Who Did George Wallace Hurt More in the1968 Election? Humphrey or Nixon?

[dw93]

In the 1968 Presidential Election, George Wallace won 5 states (46 electoral votes), making him the last third party candidate to carry electoral votes and he also won 13.5% of the popular vote. Nixon won 301 electoral votes (32 states) and 43.4% of the popular vote and Humphrey won 191 (13+ DC) electoral votes and 42.7% of the popular vote. With that said, was Wallace a spoiler for Humphrey or did he prevent Nixon from winning a bigger victory?

 

[Gog (♀)]

Nixon. Most of Wallace's voters said they'd vote Nixon otherwise, and all the rest mostly would have stayed home. Without Wallace Nixon sweeps the South and probobly wins Texas.

 

[lord caedus]

Nixon. Most of Wallace's voters said they'd vote Nixon otherwise, and all the rest mostly would have stayed home. Without Wallace Nixon sweeps the South and probobly wins Texas.

Exactly. Nixon and Wallace both campaigned on "law and order" and something like 75% of Wallace voters in the South said they would have voted for Nixon over Humphrey if Wallace hadn't run.

 

[David T]

"Even more intimidating for Nixon was pollsters’ discovery that four out of five Wallace votes would have gone to Nixon if Wallace had not run." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/peopleevents/pande07.html

 

[Indicus]

Nixon, man. Many southerners could still remember Humphrey's speech to the DNC in 1948, and polls seem to show he was the man they would have voted for.

If it wasn't for Wallace, Humphrey would have never made his spectacular recovery.

 

[LordKalvert]

Wallace was the candidate of the Southern racist dead enders. Why on Earth would they vote for Humphrey? The man who had voted for the Civil Rights Act, the vice President of Lyndon Johnson?

Some would have stayed home, almost all the rest would have gone for Nixon