Why Do So Many Believe That RFK Would Have Won the Presidency in 1968?

[johnpressman]

It seems like a forgone conclusion today that; had Robert Kennedy lived he would have won the Presidency in 1968.  I was in High School in 1968 and closely followed the Presidential election, there was NO WAY that RFK would have won the Democratic Presidential Nomination, much less the general election.

Looking back  at those turbulent times, it is easy to believe that the Vietnam war protesters as representing the view of the majority of the over 21 electorate, and  Robert Kennedy as the heir apparent to his brother, whose destiny as POTUS was cut short of an assassin's  bullet.

Also, the Presidential nominating process was much different in 1968.  There were very few primaries  then, and much of the nominating process was decided by rank and file party members who were overwhelmingly opposed to both RFK and Eugene McCarthy and loyal to the sitting President, LBJ, who would have done ANYTHING to forestall a Kennedy nomination.  In fact, Johnson withdrew from the Presidential race in order to put forward Vice President Humphrey as a noncontroversial candidate that the Democratic party regulars could support. The reforms that the Democratic party enacted that led to the nomination of George McGovern and the 18 year old vote were things of the future. 

As for RFK's popularity, opinion polls showed him as the WEAKEST candidate to run against Nixon, running behind both Humphrey and McCarthy.  Should somehow, Kennedy have wrested enough delegates who were already pledged to Humphrey, which, by the way, was his stated goal, he would have lost in a landslide to Nixon, the perfect candidate for the circumstances of that year. Nixon was a man of the 1950s, which with the "hippies' Black Panthers, race riots and increase of crime, was what the American people craved; stability.  The idea of America pulling out of Vietnam, in essence, losing the war, was anathema to the majority of voting age citizens.  Nixon's "secret plan" stressed "Peace With Honor" not "cut and run".

To sum it up, had RFK lived, he would NOT have won the Democratic nomination in 1968, and, if somehow that would have come to pass, he would have lost decisively to Nixon, campaigning with  the wrong message for the times, leading a badly divided party, and with a sitting Democratic President working to sabotage him. In essence; 1968 is not 2008. or, for that matter, 2012.

[johnpressman]

I believe that RFK would have done worse that Humphrey if somehow he would have gotten the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1968.

Humphrey was able to muster the rank and file of the Democratic Party, including organized labor that was still a powerful force in 1968.  The support of LBJ, the sitting President and a master of political power was another strong asset for HHH's campaign.  While the memory of Humphrey's  Civil Rights stand at the  1948 Democratic Convention may have led to a weakening of his support in the South, memories do fade after twenty years.

RFK, on the other hand, was not a favorite of either the Democratic Party stalwarts or big labor.  LBJ, would be a force AGAINST him, urging the party faithful to sit on their hands.  Kennedy's antiwar,  pro-minority and pro-youth message would have turned off the mostly white and over 21 electorate of 1968.  Do you see many Nixon or Wallace voters pulling the lever for RFK as opposed to HHH? I see Kennedy losing Texas and Pennsylvania (HHH took PA with strong support from labor unions)  and not wresting a single state from Nixon.  McCarthy was a wild-card, hard to tell if his cerebral, low-key campaign style would have much appeal in 1968.

[johnpressman]

Tell me you are kidding, OC.  Mayor Richard Daley supported Humphrey BEFORE Robert Kennedy was killed and pledged the Illinois delegation to HHH's candidacy.  What in the world would make him renounce his support for the President's handpicked candidate and change his views on the Vietnam War?  RFK and McCarthy's unenviable task was to persuade delegates ALREADY committed to Humphrey to change their minds and support them.

As for the general election, the "College kids' for the most part, were unable to vote in 1968 as the minimum age was still 21.  Furthermore, the Vietnam War protesters were a vocal minority, remember, 56% of the electorate of 1968 voted for Nixon and Wallace who supported the war.  You are making the mistake of viewing the Vietnam War protesters as representing the opinion of the majority of the over 21  voters of 1968.  The prospect of abandoning Vietnam to the Communists and, in effect, the United States' losing the first war in our history was anathema to most Americans.

[johnpressman]

The Boomers did sit out the election of 1968, BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO YOUNG TO VOTE!  Only those  born in the first two years of the baby boom; 1946 or 1947, were eligible to vote in 1968.  I was born in 1953 and was only 15 in 1968.  Do the math!  The preceding generation, called the SIlents, that were born in the years 1926 to 1945, was a very small group as the birthrate declined during the Great Depression and WW2.  The electorate skewed much older in 1968.  Older=conservative.

[johnpressman]

I attended a Nixon for President rally on Halloween at Madison Square Garden when the bombing halt was announced to the crowd,  I don't think the bombing halt itself was the factor that made the election close, the Electoral College vote, however, was not close, even with LBJ's influence carrying Texas for Humphrey.

I believe that the general dislike of Nixon's personality, despite the "cool" campaign he ran in 1968, prevented many voters pulling the lever for him.  Other than that, he was the perfect candidate for that turbulent year, representing a return to a more stable past.  RFK, support for the poor and minorities, as well as his antiwar stand, cut against the grain for an electorate that were shell shocked by the events of that year.