A Question regarding George C. Wallace

[Robespierre's Jaw]

If Segregation was NOT an issue, would you have ever considered voting for George Wallace?

Discuss.

[SPC]

Yes, due to his support for states' rights.

[dead0man]

Yes, due to his support for states' rights.

This, except change "yes" to "maybe".

[Daniel Adams]

Wallace was an economic populist and had big disagreements with William Buckley on the economy when he appeared in "Firing Line". Economic populism is anathema to me so I probably wouldn't have considered voting for him.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Maybe

[Sensei]

perhaps

[Nym90]

Not over Humphrey, but over Nixon, yes.

Of course, if segregation wasn't an issue, Wallace never would've run, so it's a moot point.

[minionofmidas]

Not over Humphrey, but over Nixon, yes.

Of course, if segregation wasn't an issue, Wallace never would've run, so it's a moot point.

...at least not as an independent.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Not over Humphrey, but over Nixon, yes.

Of course, if segregation wasn't an issue, Wallace never would've run, so it's a moot point.

...at least not as an independent.

I highly doubt that Wallace would have ran as an American Independent candidate in 1968 but I could see him running for the Democratic Presidential nominations in 1972 and in 1976. But suppose segregation wasn't an issue there, would Wallace do better or worse?

[Хahar 🤔]

In the primary: Maybe
In the general, as a Democrat: YES

[Nym90]

Not over Humphrey, but over Nixon, yes.

Of course, if segregation wasn't an issue, Wallace never would've run, so it's a moot point.

...at least not as an independent.

Well I'd argue he never would've even been in a position to run if it wasn't an issue. He basically made his career on segregation, so they can't really be separated.

But yeah, he wasn't that far out of the mainstream for a Democrat at that time on other issues.

[J. J.]

Possibly, but because segregation was his signature issue, it's very hard to say.

[MasterJedi]

Maybe

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

No.  "Populist" Dixiecrats?  Don't trust them.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

If this were a 1958 George Wallace, indeed without a segregation thing, perhaps.

(sorry for bumping, but it's a thing worth of discussing)

[Lincoln Republican]

If this were a 1958 George Wallace, indeed without a segregation thing, perhaps.

(sorry for bumping, but it's a thing worth of discussing)

If you wish to discuss a matter from a bygone era, then start a new thread about it.

[feeblepizza]

Yes. He was a strong supporter of states' rights.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, looks like I was too quick with saying "maybe".

If you're supporting a state's rights to this extend, I disagree but I respect that view. But don't call yourself "pro-freedom", when you support state's rights to violate human or civil rights. It's a contradiction and a hypocrisy.

[Goldwater]

Probably not, because of his stance on economics.

[tpfkaw]

No, he was an enormous hypocrite in his support for all sorts of unconstitutional economic totalitarianism while drawing the line at somewhat spurious claims of "states' rights."

[Dr. Cynic]

No. Never over Humphrey and probably not over Nixon. Not in the primaries either. Wallace strikes me as a profoundly impatient and dishonest man, constantly running for some election or another.

[Frink]

No. Dixiecrat politicians and the power structure they propped up remains one of the most disgusting stains on our collective history as a nation even without the issue of segregation coming into play.

[AmericanPatriot83]

Would have voted for him even though he was for segregation.

[Phony Moderate]

No.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Definitely not. Wallace espoused terrible views, even if we ignore segregation.