Was a third-party candidate inevitable in 1968?

[Sir Mohamed]

There’s almost no scenario in the what-if section without a third-party-candidate in 1968. And I myself find it very hard to predict who would have won the South that year in a two-way race. It turned only Republican in 1964 because of Johnson’s civil-rights policies and Goldwater’s staunch conservative stances. So, who would have won the south in a two-way race in 1968? Especially if you have a liberal Democrat (LBJ, Humphrey, Kennedy) on one side, and a moderate or liberal GOPer on the other side besides Nixon (dudes like Rockefeller or Romney)?

I personally think the Republican had won the south since the Dems were associated with desegregation, although most GOPers supported it as well. Or that some states of Deep South would have been won by Wallace or Maddox write-in votes.

[RINO Tom]

I think 1964 was pretty clearly a protest vote.  The Deep South voted reliably Democratic downballot, and the other Southern states stayed loyal to Johnson.  Don't get me wrong, Goldwater's campaign planted many seeds and obviously had an effect longterm, but I think the degree in which politics changed in 1964 is VASTLY overrated, mostly because such a narrative tells a nice, clean and easy story that fits into a textbook chapter quite nicely.

I'm not sure if 1968 was bound to have a third party, and I am also not sure that Nixon would have won any of those states without Wallace.  History has (rightly) painted him in a negative light, but from what I've read, Nixon was clearly seen as a pro-civil rights politician during the time, despite his Law and Order schtick.  I mean, enforcing the laws and cracking down on illegal protest (i.e., looting and vandalism), while possibly racially coded, is not even close to advocating for institutional inequality.  Humphry was definitely not to the liking of most Southern Whites of the time, but I'm skeptical Nixon was viewed as much better.  It's possible the South could have tried to give the same middle finger to HHH that it gave to LBJ, but the problem is its Republican alternative isn't anywhere near as palpatable.  I think it's fairly undeniable that Rockefeller or Romney would have lost the South to Humphrey, had they been the nominee (think a similar result to Eisenhower minus WV, maybe?).

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

I think 1964 was pretty clearly a protest vote.  The Deep South voted reliably Democratic downballot, and the other Southern states stayed loyal to Johnson.  Don't get me wrong, Goldwater's campaign planted many seeds and obviously had an effect longterm, but I think the degree in which politics changed in 1964 is VASTLY overrated, mostly because such a narrative tells a nice, clean and easy story that fits into a textbook chapter quite nicely.

I'm not sure if 1968 was bound to have a third party, and I am also not sure that Nixon would have won any of those states without Wallace.  History has (rightly) painted him in a negative light, but from what I've read, Nixon was clearly seen as a pro-civil rights politician during the time, despite his Law and Order schtick.  I mean, enforcing the laws and cracking down on illegal protest (i.e., looting and vandalism), while possibly racially coded, is not even close to advocating for institutional inequality.  Humphry was definitely not to the liking of most Southern Whites of the time, but I'm skeptical Nixon was viewed as much better.  It's possible the South could have tried to give the same middle finger to HHH that it gave to LBJ, but the problem is its Republican alternative isn't anywhere near as palpatable.  I think it's fairly undeniable that Rockefeller or Romney would have lost the South to Humphrey, had they been the nominee (think a similar result to Eisenhower minus WV, maybe?).

-No; Alabama also elected a bunch of GOP representatives. GOP candidates did well in the Goldwater-voting parts of the South when they ran and were credible.

Yes; a third party run was probably inevitable in 1968.

[RINO Tom]

I think 1964 was pretty clearly a protest vote.  The Deep South voted reliably Democratic downballot, and the other Southern states stayed loyal to Johnson.  Don't get me wrong, Goldwater's campaign planted many seeds and obviously had an effect longterm, but I think the degree in which politics changed in 1964 is VASTLY overrated, mostly because such a narrative tells a nice, clean and easy story that fits into a textbook chapter quite nicely.

