|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 03, 2020, 03:01:33 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Coolface's deceased great-granduncle, Apocrypha)
  1968: Humphrey v. Wallace
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Who would you vote for?
#1
Hubert Humphrey (D)
 
#2
George Wallace (R)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: 1968: Humphrey v. Wallace  (Read 3319 times)
RBH
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,173


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 30, 2005, 12:47:32 am »

I've run this a few times on President Elect, and Wallace is doing surprisingly well (winning the popular vote a few times because he wins 2/3rds of the vote in the South). Wallace almost always wins the entire South, Oklahoma, and a few western states (Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, so on)

Any thoughts on how this would turn out?
Logged
DanielX
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,128
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2005, 08:13:43 am »

Write-in Goldwater. Or Reagan. Or Dole. Or Ford. Or Rockefeller. Or even Nixon. Heck, just about the only Republicans i wouldn't write-in are Romney and Agnew...
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2005, 06:27:14 pm »
« Edited: August 03, 2005, 10:54:14 pm by Winfield »



Humphrey 485
Wallace 53
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,271



WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2005, 07:26:05 pm »

Humphrey has always been my favorite Democratic presidential candidate, and in this scenario he would win soundly.
Logged
Snefix
Rookie
**
Posts: 36


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2005, 10:07:57 pm »

After crunching this scenario multiple times in President Elect, I have come to the conclusion that Wallace wins it in an electorally close, but popularly decent sized margin of victory.  Even when Humphrey won, Wallace still typically ended up with 51%.  I'd say this makes a fair degree of sense, since Wallace's anti-hippie, law-and-order platform was fairly compatable with Nixon's Republican platform.

Let's call it...

Wallace(R): 281, 53%
Humphrey(D): 257, 47%

Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2005, 11:13:37 pm »

After crunching this scenario multiple times in President Elect, I have come to the conclusion that Wallace wins it in an electorally close, but popularly decent sized margin of victory. Even when Humphrey won, Wallace still typically ended up with 51%. I'd say this makes a fair degree of sense, since Wallace's anti-hippie, law-and-order platform was fairly compatable with Nixon's Republican platform.

Let's call it...

Wallace(R): 281, 53%
Humphrey(D): 257, 47%



With all due respect, there is no possible way that much of the country would in reality vote for an avowed segregationist.
Logged
Snefix
Rookie
**
Posts: 36


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2005, 11:42:06 pm »

They would if he was a Republican in 1968 and there was no Nixon around. :-)
Logged
Max Power
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,184
Political Matrix
E: 1.84, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2005, 12:36:53 am »

After crunching this scenario multiple times in President Elect, I have come to the conclusion that Wallace wins it in an electorally close, but popularly decent sized margin of victory.  Even when Humphrey won, Wallace still typically ended up with 51%.  I'd say this makes a fair degree of sense, since Wallace's anti-hippie, law-and-order platform was fairly compatable with Nixon's Republican platform.

Let's call it...

Wallace(R): 281, 53%
Humphrey(D): 257, 47%



No.
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,993
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2005, 12:43:51 am »

^^^^^^
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,969
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2005, 08:56:20 am »

There's no way Wallace would be the Republican candidate.  Remember he was generally on the left as far as economics goes.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2005, 09:19:43 am »
« Edited: August 12, 2005, 01:34:27 pm by Winfield »

They would if he was a Republican in 1968 and there was no Nixon around. :-)

You are giving the people in your Wallace states far too little credit, I'm afraid.

In real life, outside of possibly five deep south states, Wallace's candidacy would not go over well at all. Humphrey would have won in the other 45 states.

The actual 1968 election was between two credible and viable Presidential candidates, former Vice President Richard Nixon, and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and one radical, segregationist, fanatical extremist, George Wallace.

George Wallace was neither credible nor viable as a Presidential candidate.

You are assuming most of the Nixon votes in your Wallace states would go to Wallace. This would not be the case. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a fact of life by 1968, and accepted in most of the country. Most of the Nixon vote, I would say a good majority of the Nixon vote, would have gone to Humphrey. Nixon was a conservative, but not a segregationist.

The selection of Wallace by the Republicans as their Presidential candidate in 1968 would have resulted in a disaster for the GOP, and a landslide win for Humphrey.

America would not turn the Presidency over to a radical extremist like Wallace. It would be like electing Ross Perot in 1992, not that Perot was a segregationist, rather in the sense that Wallace and Perot were both radical and extreme in their own ways, and were in no way qualified to be President.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2005, 11:17:44 am »

They would if he was a Republican in 1968 and there was no Nixon around. :-)

who is that in your signature?!
Logged
Snefix
Rookie
**
Posts: 36


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2005, 05:01:37 pm »

Stacy Keibler, a lady from WWE.

