Talk:1968 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Error

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 68.238.195.197 (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)

LBJ Tapes

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 quote another 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)
I agree with you there, actually. The Richard Nixon article needn't go out of its way to show LBJ's thoughts on the subject. As I type this though, the whole incident has been removed from the Richard Nixon article, as well as anything from Nixonland, which is rather irritating, but a separate issue. Plumber (talk) 18:28, 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 70.145.229.162 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Election night coverage map

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 [1] at 11:40, and [2] 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? 174.240.35.66 (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States presidential election, 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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 162.90.176.55 (talk)

Kennedy Assassination

Should this be made its own section? Seems like a turning point. -KaJunl (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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. 122.108.156.100 (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. 122.108.156.100 (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. 122.108.156.100 (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 [1] and thus 7 electoral votes for both the 1964 and 1968 elections [2] 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)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1968#West_Virginia
  2. ^ http://www.270towin.com/states/West_Virginia
This is a problem in the underlying graphic File:ElectoralCollege1968.svg, not this article, per se. The graphic will have to be changed on Commons. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdated take on Chennault affair

The section on the Nixon campaign's interference with October peace talks is outdated and overly convoluted to the point where it strains NPOV. Plumber (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1968. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Collecting Opinion Polls

I've decided to go through the New York Times to try and find some polling on the Presidential race, starting from after the 1966 midterms, and I'll be collecting them here with links for safe keeping. You'll likely need a New York Times subscription to access them, but I'll be eventually going back and listing the results when I have the time. --Ariostos (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
If there is someone who has access to these polling organizations it would be much appreciated if they could pick up on polls that I might have missed which could be thrown into the set, or at the very least give us more direct links to the polls then the New York Times. --Ariostos (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Also some of these polls are the same, such as the Harris Poll(s) done in February of '68, but are still listed separately as the information reported on occasion is fragmented.

Collecting Opinion Polls

Also going to try and collect some endorsers as well, if only to expand those sections as much as possible. This is being done concurrently while I'm trying to figure out the results of the caucuses and conventions for the '68 Republican and Democratic nominating contests. --Ariostos (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Nixon as Wallace Voters Second Choice if Wallace Wasn't a Candidate

I'm not sure where I heard this from, but I do remember either reading or hearing something about Richard Nixon being the second choice for most George Wallace Voters second choice over Hubert Humphrey if Wallace wasn't running for president in 1968. Is this fact true or not? I'll try to find a source. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Quora and the forum for uselectionatlas.org count as reliable source, but people were disguising that a lot of Southern Democrats would have felt betrayed by the Johnson Administration's Civil Rights Act of 1964 being signed into law and it would have been unlikely that the Southern Democrats would've voted for Johnson's VP Humphrey in the 1968 election because of that. It's likely that the Southern Democrats would have just held their noses and voted for Nixon (a moderate Republican who had ties to both the liberal/moderate Rockefeller and Conservative wings of the party) out of protest. Nixon I'm pretty sure had a Southern strategy plan that could've worked, too. Had Nixon taken Wallace's votes, we would have carried all the states Wallace won in our history (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia) and likely would have won Texas (the only Southern state Humphrey won in 1968, but by a narrow margin) and a few other states in the north as well.

https://www.quora.com/If-George-Wallace-hadnt-had-run-for-president-in-1968-would-Hubert-Humphrey-have-won

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=116002.0

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

PNG file with map regarding primaries does not seem to be accurate for New York

New York had a primary. Here (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/19/issue.html) is an image of the Times the next morning telling how the McCarthy and Humphrey each won some of New York 123 delegates to the Chicago convention.

Morris (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

California Margin of Victory Error

A paragraph says Nixon won California by three points or less, but he won by 3.08 as shown in the table for each state and the close states list. EvanJ35 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Nixon of the State of New York

[3] is how the Congressional Record records it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.74.26 (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Added it to the infobox. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements

Below is something that I was trying to put together for the main article, but I have to admit that I was getting a mite frustrated with it. Part of it was the New York Times consistently failing to provide a PDF format of the articles in question, an issue which I've noticed has been going on for about a week as of this comment, leaving me to post raw links that may or may not work as intended. However I am also not completely familiar with the standards that are employed when doing endorsements, or what constitutes and endorsement beyond the plain "endorsing/endorsed" statement. The New York Times Archives, my main source for all of this, have been relatively thin on noting endorsements that aren't newspapers, and my effort to identify Presidential Electors of the 1968 Presidential Election, who by extension would have obviously de facto have endorsed the candidate, have not come up with anything. --Ariostos (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/19/110089419.html?pageNumber=1
  2. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957576.html?pageNumber=22
  3. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/22/91234714.html?pageNumber=27
  4. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/16/90668720.html?pageNumber=37
  5. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/22/91234714.html?pageNumber=27
  6. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  7. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  8. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  9. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  10. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  11. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  12. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/07/29/76957575.html?pageNumber=22
  13. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/16/90668722.html?pageNumber=37
  14. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/01/76885892.html?pageNumber=37
  15. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/02/76933991.html?pageNumber=27
  16. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/02/76933992.html?pageNumber=27
  17. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/06/102304240.html?pageNumber=74
  18. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/06/102304241.html?pageNumber=74
  19. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/08/76887984.html?pageNumber=34
  20. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/08/76887985.html?pageNumber=34
  21. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/11/76888785.html?pageNumber=22
  22. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/11/76888781.html?pageNumber=22
  23. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/12/76935519.html?pageNumber=29
  24. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/13/317689002.html?pageNumber=79
  25. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/13/317689002.html?pageNumber=79
  26. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/13/317689002.html?pageNumber=79
  27. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/13/317689002.html?pageNumber=79
  28. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/13/317689002.html?pageNumber=79
  29. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/13/317689002.html?pageNumber=79
  30. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/14/76970305.html?pageNumber=36
  31. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/14/76970305.html?pageNumber=36
  32. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/10/15/76892534.html?pageNumber=30
  33. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/09/30/76885313.html?pageNumber=42
  34. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/09/27/76884183.html?pageNumber=56
  35. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/05/09/88943891.html?pageNumber=32
  36. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/10/76960927.html?pageNumber=14
  37. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/15/79934211.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
  38. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/05/23/76947913.html?pageNumber=38
  39. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/17/77105840.html?pageNumber=31
  40. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/22/77416728.html?pageNumber=17
  41. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/22/77416728.html?pageNumber=17
  42. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/03/17/88929893.html?pageNumber=69
  43. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/30/79940929.html?pageNumber=37
  44. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/01/79942583.html?pageNumber=17
  45. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/10/79933729.html?pageNumber=18
  46. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/10/79933729.html?pageNumber=18
  47. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/10/79933729.html?pageNumber=18
  48. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/10/79933729.html?pageNumber=18
  49. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/04/21/91225894.html?pageNumber=47
  50. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/05/09/88943891.html? pageNumber=32
  51. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/05/19/88949591.html?pageNumber=49
  52. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/22/77416728.html?pageNumber=17
  53. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/03/17/88929893.html?pageNumber=69
  54. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/10/79933729.html?pageNumber=18
  55. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/10/79933729.html?pageNumber=18
  56. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/01/23/79931885.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0
  57. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/14/89320636.html?pageNumber=56
  58. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/02/16/77171724.html?pageNumber=49
  59. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/05/08/88942308.html?pageNumber=26
  60. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/22/77416728.html?pageNumber=17
  61. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/06/28/91232622.html?pageNumber=70
  62. ^ https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1968/08/09/79943866.html?pageNumber=22

Discussion of influences on Johnson's withdrawal

There seems to be too much content and cites devoted to when Johnson heard Cronkite's speech, and what he said at the time. It would be better summarized than go into the quotes years later by various journalists and historians. Given this overall article, the important element seems to be a consensus (except for sources noting the "myth", which could be acknowledged) that Johnson found it significant, and it may have contributed to his decision. This section should be reduced by summary.Parkwells (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent Vandalism

There was some recent vandalism to the page that saw RFK added to the infobox in place of Humphrey and it was edited to show RFK winning. This was reversed but for a couple of hours it still had Humphrey ahead of Nixon. Could it be worth putting in a request for semi-protection? Just a though. TDK1881 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Consensus on Nixon portrait

There seems to be a struggle for which portrait of Nixon to use in the infobox. Which of these would fit better?

File:Nixon Foundation Richard Nixon 1967 Portrait Cropped.jpg

PJRoRo (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wallace's strategy

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.176.122 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

To whoever posted this, most likely George Wallace's "kingmaker" strategy may have been an idea that, since many of the Southern Democrats in Congress held views similar to Wallace on segregation, Wallace's thinking may have been that he could extract some concessions to limit the push for desegregation in exchange for Wallace throwing his support to whichever of the others between Nixon and Humphrey would give Wallace and his supporters more of what they wanted? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Additionally, states didn't have faithless elector laws, so if George Wallace met with Humphrey or Nixon and got concessions out of them, it is likely his electors would agree to vote for one of them when the electoral college convened. 108.24.137.153 (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we change the awful new photos?

The black and white ones were perfectly fine, while the new color ones are far too zoomed in (And Wallace isn't even from 1968.) I have no clue what's up with this new wave of so many people changing presidential photos to be awful color ones with no regard for actual guidelines when black and white ones are fine. I'm opening a topic on this since I don't want an edit war with whoever uploaded these photos Codename Jenny V (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I would have to agree. The original portraits were fine as they were, and it makes more sense to go with (certainly in the case of Hubert Humphrey since he was the incumbent Vice-President) the official portraits. Not sure what purpose was served by the changes. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed here. I already changed them back, but it seems some guy with no account changed it back. Good thing @Presidentman undid that. Mr. New Deal Chief (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like another user tried to change the photos to color, which I've reverted. I left a message on their talk page inviting them to contribute to the ongoing discussion. Perhaps we should consider some form of protection until the consensus is clarified? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Most reverts to the colored portraits are usually done by non-accounts anyway. Mr. New Deal Chief (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop with the AI-colorized portraits

The constant replacement of the candidates' portraits with AI colorizations needs to stop. These portraits are very obviously AI-colorized, look worse, and lower the quality of the overall article. If you want to use color images, find contemporary color photographs, don't run the current portraits through palette.fm and upload them instead. Modern colorizations, especially poorly-made AI ones, don't belong on pages for historical events. Original photographs do.

The colorizations are all screwed up, too. The American flag behind Humphrey is completely black and white except for a hint of tan on the white stripe, and the blue of his suit bleeds onto the background behind his left (our right) shoulder. Wallace's photo is tinged a sickly blue, hardly even colorized, except for his skin. Nixon's portrait is from a decade earlier, during his term as Vice President, and does not accurately reflect how he looked during the 1968 campaign. The colorization is okay, that's because I AI-colorized it and went in and did some slight color correcting, but I never intended for it to be used in such a wildly inappropriate situation as here. These colorizations do not belong here, and they need to stop being put on this page. GI Brown 1970 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that AI portraits should not be allowed, but colour portraits should still be to be as accurate as possible. BoringLifeBoringWife (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Portaits Vote

Users of Wikipedia, please vote on the sets of portraits that you wish to be used in the infobox. I believe that both options are good, but I believe the B&W images in this election are better in this case, as there is not a good colored image of either Humphrey or Wallace. That is why I vote for Black and White.

