1968

[JohnFKennedy]

Have you ever noticed, that neither Nixon nor Agnew won their home states in the '68 election yet they still won by 110 Electoral Votes, I just find it kind of funny that they lost their home states yet still had a pretty big win overall.

[dunn]

nixon home state in 68' was ny and he really is from ca. was he not?

[Gustaf]

nixon home state in 68' was ny and he really is from ca. was he not?

Yeah, he moved to NY in between the 1960 and the 1968 elections.

I hadn't noticed that about their home states before, that is kind of interesting.

[JohnFKennedy]

yes he was from CA, i am not sure why he changed home states.....

[© tweed]

nixon home state in 68' was ny and he really is from ca. was he not?

Yes, he was from California, but he had moved to NY to practice law.  Or something to that effect.

[dunn]

he even tried running for ca governor in 62'. so he was registered in ny but that was not really anykind of 'home' state

[© tweed]

he even tried running for ca governor in 62'. so he was registered in ny but that was not really anykind of 'home' state

Yeah, he lost and made his infamous speech.

[dazzleman]

That was pretty unusual, but Nixon's home state was not really New York, it was California.  He moved to New York in 1963 to practice law, but was never really a New Yorker.

It's also true that Agnew didn't win his home state of Maryland.  I guess it's more common for a vice-presidential candidate not to win his home state, and still win the election, than it is with a presidential candidate.

I can't really understand at this point why Nixon chose Agnew for VP.  I guess that's hindsight, but he doesn't appear to have had much to recommend him, and Nixon reportedly agreed in private, by calling Agnew his "life insurance policy."

[MarkDel]

Spiro Agnew wasn't on the ticket to win Maryland, he was on the ticket as a reassurance to right wingers who were worried that Nixon was too liberal.

[minionofmidas]

That was pretty unusual, but Nixon's home state was not really New York, it was California.  He moved to New York in 1963 to practice law, but was never really a New Yorker.

It's also true that Agnew didn't win his home state of Maryland.  I guess it's more common for a vice-presidential candidate not to win his home state, and still win the election, than it is with a presidential candidate.

I can't really understand at this point why Nixon chose Agnew for VP.  I guess that's hindsight, but he doesn't appear to have had much to recommend him, and Nixon reportedly agreed in private, by calling Agnew his "life insurance policy."

Well, if you remember just how paranoid that crazy son of a Californian was, and that a president *had* been murdered just a few years before, that is as good a reason as any...

[Michael Z]

Sorry to break the flow of conversation, but while we're at the subject of 1968 here's a question which has been bugging me for a while: what if Robert Kennedy had not been assassinated and been awarded the nomination? Would he have beaten Nixon?

[JohnFKennedy]

I reckon so.... I think because of JFKs popularity he would have done well and also on sympathy for his brother's death.

[Gustaf]

If we suppose that RFK would've done better than Humphrey did, then almost certainly he would have. Even though Nixon had the advatange electorally spealking.

[muon2]

If we suppose that RFK would've done better than Humphrey did, then almost certainly he would have. Even though Nixon had the advatange electorally spealking.

It's not clear that RFK could have scored an electoral win either. He would've needed to swing 55 EVs from Nixon. With Nixon's name recognition in California, it would have been difficult to swing the more than 100,000 votes away to carry that state. Also RFK might have cost Texas, which was close, sending some more Dems to Wallace (who had 18% there).

[Gustaf]

If we suppose that RFK would've done better than Humphrey did, then almost certainly he would have. Even though Nixon had the advatange electorally spealking.

It's not clear that RFK could have scored an electoral win either. He would've needed to swing 55 EVs from Nixon. With Nixon's name recognition in California, it would have been difficult to swing the more than 100,000 votes away to carry that state. Also RFK might have cost Texas, which was close, sending some more Dems to Wallace (who had 18% there).

A lot of big states, like CA, IL, OH, NJ and TX were very close. This makes the Nixon win look bigger than it really was. RFK strikes me as a much better candidate than Humphrey, and I'd expect him to do much better in the PV. Also, I would've thought that Humphrey would have scared away as many Southern Dems as could possibly be...

[JohnFKennedy]

Humphrey was Ultra-Liberal......

[Gustaf]

Humphrey was Ultra-Liberal......

Yeah, that was my point...

[Dave from Michigan]

was Humphrey really that liberal. I knew he was liberal but ultra liberal

[Beet]

Also don't forget that RFK's position on the war was much more moderate than Humphrey's, and this might have averted the Chicago riots which really crushed the Democrats. That convention was really a major factor in the election. The only question is... did the protests help Humphrey (by making him look anti-hippie) or Nixon (by symbolizing national division under the administration)?

[12th Doctor]

What?  Humphrey wasn't ultra-liberal, he was one of the last non-liberal Dems to run for president.

[Beet]

He was liberal allright.

Customer Review #1 knows what he's (or she, though unlikely) is talking about:

http://www.legallibraries.com/Hubert_Humphrey_0873514734.html

[minionofmidas]

Humphrey was very much a liberal by his record, but had run in the primaries as the moderate candidate. Which reminds me of John F Kerry btw. (And GWB isn't that unNixonian either. Though I doubt Moore can do a Wallace.)
I still guess RFK would have probably won. I'll have to calculate how much of a swing in the North and West is required to make up for the almost certain loss of Texas.

[minionofmidas]

A 4% swing outside the South would put New Jersey, Delaware (if that counts), Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri (if that counts), California and Alaska into the Democratic column.
That's 305 EVs against 187 (or 188) for Nixon, 46 (or 45) for Wallace.
290 without Missouri or Delaware.
A three point swing would throw the election into the House.

[dunn]

A 4% swing outside the South would put New Jersey, Delaware (if that counts), Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri (if that counts), California and Alaska into the Democratic column.
That's 305 EVs against 187 (or 188) for Nixon, 46 (or 45) for Wallace.
290 without Missouri or Delaware.
A three point swing would throw the election into the House.

4% is a lot

[dunn]

A 4% swing outside the South would put New Jersey, Delaware (if that counts), Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri (if that counts), California and Alaska into the Democratic column.
That's 305 EVs against 187 (or 188) for Nixon, 46 (or 45) for Wallace.
290 without Missouri or Delaware.
A three point swing would throw the election into the House.

4% is a lot

A 4% percent swing in the sense that 2% of the population go from voting Republican to voting Democrat.

understood, still alot. in a trend like that bush-Dukakis would be instead of 426-111    306-231