Anyhow, by 1968 Wallace had greatly removed himself from his former segregationist stances and you can be certain that he wouldn't be using that as the basis of a national candidacy.  If the world was turned upside down and he was the Republican ticket, he would have access to a boatload of support that he didn't have access to previously.  And he was pretty darn popular in states outside of the south as well.  He won the Michigan Democratic Primary in 1972 which helped lead to the current caucus system they have today.

You cobble together a law and order platform of Nixon's with a pro-state's rights position, be anti-hippie, downplay segregation, and up play 'peace with honor', give it a nice Republican label.. bada bing bada boom, you have yourself an electoral winning coalition.  And there's no doubt in my mind, and anyone that has studied history and doesn't swallow the Democrat re-written history,  that Wallace couldn't do all of the above.

I would suggest you check out the following maps as well.  Just for a little information:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1972.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1968.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1964.html

And if you've got a problem with the results the program spits out, take it up with the guy that wrote the code for President Elect.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2005, 12:02:04 am »

There is one major flaw in your reasoning, in my humble opinion.

That's fine to have a 1968 campaign built on the points you raise -

"law and order platform, pro-state's rights position, anti- hippie, downplay segregtion, up play "peace with honor", give it a nice Republican label"

But in order for this campaign to succeed, these themes would as well have to be delivered by a viable, credible candidate for the Presidency of the United States.  George Wallace did not measure up to these criteria.

Anyway, that's my view, you disagree, and that's fine.

It's just a point I wanted to raise.       

Logged
Snefix
Rookie
**
Posts: 36


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2005, 01:59:06 am »

Wallace was already a viable candidate.  He postings in 64, 68, and 72 show he could piece together a national campaign.  The nomination of one of the two big parties gives him the credibility necessary to win and also enhances his viablity at the same time.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2005, 09:43:43 pm »

Wallace was already a viable candidate. He postings in 64, 68, and 72 show he could piece together a national campaign. The nomination of one of the two big parties gives him the credibility necessary to win and also enhances his viablity at the same time.

Question for Snefix

Who, in your view, would Wallace have picked for a running mate in 1968 to run with against the Humphrey/Muskie ticket?

As well, who would you yourself have put on the ticket if you had a say in the matter?

Remember, it would have to be a Republican who would actually accept the Vice Presidential nomination on the same ticket with Wallace.
Logged
Snefix
Rookie
**
Posts: 36


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 20, 2005, 04:01:25 pm »

I've been having it be any schmoe from California for the scenario computational purposes.  I think Gen. LeMay was from there, who was his running mate in 1968.  I don't see any particular reason why he couldn't use him.  Although I suppose you could pick anyone from the Byrd clan (there have been several, in the VA and WV region).  Perhaps Strom Thurmond.

I personally would've recommended Nelson Rockefeller for his VP in such a scenario, to attempt to soothe the concerns of the northeast establishment Republicans.  He probably would've accepted. Or Governor Romney might not be bad either, I think he would've taken the VP nomination if we're assuming he still made his "brainwashed" comment and was thus politically dead.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2005, 04:18:27 pm »

I've been having it be any schmoe from California for the scenario computational purposes. I think Gen. LeMay was from there, who was his running mate in 1968. I don't see any particular reason why he couldn't use him. Although I suppose you could pick anyone from the Byrd clan (there have been several, in the VA and WV region). Perhaps Strom Thurmond.

I personally would've recommended Nelson Rockefeller for his VP in such a scenario, to attempt to soothe the concerns of the northeast establishment Republicans. He probably would've accepted. Or Governor Romney might not be bad either, I think he would've taken the VP nomination if we're assuming he still made his "brainwashed" comment and was thus politically dead.

Thank you for your reply.

However, Hell would freeze over before either Rockefeller or Romney would run on a ticket with Wallace.
Logged
Snefix
Rookie
**
Posts: 36


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2005, 05:02:30 pm »

Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,046


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2005, 06:52:36 pm »

Very innovative.

But in reality, Rockefeller or Romney, NO!

You have some set opinions in this matter, and that makes things interesting. 

These forums would be petty dull if everybody thought the same way.

By the way, I have posted a "What If" scenario, Nelson Rockefeller v Hubert Humphrey 1964, and would be very interested to see your take on that election.

Thanks.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 25, 2007, 11:19:00 pm »


Humphrey: 435
Wallace: 103
Logged
gorkay
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 996


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2007, 01:35:53 pm »

How in the *&^%$#@ would Wallace have been nominated as a Republican?
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines