1972: President Richard Nixon vs Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey

[Don Vito Corleone]

The 1972 election was probably unwinnable for the Democrats, but they didn't have to lose 49 states. What would the result be if Humphrey and Nixon re-matched?

[HomestarSB9]

It would be a whole lot closer than it would be in real life. Humphrey probably wins all the states he did in '68, minus Connecticut and Maine.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

[Sir Mohamed]

A bit closer, but still a comfortable victory for Nixon.

✓ President Richard Nixon (R-CA)/Vice President Spiro Agnew (R-MD): 406 EVs.; 55.6%
Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)/Senator Ralph Yabourough (D-TX): 132 EVs.; 43.8%

[Kingpoleon]

474: Richard Nixon/John Connally - 58.2%
64: Hubert Humphrey/William L. Guy - 40.6%

[Oppo]

Let's remember that Humphrey was a master campaigner. He closed a massive gap with Nixon. I think that Nixon would win, but it would be a much smaller victory (56%-44%).

[Mr. Smith]

Nixon/Agnew: 54%
Humphrey/Eagleton: 46%

[BushKerry04]

The 1972 election was probably unwinnable for the Democrats, but they didn't have to lose 49 states. What would the result be if Humphrey and Nixon re-matched?

I'm not convinced it was unwinnable. I think 1972, much like 2016, was a year the Democrats lost a winnable race. Hubert Humphrey probably wasn't the strongest candidate, but he would have had a far better chance than McGovern. I think Americans liked McGovern personally, but viewed him as a far-left ideologue. Humphrey would not have been viewed as far-left, but he couldn't be the true anti-war candidate given his administration continued the war.

[dw93]

The 1972 election was probably unwinnable for the Democrats, but they didn't have to lose 49 states. What would the result be if Humphrey and Nixon re-matched?

I'm not convinced it was unwinnable. I think 1972, much like 2016, was a year the Democrats lost a winnable race. Hubert Humphrey probably wasn't the strongest candidate, but he would have had a far better chance than McGovern. I think Americans liked McGovern personally, but viewed him as a far-left ideologue. Humphrey would not have been viewed as far-left, but he couldn't be the true anti-war candidate given his administration continued the war.

If the trends of 1970-71 continued into '72 (polls in I think it was early to mid 71 showed Nixon was vulnerable), the dems MIGHT'VE  had a shot, although I'd personally give Nixon the edge. By 1972 (and especially after McGovern won the nomination), that wasn't the case and Nixon had as much of a lock on the race as Reagan had in '84.

[Don Vito Corleone]

The 1972 election was probably unwinnable for the Democrats, but they didn't have to lose 49 states. What would the result be if Humphrey and Nixon re-matched?

I'm not convinced it was unwinnable. I think 1972, much like 2016, was a year the Democrats lost a winnable race. Hubert Humphrey probably wasn't the strongest candidate, but he would have had a far better chance than McGovern. I think Americans liked McGovern personally, but viewed him as a far-left ideologue. Humphrey would not have been viewed as far-left, but he couldn't be the true anti-war candidate given his administration continued the war.

If the trends of 1970-71 continued into '72 (polls in I think it was early to mid 71 showed Nixon was vulnerable), the dems MIGHT'VE  had a shot, although I'd personally give Nixon the edge. By 1972 (and especially after McGovern won the nomination), that wasn't the case and Nixon had as much of a lock on the race as Reagan had in '84.

Interestingly enough, the same can be said of 1984 (If the trends of 1982-83 had continued into 1984 the Dems would've had a pretty decent shot).

[dw93]

The 1972 election was probably unwinnable for the Democrats, but they didn't have to lose 49 states. What would the result be if Humphrey and Nixon re-matched?

I'm not convinced it was unwinnable. I think 1972, much like 2016, was a year the Democrats lost a winnable race. Hubert Humphrey probably wasn't the strongest candidate, but he would have had a far better chance than McGovern. I think Americans liked McGovern personally, but viewed him as a far-left ideologue. Humphrey would not have been viewed as far-left, but he couldn't be the true anti-war candidate given his administration continued the war.

If the trends of 1970-71 continued into '72 (polls in I think it was early to mid 71 showed Nixon was vulnerable), the dems MIGHT'VE  had a shot, although I'd personally give Nixon the edge. By 1972 (and especially after McGovern won the nomination), that wasn't the case and Nixon had as much of a lock on the race as Reagan had in '84.

Interestingly enough, the same can be said of 1984 (If the trends of 1982-83 had continued into 1984 the Dems would've had a pretty decent shot).

True. While I think Reagan would still win, I think he'd be more vulnerable than Nixon, if only because the Democrats of the mid '80s were more willing to adapt and unify for the win than the Democratic Party was in the early 70s.

[OSR stands with Israel]

In my opinion if the trends of 1982-83 continued into 1984, 1984 would basically be like 2012 and this would likely be the map

Reagan/Bush 353
Mondale/Ferraro 185

[MR DARK BRANDON]

Nixon wins.