Talk:1968 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Electoral College Performance of George Wallace

The article says: "no other third party candidate has won an entire state's electoral college". Only two states award electoral college votes in other than a winner take all fashion, so this statement is a bit misleading.

Has any other 3rd Party candidate won *ANY* electoral votes since then? I don't think so. So that is the more impressive statistic. Wallace dwarfs all the zero-electoral-vote-getters like Anderson, Nader, Buchanan, and even Perot, who most people now adays would probably believe was the most successful 3rd Party candidate ever.

Only Teddy Roosevelt won more electoral votes as a third party candidate and he was a popular two-term ex-President. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.150.195 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Treatment of 'Favorite Son' Candidates

I believe that it is anachronistic for modern editors to list favorite son candidates in the same set as the national candidates (Johnson, Humphrey, McCarthy, Kennedy). Branigan, and Lynch, etc. were not actually seeking the office (they were placeholders for Johnson) and nobody at the time--not event the candidates themselves--would have campaigned or voted in the belief that they might be nominated or elected in their own right. KevinCuddeback (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Democratic convention violence

The media were more shocked by images of violence outside the Democratic convention than the public was. See Robinson, John, "Public Reaction to Political Protest: Chicago 1968," Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (1970): 1-9.

This area is written with obvious bias. The police were not blameless, but this section of the page lies ALL the blame on the Police. Absolutely, the protesters began and contributed to the violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigercap (talk • contribs) 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that the section has been rewritten to reflect less "anti-police" or "pro-protestors" bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon's home state

Apparently, this needs to be spelled out, because, for the second consecutive time, I have to revert a well-meaning ignoramus who has "corrected" Nixon's home state during the 1968 election to be California. As is mentioned in Wikipedia's own article on Richard Nixon, after losing the 1962 gubernatorial election in California, Nixon moved to New York City. New York was still his state of residency in 1968, when Nixon won the White House. You don't have to take my word for it: external sources such as Dave Leip's Presidential Atlas or presidentelect.org corroborate that Nixon's home state was New York in 1968.

I changed this, too. Under his picture, I had to change it from saying California to New York. (P.S. He moved back to California for his second presidential term. So, in the 1972 article, it is correct to list his home state as California). Nopm 22:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

— DLJessup 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record and to educate the lazy: the current "Red state, Blue state" scheme is recent going back to just the 1992 election. The official urban legend is that the Republicans got the color red as booty from winning the cold war. Ericl 16:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What I don't get is how the underline under Nixon's picture is red, but his states are blue, and vice versa for HHH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallicfan20 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Kennedy Not A Candidate (but did get votes at Convention)

I could find no source which suggested that Edward Kennedy was a "candidate" in 1968. I did add detail to show that he received votes at the convention, but in this sense he was no more a candidate than Bear Bryant. Anyone delegate can vote for anyone. That does not make the vote-getter a candidate. KevinCuddeback (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Republican Primary Campaign

The text for the Republican primary campaign needs to be completely revised. Romney was Nixon's earliest rival but dropped out near the beginning of the primary campaign following his famous "brainwashed" statement. Rockefeller and Reagan entered the race later but were serious contenders; Reagan remained a serious contender all the way to the convention. I will attempt to upgrade the text in the near future. Chronicler3 18:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Replace N.... with Black

I am not sure that the use of the n-word to represent predominantly African-American neighbourhoods in the vote breakdown is warranted. This should be reconsidered. 66.102.80.219 18:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a direct quote from a contemporary publication. Cripipper 01:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I do not think he used that word. It is politically incorrect, that word is.

Lynch?

In the movie Bobby the results of the California primary are reported in archival footage from CBS News. The results list only last names and percentages: Kennedy first, followed by McCarthy and then by Lynch. Who was Lynch? Awbeal 13:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Attorney General Thomas C. Lynch was the California favorite son candidate originally supporting LBJ. There is a stub biography for him in Wikipedia. See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,844497,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

--The Four Deuces (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of quote marks

From the "Contest for the Democratic nomination" section:

"Some historians, such as Theodore H. White and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., have argued that Kennedy's broad appeal and famed "charisma" would have convinced the party bosses at the Democratic Convention to give him the nomination."

Why does the word charisma have quote marks around it? Either Kennedy had charisma or he didn't. If he did, then the word doesn't need quote marks. If he didn't, but it is somebody's opinion, then it is a quotation and should be referenced.

