Which was more likely (1972)? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 09:54:47 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? (Moderator: Dereich)
  Which was more likely (1972)? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: In a world where George Wallace didn't get shot in 1972, which presidential ticket that year was most possible or least impossible to ever have occurred?
#1
Wallace/Chisholm '72
#2
Chisholm/Wallace '72
#3
Both equally possible/equally impossible
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: Which was more likely (1972)?  (Read 959 times)
ClassicElectionEnthusiast
Rookie
**
Posts: 160
United States


« on: July 18, 2023, 01:58:27 PM »

Wallace was gonna run if he didn't get shot. Isn't Chisholm a black lady? I wonder how Southern racists would react to mister "SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION TOMORROW, SEGREGATION FOREVER" having a black female VP. Must be very confusing, 45D chess moment.

I would agree, plus the second option (Chisholm/Wallace) I definitely can't see happening (not only because of the "is anyone ready for a black woman at the top of a major-party ticket" arguments; but also I cannot imagine George Wallace being willing to settle for the VP slot {Wallace had quite an ego as well - when Cornelia [George's 2nd wife after first wife Lurleen died] filed for divorce, she would later tell Parade magazine that "I don't believe George needs a family. He just needs an audience. The family as audience wasn't enough for his ego."})
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.026 seconds with 14 queries.