B&W:

  • Photo 1
    Photo 1
  • Photo 2
    Photo 2
  • Photo 3
    Photo 3

Color:

  • Photo 1
    Photo 1
  • Photo 2
    Photo 2
  • Photo 3
    Photo 3

~ HistorianL (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  • B&W is fine with me, if only for the sake of remaining consistent across both this article and the biographies. Frankly, I'd prefer to change the Nixon one to his official presidential portrait, but it would probably be best to keep them all B&W or all color. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm voting for the Black & White ones. The colored ones are not that good in all honesty, and the B&W portraits have been in place for months now. There's no need to drastically change them in any way. Mr. New Deal Chief (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • As others have said, the B&W portraits are higher quality and have been the precedent on this page, and they have my support. Mad Mismagius (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Vote has ended and it has been decided that the B&W images have won in a 4-0 vote ~ HistorianL (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

New Wallace Photo?

With all the talk about the wikibox's portraits, there is an actual upgrade that could be made: Wallace's photo is unofficial. There is his official governor's portrait on Wikipedia, though it is from 1970, while the current photo is from 1968, so I could go either way. Posting here for consensus before any change.

Steve From The Financial Department (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

2nd Image vote

While I understand that by a 4-0 vote, the B&W photos were established by consensus, and I respect this. While this is very shrotly after, and I appreciate that; I want to attempt to replace the long-standing black & white photos. They do not have the same shape, their crops do not match well, and while they are higher resolution, the images I present are also very high resolution. I vote for the Color option.

B&W:

  • Photo 1
    Photo 1
  • Photo 2
    Photo 2
  • Photo 3
    Photo 3
  • The current infobox
    The current infobox

Color:

  • Photo 1
    Photo 1
  • Photo 2
    Photo 2
  • Photo 3
    Photo 3
  • The proposed infobox
    The proposed infobox

Mycranthebigalt (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Color has my vote Gelid Lagopus (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
B&W for me, because it is the consusus that a picture of an Incumbent President be used in their second term election, which would be in 1972 for Nixon. HistorianL (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
not really, every first election uses the presidential portrait for the winner. Gelid Lagopus (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm currently logged out of my account but color has my vote as we need to assure a semblance of continuity with both 1964 and 1972 having color photos 73.194.5.107 (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I have found 10 presidents (6 two termers, 4 one termers) that do not use their Presidential Portraits for their first successful campaign as President, those being

  • Lincoln: 1860, Photo from his time in the House
  • Grant, 1868
  • McKinley: 1896, photo taken during 1896 election cycle
  • Taft: 1908, photo taken during 1908 election cycle
  • Hoover: 1928, Photograph taken prior to Hoover’s election as President.
  • Carter: 1977, photo taken right before the start of Carter’s presidency
  • Reagan: 1980, photo used is the photo from Reagan’s time as California Governor
  • George H. W. Bush: 1988, photo used is the photograph used from Bush’s time as Vice President from 1981 to 1989 under President Reagan.
  • Obama: 2009, photograph taken days before his inauguration. HistorianL (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
1980 has Reagan's 1983/1981 portrait?
1976, Carter was already in office
1928, Hoover's portrait is in between 1902 and 1935, it could've even been after his presidency entirely.
1868, Grant's portrait states it was made circa 1870, while he served
this rule you've suggested applies to 1860, 1896, 1908, 1920 1952, 1988 & 1992, it seems. meanwhile, a presidential portrait is used in all the 4 elections mentioned above as well as 2020, 2016, 2000, 1960(?), 1932, while 1912 seems to be anywhere from 1905 until his death. Thus, this would suggest that there is no universal rule and/or consensus on using presidential portraits or prior portraits on a presidential election, and either is generally acceptable. ~ Mycranthebigalt (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Late to the party, but the color ones look terrible. Wallace's portrait is from 1962, six years before the actual election, and Humphrey's image is just terrible. He's looking down and to the left, his blurry hand is in the way, and all the crops are mismatched. Color images aren't inherently better because they're color images. GI Brown 1970 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Black and White. Seriously, the colored ones look terrible except for Nixon's. Wallace's one looks so bad, and the one with Humphrey has his hand in the middle of it. River10000 (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1968_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_2&oldid=1214682403"