I'm not sure if 1968 was bound to have a third party, and I am also not sure that Nixon would have won any of those states without Wallace.  History has (rightly) painted him in a negative light, but from what I've read, Nixon was clearly seen as a pro-civil rights politician during the time, despite his Law and Order schtick.  I mean, enforcing the laws and cracking down on illegal protest (i.e., looting and vandalism), while possibly racially coded, is not even close to advocating for institutional inequality.  Humphry was definitely not to the liking of most Southern Whites of the time, but I'm skeptical Nixon was viewed as much better.  It's possible the South could have tried to give the same middle finger to HHH that it gave to LBJ, but the problem is its Republican alternative isn't anywhere near as palpatable.  I think it's fairly undeniable that Rockefeller or Romney would have lost the South to Humphrey, had they been the nominee (think a similar result to Eisenhower minus WV, maybe?).

-No; Alabama also elected a bunch of GOP representatives. GOP candidates did well in the Goldwater-voting parts of the South when they ran and were credible.

Yes; a third party run was probably inevitable in 1968.

As I have said repeatedly, 1964 obviously opened up politics in the Deep South.  People were "allowed" to vote Republican, as the Democratic Party was now pushing for civil rights at least as hard as the GOP was.  However, this doesn't change the fact that the only Senator running for re-election in the Deep South that year (in MS) ran unopposed as a Democrat, and though the GOP made some moderate gains (specifically in areas that already had been trending Republican well before the CRA), the Dixie Delegation to DC remained HEAVILY Democratic for a long time after the CRA.

[GoTfan]

'68? Probably. Both sides had more or less accepted that civil rights needed to be fought for. There was a certainty that an anti-civil rights candidate was emerged. Wallace just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

[Sir Mohamed]

I think 1964 was pretty clearly a protest vote.  The Deep South voted reliably Democratic downballot, and the other Southern states stayed loyal to Johnson.  Don't get me wrong, Goldwater's campaign planted many seeds and obviously had an effect longterm, but I think the degree in which politics changed in 1964 is VASTLY overrated, mostly because such a narrative tells a nice, clean and easy story that fits into a textbook chapter quite nicely.

I'm not sure if 1968 was bound to have a third party, and I am also not sure that Nixon would have won any of those states without Wallace.  History has (rightly) painted him in a negative light, but from what I've read, Nixon was clearly seen as a pro-civil rights politician during the time, despite his Law and Order schtick.  I mean, enforcing the laws and cracking down on illegal protest (i.e., looting and vandalism), while possibly racially coded, is not even close to advocating for institutional inequality.  Humphry was definitely not to the liking of most Southern Whites of the time, but I'm skeptical Nixon was viewed as much better.  It's possible the South could have tried to give the same middle finger to HHH that it gave to LBJ, but the problem is its Republican alternative isn't anywhere near as palpatable.  I think it's fairly undeniable that Rockefeller or Romney would have lost the South to Humphrey, had they been the nominee (think a similar result to Eisenhower minus WV, maybe?).

-No; Alabama also elected a bunch of GOP representatives. GOP candidates did well in the Goldwater-voting parts of the South when they ran and were credible.

Yes; a third party run was probably inevitable in 1968.

Well, but the state-level Dems had often little in common with the national ones, especially with liberals like JFK, LBJ, RFK, Humphrey or McGovern. Many of them were racists or just against civil rights. Keep in in mind that more Republicans (proportionally) voted for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Nevertheless, also interesting in this context is also that GA Gov. Lester Maddox, Jimmy Carter’s predecessor, lost the PV in the 1966 gubernatorial election to a GOPer. He could only become governor after the legislature, controlled by Dems, elected him since neither candidate won 50% of the votes due to a strong third-party candidate.

I was more talking about the Deep South that Johnson lost in 1964. TX was different and practically a battleground state in the 1960s: JFK won it very narrowly, as did Humphrey in 1968. LBJ in 1964 had the advantage that it was his home state and that he got elected in a national landslide.