[Wallace T.]

If Wallace had won the Democrat nomination in 1972, it would have been as ground shifting as when William Jennings Bryan won it in 1896. In 1896 and 1900, Northeastern and Great Lakes Democrats deserted their party in great numbers, with William McKinley making considerable gains among normally Democrat leaning immigrants, whose factory and mine employment was dependent upon maintenance of high tariff barriers. Bryan, who represented the agrarian interests of the South and West, favored lower tariffs. Big city Democratic political machines such as New York's Tammany Hall were at best lukewarm to Bryan. Democrats of the Grover Cleveland type, who favored a gold standard and limited government, deserted their party for the more conservative McKinley. As a result, McKinley beat Bryant twice.

As for 1972, Wallace would have been regarded with hostility by the Democrat big city political machines and the labor unions. Black, Jewish, and Hispanic voters would have deserted their party’s standard bearer in unprecedented numbers. There may well have developed a third party on the Left, given an unpalatable (to them) choice between Nixon and Wallace. Such a third party could well have carried New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and a few other states, and perhaps thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

[ConservativeDude]

Great posts, by the way.

I like to fantasize about the idea of a Democrat party in the image of Wallace, and the left only being represented by a splinter third party.....

[mkjessup]

There may well have developed a third party on the Left, given an unpalatable (to them) choice between Nixon and Wallace. Such a third party could well have carried New York, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and a few other states, and perhaps thrown the election into the House of Representatives.

As I recall, that was Wallace's original gambit in '68, because even he knew that it was unlikely that he could capture a majority of electoral votes, and his objective was to throw the election into the House where his electors would have enough clout to affect the outcome. I remember an interview with Wallace in which this was discussed, the reporter (probably one of those 'pointy-headed sway-doe intellectuals' Wallace railed against) said "so you're looking to make a deal in the House of Representatives then?" and Wallace answered, "no, we're looking for a sacred covenant" (presumably something to limit policies on forced immigration via school bus roulette, liberal social policies, a pro-victory position for Vietnam, etc.).