1968 revisited yet again

[WalterMitty]

henry cabot lodge/hugh scott (r)

vs.

ed muskie/george mcgovern (d)

vs.

ronald reagan/george wallace (independent conservative)

discuss w/maps

[© tweed]

Reagan and Wallace were on complete opposite ends of the economic spectrum.  It's hard to see them running together.  Wallace's economics that election were very left-wing.

And Lodge and Muskie wouldn't have a shot to win their respective party nominations.  I don't really see the point of all this.  At least the scenarios mixing in Ted Kennedy were a possiblity.

[Reignman]

Muskie wins.

[WalterMitty]

Reagan and Wallace were on complete opposite ends of the economic spectrum.  It's hard to see them running together.  Wallace's economics that election were very left-wing.

And Lodge and Muskie wouldn't have a shot to win their respective party nominations.  I don't really see the point of all this.  At least the scenarios mixing in Ted Kennedy were a possiblity.

this is still more realistic than 'dazzleman vs. the arab gas pumper" or opebo vs the girl at the record store brtd stalked

[Sam Spade]

Reagan and Wallace were on complete opposite ends of the economic spectrum.  It's hard to see them running together.  Wallace's economics that election were very left-wing.

And Lodge and Muskie wouldn't have a shot to win their respective party nominations.  I don't really see the point of all this.  At least the scenarios mixing in Ted Kennedy were a possiblity.

this is still more realistic than 'dazzleman vs. the arab gas pumper" or opebo vs the girl at the record store brtd stalked

Comparing your polling selection to BRTD's is not exactly a winning argument for the sanity of the question proposed.

[WalterMitty]

Reagan and Wallace were on complete opposite ends of the economic spectrum.  It's hard to see them running together.  Wallace's economics that election were very left-wing.

And Lodge and Muskie wouldn't have a shot to win their respective party nominations.  I don't really see the point of all this.  At least the scenarios mixing in Ted Kennedy were a possiblity.

this is still more realistic than 'dazzleman vs. the arab gas pumper" or opebo vs the girl at the record store brtd stalked

Comparing your polling selection to BRTD's is not exactly a winning argument for the sanity of the question proposed.

i still dont see why my question is unrealistic.

whatever.

[johnpressman]

I agree, this scenario is unrealistic.

First, Henry Cabot Lodge., In 1968, he had been out of elected office since 1953.  His UN duties and Ambassadorship to South Vietnam hardly would qualify as a launching pad for the Presidency.  A stiff, unenthusiastic campaigner, his 1964 write-in vote in the New Hampshire Primary was a favorie son fluke, as his subsequent campaign proved.  Hugh Scott was a low-key, dumpy, walrus-looking Senator from PA. Not a good choice for VP.

Second, Muskie was a homely, mostly unknown, also low-key Senator from the small, Republican-voting state of Maine.  His winning the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1968 would be virtually impossible. Ditto McGovern, unknown until he picked up RFK's mantle in 1968, also hailing from a small, Republican-voting state (S.D.).

As for Reagan, no way would he run with Wallace.  There were fundamental differences between them and Ronnie, an actor turned Governor of California just two years previously, would not abandon the Republican Party a doomed, divisive third-party quest for the Presidency.

Too far-fetched!