RFK/Carl Sanders vs Nixon/Agnew

[All Along The Watchtower]

In this scenario, RFK is not killed, and, with the help of Eugen McCarthy's delegates and Mayor Daley's political machine, scores a narrow victory over Hubert Humphrey at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

He then chooses former Governor Carl Sanders of Georgia, a supporter of JFK and LBJ's civil rights policies and a very popular politician in Georgia, as his running mate, to discourage George Wallace's Independent candidacy and gain supporters in the South.

Would he beat Nixon? Discuss.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I see Kennedy winnig by a very narrow margin ( 270 votes in this case ).

[All Along The Watchtower]

You don't think Sanders could help Kennedy take Georgia?

[hcallega]

No probably not. I do think that Kennedy would win, though he would not likely win Maine or Texas, and I believe that he would California. Maine only went for HHH because of Muskie, Texas because of LBJ's strong support. California would vote Bobby because of large Hispanic and Black turnout, and more support from young voters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No probably not. I do think that Kennedy would win, though he would not likely win Maine or Texas, and I believe that he would California. Maine only went for HHH because of Muskie, Texas because of LBJ's strong support. California would vote Bobby because of large Hispanic and Black turnout, and more support from young voters.

For Texas, Johnson will anyway support the democrat candidate and Texas will remain a solid democrat state until 1980 ( as he did ). About California, don't forget that it was Nixon's home state and it remained strongly republican until 1992.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

RFK takes a majority of Wallace voters, and wins, 344-194:

[Lincoln Republican]

RFK takes a majority of Wallace voters, and wins, 344-194:

Yes, because the conservative, anti establishment, segregationist voters in the deep south love the ultra liberal, pro busing, anti gun owning advocate interloper from the northeast.

[hcallega]

Wallace woudn't have had as big an impact, as white working class voters in the north wouldn't have gone to him out of fear. Kennedy would not have won a landslide, though he would have won.

[Lincoln Republican]

Kennedy does not win Georgia from Wallace just because Sanders is on the ticket.  The fact that Wallace is the Presidential nominee on the independent ticket carries much more clout with the voters of Georgia than does the fact that Sanders is the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee with a northeastern liberal heading the Democratic ticket.

As is usual with Kennedy's, he steals Illinois.

The more conservative Nixon wins Texas over the ultra liberal northeasterner Kennedy.  The most prominent Democrat from Texas, Lyndon B. Johnson, cannot stand Robert Kennedy, and Texans know it.  LBJ liked and supported Humphrey.  He neither liked nor supported Kennedy.  Texans sided more with LBJ than with Kennedy.  They also sided more with Nixon.

Nixon/Agnew                    285
Kennedy/Sanders             208
Wallace/LeMay                   45

[hcallega]

Wow....just wow.....

Yes Kennedy was a "northeastern liberal", but his support was not the Barack Obama coalition. Rather it was a black-and-blue coalition of blue-collar whites and minority groups. To say that he is a "ultra-liberal" is to ignore his record. Yes, he was a staunch supporter of the war on poverty. But he also believed that the most valuable way to end poverty was through public works and not simple handouts. He was also strongly pro-Israel and fairly pro-military. There is also strong evidence that he would pro-life (his wife and his namesake son are both pro-life, those that entered politics are not because of the politics of it). I feel confident that because of these things, Kennedy would win Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin at the least.

Oh, and by the way, don't go to war with me over Bobby Kennedy. I will throw down with anyone on knowledge about him.

And before you go ranting about "ultra-liberals" get your facts straight....Dummy

[Lincoln Republican]

Wow....just wow.....

Yes Kennedy was a "northeastern liberal", but his support was not the Barack Obama coalition. Rather it was a black-and-blue coalition of blue-collar whites and minority groups. To say that he is a "ultra-liberal" is to ignore his record. Yes, he was a staunch supporter of the war on poverty. But he also believed that the most valuable way to end poverty was through public works and not simple handouts. He was also strongly pro-Israel and fairly pro-military. There is also strong evidence that he would pro-life (his wife and his namesake son are both pro-life, those that entered politics are not because of the politics of it). I feel confident that because of these things, Kennedy would win Ohio, Missouri, and Wisconsin at the least.

Oh, and by the way, don't go to war with me over Bobby Kennedy. I will throw down with anyone on knowledge about him.

And before you go ranting about "ultra-liberals" get your facts straight....Dummy

And the same to you, Bucko!

I am pleased to see you idolize the opportunistic charlatan who entered the 1968 primaries only after he saw how well McCarthy, the real peace candidate, had done in New Hampshire.