This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I find the statement "a Republican elected for the first time in twelve years" misleading. It gives the impression that the Republicans had been out of the Presidency for 12 years, when in fact it had been 8. Wording such as this is typically used to support political agendas rather than simply state facts. A statement such as "a Republican return after eight years" is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The last time a Republican had been elected president was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. Richard Nixon won in 1968. 1968-1956=12. So there's nothing inaccurate about the statement. And it does make more sense to count time from the last election rather than from the very last day a Republican held the presidency, especially in an election article. Also, I really fail to see how the quote is biased in one way or the other. Against whom is it biased? Republicans? The statement sets up the idea that 1968 was a Republican comeback, the first time a Republican won a presidential election in 12 years. Changing it to 8 would only weaken the significance of the Republican victory in 1968. If anything there should probably be more focus on the fact that 1968 was the first true re-aligning Republican victory since before the New Deal era, since Eisenhower was a caretaker president who won on personal popularity, failing to put together and leave behind a winning Republican coalition after he left office as Nixon did in 68. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
While its true 1968 was a realigning election, I don't think we need to resort to wordplay like this. "First time a Republican was elected in eight years" is basically how every other article goes. Plumber (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I question why the Johnson tapes are not seen as a credible source on Wikipedia, when they're good enough for the likes of BBC News and the New York. I also question why post-2008 (when the 1968 tapes were released) sources were replaced with sources from before 2008. Dallek is good, but he's not the be-all end-all, and convicted felon Conrad Black certainly isn't a saint by any means. Plumber (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
To quoteanother editor: "What you say in the Oval Office in a moment of anger does not equal 'came down from Sinai on stone tablets'." Primary sources are not very reliable for statements of fact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
That user also seems to have problems with the same subject, and has policed this subject. Have you gone over the tapes, and the transcripts of the tapes? There are several long conversations on it, this isn't a brief outburst or irrelevant comment like George W. Bush's "who is she?" comment about Palin. Regardless of the tapes themselves, here are several other sources that were removed without question, some of which cover the tapes and so are more recent than Dallek and Black, some of which were removed entirely without reason:
*Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. (2008).
*"In Tapes, Johnson Accused Nixon's Associates of Treason". The New York Times, December 4, 2008. Retrieved March 19, 2013.
*Taylor, David (15 March 2013). "The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'". BBC News (London). Retrieved 2013-03-18.
*Robert “KC” Johnson. “Did Nixon Commit Treason in 1968? What The New LBJ Tapes Reveal”. History News Network, January 26, 2009.
*Clark M. Clifford. Counsel to the President: A Memoir (May 21, 1991 ed.). Random House. pp. 709. ISBN 0-394-56995-4. p. 582.
*Perlstein, Rick. Nixonland
*Thomas Powers. “The Man who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms & the CIA”. Alfred A. Knopf, 1979, p.198.
*Mark Lisheron. “In tapes, LBJ accuses Nixon of treason”. Austin American-Statesman. December 05, 2008.
*Jules Witcover. “The Making of an Ink-Stained Wretch: Half a Century Pounding the Political Beat”. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005, p131.
In addition, I think its fairly clear that just because Lyndon Johnson thought something, it did not make it so. Primary sources, thus, have value. Plumber (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to add a couple additional sentences to the article, that's fine, but you should propose such text here first. Then we can discuss it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not proposing anything like adding Hitchens' accusations to the list, but since there's a lot of disagreement with the Dallek/Black handwaving away of the Chennault thing, it would at least make sense to show both sides of the argument. Primarily, I don't see why Johnson and Humphrey's reactions shouldn't be included, they were key players of the campaign after all. Plumber (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, fine. I wouldn't do that on the main Richard Nixon article, but perhaps LBJ's comments about Nixon's "treason" are relevant here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You haven't provided page numbers from Nixonland. Please do so to ensure verifiability.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
LBJ was a little confused -- treason is aiding the ENEMY (North Vietnam in 1968--we were bombing them) -- the allegation is that Nixon was aiding the chief ALLY (South Vietnam). Of course to LBJ treason = opposition to LBJ. Rjensen (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Rjensen, the fact that LBJ claimed it was treason doesn't make it so, any more than LBJ's privately expressed belief that Castro may have had JFK killed in retaliation for his Operation Mongoose efforts to topple Castro mean that Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy. Looking over some of these sources, it seems as if some of them aren't exactly neutral sources on the topic. At any rate, while the charges should be mentioned, I don't think readers of this article should be left with the impression that Nixon was a traitor, which has hardly been proven in any case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The articles for Red states and blue states and United States presidential election, 1976 indicate that 1976 was the first year a TV network used a live light-up map to show results as they came in. However, there appears to be such a map in CBS's coverage of 1968. See  at 11:40, and  at 10:40. Are there any sources that discuss this map? Was there a color version of the broadcast, and if so, what colors were used? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)