Your first point about McCarthy receiving support from pro-war Democrats is true, but only in the very, very early stages of the campaign, primarily in New Hampshire and Wisconsin before LBJ dropped out.
Which is where he ran strongest (mostly). O\c neither state was exactly a stronghold of "hippieland" or the supposed Educated Elite.
Out of curiosity, would it be possible to get a map of the 1968 D California primary between RFK and McCarthy. I think that would be interesting.
Also, I don't think you could really characterize them as "McCarthy Supporters" because they never really supported him. Most of them probably ended up supporting Richard Nixon in the general election, with some Southerners going to Wallace and a few staying with Humphrey.
I agree. But it was significant enough to give him a stronger vote and showed how utterly dead the LBJ presidency was.
Blue collar support for McCarthy was limited at best, at least until RFK jumped in and took away pretty much all the blue collar support.
RFK: Blue Collar? Not really - It was mainly Humphrey who got the blue collar support (at least in 1972.. I admit I don't know too much detail about the 68' primaries as I do about the 72' ones.). RFK was the candidate of Minorities, Catholics and the more moderate liberal intellectuals.
I do know that McGovern actually did do fairly well in Blue Collar areas in the 72' primaries; especially at the start of the campaign before Humphrey came in strong and the Democratic establishment much less determined to stop him winning.
As for McCarthy, well, who do you think voted for him in Minnesota? (Though I admit that voting for senator and voting for president are two different things..)
Of course, McCarthy enjoyed slightly more support among rural whites, but still nothing like he enjoyed among the educated elite.
Even that support was tenuous in many cases.
The college students who would never support the Democrat at all were a lot smaller than people think, IMHO. These were mainly people like the "Yippies" and some of the more radical members of "SDS," along with black nationalist movements like the Black Panther Party and SNCC (or what would become the radical SNCC if they had not segregated already, I can't really remember).
They were small (though not THAT small; significant enough that they became in many ways the faces of the student movement.) but fairly important. After the Riots in Chicago Abbie Hoffman made a prediction that his group (the Yippies - he was their leader) had just elected Richard Nixon. Given how close it was in the very end seems to indicate that there was some truth in it.
After all even at its peak what is known as "the Student movement" made up what... 1% of the population. If even that. And those groups like the yippies were a fraction of that. Yet they had enomorous cultural significance (Though more in Music than in Politics o\c) . The fact that this is the 40th Anniversary of 1968 and the students, et al are still being talked about just shows this.
Contrary to popular belief, at the time the Chicago protests were happening, most Americans strongly, strongly disapproved of the actions of the protesters. In fact, most though the police exercised the right amount of brutality or were not brutal enough.
I would believe that, but it wasn't just protestors Daly's crew were attacking - often passing civilians aswell.
Also, the effect of causing people to stay home because of the riots in Chicago is minimal, with something like only 1% of Democrats refusing to vote because of what happened outside (and inside) the convention. (However, you should note that the overall effect on the race from Chicago should not be pushed aside.)
It gave the impression that the party was in chaos and falling rapidly apart. For some Democratic conservatives it seemed to show how the youth movement was trying to take over the party (Lol: But many believed that..) I can't claim with certainly that if not for Chicago Humphrey would have won.. but it was surely a factor and remember it was really, really close.
Your final point about McGovern not being an elitist is one I have to agree with. In 1968, McGovern actually attempted to stand-in for RFK at the convention, receiving a I believe a little under 200 delegates. However, just because he wasn't elitist doesn't mean CREEP didn't try to paint him as one.
Yes. Though to be honest it wasn't hard in 1972 - especially spouting anti-Vietnam views; which often were in the student movement and the hippies and etc a strong resentment of the military. They would claim that is because they were pacifists but that's not how most Americans saw it.