Did Nixon actually underperform in 1968?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:27:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Did Nixon actually underperform in 1968?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Did Nixon actually underperform in 1968?  (Read 2627 times)
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 10, 2022, 10:27:08 AM »

Richard Nixon just barely managed to win the 1968 presidential election. Given the fundamentals of that year, shouldn't he have won a pretty substantial victory? The Vietnam War was still raging with record losses, turmoil at home, Democrats fiercely divided and Humphrey - as much as I like him - a lackluster candidate with little charisma winning the nomination through backroom deals at a convention overshadowed by riots so that the sitting prez couldn't even attend for security reasons.

Sure, Wallace was a wildcard in the race, though everything summed up must have lead to a bigger win for Nixon. Tbh, I think Rockefeller or Romney (without the scandal) would have won in a semi-landslide. Perhaps even Reagan, if he moderated in the GE.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2022, 10:38:49 AM »

Humphrey was probably helped at least somewhat by the strong economy at the time.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,622
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2022, 01:41:27 PM »

Yes, Nixon ran a terrible and unappealing campaign which was bailed out by fundamentals. He was leading in an enormous landslide over the summer and into early fall, and Humphrey ultimately recovered to within an inch of victory. Most likely Humphrey would've won had the campaign gone on for 1-2 more weeks.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2022, 10:01:10 AM »

Yes, Nixon ran a terrible and unappealing campaign which was bailed out by fundamentals. He was leading in an enormous landslide over the summer and into early fall, and Humphrey ultimately recovered to within an inch of victory. Most likely Humphrey would've won had the campaign gone on for 1-2 more weeks.

I can't tell whether that's ironic. LOL
Logged
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2022, 10:17:02 AM »

Good economy plus Democrats were still the nation’s majority party. The only Republican in the last 40 years to win was a WWII general. And remember that just four years prior, they had suffered their second-worst defeat in that era. Sure, they had made some gains in the midterm elections, but they were still badly outnumbered in both houses.
Logged
Pres Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,230
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2022, 01:17:47 PM »

Well, the October surprise of LBJ suspending bombing helped a lot. The whole concept of an October surprise comes from this action
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,622
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2022, 01:35:59 PM »

Yes, Nixon ran a terrible and unappealing campaign which was bailed out by fundamentals. He was leading in an enormous landslide over the summer and into early fall, and Humphrey ultimately recovered to within an inch of victory. Most likely Humphrey would've won had the campaign gone on for 1-2 more weeks.

I can't tell whether that's ironic. LOL

It's not. He took one of the best climates for the Republican Party in the 20th century and came within a centimeter of pissing it away. Our national recollection of Nixon as some kind of Machiavellian genius is completely undeserved; he was a bad politician and an unbelievably bad tactician.
Logged
Podgy the Bear
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,968


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2022, 02:06:21 PM »

The Wallace factor makes it really difficult to determine whether a Rockefeller/Romney or a Reagan could have done better than Nixon.  And if the events in Chicago hadn't happened, I doubt that Nixon would have come out with the big lead that he had in September 1968.  I think what's remarkable is how Humphrey performed in October 1968 to come so close to winning.

Nixon knew that he was in for a dogfight right from the start. He was a two-time loser and didn't hold office at the time.  He thought that he would be running against LBJ--and then he thought he would be running against RFK (he noted that in his autobiography on the night of the California primary).  And as noted, the Republican Party was far behind the Democrats in party identification and loyalty.   Finally, he didn't have a very united party behind him (though nothing like the Democrats in 1968).

I doubt that Rockefeller could have done better.  He would have won NY (and probably PA), but he would have trouble holding OH, MO, and perhaps CA--a number of votes would have left the Republicans, moving those states to Humphrey.  And more significant, the states that Nixon won in the peripheral South (FL, NC, SC, TN) would have probably swung to Wallace.

Hard to say how Reagan would have done--in 1968, he was thought to be the Goldwater heir and very conservative but would have done much better than 1964.  But selecting Rockefeller or Reagan as the nominee would have caused another split that the other flank would be unlikely to support.
Logged
TheTide
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,593
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2022, 10:28:26 AM »

The headline result seems underwhelming, but once you go through the individual states or seems less so. He did well to hold off Wallace in several Southern states. There's a good argument that he underperformed in several big states that went to Humphrey.
Logged
ReaganLimbaugh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 327
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2022, 05:15:45 PM »

Without George Wallace in the race, Nixon dynamites Hubert Horatio Hornblower. He sweeps the South, picks up Maryland, probably Penn, Wash and Conn.
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 17, 2022, 04:13:48 PM »

I think that Humphrey ran a very strong campaign given how weak he was coming out of the convention. He did an excellent job of clawing back WWC voters in the north who might have potentially gone over to Wallace and also managed to win Maine which at that time was a fairly impressive feat for a Democrat given that it's something FDR wasn't able to pull off once and Johnson only did in the Goldwater landslide. Meanwhile Nixon ran an antiseptic stage managed campaign and probably came off as a coward for his refusal to debate. If HHH had had just another week he probably would have won easily.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2022, 02:43:36 AM »

George F. Will published a book in 1987 called The New Season. One of the most unforgettable things I remember reading in that book went somewhat like this:
One of the most impressive barrages of political advertising on TV was Richard Nixon's in October 1968. The barrage was, at that point, much the most expensive in American history. And it coincided with a dramatic and almost decisive swing of votes towards Hubert Humphrey. Gallup estimated that about 100,000 votes per week were moving to Humphrey that month.

