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

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

From what I have read, Wallace voters in the South (59% of all Wallace voters) voted about 90-10 for Nixon in '72, while outside the South (41% of all Wallace voters) they voted about 55-45 for Nixon.  Extrapolating these figures to 1968 while keeping 1964 in mind, it would seem that in the South, Wallace voters would have gone about 3-1 for Nixon, while the North, they would have gone about 3-2 for Humphrey.

Translation: without Wallace, flip all 5 Wallace states (plus TX and maybe even MD) to Nixon.

[SingingAnalyst]

In terms of the national mood, your answer is yes. I remember in August 1988 watching TV news show clips from 1968 (that's all we had back then) playing the late 1960s music and showing dispossessed people (mainly Black) on the streets; they also played a speech by labor leader Walter Reuther* from that era. It was hopeful and kind of sad, looking back as a 1988 American. In 1968, we believed (for better or worse) that government could do practically anything and that not only America, but the world, was getting better and better. By 1988, we had lost such faith and our political discourse was reduced to sound bites, "read my lips", "voodoo", and "doodoo" (look it up!)

*Reuther was killed in a suspicious plane crash on May 9, 1970. The I-696 freeway through southern Macomb and Oakland counties is named after him.

[mianfei]

There is no doubt that 1968 was more “modern” than that of 1988, at least inasmuch as there was much more overwhelming white opposition in the South to the Democrats, apart from the critical difference (which I discuss here.) of then-unionized coal counties, which in fact were Humphrey’s largest single area of white support in the South.

Humphrey received only around 5 to 10 percent white support in the Deep South and Arkansas, only around one-sixth of the white electorate in Tennessee and North Carolina (in these two states McGovern probably garnered a larger share of white votes than Humphrey), around one-quarter in Florida, Oklahoma and Virginia, and around one-third in Texas.

Excepting coal counties and some parts of central Texas (called “brass-collar” by Kevin Phillips) Humphrey was as totally demolished in the white South as we have come used to since 2000 (more so in urban areas, less in rural). In contrast, Democrats between 1976 and 1996 often won a quarter of white votes in the Deep South and over forty percent in the Outer South. Consider the following representative figures for overwhelmingly white rural southern counties:

	1968 Humphrey vote	1988 Dukakis vote	2016 Hilary Clinton vote
Cameron Parish, LA	20.56%	55.45%	8.75%
Jackson County, AL	9.37%	54.27%	17.50%
Clay County, AR	26.16%	55.16%	23.06%
Nowata County, OK	29.14%	52.03%	17.51%
Benton County, TN	22.15%	56.42%	23.29%

[buritobr]

There is no doubt that 1968 was more “modern” than that of 1988, at least inasmuch as there was much more overwhelming white opposition in the South to the Democrats, apart from the critical difference (which I discuss here.) of then-unionized coal counties, which in fact were Humphrey’s largest single area of white support in the South.

Humphrey received only around 5 to 10 percent white support in the Deep South and Arkansas, only around one-sixth of the white electorate in Tennessee and North Carolina (in these two states McGovern probably garnered a larger share of white votes than Humphrey), around one-quarter in Florida, Oklahoma and Virginia, and around one-third in Texas.

Excepting coal counties and some parts of central Texas (called “brass-collar” by Kevin Phillips) Humphrey was as totally demolished in the white South as we have come used to since 2000 (more so in urban areas, less in rural). In contrast, Democrats between 1976 and 1996 often won a quarter of white votes in the Deep South and over forty percent in the Outer South. Consider the following representative figures for overwhelmingly white rural southern counties:

	1968 Humphrey vote	1988 Dukakis vote	2016 Hilary Clinton vote
Cameron Parish, LA	20.56%	55.45%	8.75%
Jackson County, AL	9.37%	54.27%	17.50%
Clay County, AR	26.16%	55.16%	23.06%
Nowata County, OK	29.14%	52.03%	17.51%
Benton County, TN	22.15%	56.42%	23.29%

Sure, we have already discussed in other threads. Jimmy Carter 1976 made a comeback of the democrats in the South that had a 20 year effect. The democrats performed poorly in the South in 1984 and 1988 because they performed poorly in the whole country (example: Reagan had a landslide against Mondale in Georgia in 1984, but the result was very close to the national result). However there was also a republican comeback in the north. In 1960, 1964, 1968 and 1972, Masschusetts was much more D than the national vote. In 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992, Masschusetts was closer to the national vote. Since 1996, Massachusetts is much more D again.

[Mr. Smith]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

[OSR stands with Israel]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

That’s cause George Wallace took votes away from Nixon in the Deep south

[darklordoftech]

The democrats performed poorly in the South in 1984 and 1988 because they performed poorly in the whole country

Also, Mondale and Dukakis were awful fits for the South. Mondale was a friend of teachers' unions and Dukakis was an anti-death-penalty, pro-furlough policy wonk from Massechusettes.

[RINO Tom]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

That’s cause George Wallace took votes away from Nixon in the Deep south

Should we have the same conversation again?  LOL

[OSR stands with Israel]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

That’s cause George Wallace took votes away from Nixon in the Deep south

Should we have the same conversation again?  LOL

If LBJ lost the Deep South Humphrey certainly would have


Humphrey was a terrible candidate for the Deep south  and Nixon was a great one (espically with Agnew on ticket )

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

And yet look how at how California was "almost won".

In 1968, Humphrey lost Los Angeles County [JFK and Carter did not], and pretty much the entire South end, though he did do unprecedentedly well in the Bay Area itself. But nonetheless, there's a reason he won nearly the same counties Carter did in '76 winning the Dixie North that now houses Doug LaMalfa as Representative and voted for Trump upwards towards the 70s in some cases.

Whereas Dukakis opened up the door for the "coast vs Inland divide" that all the #hottakes lament when dismissing Harris' 2010 performance to discredit 2020.




Anyway, towards my original comment, there's a reason Humphrey was second place in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, and not Nixon.

That’s cause George Wallace took votes away from Nixon in the Deep south

Actually it's because Humphrey had a floor with newly-enfranchised black voters.