WikiReaderer 21:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Winner/Runner-Up

I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Primaries

There is a sentence saying "only 13 states held a primaries " In my opinion, it should be primaries or a primary but not a mixture... But I'm no native speaker so I thought I'd ask first. 85.178.103.32 (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

New York Primary?

There's a bit of a contradiction here: "On June 5 Kennedy narrowly defeated McCarthy in California, 46% - 42%. However, McCarthy refused to withdraw from the race and made it clear that he would contest Kennedy in the upcoming New York primary, where McCarthy had much support from antiwar activists in New York City. "

So here we see that New York had a primary. However, its not listed among the states that did have primaries. So did it have a primary or not? Seleucus (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

According to An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968, there was a New York Primary. On page 405 the authors write that "On June 18, the McCarthy forces in New York...won a surprise victory in the state's primary. Out of 123 delegates to Chicago chosen that day, 63 were for McCarthy, against 30 pledged to [the late] Robert Kennedy - and presumably open to negotiation with a peace candidate - 19 uncommitted, and only 11 for Humphrey." I have included McCarthy's victory in New York with his primary victories. User: Populism

Fair use rationale for Image:Nytimes1968electionpage.jpg

Image:Nytimes1968electionpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox resize

I think the infobox on this article (like some other election articles) is way too wide. I would like to suggest a better aspect for the infobox. Here is what I propose is a better size: United States presidential election, 1968/infobox proposal. Thoughts? TheHYPO (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Any maverick electors?

You show Michigan's electoral votes all going to Humphrey, and your totals for the 3 candidates add up to the correct figure of 538.

Nevertheless I seem to remember that elector Zoltan Ferency of Michigan voted for someone besides Humphrey. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Govrhodes.jpeg

The image Image:Govrhodes.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Faithless Electoral College?

I don't edit, I don't even know how, but commenting that one member of the electoral college voted against what he was suppose to would seem to be a source of interest, maybe a stub or something (probably already exists, problems with electoral college has it I bet). Anyways, it says one "faithless" voter.... adjectives are used to describe, and I feel this man's faith has nothing to do with it in this case. A better adjective that comes to mind is... well, figure it out, "he voted contrary to the rest of his state's electoral college" is too long, but best I have. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.212.8.156 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Faithless elector is the common term for electors who vote contrary to how they had pledged to do so. It refers to "lack of faith" to the party or candidate, not the elector's religious or personal faith.--JayJasper (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixon A Traitor?

The section on the fall campaign has had some recent additions which flatly proclaim that Nixon committed a crime (including treason) in sabotaging the Paris Peace Talks to end the fighting in Vietnam. The sources listed are more ambigious about Nixon's committing treason than the section suggests ("Johnson believed", "Humphrey wondered", etc.) , and I'm wondering if such strong charges should be left unchallenged in the section. How verifiable is all this, and why have many of Nixon's biographers - such as Stephen Ambrose - rejected many of these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There are certain BLP issues here as many of Nixon's aides are still alive.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This had morphed into a form where the article implied it wasn't treason because Nixon had the best interests of the South Vietnamese in mind. This is original research and it's also pretty dumb. Nobody was prosecuted or convicted for treason, or any other crime, so it's not the place of a Wikipedia article to pass judgement on what it was. All the sources give us is that LBJ privately called it treason, so I've changed the article to say just that. 80.221.34.183 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

The IP address 64.247.106.59 put something bad in that I had to undo. I'm not sure how I can report this though to the staff, I looked it up on the help page but it did not tell me much. Anyway yeah there is it is!

The Robot 2000 (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nixon preferred Finch?

Is this really accurate? Both men were from California & thus their Electoral votes from that state, wouldn't have been counted. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nixon didn't live in California in 1968, he lived in New York City at the time. Thus he would have received California's electoral votes even had he chosen Finch. In fact, the reason he considered Finch as his running mate was because he had lost the California gubernatorial election just six years earlier, and there was some belief that Nixon was no longer considered a "favorite son" outside of his native Orange County in Southern California.

Generally accurate, but Nixon was from L.A. County (Whittier).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Orange County item was an error. Thanks for the correction!

Sirham Sirham? Please...

"Kennedy and five others were shot by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian militant who disliked Kennedy because of his support for the nation of Israel."

