed.  Even if he takes two-thirds of Wallace's votes in the North, he's still short and with few avenues for expansion [the only vulnerable (<80% needed to win] Nixon states are OH, AK, NJ, DE, IL, CA, WI].  In short, Humphrey needs to win CA by taking 73% of Wallace's vote.  Tall order.

If Nixon's eye is kept on the South (and I don't think he'll have too hard of a time at all--his hardest target down south is AL, where he still only needs 62% of the Wallace vote), he can't lose if he holds onto California.

[minionofmidas]

Great analysis, Erc.

[Democratic Hawk]

The 1968 Presidential Election

The result of the 1968 US Presidential Election was as follows:

Richard Nixon 301 electoral votes
Hubert Humphrey 191 electoral votes
George Wallace 46 electoral votes

I have often wondered that had Wallace not ran as an American Independent candidate would the election have produced a different outcome. On the face of it, no!

In 21 states plus the District of Columbia, Nixon and Humphrey secured a majority of votes cast:

Nixon carried 15 states with 79 electoral votes (mainly the less populated states of the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions)
Humphrey carried 6 states with 82 electoral votes (including the richest prize of New York)

Wallace carried 5 states in the ‘Deep South’ (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi), with 46 electoral votes. It is most probable that Nixon would have carried all of these states (with the possible exception of Arkansas, which had voted for LBJ in 1964), which would have increased his total electoral vote to 341 to 197 electoral votes for Humphrey – had Wallace not been a presidential candidate

However, while Wallaces’ power base was undoubtedly the ‘Deep South’, the fact is that had he not been a presidential candidate could have significantly affected the results of the election elsewhere. In the context of the time, it is likely that Wallace voters may have trended towards Nixon in the south and west, but trended towards Humphrey in the mid-west and north-east. It is possible that four significant states that narrowly supported Nixon could have supported Humphrey had Wallace not been on the ballot. These were: Illinois (26 electoral votes); Missouri (12 electoral votes); New Jersey (17 electoral votes) and Ohio (26 electoral votes). As a result, a net gain of 81 electoral votes added to Humphrey’s 197, would have given him 278 electoral votes to Nixon’s 260. The swing states of 1968 would have been Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio and Texas

Humphrey narrowly carried Texas, it is possible that Nixon may have carried it in a head-to-head contest. In this scenario, Nixon would have defeated Humphrey by 285 to 253 electoral votes. It is also conceivable that Nixon would have carried Arkansas and its 6 electoral votes

My conclusion is that had Wallace not been a presidential candidate, a Humphrey victory was possible; although a Nixon victory was probable.

Dave

[Hitchabrut]

Nixon, It would definitely be too close to call as an anchor for a while.