Was the election of 1968 more modern than the election of 1988?

[buritobr]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

[Arbitrage1980]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

[Arbitrage1980]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

Not sure about that. Wallace did cost Nixon the Deep South states, but he also got a lot of disaffected white blue collar voters who supported JFK 1960, LBJ 1964, and RFK 1968 during the dem primaries.

[buritobr]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

What do you mean "Obama 08 style victory"? National 7 point margin?

[DS0816]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

[RINO Tom]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

[Mr. Smith]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

Goldwater won those states against a southern Candidate why would Humphrey win those

[RINO Tom]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

Goldwater won those states against a southern Candidate why would Humphrey win those

God, EVERYTHING you say or ask is so simplified; surely you recognize this was one of the most complex periods in American political history.  Nixon said in his biography that he could never reach the Wallace voter because of his status as a (publicly) pro-civil rights Republican.  In 1968, there were still a LOT of Southerners who'd simply never vote GOP.  If given the choice between a pro-civil rights Democrat and a pro-civil rights Republican who was making (some race-based) appeals to mostly New South suburbanites, I don't think it's OBVIOUS who your true Yellow Dogs are going to vote for...

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

Goldwater won those states against a southern Candidate why would Humphrey win those

God, EVERYTHING you say or ask is so simplified; surely you recognize this was one of the most complex periods in American political history.  Nixon said in his biography that he could never reach the Wallace voter because of his status as a (publicly) pro-civil rights Republican.  In 1968, there were still a LOT of Southerners who'd simply never vote GOP.  If given the choice between a pro-civil rights Democrat and a pro-civil rights Republican who was making (some race-based) appeals to mostly New South suburbanites, I don't think it's OBVIOUS who your true Yellow Dogs are going to vote for...

Nixon won 70 percent of the vote in the south in 1972 and won states like SC in 1968 which was actually more democratic in the solid south days then any other southern state so if he could take SC he would take the rest . Plus the candidates who won SC usually won Bama ,  Miss , GA and the other Wallace states .For evidence look at 1928 , 1952,1956,1964 when people who won SC won those other Wallace States

[Bismarck]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

Um how was Humphrey one of the main backers of the civil rights movement going to win any of the states won by George Wallace.

By just being D, worked in Alabama, Ole Miss, and Louisiana.

Goldwater won those states against a southern Candidate why would Humphrey win those

God, EVERYTHING you say or ask is so simplified; surely you recognize this was one of the most complex periods in American political history.  Nixon said in his biography that he could never reach the Wallace voter because of his status as a (publicly) pro-civil rights Republican.  In 1968, there were still a LOT of Southerners who'd simply never vote GOP.  If given the choice between a pro-civil rights Democrat and a pro-civil rights Republican who was making (some race-based) appeals to mostly New South suburbanites, I don't think it's OBVIOUS who your true Yellow Dogs are going to vote for...

Nixon won 70 percent of the vote in the south in 1972 and won states like SC in 1968 which was actually more democratic in the solid south days then any other southern state so if he could take SC he would take the rest . Plus the candidates who won SC usually won Bama ,  Miss , GA and the other Wallace states .For evidence look at 1928 , 1952,1956,1964 when people who won SC won those other Wallace States

Well of course he won the south in 72 his opponent was considered to be a far left radical. Nixon was pro civil rights, although less activley so than Humphrey. Wallace also was quite liberal on economic issues, many working class whites still would've viewed Nicon as the candidate of the wealthy. I think it's hard to say what would've happened. Most Wallace voters in the north almost certainly would've been for Humphrey.

[Goldwater]

Discussions about voting habits in the south are always fun.

[Indy Texas]

If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.

It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run

No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didn’t get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

People overlook the fact that realignments are about cohorts. The number of everyday voters in the South who actually said, after 1964, "I'm not a Democrat anymore. From now on I'm always voting Republican," is very small. But the percentage of first-time voters in 1964 who voted Republican was higher than the percentage in 1960, and it got higher over time. Same story with the gradual decline of Republicans in the Northeast. "Rockefeller Republicans" kept voting Republican, but their children and grandchildren did not.

[Del Tachi]

1988 was definitely more modern.  It happened 20 years after 1968. 

[RI]

State-level correlation of Dem vote
2012-1968: 0.7276
2012-1988: 0.7339

Pretty close, but 1988 was closer to 2012 than 1968.

[OSR stands with Israel]

1948

[Nym90]

1968 was pretty class-based, too. In fact in some ways it was the most class-based election in terms of voting patterns outside the South. Humphrey won more of the Northeast than Dukakis simply because he did better nationally.

[‼realJohnEwards‼]

State-level correlation of Dem vote
2012-1968: 0.7276
2012-1988: 0.7339

Pretty close, but 1988 was closer to 2012 than 1968.

Well, keep in mind that Wallace screws with these numbers quite a bit. I'd be interested to see this, but with half (or even a third) of Wallace supporters going to HH

[SingingAnalyst]

In some ways, it appears so. The 1968 map resembles the 2000 or 2016 map more than the 1988 map does.

However, 1968 has this in common with 2000 and 2016: in all three cases, the Dems had held the Presidency for 8 years and were considered the "establishment" party; in 1988, the reverse was true.

One counter-argument is that large swaths of the country in 1968 had not yet "converted" to 21st-century voting patterns, while by 1988 that switch was in progress. CA and IL, large states that are safe D today, both voted for Nixon, albeit by a fairly close margin. (Nixon even carried LA County). At the same time, TX, which has been lean/safe R in the 21st century, voted for Humphrey. Of course Wallace was going to do poorly in VT, but VT was still one of Nixon's best states in '68; while Bush won VT in '88, his PV percentage was below the national average.

In addition, demographic subgroups within states had not yet "converted": Catholics were still strongly Democratic in 1968; by 1988 they were essentially voting with the national average (a few points more D, but not much). In 1968, Humphrey carried Macomb County, MI with 55.2% (even with Wallace in); in 1988, Macomb voted 60.3% for Bush, giving him over 20% of his statewide 290k vote win.

Finally, Wallace's popularity (your call to ignore his candidacy for this thought experiment notwithstanding), considering his party affiliation and everything he had stood for and campaigned on in the 1960s, makes 1968 a pre-modern election. It is hard to ignore a candidate who received 10m votes and who remains the only national (as opposed to regional) 3rd party candidate to win a state in any election since 1924. By 1988, no national Democrats to speak of could have won by taking Wallace's 1968 positions: opposition to abortion, opposition to the growing power of the federal bureaucracy, etc.

You are correct, however, that Bush's 1988 victory was one of the most uniform of all time; in no state did Bush receive less than 43.5% or more than 66.5% of the PV-- perhaps the narrowest range for a winning candidate ever.

[nclib]

The 1988 map looks a bit like the white for Democrat maps in 2000-2012.

[darklordoftech]

I recall reading that Humphrey did better with the educated and the wealthy in 1968 than Kennedy did in 1960, either because the issues were more social than economic or because Rockefeller Republicans were dying off.

[twenty42]

Discussions about voting habits in the south are always fun.

It isn’t all that complicated...Democrats are likely to win at least one Deep South state if they win a presidential election by more than six points. Obama 2008 was probably more of an aberration...Hillary probably would’ve won GA if she had won by the same margin. A 6-7 point Kerry win in 2004 probably would’ve included AR, and Gore probably would’ve won AR, TN, and LA under those conditions.

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton moved the South to the left for obvious reasons, but it has never exactly been ruby red. Obama’s relatively poor showing in the region in 2008 can probably be attributed to bitter Clinton Democrats staying home, and 2012 was too close of an election for the South to come into play.