Question About Hubert Humphrey And 1968

[Lincoln Republican]

In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey lost to former Vice President Richard Nixon, in an election that gave Nixon a comfortable win in the Electoral College, but only a razor thin win in the popular vote for Nixon.

A switch of a few thousand votes in certain states would have put Humphrey into the Oval Office.

Humphrey's running mate in 1968 was Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine.  The only state where Muskie really helped Humphrey win, I believe, was Maine.

In 1960, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas was given much credit for helping John F. Kennedy win the election, with wins in Texas and the south.

Was there someone in 1968 who could have been "an LBJ for Humphrey" and who could have helped Humphrey win the election?

Please discuss.

[jimrtex]

Was there someone in 1968 who could have been "an LBJ for Humphrey" and who could have helped Humphrey win the election?

Lyndon Johnson of Texas was still alive.

[Lincoln Republican]

The issue is not whether LBJ was still alive in 1968, I know he was alive in 1968.

The issue and the question is was there any other Vice Presidential candidate that Humphrey could have chosen in 1968, besides Muskie, that would have helped him to possibly win the election.

[Erc]

LBJ's influence was enough to secure Texas for Humphrey in '68, despite his absence from the ticket.

HHH has one of three strategies for regional-based VP selection:

1) A southerner--imitating Kennedy directly.  However, Humphrey's very strong civil rights record (dating from '48) & Wallace's presence on the ballot makes any Humphrey success hard, unless he really compromises his principles.  Humphrey, in real life, didn't crack 31% in any Southern state south of Virginia (excepting Texas)...placing third in every state but LA & MS (where Wallace's margin was so large it didn't really matter).   Making this up would be difficult, to say the least.

2) A Californian (or other Westerner).  Despite Nixon's nominal ties to CA, Nixon only won the state by three points.  Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't exactly have a deep bench in CA at the time.  The Democrats had no Senators (or notable former Senators) from CA at the time.  The best bet would probably be Pat Brown (Jerry's father), who had served eight years as governor from '59 to '67.  However, he'd just been defeated for re-election by Ronald Reagan--and it's unclear whether someone who had just been thrown out of office would be an attractive VP candidate in the state.  On the plus side, however, there's the PR value of the man having beaten Nixon in the '62 gubernatorial race.

3) A Mid-Westerner...someone from Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, or any number of the very close states in that region.
Possibilities include:
Gov. Otto Kerner of Illinois -- in the end, would have been a negative, scandal-ridden addition to the campaign.
Sen. Stuart Symington of MO -- hard to say if he'd have helped to any major degree.

[gorkay]

Muskie was actually a strong candidate and a good campaigner, and probably helped the ticket win votes in virtually every state. He was probably as good a selection as anyone else would have been. Picking someone from another, larger state or another region wouldn't necessarily have translated into a net gain in EV... it doesn't always work that way, especially in the larger states.

[Gustaf]

Humphrey finished 2nd in 5 Southern states, just as many as he finished 3rd in. The point still stands though - he was dead in the South no matter what. I don't know whether there were any good Midwestern candidates at the time, but that is obviously what he would have needed since 1968, like most recent elections in US history, was decided in the Midwest.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Symmington would've swung MO over, and possibly enough cross-border support for IL too. Which would've made it 246 H - 247 N... and it would've gone to the house.

[Lincoln Republican]

I think Symmington would've swung MO over, and possibly enough cross-border support for IL too. Which would've made it 246 H - 247 N... and it would've gone to the house.

And the House in January, 1969 would have elected Humphrey President.

But with Illinois and Missouri going to Humphrey, this would have given Humphrey 229, Nixon 263.

Humphrey 191, plus Illinois 26, plus Missouri 12, total 229.

Nixon 301, minus Illinois 26, minus Missouri 12, total 263.

But the election would still go to the Democratically controlled House. 

[Nym90]

I think Symmington would've swung MO over, and possibly enough cross-border support for IL too. Which would've made it 246 H - 247 N... and it would've gone to the house.

And the House in January, 1969 would have elected Humphrey President.

If the election had gone to the House, I agree that's what would've happened.

