Who would you say was closer to becoming president?

[Plankton5165]

Mitt Romney barely received more than 200 electoral votes in the more polarized election.

However, Humphrey received less than 200 electoral votes in an election that no one seemed sure at all would win.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Unless there is a probable outside event that would have helped Romney a great deal, the answer is Humphrey.  Romney had to close a larger gap in order to win, and this applies to the electoral college as well as to the national popular vote.

To demonstrate: 1968, add 1.5 to Humphrey and take 1.5 from Nixon (3pt uniform swing), and Humphrey wins 275-218-45. Nationally this would mean Humphrey at 44.22% & Nixon at 41.92%. If Humphrey does any worse than this, he doesn't get to 269, it would have to go to Congress. So there is an advantage to Nixon in the map.

If we the same swing for Romney, he picks up Florida and Ohio. But it isn't enough for him to win. Obama 285 (49.51%) - Romney 253 (48.65%)

Romney would need about a 5.5 % (2.75 %+ 2.75 %) total uniform swing in order to win, Romney 286 (49.9%) - Obama 252 (48.26%)  Romney can't win the EC with 5% swing, even while winning the NPV, so Obama has an advantage with the map.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Unless there is a probable outside event that would have helped Romney a great deal, the answer is Humphrey.  Romney had to close a larger gap in order to win, and this applies to the electoral college as well as to the national popular vote.

To demonstrate: 1968, add 1.5 to Humphrey and take 1.5 from Nixon (3pt uniform swing), and Humphrey wins 275-218-45. Nationally this would mean Humphrey at 44.22% & Nixon at 41.92%. If Humphrey does any worse than this, he doesn't get to 269, it would have to go to Congress. So there is an advantage to Nixon in the map.

If we the same swing for Romney, he picks up Florida and Ohio. But it isn't enough for him to win. Obama 285 (49.51%) - Romney 253 (48.65%)

Romney would need about a 5.5 % (2.75 %+ 2.75 %) total uniform swing in order to win, Romney 286 (49.9%) - Obama 252 (48.26%)  Romney can't win the EC with 5% swing, even while winning the NPV, so Obama has an advantage with the map.

What do you think should be assumed to happen in a 1968 house contingent election?

[Pericles]

It was also easier for Humphrey to close the gap than it was for Romney. Even ignoring that Humphrey knew Nixon was undermining peace negotiations and stupidly chose not to reveal it, 1968 was a very volatile open election and there was even a third party candidate. 2012 had an incumbent President so it's inherently less volatile, it was also in the current era of high polarisation and the polling hardly changed at all-Obama's lead was solid the whole time.

[Sir Mohamed]

Humphrey. 1968 was closer than 2012.

And Humphrey was VP to someone who already suffered from a heart attack and had health issues. It's very much possible he would have become prez in a hypothetical 2nd full term via succession as Johnson outlived Nixon's 1st term just by 2 days.

[MABA 2020]

Clearly Humphrey

[NewYorkExpress]

It's very likely both could have become President.

There's an alternate universe out there where Romney comes back and wins in 2016 after Trump again chooses not to run (he'd be the frontrunner, more so than Jeb Bush, who had the last name baggage to deal with),while Humphrey probably would have won in 1972 had he run then (1968 on the other hand he had no chance in. Exposing Nixon's duplicity in the Vietnam negotiations probably just sends Wallace's voters right to Nixon to stop Humphrey, and younger voters/anti-war voters was going to almost certainly back a left-wing alternative to Humphrey in a general election if one existed).

[Sir Mohamed]

It's very likely both could have become President.

There's an alternate universe out there where Romney comes back and wins in 2016 after Trump again chooses not to run (he'd be the frontrunner, more so than Jeb Bush, who had the last name baggage to deal with),while Humphrey probably would have won in 1972 had he run then (1968 on the other hand he had no chance in. Exposing Nixon's duplicity in the Vietnam negotiations probably just sends Wallace's voters right to Nixon to stop Humphrey, and younger voters/anti-war voters was going to almost certainly back a left-wing alternative to Humphrey in a general election if one existed).

A more plausible Romney '16 scenario is Trump running 4 years early, getting shellacked by Obama.

[Mr. Ukucasha]

Objectively Humphrey

[President Johnson]

Humphrey. 1968 was closer than 2012.

