Wallace doesn't do a third party run in 1968

[TommyC1776]

What if Wallace didn't run in 1968?  Who would've won?  Would Humphrey have won?  Would Nixon have won real big?  What would a map look like?

[Lincoln Republican]

This election would have been closer in the EV if Wallace had not run.
 
Switching from Wallace to Nixon with Wallace not running, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi.  These states would not have gone for the very liberal ticket of Humphrey and Muskie.  They would have opted for the more conservative ticket of Nixon and Agnew.
 
Switching from Nixon to Humphrey with Wallace not running, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin.  There were enough blue collar/union Democrats in these states who liked Wallace and voted for him, but who would have voted for Humphrey to swing these states to Humphrey with Wallace not running.

This election would have been a heart breakingly close loss for Humphrey, even closer than the actual 1968 election.  Humphrey wanted the Presidency very badly.  But in 1968, America was just coming off of 8 years of Democratic administrations, and was still embroiled in the disaster, by this time, of the Vietman War.  This was by far the dominant issue of the 1968 campaign, and Nixon promised "Peace With Honor," and America trusted his ability to deliver on this important promise.

Nixon/Agnew          277
Humphrey/Muskie   261 

There is a possibility that Texas could have swung to Nixon without Wallace running, however, I left it with Humphrey, because Texas was still showing good Democratic support during the 1960's.         

[jokerman]

Umm....no.  Humphery would sweep the South.

[True Democrat]

This election would have been closer in the EV if Wallace had not run.
 
Switching from Wallace to Nixon with Wallace not running, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi.  These states would not have gone for the very liberal ticket of Humphrey and Muskie.  They would have opted for the more conservative ticket of Nixon and Agnew.
 
Switching from Nixon to Humphrey with Wallace not running, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, Wisconsin.  There were enough blue collar/union Democrats in these states who liked Wallace and voted for him, but who would have voted for Humphrey to swing these states to Humphrey with Wallace not running.

This election would have been a heart breakingly close loss for Humphrey, even closer than the actual 1968 election.  Humphrey wanted the Presidency very badly.  But in 1968, America was just coming off of 8 years of Democratic administrations, and was still embroiled in the disaster, by this time, of the Vietman War.  This was by far the dominant issue of the 1968 campaign, and Nixon promised "Peace With Honor," and America trusted his ability to deliver on this important promise.

Nixon/Agnew          277
Humphrey/Muskie   261 

There is a possibility that Texas could have swung to Nixon without Wallace running, however, I left it with Humphrey, because Texas was still showing good Democratic support during the 1960's.         

Pretty good, but maybe swing California and maybe even Ohio to Humphrey.  Arkansas is a long shot, but I think under the right circumstances, Humphrey could have won it.

[jokerman]

Humphery may have been a liberal but he was liberal in a populist sort of way.  Combine that with the fact that Democratic Party loyalty (or at least anti-republican loyalty) was much stronger in the south then than now and you have a Humphery sweep of the south.

[jokerman]

Humphery receives about 70% of support from Wallace voters (but even higher ratios of support in the south).  Therefore, most southern states (if you look at the math) flip over to Humphery.

[Lincoln Republican]

True Democrat, point well taken, however, with California being Nixon's home state, I do believe he would have won it against Humphrey.  Nixon won California even against Kennedy in 1960.  I see no valid reason why Nixon would not have won it in 1968, Wallace or no Wallace in the race.  With a deficit of 223,000 votes to make up, even if Humphrey were to capture 60% of the Wallace vote, highly unlikely, Nixon still takes California by 125,000.      

Given Ohio's tendency to vote Republican in presidential elections, even in the 1960's, I believe Nixon would have taken Ohio in 1968.  Nixon won Ohio against Kennedy in 1960 as well.  

As for Arkansas, I believe most of the Wallace vote would go to Nixon, not Humphrey.

This is how I see things going, but it is my opinion only, but, of course, what you say could have happened as well.  I am simply giving my reasons why I see things happening this way.

[jokerman]

As for Arkansas, I believe most of the Wallace vote would go to Nixon, not Humphrey.

Well you don't understand the South like I do, especially Arkansas.  These voters are for the most part working-class and middle class people who would vote Democrat in a second with the absence of Wallace in the race.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If Wallace doesn't do a third party run, he almost certainly would have been doing a Democratic run, as he did in 1964, 1972, and 1976.  How is that going to affect the nomination process in both parties? Do we still have Humphrey and Nixon as the candidates?

[Lincoln Republican]

As for Arkansas, I believe most of the Wallace vote would go to Nixon, not Humphrey.

Well you don't understand the South like I do, especially Arkansas.  These voters are for the most part working-class and middle class people who would vote Democrat in a second with the absence of Wallace in the race.

Fair enough.

My view of 1968, however, is that Wallace hurt Nixon in the south and hurt Humphrey in the north.

[jokerman]

As for Arkansas, I believe most of the Wallace vote would go to Nixon, not Humphrey.

Well you don't understand the South like I do, especially Arkansas.  These voters are for the most part working-class and middle class people who would vote Democrat in a second with the absence of Wallace in the race.

Fair enough.

My view of 1968, however, is that Wallace hurt Nixon in the south and hurt Humphrey in the north.

Much closer to the opposite, actually.  Many of Wallace's supporters in the North were conservative suburbanites who would have gone for Nixon.

[Lincoln Republican]

If Wallace doesn't do a third party run, he almost certainly would have been doing a Democratic run, as he did in 1964, 1972, and 1976.  How is that going to affect the nomination process in both parties? Do we still have Humphrey and Nixon as the candidates?

How about, in this case, Republicans end up nominating Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, and Democrats end up nominating Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. 

Now that would have made for one interesting contest.   

[Jake]

Much closer to the opposite, actually.  Many of Wallace's supporters in the North were conservative suburbanites who would have gone for Nixon.

Preston's correct here. IIRC Busing was the big issue in some northern areas that Wallace capitalized on.



Nixon - 283
HHH   - 255

Nixon picks up votes from Wallace to win PA, MD, and MI. HHH takes the South.