Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 25, 2020, 12:44:23 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: The Chad Pygmy Marmosets, Apocrypha)
  Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Eugene McCarthy vs. Richard Nixon vs. George Wallace 1968  (Read 7391 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 31, 2010, 01:11:12 pm »

Everything else stays the same. You pick the VPs. Discuss, with maps.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2010, 03:47:23 pm »



271-221-45
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2010, 03:51:15 pm »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,987
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2010, 04:44:25 pm »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though? I mean, RFK shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, but was percevied as much more electable.
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2010, 05:07:30 pm »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though? I mean, RFK shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, but was percevied as much more electable.

Let's bear in mind that I Purple heart Eugene McCarthy in spite of, er, later eccentric views, but he had the charisma of a plank, and was seen as the candidate of the "far-left", which you could argue he was.

Remove the Vietnam issue and McCarthy and Kennedy don't really have all that much in common, really.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2010, 09:54:30 am »
« Edited: June 01, 2010, 09:56:10 am by Rerum Novarum »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2010, 09:55:33 am »
« Edited: June 01, 2010, 10:06:54 am by Rerum Novarum »

Updated.





337-156-45
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2010, 10:28:28 am »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though? I mean, RFK shared his opposition to the Vietnam War, but was percevied as much more electable.

Let's bear in mind that I Purple heart Eugene McCarthy in spite of, er, later eccentric views, but he had the charisma of a plank, and was seen as the candidate of the "far-left", which you could argue he was.

The only people who would claim that McCarthy was "far-left" were warmongering idiots, many of them ex-Trotskyites themselves.
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 01, 2010, 10:35:49 am »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 01, 2010, 10:40:14 am »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. Huh
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 01, 2010, 10:42:48 am »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. Huh

Hm do you really believe Nixon propaganda machine wouldn't be able to paint Eugene as "naive fool, hippie-lover"?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 01, 2010, 10:51:20 am »


Happens I'm McCarthy fan as well, but the idea he'd win the national election is at least funny.

Why was he perceived as so unelectable, though?

He wasn't. Kalwejt doesn't know what he is talking about.

By any real measure, Gene McCarthy won the 1968 Democratic primaries and he was a much stronger candidate than establishment Cold Warrior Hubert H. Humphrey. There's certainly no way he would have done worse than HHH.


Gallup: McCarthy Holds a Slim Lead Over Rockefeller and Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=IiEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zVwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7256,642393&dq=richard+nixon
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Harris Poll Shows Kennedy, McCarthy In Front of Nixon

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

McCarthy Victor In Rocky Poll

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



 I think I was far too generous to Nixon by giving him California.

However, McCarthy trailed in the national polls and was preceived as a radical.

Thank you for restating your ignorance and revealing a clear lack of reading comprehension skills. Huh

Hm do you really believe Nixon propaganda machine wouldn't be able to paint Eugene as "naive fool, hippie-lover"?
So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2010, 10:56:49 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
[/quote]

Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 01, 2010, 11:02:16 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 01, 2010, 11:08:37 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2010, 11:12:47 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2010, 11:14:21 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2010, 11:17:28 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2010, 11:21:00 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2010, 11:24:12 am »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2010, 11:30:18 am »



Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.
Logged
The Chad Pygmy Marmosets
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55,435


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2010, 12:53:44 pm »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.

I'm not sure if I get a point, if there's any point.
Logged
Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl
Libertas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14,902
Finland


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2010, 01:11:13 pm »



Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.

lol wut
Logged
Oakvale
oakvale
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,627
Ireland, Republic of
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2010, 02:00:31 pm »

So? That sub-human slime would have tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to theve tried to do the same against anyone opposed to senseless warmongering.

McCarthy was only "radical" in the sense that America was radical in 1968, radical in opposition to the war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."
war, and radical in opposition to the growing 'imperial presidency' enshrined by LBJ (and later by Nixon). As Norman Mailer said, McCarthy "was probably, left to his own inclinations, the most serious conservative to run for nomination since Robert Taft."


Dear Libby, voters wouldn't listen to Norman Mailer.

Let me be straight: HHH could come as close for one reason: he have machine behind him. McCarthy had no machine behind him. DOA. Sorry.

You're rallying all the time against establishment, but on the other hand you seems to understate establishment power.

Btw, calling other people sub-human gives an excellent example of your Christiandom Smiley

Alright, so the facts are all against you and despite what you claimed, the poll numbers are all against you, but instead of conceding gracefully, you choose to engage in baseless speculation.

Polls? See, there's little problem. These were hypotetical polls. Agree, I might understate that but who can on earth say how would polling look in a direct confrontation? Kerry led Bush decisively in earlier 2004, so did Edwards. Then Bush machine destroyed his image and, well... 

Neither LBJ machine nor Kennedy machine would support McCarthy, btw. Nixon would have all Republican machine behind him and Wallace would steal yet more blue collar Northern votes from Gene.

Well, I'm trying to engage in respectable discussion. I'd expect the same Smiley

John Kerry was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. John Kerry lost.

Hubert Humphrey was the pro-war establishment candidate. The Democratic machine was behind him; the base was not. Hubert Humphrey lost.

Bush and Nixon were establishment candidates too.

And? 1968 was not an establishment year. LBJ and his war were highly unpopular, moreso than Iraq was in 2004.

Do I question this?

Yes, you seem to be implying that being an anti-war, anti-establishment candidate would have guaranteed a landslide defeat in an anti-war, anti-establishment year.

Not that it's necessarily relevant to his general election prospects, but I've always found it interesting that the majority of McCarthy's vote in the New Hampshire primary came from those who though Johnson was doing too little to win in Vietnam, i.e. a vote for Eugene McCarthy was more of a protest vote against Johnson, for whatever reason, than an anti-war vote, per se.

Anyway, let's not confuse "should have won" with "would have won". If McCarthy, by some sprinkling of fairy dust, was nominated by the Democratic convention [1] for President, it might have been nice for him to win, but would he? A man perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an "out of touch" radical? We saw what happened to George McGovern four years later. McCarthy may have generated a lot of enthusiasm amongst his supporters, but they were a small group indeed.

"By May it was clear that the next President would be either Gene McCarthy or Bobby Kennedy and that the War would be over by Christmas...”



[1] Sadly, this would never, ever, have happened.
Logged
Apocrypha
Dallasfan65
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,806


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2010, 02:07:24 pm »



Basically becomes a race between Wallace and Nixon. Iffy about New York and West Virginia, though.

lol wut

Huh

Nixon was a filthy campaigner, and would have painted McCarthy as the "hippie" candidate, much like he did to George McGovern four years later. McCarthy bleeds to both Nixon and Wallace.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC