Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A question about RFK [View all]Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)53. This thread is all about hypotheticals - I gave mine
But,
Lyndon Johnson was concerned that his endorsement of Civil Rights legislation would endanger his party in the South.[27] In the 1968 election, Richard Nixon saw the cracks in the Solid South as an opportunity to tap into a group of voters who had long been beyond the reach of the Republican Party.
---
With the aid of Harry Dent and South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who had switched parties in 1964, Richard Nixon ran his 1968 campaign on states' rights and "law and order." Many liberals accused Nixon of pandering to Southern whites, especially with regard to his "states' rights" and "law and order" stands.[30]
The independent candidacy of George Wallace, former Democratic governor of Alabama, partially negated the Southern strategy.[31] With a much more explicit attack on integration and black civil rights, Wallace won all of Goldwater's states (except South Carolina), as well as Arkansas and one of North Carolina's electoral votes. Nixon picked up Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, while Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey's only southern state was Texas. Writer Jeffrey Hart who worked on the Nixon campaign as a speechwriter says that Nixon did not have a "Southern Strategy" but "Border State Strategy" as the campaign ceded the Deep South to George Wallace and that the press merely call it a "Southern Strategy" as they are "very lazy"
The independent candidacy of George Wallace, former Democratic governor of Alabama, partially negated the Southern strategy.[31] With a much more explicit attack on integration and black civil rights, Wallace won all of Goldwater's states (except South Carolina), as well as Arkansas and one of North Carolina's electoral votes. Nixon picked up Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina and Florida, while Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey's only southern state was Texas. Writer Jeffrey Hart who worked on the Nixon campaign as a speechwriter says that Nixon did not have a "Southern Strategy" but "Border State Strategy" as the campaign ceded the Deep South to George Wallace and that the press merely call it a "Southern Strategy" as they are "very lazy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#Roots_of_the_Southern_strategy
And,
Wallace's "outsider" status was once again popular with voters, particularly in the rural South. He won almost 10 million popular votes, carried five Southern states, came fairly close to receiving enough votes to throw the election to the House of Representatives, and became the last person (as of 2011) who was not the nominee of one of the two major parties to win electoral votes. He was the first such person since Harry F. Byrd, an independent segregationist candidate in the 1960 presidential election. (John Hospers in 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1976, Lloyd Bentsen in 1988 and John Edwards in 2004 all received one electoral vote from dissenters, but none "won" these votes.) Wallace also received the vote of one North Carolina elector who was pledged to Nixon.
Wallace was the most popular 1968 presidential candidate among young men.[10] Wallace also proved to be popular among blue-collar workers in the North and Midwest, and he took many votes which might have gone to Humphrey.[citation needed]
Wallace lost North Carolina and Tennessee to Nixon by narrow, "statistically insignificant margins". Carter suggests that better organization would have allowed Wallace to achieve his goal of forcing the election into the House of Representatives: With either North Carolina or Tennessee in the Wallace column, a change less than 1% in New Jersey or Ohio would have thrown the election.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_presidential_campaign,_1968#General_election_results
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Though in the Muskie hypothetical, that would put two "Northeasterners" on the ticket
villager
May 2012
#2
It's a good mantra. Sadly, the current owners/sponsors of the Democratic Party
villager
May 2012
#82
that would have been a great choice. gonzalez's work was the first time i got a clue about
HiPointDem
May 2012
#16
Good thoughts, but note that Brown had lost the governship to St. Ronnie in '66
villager
May 2012
#12
Yes that would have been one thing against having Brown as VP. But beyond California, Brown
yellowcanine
May 2012
#37
well then that is possible. But I think Bill Cosby would have been more universally
WI_DEM
May 2012
#33
No effin way. The Southern Strategy didn't kick in until 1972. It was a response to Wallace in
yellowcanine
May 2012
#44
Even for a hypothetical it is a bridge too far. The old South hated RFK. They would have swung to
yellowcanine
May 2012
#61
Not Shriver (family), Not McCarthy (Catholic) not Clark (LBJ's Attorney General)
WI_DEM
May 2012
#23
You're right overtly LBJ did alot for HHH but behind the scenes he believed HHH was disloyal.
craigmatic
May 2012
#51
Whatever bad traits he had, LBJ was a real Democrat and would NOT have backed NIXON
UTUSN
May 2012
#54
I like LBJ too but politicians have been known to buck party loyalty in private.
craigmatic
May 2012
#57
It's not a matter of "liking LBJ" but somebody of his party accomplishment would be like FDR turning
UTUSN
May 2012
#74
Are you saying that, even after he won the California Democratic Primary and
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#66
One can argue pretty convincingly that, pre-1972, Nelson Rockefeller was to the left of Carter,
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#68
John Connally would have been an interesting choice but probably too much of a hawk
yellowcanine
May 2012
#52
CONNALY had already declared independence from LBJ & by the time of the JFK trip to Dallas
UTUSN
May 2012
#59
The Texans were all fighting each other but they also all would make nice if it meant
yellowcanine
May 2012
#64
RFK still needed LBJ to at least be somewhat neutral. As for Connoly, he was a political chameleon
yellowcanine
May 2012
#77
My last word is that the premise of the OP is wrong. It would have been HHH/RFK had RFK
yellowcanine
May 2012
#65
I'd have been thrilled with a McCarthy/RFK ticket. But, we got Humpty.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2012
#83