WI: 1968 electoral plurality

JoeMulk

Banned
What if Wallace won more states in the south in 1968, enough to prevent either Nixon or Humphery from getting an electoral majority which led to the election going to the Democratic controlled house who gave the presidency to Humphery?
 
The only places Wallace has a reasonable shot at are Tennessee and South Carolina, which knock Nixon down to 282. The only other place where he has even the tiniest chance is North Carolina, but that probably requires a North Carolinian VP- and even then, Nixon has 270 votes. So Wallace needs one faithless elector, then Nixon is 1 short at 269.

As to what happens, well Humphrey's president but one totally lacking popularlegitimacy(he recieved fewer votes both electoral and national then Nixon, and the Wallace voters were predominantly Nixon-preferring as well). I half suspect an amendment stating that the popular vote determines the winner will be passed in reaction.

I suspect Humphrey wouldn't achieve much, though he would wind down Vietnam earlier.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The only places Wallace has a reasonable shot at are Tennessee and South Carolina, which knock Nixon down to 282. The only other place where he has even the tiniest chance is North Carolina, but that probably requires a North Carolinian VP- and even then, Nixon has 270 votes. So Wallace needs one faithless elector, then Nixon is 1 short at 269.

As to what happens, well Humphrey's president but one totally lacking popularlegitimacy(he recieved fewer votes both electoral and national then Nixon, and the Wallace voters were predominantly Nixon-preferring as well). I half suspect an amendment stating that the popular vote determines the winner will be passed in reaction.

I suspect Humphrey wouldn't achieve much, though he would wind down Vietnam earlier.

Where there any states doing proportional apportionment of the electors at this point? Would these states be significant enough for one more elector?
 
None were using today's ME/NE system in 1968. Democratic majorities would install Humphrey and Muskie. Humphrey doesn't accomplish much because the SoDem-GOP coalition will block any further GS legislation, but he will follow Nixon's Vietnam policies. The economy will stagnate as inflation and rising prices (starting in '67 IOTL) start pinching consumers' pockets. In 1972, Humphrey is curbstomped by Reagan.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Yeah Humphery would probably be a lame duck from day one, on the other hand if he got credit for winding down Vietnam who knows?
 
Humphrey will have to overcome heavy opposition within his own party. Since 1966 it had been the SoDem-GOP coalition who kept the appropriations flowing over the vehement objection of liberal and some centrist Northern Democrats. But against Reagan Humphrey is a dead man walking.
 
Reagan would wipe the floor with both. Agnew was a nobody when Nixon picked him, and were it not for his criminal activities, he would've remained a nobody. George Romney had imploded 4 years earlier and his presidential hopes were over.
 
Humphrey would have been a good President. If Bush can win in 2004 with the way the 2000 election went. Humphrey could win in 72. But it would be close. Reagean would run for sure and i would bet Wallace would too. If Wallace is not shot the right wing vote is split up again. The question is does Scoop Jackson challenge Humprey in the primaries? Does Rocky run to get one more chance?
 
Jackson and Humphrey, on domestic issues, are Tweedledum/dee New Dealers. Rocky was too RINO-y in 1968, forget 1972 when he'll be perceived as a full-blown RINO.

Re Reagan: "it's the economy, stupid." Roughly the same scale as GHWB in '88...

genusmap.php


Reagan/Percy: 419 EV, 60.3%
Humphrey/Muskie 119 EV, 39.5%
 
Top