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
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

highplainsdem

(63,693 posts)
39. No, that isn't why he lost. Some facts based on data:
Tue May 14, 2019, 10:38 PM
May 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Humphrey_1968_presidential_campaign

On Election Day, Humphrey was defeated by Nixon 301 to 191 in the electoral college. Wallace received 46, all in the Deep South. The popular vote was much closer as Nixon edged Humphrey 43.42% to 42.72%, with a margin of approximately 500,000 votes. Humphrey carried his home state of Minnesota and Texas, the home state of President Johnson (as well as Maine, running-mate Ed Muskie's home state). He also won most of the Northeast and Michigan, but lost the West to Nixon and the South to Wallace.[102] Humphrey conceded the race to Nixon, and stated that he would support him as president. On his way out he remarked: "I've done my best."[103]

Post election polls showed that Humphrey lost the white vote with 38%, nine points behind Nixon, but won the nonwhite vote solidly, 85% to 12%,[104] including 97% of African-Americans. African-Americans favored Humphrey because of his record on civil rights, and their desire to quickly end the war in Vietnam, where blacks were overrepresented. The racial divide in the election had widened since 1964, and was attributed to civil rights protests and race riots.[105] Humphrey won 45% of the female vote, two points ahead of Nixon, but lost to the Republican among males, 41% to 43%. Voters with only a grade school education supported Humphrey 52% to 33% over Nixon, while Nixon won among both those with no higher education than high school (43% to 42%) and those who graduated from college (54% to 37%). Occupation demographics mirrored these numbers with manual-labor workers supporting Humphrey 50% to 37%, and with white-collar (47% to 41%) and professionals (56% to 34%) favoring Nixon. Humphrey won among young voters (under 30 years old) by 47% to 38%, and also edged Nixon among those between 30 and 49 years, with 44% to 41%. Nixon won among voters over 50 years, 47% to 41%. Catholics backed Humphrey with 59%, twelve points ahead of Nixon, but Protestants favored Nixon, 49% to 35%. Humphrey lost the Independent vote 31% to 44%, with 25% going to Wallace, and won a lower percentage among Democrats (74%) than Nixon won among Republicans (86%).[104] This discrepancy was connected to the tough Democratic primary election that caused some former McCarthy, Kennedy or McGovern supporters to vote for Nixon or Wallace as a protest.[105]

I

Look at how close the popular vote was.

And notice the last two sentences about why Humphrey got a smaller percentage of the Democratic vote than Nixon got of thee Republican vote.

That's what I was talking about.

More on what was going on during the campaign:

On September 30, hoping to separate himself from the policies of the Johnson administration at the advice of O'Brien who noted that he needed the anti-war vote to win in New York and California,[80] Humphrey delivered a televised speech in Salt Lake City to a nationwide audience, and announced that if he was elected, he would put an end to the bombing of North Vietnam, and called for a ceasefire.[81] He labeled the new policy "as an acceptable risk for peace."[82] The plan was compared to Nixon's, which the candidate stated would not be revealed until Inauguration Day.[83] After the speech, anti-war protesters stopped shadowing Humphrey's appearances, and a few McCarthy supporters joined the campaign. Donations totaling $300,000 were immediately made to Humphrey,[84] and he also improved in the polls, cutting Nixon's lead to single digits by mid-October.[78][85][86] Meanwhile, Nixon tried to shift the emphasis of the campaign to the issue of law and order, and declared that a vote for Humphrey, would amount to "a vote to continue a lackadaisical, do nothing attitude toward the crime crisis in America."[87] While campaigning in San Antonio, Humphrey went on the attack against Nixon. He accused the Republican nominee of playing politics with human rights, and claimed that he was "on the road to defeat." Hoping to gain favor among the Hispanic community, Humphrey alleged that Nixon had never discussed the concerns of Hispanic-Americans during the course of the campaign.[88] Nixon continued to tie Humphrey to Johnson. He argued that the administration was playing politics with the Vietnam War by trying to complete a treaty before the election to favor the Vice President. Humphrey fired back at Nixon's allegations, stating that the former Vice President was using "the old Nixon tactic of unsubstantiated insinuation"[89] and requested that he show evidence for his claims.[89] Humphrey challenged Nixon to a series of presidential debates, but the Republican nominee declined,[90] largely due to his uncomfortable experience at the 1960 presidential debates, and to deny recognition to the populist American Independent Party candidate, Governor George Wallace of Alabama, who would have been included at the event.[91] Both the Humphrey and Nixon campaigns were concerned that Wallace would take a sizable amount of states in the electoral college and force the House of Representatives to decide the election. Although Wallace had focused most of his campaign on the south, he was drawing large crowds during appearances in the north.[92] Both campaigns delegated a large amount of resources to denounce Wallace as a "frustrated segregationist".[93] As election day neared, Wallace fell in the polls, greatly diminishing the chance that he would influence the result.[94]