You have to be joking. Sure that is what the powers that be want you to believe, but please... any one on the Internet can figure that this is lie in minutes. What is next? 9/11 was committed by 19 Arabs with razor blades? Yea right... 142.46.214.106 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath/Realignment

"From 1969 to 2009, the Republican Party was undoubtedly the majority party." Seems to me that the first year is fine, but Republicans are no longer the majority party. Not that you'd know it from the way Harry Reid acts... 198.82.89.155 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps

I've reverted back to the SVG map as it seems to be the standard format used to display presidential election results. If there are any inaccuracies on any of these maps my suggestion is to edit the image file itself and correct it rather than change to a different image format and thus making the pages look inconsistent. Think777 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Electoral Map has a Mistake

West Virginia had 7 Electoral Votes not 6. This is according to the United States Archives' website. Avazina 03:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avazina (talk • contribs)

Aftermath section problems

The Aftermath section has numerous serious problems which could mislead readers and which spoil an otherwise solid and well-documented article. The specific problems are:

1) "The election of 1968 reversed the situation completely. From 1968 to 2008, the Republican Party was undoubtedly the majority party." In reality, from 1968 to 2008 Democrats held control of Congress the majority of the time, and, until the 2000s, polls consistently showed that a plurality of Americans identified with the Democratic party. (Through much of the period, in fact, the D:R ratio among both the public and Members of Congress was quite high, with clear Democratic dominance.) The fact that Republican candidates won the majority of Presidential elections certainly does not mean that the Republican Party was "undoubtedly the majority party"!

2) "The South was now aligned with the GOP." The South's alignment with the GOP occurred in the 1980s, not 1968! Nixon won very few Southern States in 1968; Humphrey won TX and the border states, and the former-southern-Democrat Wallace won the deep South. Then in 1976, Carter swept almost all of the South, despite the fact that Ford did quite well in the rest of the country. (And, until the 1980s, the vast bulk of state and local officials in the South, and the majority of Members of Congress from the South, were Democrats.)

Or, is the writer in fact referring not to 1968 but to the 1980s alignment, alluded to in the statement that "Notably, most white Southern Democrats (and especially their children) became Republicans in the next two decades?" If this is the case, it needs to be made clear. (Of course, a 1980s realignment rebuts, rather than supports, a claim that 1968 constituted a "realigning election." There is nothing in the theory of realigning elections which suggests that the realignment requires a generation to occur!)

3) "Nixon's victory is often considered a realigning election..." Weasel words. In reality, some political scientists assert that it is a realigning election and some assert that it is not, while many question "realigning election" theory altogether. It would be much better to state that "some" political scientists--and actually cite some--have asserted that 1968 is a realigning election, while perhaps also citing some who disagree. The whole section suffers from a lack of attribution, and takes on the form of an off-the-cuff essay written to advance a controversial argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader335 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

While I think that statement #1 is correct, I do think a strong case can be made for 1968 marking a significant change in Southern voting patterns. Nixon won considerably more than "very few" Southern states, he carried Virginia, Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina (first time since 1928 that a Republican had carried it), South Carolina (first time since Reconstruction that a Republican had carried it), and the border states of Missouri and Kentucky. Not even Eisenhower carried the Carolinas. In 1972 Nixon swept every Southern state by huge margins; Carter's election in 1976 was more of a "fluke" than a reversal of this trend to the GOP. As far as 1968 being a realigning election, it may not have been at the congressional level, but the fact that the Democrats had won 7 of the previous 9 presidential elections, and (including 1968) the GOP won 4 of the next 5 presidential elections indicates that some kind of shift did take place in 1968 (political commentator Kevin Phillips wrote about this at the time). I agree that this section had some poorly-written sentences, but in revising it I think some of the points in the section simply need to be footnoted, not eliminated.

Quick End To Vietnam

Can someone substantiate this? I know it is common to say that Nixon had a 'secret plan' for ending the war, but I found no reference to this in Theodore White's "The Making of the President, 1968," generally considered a standard reference work on the issue.

Thrid Party candidates

Although Dick Gregory received many write-in votes, he appeared on the ballot in five states. Half of his nationwide total came from New York State, where he was the Freedom and Peace Party nominee. He also ran under other party names: Peace & Freedom (PA and VA), New Party (CO), and Peace & Freedom Alternative (NJ).

Frederick W. Halstead of the Socialist Workers Party probably should be mentioned as well, as his 41,390 votes was a record high for that party (to be broken in '72).

Eugene McCarthy appeared on some ballots, receiving 25,552 votes. Chronicler3

The First Paragraph

Is there anyway to format the page so that the first paragraph isn't crammed in to the margin? It seems very poorly designed and is annoying to read.

assassination

"In the narrow pantry Kennedy and five others were shot by Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian militant who disliked Kennedy because of his support for the nation of Israel. None of the five other gunshot victims suffered mortal wounds, but Kennedy's gunshot wound was in the head, and despite having surgery the wound proved to be fatal."

Is there a way we can qualify this to at least imply that there are significant alternative theories? I am sympathetic to such theories, altho I am not fully convinced. Im not much of a conspiracy theorist, but theres a few I question (this, JFK, MLK, and the Iran hostage crisis, but not 9/11—altho I do believe the official story is a bit off track). I feel that it deserves a little qualification, but Im not sure how to phrase it. "allegedly shot" is too POV towards the theories.

"In the narrow pantry, Kennedy and five others were shot by an assailant, later determined to be...." Thats still not what Im looking for here. It should mention or imply that this is what the court found, but also imply there are seriously plausible alternatives. (I havent actually researched this as much as 9/11, but a quick look on his assassination page does bring a lot of questions)

--Metallurgist (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

George Wallace

I noticed that aside from a short mention in the lede, Wallace's campaign isn't mentioned at all. He won five states, and at one point in September was only three percent behind Hubert. Then there was the LeMay for Veep bruhahaEricl (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

President Johnson

Why is President Johnson listed as a democratic candidate? He never intended to run for a second full term in office. He writes this in his memoirs The Vantage Point (he writes that he was not planning to run in 1965). Only the press claimed that he wanted another term as president, which described him as a man with great a last for power. --Jerchel (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

basing text on primary sources like LBJ's memoirs is a bad idea according to Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia depends on reliable secondary sources, which agree as do and observers at the time that until lat March LBJ was running and fully intended to win the election and serve another term. Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

According to a highly detailed study of LBJ's decision, "Johnson's papers reflect that he certainly acted like a candidate for the first three months of 1968. The administration acted likewise; Turner notes that the White House staff "proceeded on the assumption that the campaign would soon be in full swing." Michael J. Towle (2004). Out of Touch: The Presidency and Public Opinion. Texas A&M University Press. pp. 121–25. Rjensen (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• That's basicly incorrect. One of Johnson's speech writers confirmed that LBJ had requested him in summer of 1967 to write a speech that he will not seek reelection. Johnson did not want a second term because is health was too poor and his wife had urged him not to run again. He did even not join the primary elections by campaignig. He announced his withdraw in March because of the peace talks over Vietnam and because Truman did likewise in 1952. The reason why some sources - such as the media - decleare him of being a candidate is, because his name was on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary. Had he inted another relection, Johnson would not have withdrawn to get the nomination. --Jerchel (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No Johnson's top aides and top Dem Party officials all decided LBJ was a candidate and acted accordingly as did LBJ himself (LBJ made the actual decision a few days before he announced it). Please stick with the RS and avoid speculation. Rjensen (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

not second time

i deleted this phrase "It was the second and last time (after Woodrow Wilson's narrow re-election in 1916) that a presidential nominee managed to win the election but failed to carry the state of his residence. Although Nixon had most notably served as representative and senator for California, he was living in New York at the time being, a state which favoured Vice President Humphrey." since it is false (there is one time more in 1844) and to be the third time of something doesn't look so relevant.81.47.192.185 (talk) 06:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good move deleting the phrase, as it was unsourced trivia that did not warrant inclusion (least of all in the lead section) per WP:DUE.--JayJasper (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Realignment

I changed "The election of 1968 was a realigning election that permanently disrupted the New Deal Coalition . . ." to "Some observers consider the election of 1968 to be a realigning election as it permanently disrupted the New Deal Coalition . . ." There's no consensus among political scientists, historians, pundits, etc., that 1968 represents a genuine realignment. Many think the conservative realignment happened in 1980. Some don't think it happened at all. The other realignments - 1800, 1828, 1860, maybe 1896, 1932 - are generally agreed on, but not 1968. It's plausible, but it's still up for debate.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)