1968: Ronald Reagan vs Hubert Humphrey
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:42:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  1968: Ronald Reagan vs Hubert Humphrey
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 1968: Ronald Reagan vs Hubert Humphrey  (Read 805 times)
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 28, 2021, 02:28:41 AM »

I actually dont think Reagan is anywhere near unelectable as people think he was pre 1980(especially given his margins in 1966). I think 1968 Reagan would be like 2008 Obama without Lehman where an extremely charismatic candidate from a wing previously  considered unelectable manages to win and I think with this map






Reagan/Rhodes 44%
Humphrey/Muskie 42%
Wallace/LeMay 13%

Logged
Don Vito Corleone
bruhgmger2
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2021, 03:52:16 AM »


Something like this. You have to remember that Reagan had a reputation as being pretty radical at this point; he was sometimes called "The Western Wallace". In addition, Reagan at this time had a persona which was quite angry, as opposed to the sunny optimism of his actual presidency. Another thing is that obviously, in 1968, the country wasn't nearly as desperate for change as it was for 1980 (hence the in my view correct consensus people on this board have that getting Reagan elected before 1980 is an uphill battle).

I will note one thing though: There was talk in 1968 of a Rockefeller-Reagan unity pact at the RNC to stop Nixon. I'm just going off memory here but as I recall they did actually try to do that but they couldn't agree over who would be on the top of the ticket. If you can get Rockefeller to agree to be Reagan's VP, the election gets a lot more interesting. Maybe Reagan doesn't win outright, but he might get the election thrown to the House (even in the map I have above, flipping just NY is enough to stop a majority for Humphrey).
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,348


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2021, 01:37:49 PM »


Something like this. You have to remember that Reagan had a reputation as being pretty radical at this point; he was sometimes called "The Western Wallace". In addition, Reagan at this time had a persona which was quite angry, as opposed to the sunny optimism of his actual presidency. Another thing is that obviously, in 1968, the country wasn't nearly as desperate for change as it was for 1980 (hence the in my view correct consensus people on this board have that getting Reagan elected before 1980 is an uphill battle).

I will note one thing though: There was talk in 1968 of a Rockefeller-Reagan unity pact at the RNC to stop Nixon. I'm just going off memory here but as I recall they did actually try to do that but they couldn't agree over who would be on the top of the ticket. If you can get Rockefeller to agree to be Reagan's VP, the election gets a lot more interesting. Maybe Reagan doesn't win outright, but he might get the election thrown to the House (even in the map I have above, flipping just NY is enough to stop a majority for Humphrey).

The reason I  think Reagan would win is I think he definitely does better in the West and South West than Nixon did so he wins Texas , and Washington imo unlike Nixon. The problem for Reagan is the midwest as need need to win two of OH , IL and MO to win the presidency which is why I think Rhodes would be an obvious pick for Reagan as he could get him OH and MO and then even if you take off IL and VT from my map than Reagan gets to 275 EV and wins . I dont think Reagan was ever Goldwater 2.0 as if he was he was hed never have won his 1966 race with the margin as he did, and probably just barely win that race instead by over a 15 point margin.


Well I think one reason Reagan or Rockefeller never happened is cause Nixon was able to win on the first ballot anyway as Strom Thurmond's endorsement of Nixon over Reagan allowed Nixon to sweep the southern delegation and thus get the nomination on the first ballot. Also I beleive if a deal happened neither Reagan or Rockefeller would accept being vp but rather would have had recommended Paul Laxalt or William Scranton become VP for the other.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,454
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2021, 09:50:18 AM »

Reagan wasn't yet electable in 1968. HHH is elected prez.Could have gone to the House, though, because I don't see him winning any more states than below.



✓ Vice President Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)/Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME): 270 EVs.; 44.0%
Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)/Representative Gerald Ford (R-MI): 223 EVs.; 42.2%
Former Governor George Wallace (A-AL)/General Curtis LeMay (A-CA): 45 EVs.; 12.8%
Logged
Chips
Those Chips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,245
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2021, 09:20:46 AM »



Hubert Humphrey: 249 electoral votes
Ronald Reagan: 244 electoral votes
George Wallace: 45 electoral votes

Election goes to the House where Humphrey is elected.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.