To: SamAdams76
I hope you are right, of course, but just for the record, Hubert Humphrey came within a hair of winning in 1968.
It was like 43%-43% with George Wallace taking the rest.
To: hinckley buzzard
"I hope you are right, of course, but just for the record, Hubert Humphrey came within a hair of winning in 1968.
It was like 43%-43% with George Wallace taking the rest."
I think 68' was more like 39-38% for Nixon, Wallace got a ton of votes that year. Of course there were a lot more Dems than Republicans then.
65 posted on
07/31/2004 9:21:01 PM PDT by
jpf
To: hinckley buzzard
Nixon got 43.5, while Humphry got about 38.7.
67 posted on
07/31/2004 9:22:03 PM PDT by
jps098
To: hinckley buzzard
I hope you are right, of course, but just for the record, Hubert Humphrey came within a hair of winning in 1968. It was like 43%-43% with George Wallace taking the rest. True, but Humphrey was the incumbent VP and Nixon won the electoral vote 301 to 191 (56% to 36%). Of course, there was the little matter of the Vietnam war.
120 posted on
07/31/2004 9:51:29 PM PDT by
kabar
To: hinckley buzzard; SamAdams76
It was like 43%-43% with George Wallace taking the rest. And remember the 1968 convention was probably one of the worst conventions the dems ever threw. There was rioting inside and outside the Chicago convention. Back in those days I was for McCarthy and then Kennedy before he was assainated but I ended up voting for Nixon. The Dem party back then was far from united. It was losing both the anti-war crowd and the redneck wallace folks. Its a miracle that Humphrey did so well. Im surprised Humphrey got any positive bounce from Chicago.
217 posted on
07/31/2004 11:31:09 PM PDT by
Dave S
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson