WI: Hubert Humphrey wins Popular Vote in 1968

What would result in Humphrey winning 1968 popular vote? Obviously he still loses the Electoral College, but would this encourage him to try again in 1972? How would this affect Nixon's Presidency?
 
Humphrey works even harder to gain the nomination in '72, and Nixon obsesses even more about getting his electoral sweep.
 
I think the elections of 2000 and 2004 show us: absolutely nothing. We have a complex method for picking a president -- one that, on balance, I think largely works.(*) One of the things I think the past few election cycles have demonstrated that it is the results of the full process -- and not just one part of that mechanism -- that count.

Or think about it this way: right now, it's possible that Obama could be re-elected despite losing the popular vote, based largely on the fact that his lead in Ohio (2.4%) is larger than his lead nationally (1.7%).

If that were to happen, do you think it would change the way either party behaves in 2013? I don't.

(*) -- The Supreme Court's "decision" in Bush v. Gore notwithstanding.
 
I think the elections of 2000 and 2004 show us: absolutely nothing.
2000 I get, but why bring up 2004? Bush won both the popular and electoral votes. It wouldn't have been implausible for Kerry to win Ohio and the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote still, if that's what you meant.
 
If that were to happen, do you think it would change the way either party behaves in 2013? I don't.

.

I disagree - politics is a cycle - if Romney/Ryan lose in November then the Republican Party is going to take a shift left and go back to a more Moderate course for awhile. Sure, there will still be the John Birch Society, or I guess today we would call them the Tea Party, but the more Moderate faction will take over the helm for awhile.

I tell people this, and a lot of people respond that "Romney is a moderate" - No he isn't. He sold his soul to the Tea Party to win the nomination. He's not his father and he's not the Gov. of Massachussetts anymore. He's made a HUGE shift right.

Now for the topic of the thread, I think Humphrey has a legitimate shot at winning in 1972; for the simple fact that Nixon has prolonged Vietnam, the econonmy is stagnant, Humphrey is still more trusted over Nixon, etc. I'm not sure who Hump picks for his running mate in '72 - I doubt it'll be Muskie or McGovern. He won't pick McCarthy because he's from Minnesota and that would forfeit the electoral votes. I think Gaylord Nelson is a possiblity, that would secure Wisconsin and a lot of the environmentally friendly states. Perhaps Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, or Dale Bumpers to name a few.

There are three things that are for sure with Humphrey winning in '72: 1.)The Republican Party stays more moderate as Humphrey is willing to work with them in Congress and 2.) Humphrey, becomes the first president to resign in mid to late 1977 due to health problems. 3.) Depending on who and how the Hump's VP is and does for Humphrey's second term will determine if the Republican's win in 1980 or 1984.
 
I think it would be largely a footnote, only causing tiny ripples. You could also have Nixon's adversaries (Hippies, New Lefties, average normal Americans talking about Nixon at the bar, etc) use it as a point when hating on the president. But I don't think it really does all that much.

If Humphrey is emboldened by that somehow and goes on to win the nomination again in '72, I think he'd still lose.
 
They did IOTL, that was the Bayh-Cellar Amendment. It came really close to passing, and had some Republican support, and Nixon's support.
So with an event like Humphrey winning the popular vote but losing the electoral occurring, maybe it would get the support to be able to pass, if it was so close.
 
Nixon probably doesn't support Bayh-Celler. IOTL '72 he was still obsessed about keeping Wallace out as a third-party force, ITTL he'd be even more obsessed and less scrupulous (if even Hoover thinks you're going too far, etc.) when it came to dirty tricks.

Does Nixon absolutely have to win the EC? Because MO/NJ/OH were all won by less than 2.5. Swing them into HHH's column and the EV is tied at 246, Congress elects Humphrey/Muskie.
 
2000 I get, but why bring up 2004? Bush won both the popular and electoral votes. It wouldn't have been implausible for Kerry to win Ohio and the electoral vote, but lose the popular vote still, if that's what you meant.

That's exactly what I meant.

I disagree - politics is a cycle - if Romney/Ryan lose in November then the Republican Party is going to take a shift left and go back to a more Moderate course for awhile. Sure, there will still be the John Birch Society, or I guess today we would call them the Tea Party, but the more Moderate faction will take over the helm for awhile.

Regardless of whether this point is correct (I think it isn't, but it's not material), I think you've misunderstood the argument. Nobody here is arguing that the results of the election doesn't matter -- what I'm saying is that there will be no difference whether Obama wins either (a) with a majority of the popular vote AND a the electoral college; or (b) the electoral college only, despite losing the popular vote.
 
Top