Talk:United States presidential election, 1968
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States presidential election, 1968 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages.|
|WikiProject Elections and Referendums||(Rated B-class)|
|WikiProject United States / Presidential elections||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 year may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.
New content in "Campaign strategies" section
First of all, I'm not saying there can't be a case made for alternative views on Nixon's campaign strategies, but I see a number of problems with the new content (most recent restore):
- "It is believed by some that" — the Southern strategy is a notable, well-documented, common view. Is it merely 'believed' and by 'some'?
- "The existence of a "Southern Strategy" in Nixon's 1968 campaign has been widely refuted and dismissed as myth" — Is it truly "widely refuted and dismissed myth"? Who is doing the refuting and dismissing and how does that translate to 'wide'? — that's kind of important.
- We have a short Sunday magazine essay by Clay Risen (notable?) as a citation for "widely refuted and dismissed as myth". Even if this could be taken a reliable source (dubious), you really need more sources to back up a 'widely' claim. This essay does refer to one book, The End of Southern Exceptionalism by a Richard Johnston (notable?), so that itself may be useful as one citation. If this is the only one that can be found, and you can't find several more, you really can't say 'widely' or anything close to it.
- Further down some arguments are made apparently to counter the Southern strategy, and is cited with a single apparent blog post by Joseph Sabia (notable?), a Ph.D. candidate in economics. It appears to depend on the book With Nixon by Ray Price, Nixon's speechwriter. That book might be acceptable as a citation, but given Mr. Price's potential loyalty to Nixon, by itself it cannot be seen as reliable.
- To effectively counter the discussion on the Southern strategy, there will have to be well-documented, reliably-sourced content that shows that this wasn't a thing, so to speak, or that Nixon had elements of his campaign strategy that didn't fit into the Southern strategy. Merely speaking to any of Nixon's countervailing policies or saying "Humphrey did it too!" is weak sauce.
This content should be removed until it can be 1) better written at least to take out the dubious claims; 2) add far better sources; 3) remove the feel that this article is being used for political purposes (which is currently the case). Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't Wallace's strategy of being a "kingmaker" in a hypothetical, inconclusive Electoral College outcome fail the smell test? Doesn't the Twentieth Amendment clarify that in such an instance the House and Senate would make the determination, not the third party candidate?
Citation for Nixon being from New York
Hi. I'm not sure how to start a new topic, so I'll just use this one. I've never, ever heard Nixon described as a "new Yorker." Although the footnote points out the basis for this claim, it says that numerous works list him as a new Yorker for the first election and a Californian for the second, but without citing any. Is there a citation for this that can be added to the footnote? Thank you 16:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk)
The battle of the Vice Presidents
This is the only election in which it was a battle between two Vice Presidents to succeed the incumbent Presidents and I am getting tired of this very being removed from this article. It is an established fact and it is not a claim that needs to be a source just like no source was needed to state that this was last election in which a third party candidate (Wallace) had won electoral votes. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC) The article began with: "The United States presidential election of 1968 was the 46th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 5, 1968. The Republican nominee, former Vice President Richard Nixon, won the election over the Democratic nominee, incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey." I mean can anyone find another example of a contest between an incumbent Vice President and a former Vice President to succeed the incumbent President who was not seeking reelection. The answer to that is of course no. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Give us a reliable source that makes this claim without engaging in synthesis. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said before one does not need a source to prove something that is very obvious like what is the answer 2 plus 2. You are deliberately being obtuse Stevietheman.
From the source I posted here: http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/why-sitting-vice-presidents-dont-fare-well-as-presidential-candidates/
"Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon.....Nixon is also the only former Vice President who won the presidency after failing to win the White House as a sitting or former Vice President"
If one reads what the rest of this article says one can easily deduce that 1968 is the only time that it was a battle between two Vice Presidents, one incumbent and the other former to succeed the incumbent President. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not being obtuse. Either you find a reliable source without synthesizing, or it doesn't belong. Please find a reliable source. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Also, the obvious "2 + 2" thing here is that there were three major candidates in this particular race. That appears to nix the whole thing. I'm kind of wondering why it is so important to add this trivia anyway. Bottom line: Without RS, you can't make the statement you're making. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
West Virginia electoral votes
The Presidential election results map in the lower half of the summary box at the top right of the page erroneously lists West Virginia as having 6 electoral votes. West Virginia, in fact, had 5 congressional districts  and thus 7 electoral votes for both the 1964 and 1968 elections  In addition to the source cited this can be checked by adding the Humphrey electoral votes indicated by the map and seeing that they sum to 190 rather than the correctly cited total of 191. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guns of Brixton (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)