A few days before the election, Humphrey gained the endorsement of his former rival Eugene McCarthy. During a stop in Pittsburgh, Humphrey stated that the endorsement made him a "happy man."[95] The hopes of victory for Humphrey also began to look up as a bombing pause was achieved and that negotiations had progressed, cutting Nixon's 18 point lead to 2 points at the end of October. The Soviet Union had tried to influence the North Vietnamese to soften on the negotiations to prevent a Nixon victory,[11] but Nixon publicly accused President Johnson of speeding up the negotiations. Contemporary sources reveal that Nixon was personally involved in preventing the South Vietnamese from coming to the negotiation table, through the use of operative Anna Chennault who advised Saigon that a Nixon administration would offer them a better deal.[96][97] Members of the campaign later claimed that Humphrey did not bring this up before the election, because he did not want to appear desperate while polls placed him even with Nixon.[98] Humphrey held his final campaign rally at the Houston Astrodome on November 3 alongside President Johnson. Governor Connally did not attend the event, causing suspicion that he would back Nixon, but he later assured Humphrey that he would not do so. During his speech at the rally, Humphrey asked Americans to base their vote on hope rather than fear.[99] The next day, the eve of the election, he appeared in Los Angeles with Muskie, and was greeted by 100,000 supporters.[100] Later that day, Humphrey and Nixon each held four-hour televised forums from Los Angeles on rival television networks. Humphrey's on ABC-TV at 8:30pm EST, Nixon's on NBC-TV at 9pm EST. Humphrey, with Muskie by his side, fielded questions from a live studio audience and a phone bank of celebrities including Frank Sinatra and Paul Newman. The Nixon telecast featured no interaction with anyone other than sports personally Bud Wilkinson who read queries from index cards beside rows of volunteers taking calls. Muskie, commenting on the Republican broadcast from their studios noted that Spiro Agnew was nowhere to be found and how it appeared to be staged. Nixon tried to reverse Humphrey's boost from the bombing halt by stating that he had been advised that "tons of supplies"[101] were being sent along the Ho Chi Minh Trail by the North Vietnamese, a shipment that could not be stopped. Humphrey described these claims as "irresponsible,"[101] which prompted Nixon to proclaim that Humphrey "doesn't know what's going on."[101] McCarthy called in during Humphrey's telethon and affirmed his support for the ticket. Edward Kennedy videotaped an endorsement for Humphrey from his home in Massachusetts.[100]