So I'd say yeah, Nixon definitely did something wrong and underperformed in ways he did not plan on.
Logged
Sir Mohamed
MohamedChalid
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,468
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2022, 09:19:52 AM »

I think that Humphrey ran a very strong campaign given how weak he was coming out of the convention. He did an excellent job of clawing back WWC voters in the north who might have potentially gone over to Wallace and also managed to win Maine which at that time was a fairly impressive feat for a Democrat given that it's something FDR wasn't able to pull off once and Johnson only did in the Goldwater landslide. Meanwhile Nixon ran an antiseptic stage managed campaign and probably came off as a coward for his refusal to debate. If HHH had had just another week he probably would have won easily.

The main reason he won ME - or only reason I should say - was Muskie. Don't think he would have otherwise.
Logged
Asenath Waite
Fulbright DNC
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,431
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2022, 03:08:45 PM »

I think that Humphrey ran a very strong campaign given how weak he was coming out of the convention. He did an excellent job of clawing back WWC voters in the north who might have potentially gone over to Wallace and also managed to win Maine which at that time was a fairly impressive feat for a Democrat given that it's something FDR wasn't able to pull off once and Johnson only did in the Goldwater landslide. Meanwhile Nixon ran an antiseptic stage managed campaign and probably came off as a coward for his refusal to debate. If HHH had had just another week he probably would have won easily.

The main reason he won ME - or only reason I should say - was Muskie. Don't think he would have otherwise.

He did win by a more comfortable margin then you’d expect though if Muskie was the only factor. I think that rural New England trended left significantly between 1960 and 68. Look at how much Humphrey outperformed Kennedy in 60 in even Massachusetts and I think that it might be the sign of a regional trend that bleeds over into Maine.
Logged
If my soul was made of stone
discovolante
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,261
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2022, 12:02:49 PM »

Absolutely not. George Wallace took a lot of votes away from Nixon and made the race much closer than it should have been.

Sure Jan
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 06, 2022, 10:51:38 PM »

Absolutely not. George Wallace took a lot of votes away from Nixon and made the race much closer than it should have been.

Sure Jan

I'd say Wallace hurt Nixon more in the south but hurt Humphrey more in what is now the rust belt. So on balance, Wallace probably hurt Nixon slightly more than he hurt Humphrey.
Logged
DS0816
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,108
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2022, 12:33:09 AM »
« Edited: October 07, 2022, 12:41:14 AM by DS0816 »

Richard Nixon just barely managed to win the 1968 presidential election.

Richard Nixon won Election 1968 in a Republican pickup.

This followed the 1964 Republicans’s outcome, with losing nominee Barry Goldwater, of –22.58 percentage points in the U.S. Popular Vote and carriage of six [06] states. (Goldwater was such an electoral disaster that 25 of the 26 states in the 1960 Republican column for Nixon switched to the 1964 Democratic column to elect Lyndon Johnson to a full term.)

Quote
Given the fundamentals of that year, shouldn't he have won a pretty substantial victory?...

1968 Republican presidential pickup winner Richard Nixon, who presided over a realigning presidential election in favor of his party, should have carried not 32 but more in line with 40 states. (I would say the same of 2008 Democratic presidential pickup winner Barack Obama, who carried 28 states plus Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District and District of Columbia, as he too presided over presided over a realigning presidential election in favor of his party.)

With considering the ranked order of states, following the 32 Nixon carried, I will mention the rest leading to 40 states. But I will also do this: None of the states in column for George McGovern will be on my list. McGovern carried where Democrats routinely prevailed back then. If you look at 20th-century examples of candidates outside the two major U.S. political parties who carried at least one state: They carried where Republicans or Democrats normally did.  


ELECTION 1968

Richard Nixon (R, pickup winner, with 32 states and an original 302 electoral votes):

33. Texas +25 (for 327 electoral votes)
34. Maryland +10 (for 337 electoral votes)
35. Washington +09 (for 346 electoral votes)
36. Pennsylvania +29 (for 375 electoral votes)
37. Connecticut +08 (for 383 electoral votes)
38. New York +43 (for 426 electoral votes)
39. Michigan +21 (for 447 electoral votes)
40. West Virginia +07 (for 454 electoral votes)


When thinking about 1968—and what a year that was in U.S. history—the losing Democratic nominee and incumbent vice president Hubert Humphrey, also with consideration of how his nomination became reality, was lucky he was able to hold onto as much as he did.
Logged
ReaganLimbaugh
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 327
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2022, 05:35:05 PM »

Yes, and had Wallace not been in the race he would have taken all the states George won and probably Texas too.
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 0.041 seconds with 12 queries.