And Humphrey was VP to someone who already suffered from a heart attack and had health issues. It's very much possible he would have become prez in a hypothetical 2nd full term via succession as Johnson outlived Nixon's 1st term just by 2 days.

I feel like it is a common misconception to automatically assume Johnson would have died in a second full term 1969-73. Unfortunately he started to live less healthy after leaving office in 1969, especially resumed smoking after more than a decade of not smoking. While the presidency would have been more stressful for him, he would have abstained from smoking during another terms and also kept his diet. It's obviously not impossible another heart attack would have finished him while serving, but it's also possible he would have lived until at the middle of the decade.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It was also easier for Humphrey to close the gap than it was for Romney. Even ignoring that Humphrey knew Nixon was undermining peace negotiations and stupidly chose not to reveal it, 1968 was a very volatile open election and there was even a third party candidate. 2012 had an incumbent President so it's inherently less volatile, it was also in the current era of high polarisation and the polling hardly changed at all-Obama's lead was solid the whole time.

We were a very different country then.  HHH probably did not reveal it because he did not know how people would take such a revelation.  Some may have been horrified, but some (including many who were honestly on the fence) may have viewed it as a sensational cheap shot. 

LBJ certainly held HHH back from revealing this, although I doubt HHH would have revealed it if LBJ had not objected.

[Clarence Boddicker]

Humphrey probably would have won if the election was a week or two later.

[The Mikado]

What do you think should be assumed to happen in a 1968 house contingent election?

Ed Muskie instantly gets elected VP over Agnew. House may gridlock for a few weeks (producing Acting President Muskie?) as Humphrey and Nixon try to win over Southern delegations but the Southern Democrats eventually capitulate to Humphrey because delaying just gets Acting President Muskie continuing.

After a national s**tshow, Birch Bayh's Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College, which already nearly passed IRL, passes.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Humphrey was never close, without Wallace in the race Nixon wins most of his votes and all of his states and picks up Texas and more.  Get real people.  Who did these people vote for in 1964 and 1972??

What did the liberals mean when they said *Dump the Hump* about Hubert and a lot worse. I would remind you his *public* view was very close to LBJ (How many more will you kill today) on Vietnam.

Romney is a *total tool* but he probably had a better shot if he would have at least represented himself as a somewhat conservative Republican in the second and third debates.

[Benjamin Frank]

Humphrey was never close, without Wallace in the race Nixon wins most of his votes and all of his states and picks up Texas and more.  Get real people.  Who did these people vote for in 1964 and 1972??

What did the liberals mean when they said *Dump the Hump* about Hubert and a lot worse. I would remind you his *public* view was very close to LBJ (How many more will you kill today) on Vietnam.

Romney is a *total tool* but he probably had a better shot if he would have at least represented himself as a somewhat conservative Republican in the second and third debates.

Uhh, They voted for the Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, in 1964. Yes, there were some in the Deep South who voted for Goldwater, but 1964 was a Democratic landslide win.

Outside of the Deep South many Democratic voters flirted with George Wallace but ultimately voted Democratic. Labor unions at that time helped a great deal with that, as probably did Wallace's Vice Presidential candidate Curtis "bombs away" leMay promise to nuke North Vietnam (and probably China after that), though I think it's less clear that sent voters back to the Democrats as opposed to simply away from Wallace.

You might be confusing the landslide of 1964 with the landslide of 1984 which was the second Republican popular vote landslide and the last real landslide win for either party.

Also, the line was "Hey hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"

The consensus at the time is that Humphrey would have won had the election gone on for another week.

Mitt Romney might have won had the '47% percent' video not been made public.

Yes, I can be a 'know it all' jerk, but I think it's important to keep the record straight.

[Sumner 1868]

One thing people forget is that Humphrey had a lot of advantages despite the unpopularity of the Johnson administration. The economy was in great shape, he was a very good public speaker, labor was near it's peak vote share and his civil rights background guaranteed him near-unanimous support from minorities (not a sure thing before 1964). I also think Wallace actually was a net-help for Humphrey, since he took the Deep South Goldwater states away from Nixon.

There's a lot of scenarios were Humphrey could win. Earlier peace talks, Nixon not succeeding in his sabotage, Humphrey calling for a bombing halt earlier, etc. Romney winning is pretty difficult to see given that once his 47% comments made the news, Obama was never below 50% in approval ratings for the rest of the election.