In 1968 the democrats had two warring candidates (Humphrey and McCarthy) who eventually became buddy-buddy after tearing each apart, but in so doing managed to alienate the electorate, and that's how Nixon wound up in the White House. Does anyone else see the same basic scenario playing out now?
2008-02-27T14:55:26Z
in response to coyoteco..the charm of the 60's was its inate simplicity..you knew who the good guys were and who the bad guys were, there was very little grey area back then...i think its romanticism to manufacture complexities in a decade that was, by anybody's definition, easy to understand
EC HERE2008-02-27T14:31:42Z
Favorite Answer
Your going back before even my time but I do remember there were riots at the Democratic convention very violent. But wasn't it civil rights and Vietnam that fueled them? So yes I see it now war and race.
You forgot to take into consideration the fact that President Johnson decided not to run because RFK was going to run and then Bobby was assassinated. These two events were much more important in getting Nixon elected b/c, let's be honest, Humphrey and McCarthy were idiots. Had Bobby not run and Johnson seeked another election he would have beaten Nixon or had Bobby run and not been killed he would have beaten Nixon. Your scenario creates something along the lines of Clinton dropping out and Obama being shot and then we have Edwards and Biden battling it out.
Ah, 1968. I was 17 and had the time of my life....Oh, yeah the question. I think Humphrey and McCarthy were lots better candidates than the two Democrats now. And Nixon better than McCain. I also think Johnson declaring to not run doomed the Dems.
1968 was more complicated than you are making it out. The standing president declined to run (although he could have) and the leading candidate was assassinated (Kennedy). These two would have been the top 2 candidates. Humphrey and McCarthy were at best #3 and 4 in their own party.
Obama and Clinton are certainly the top two candidates of their party.