In no way was Humphrey's loss as simple as "he wasn't a strong enough anti-war candidate."
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I'm 73 today. Younger people have to work with older people to achieve the goals. No one can do it wasupaloopa May 2019 #1
happy birthday! Kurt V. May 2019 #4
Thank you wasupaloopa May 2019 #30
You still got another decade or two before you can get away with Hortensis May 2019 #92
Happy Birthday! R B Garr May 2019 #5
Thank you wasupaloopa May 2019 #31
Happy Birthday! JoeOtterbein May 2019 #7
Thank you wasupaloopa May 2019 #32
This message was self-deleted by its author lapucelle May 2019 #34
You are 73 years young. Happy B day. Funny how older employees train the younger ones. YOHABLO May 2019 #40
Hey! Happy Birthday! sandensea May 2019 #48
I think you've got it backwards left-of-center2012 May 2019 #2
It's always tough when we're in a period of transition. Baitball Blogger May 2019 #12
Break their spirits? Either they're tough enough, or they aren't. This ain't tiddlywinks, and Maru Kitteh May 2019 #21
Sooo, the answer is to support moderate Democrats who buckle whenever Republicans Baitball Blogger May 2019 #22
Thanks for saying that... it is obvious, yet often overlooked. InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #52
Agree with you. Heartily. I am 71, former college teacher so most of my life has been among the emmaverybo May 2019 #24
K&R It's their world now and should have the say so about the future. Kurt V. May 2019 #3
It's not "their world", it's OUR world, we're not dead and buried yet. Tell that to Jimmy Carter! George II May 2019 #49
Its their world insofar as the decisions to be made going forward. That's all I'm saying Kurt V. May 2019 #64
No, it isn't. Because those older Democrats have younger relatives and friends they're concerned highplainsdem May 2019 #72
Exactly - some are acting like there are no parents, grand parents, or great grand parents George II May 2019 #84
Gotta Agree Progressive2020 May 2019 #6
Me too... JoeOtterbein May 2019 #8
I'm 62 and totally agree. blueinredohio May 2019 #33
64 and totally with you! denvine May 2019 #51
Me FIVE!! The hell with the incrementalism... we need drastic change in this country!! InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #54
Centrism leads to the status quo. That's not good enough for me. nt earthshine May 2019 #57
What IS good enough for you? Anything other than "nt"? George II May 2019 #78
Your ending reminded me of this song. Uncle Joe May 2019 #9
"...just look at them and sigh and know they..." JoeOtterbein May 2019 #17
leave the whining to the young-uns nt msongs May 2019 #10
Wow, Joe, you make it sound as if younger Dems found the climate change issue under a cabbage leaf highplainsdem May 2019 #11
I'm a older liberal Dem too. JoeOtterbein May 2019 #14
Yes, we need action. We won't get that without political power. We won't get political power highplainsdem May 2019 #25
1968 Election Progressive2020 May 2019 #28
No, that isn't why he lost. Some facts based on data: highplainsdem May 2019 #39
Losses Progressive2020 May 2019 #53
There's no particular reason to believe that a candidate who couldn't win the primary could win the highplainsdem May 2019 #59
Well Progressive2020 May 2019 #61
I was too young to vote in 1968. But I wasn't too young to see how protest votes (or not highplainsdem May 2019 #70
The Democrats have not been doing enough bloom May 2019 #20
I'm with you... we need a real environmental protection plan that will save the planet!! InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #55
What more could Democrats have done, specifically? ehrnst May 2019 #83
Remember that Boomer, Al Gore? murielm99 May 2019 #44
How quickly some forget mcar May 2019 #74
So what bold legislation have we sponsored, if we're so concerned? BlueWI May 2019 #58
By bold, you mean legislation that's actually been passed? ehrnst May 2019 #86
i'm 63 too. barbtries May 2019 #13
I'm 50-Something And Concur corbettkroehler May 2019 #15
Most of the complaints I hear go the opposite direction. RandySF May 2019 #16
I like new energy, ideas but I also want experience, I don't ever want another used car salesman yaesu May 2019 #18
Great post, It's time for leadership to get bold about climate change-young people get it. jalan48 May 2019 #19
I Am Reminded Progressive2020 May 2019 #23
And I'm Tired Of Dems Bashing Dems Me. May 2019 #26
Me? sheshe2 May 2019 #45
... Me. May 2019 #65
... sheshe2 May 2019 #91
+1! mcar May 2019 #75
63 here and I completely agree. K and R NRaleighLiberal May 2019 #27
67, and far from complaining, Susan Calvin May 2019 #29
I am 71 and have more confidence in the younger ones than I do LiberalArkie May 2019 #35
THANK YOU! Bettie May 2019 #36
Young Dems can criticize anyone they want... FailureToCommunicate May 2019 #37
Got that right!! InAbLuEsTaTe May 2019 #56
Democrats. ehrnst May 2019 #90
A-fucking-men!!! FiveGoodMen May 2019 #38
At 62, I wholly agree relayerbob May 2019 #41
Let the word go forth from this time and place, Xipe Totec May 2019 #42
This is grossly offensive to us who have 40, 50, or even 60+ years "invested", as you put it.... George II May 2019 #43
Plus a million. sheshe2 May 2019 #47
"You owe us "old establishment Dems" a huge apology!!!" --- ABSOLUTELY TRUE!! NurseJackie May 2019 #69
Yeah, who's whining? mcar May 2019 #76
I'm offended because I know for a fact we do not fight hard enough... JoeOtterbein May 2019 #79
"WE" do not fight hard enough? Who are "WE"? I've been fighting for 40+ years.... George II May 2019 #80
Sorry but WE (you and I) did not fight enough. Roe vs. Wade may be gone soon because... JoeOtterbein May 2019 #81
Speak for yourself, please. George II May 2019 #85
I am. That is why I use my real name for everything I ever wrote on the internet since '92. JoeOtterbein May 2019 #87
Agree 100% shanny May 2019 #46
The Reagan Legacy colsohlibgal May 2019 #50
I'm 54 and I agree with this OP. We need change. nt earthshine May 2019 #60
Mommy, there's an old establishment Dem under my bed! betsuni May 2019 #62
I don't even know who you're talking about. Hortensis May 2019 #63
So Well Said Me. May 2019 #66
+100000000000 betsuni May 2019 #67
Well said! I get so weary of people taking a dump on loyal Democrats as this post has done. NurseJackie May 2019 #68
It's grim to see the insane degree of hyperpartisanship Hortensis May 2019 #71
And this isn't the only OP that expresses the same kind of toxic hyperpartisanship... NurseJackie May 2019 #73
I'm a 72 yr baby boomer and aging hippie vlyons May 2019 #77
I am tired of divisionary flamebait OPs dividing Democrats. The OP is "COMPLAINING" about still_one May 2019 #82
And I'm sick of DSA members whining crazytown May 2019 #88
I'm tired of the word "establishment" being used. It's bullshit to use it. themaguffin May 2019 #89
Agree Totally colsohlibgal May 2019 #93
Yes. As a woman well into her sixties, I agree. BeckyDem May 2019 #94
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»I'm a 63 yr-old and I'm t...»Reply #39