However, Wallace would have likely attempted to broker a deal with one of the candidate in return for pledging his Electoral Votes to them. Possibly a place for Wallace in the cabinet or at the very least a promise of support for Wallace's agenda. He would've been more likely to negotiate with and make such a deal with Nixon than with Humphrey.

[Lincoln Republican]

I think Symmington would've swung MO over, and possibly enough cross-border support for IL too. Which would've made it 246 H - 247 N... and it would've gone to the house.

And the House in January, 1969 would have elected Humphrey President.

If the election had gone to the House, I agree that's what would've happened.

However, Wallace would have likely attempted to broker a deal with one of the candidate in return for pledging his Electoral Votes to them. Possibly a place for Wallace in the cabinet or at the very least a promise of support for Wallace's agenda. He would've been more likely to negotiate with and make such a deal with Nixon than with Humphrey.

That raises a very interesting prospect for this election.  In fact, this is exactly the type of situation that Wallace hoped would happen, that neither Nixon nor Humphrey would win a majority in the Electoral College.

Another question, how would southern Democrats go?  Philosophically, they would have been much closer to the more conservative Nixon than they would have been to the very liberal Humphrey.

So no Electoral College majority in 1968 would have made for a very dramatic showdown indeed. 

[gorkay]

It's been speculated on a lot since 1968 whether southern Democrats, in a House-decided election, would have gone for party or ideology. Or maybe they would just have gone with whichever side offered them the best deal.

[StateBoiler]

It's definitely something that would have had a dramatic shift on American politics and party affiliations at the time if it occurred.

The Republicans would've all gone for Nixon.
The labor Democrats would back Humphrey.
The peace Democrats would have no one else and go for Humphrey.

So that leaves the radical and moderate southern Democrats. I'd have to imagine Nixon would've made a deal with Wallace to get the radicals. It would depend on if enough moderate southern Democrats decided to put, like you said, party over ideology.

[WalterMitty]

ted kennedy.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Symington would have been good, perhaps Al Gore Sr., Ralph Yarborough of Texas, Robrt Byrd would have been good, too.

[J. J.]

Symington would have been good, perhaps Al Gore Sr., Ralph Yarborough of Texas, Robrt Byrd would have been good, too.

I think the key would have been a Southern or border state Democrat, and you had Gore, Sr., Yarborough and Connelly, Byrd (and the Klan stuff would have come out, suppressing Black turnout), Symington (whom I was related to by marriage), but also Sam Irvin or even Herman Talmagde.

[WalterMitty]

im confident hhh would have never selected sam ervin and definitely not robert byrd.

humphrey spent his entire career fighting for civil rights.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Symington would have been good, perhaps Al Gore Sr., Ralph Yarborough of Texas, Robert Byrd would have been good, too.

I think the key would have been a Southern or border state Democrat, and you had Gore, Sr., Yarborough and Connelly, Byrd (and the Klan stuff would have come out, suppressing Black turnout), Symington (whom I was related to by marriage), but also Sam Irvin or even Herman Talmagde.

Ervin was too old, he was 71 at the time, and Talmadge was even more of racist than Byrd ever was.  Humphrey would not have gotten by with someone from the Deep South, from SC to MS, he could only have used someone from WV, VA, NC, TN, FL, LA, TX, AR, MO, or KY.  Anyone from the Deep South would have been subject to charges of racism.

[True Democrat]

2) A Californian (or other Westerner).  Despite Nixon's nominal ties to CA, Nixon only won the state by three points.  Unfortunately, the Democrats didn't exactly have a deep bench in CA at the time.  The Democrats had no Senators (or notable former Senators) from CA at the time.  The best bet would probably be Pat Brown (Jerry's father), who had served eight years as governor from '59 to '67.  However, he'd just been defeated for re-election by Ronald Reagan--and it's unclear whether someone who had just been thrown out of office would be an attractive VP candidate in the state.  On the plus side, however, there's the PR value of the man having beaten Nixon in the '62 gubernatorial race.

There's actually one Californian you are forgetting, and that is San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto.  Alioto actually nominated Humphrey at the convention, and I believe he actually made it to the shortlist in terms of Humphrey's VP candidate.  He wouldn't have been as strong as Muskie, IMHO, but he was probably one of the strongest Westerners to be considered.