Talk Elections

Who would you vote for in the 1968 election? I'm going for Nixon.

This is a tough one...I an neutral on Nixon, Wallace was an idiot, and Humphrey was pro-Vietnam.  Out of these three, I would vote for Humphrey, but I might have cast my vote for Dick Gregory (Peace & Freedom Party).

Nixon, of course.  Hell, Nixon, even knowing what we know now :)  Who the heck was voting for Wallace???

Wallace has gotten three votes, thats crazy

There was someone here before who supported Wallace, but I don't remember who. I am not sure about this one, certainly not Wallace, probably Humphrey due to the murder of RFK. Don't let them win, you know... :P

From the 'who would you have voted for' thread...

And here we go again:

And Opebo's a big fan of Wallace's running mate, Curtis LeMay.

RFK, nobody else...

I think I would have slept in for the 1968 election.

Even though he was dead?

would be a problem...

Yes, I like LeMay a lot - his ideas won WWII, and the fact that we abandoned them is the reason for the defeats in Korea and Vietnam.  If it was a LeMay/Wallace ticket, you bet, but the other way round no thanks.  

I voted for Nixon.  Humphrey would've been my last choice.

Korea was, worse case, a draw, and I'd go as far as call it a win, actually. Vietnam was impossible to win while remaining a civilized country. But I guess that wouldn't bother you or LeMay.

Jaichind also would have voted for Breckinridge (1860) and Thurmond (1948).

Breckinridge? Bleh

It's the fascist nut vote, basically... ;)

I would have picked Humphrey, since at the time I wouldn't have known about Nixon signing the Clean Air Act (since obviously he wouldn't have been president yet to do so). I would have to go with the party that signed the Civil Rights Act. The Vietnam war would be a wash, since i think both candidates were denoucing it to some degree.

I would have voted for Nixon.

And to set the record straight on civil rights, a higher percentage of Republicans in Congress voted for the Civil Rights laws than Democrats.

The Republicans tried to pass stronger civil rights laws under Eisenhower in the 1950s, but the Democrats in Congress stripped them of any real meaning.

I know that more republicans voted for the civil rights act. You are not 'setting the record straight', try not to sound so high and mighty. And I said the party who SIGNED the civil rights act.

I like Nixon as a president due to his first term achievements. However, before he had a first term there would be no way for me to know that he would have been such a good incumbent.

And that Agnew guy would have creeped me out.

RFK was to be president in 1968. Sorry but Nixon was an impostor.

Why was Nixon an imposter? For RFK? Anyway, since he wasn't actually running due to him being dead, it might be a good idea to vote for one of the actual candidates, that's all i thought.

lol

In USA, we can vote for people who are died...

Do read that again.

:D "People who are died"

I remember a governor (or a senator or a rep. I didn't know...) who has just died but he was still on electorate votes. And I think that it's his woman who has occupied the mandate. But it's espicially to make spirit.

You must be talking about Mel Carnahan, the Missouri governor who was running for Senator in 2000.  He died right before the election, won on the sympathy vote, and his widow was appointed to take his place until the next congressional election 2 years later.

The whole think stunk to high heaven and was very questionable.  Jean Carnahan served 2 years in the Senate, and then lost the election in 2002 to Jim Talent.

It would be a really serious problem if something like that happened at the presidential level.

Well, since the voters chose Jean Carnahan, I don't see how it stunk or how it was questionable. I suppose maybe the Democrats deliberately sabotaged Carnahan's plane in order to win themselves a Senate seat...wouldn't put it past those SOBs, right?

You are very right though, that at a Presidential level, this would be a real problem. Although I am a staunch opponent of the Electoral College, I admit this is one situation in which it would be somewhat helpful. If a presidential candidate died and there was not enough time to get his name off the ballot, the Electors themselves could choose someone else when they convene to vote, if the deceased candidate won the election. The party would, hopefully, announce their choice of a replacement candidate in advance (though they wouldn't HAVE to), but the fact that the dead candidate's name was still on the ballot wouldn't be a problem other than in the confusion it would cause to voters.

If the election were decided by popular vote, this could still be remedied, but there would have to be a law stating the exact order of succession of Presidential candidates. Presumably the VP nominee would become the Presidential nominee and then would choose a new VP nominee.

Actually, I think the Republicans sabotaged Wellstone's plane because they knew they could beat Walter Mondale.

Maybe you're right and it was legitimate.  I guess he died too close to the election to replace him on the ballot, and the voters knew that his wife would be appointed in his place.  I have had family members in politics, so I know about political shenanigans.  I think when electing somebody, the whole thing should be above-board, and as long as that was the case, it was probably legitimate.

What was not legitimate about that election is that the Gore campaign and Jesse Jackson filed suit to keep the polls in heavily Democratic St. Louis open late, after the rest of the state's polls closed, and it turns out the man in whose name the suit was made, claiming that he had been unable to vote due to long lines at the polls, was dead.

Wallace