Removal of Presidential Term Limits

[EdSutton]

WHAT??? A few of those type may have gone for Nixon, but only on backlash or because they were already inclined toward Republicans. But some went for Eugene McCarthy, who ran as an independent, but started way too late to seriously alter the voting. A few even went to Eldridge Cleaver and his "smash everything western civiliation has created" platform. But most, as the weeks went by after Chicago, gradually slunk back to Humphrey, in spite of his refusal to promise an about-face on Vietnam. According to some sources Humphrey, with the unintended assist from George Wallace, was narrowing the gap such that one more week would have won it for him. I don't think it became quite that narrow, but clearly HHH was gaining fast as election day came, and much of that was surely from the people you referred to, who at first refused to give him their support. But I think it's absurd that "every" flower child/ war protestor voted for Nixon in '68.

Referring to the 1968 (and 1972) Presidential elections, had Sen. Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, Gov. George C. Wallace not been shot by the deranged Arthur Bremer (who went after Gov. Wallace, only after failing to get close enough to Pres. Nixon and attemtp to assassinate him), nor the Sen. Thomas Eagleton medical history become known (although I personally do not think this was anywhere near as significant as the two shootings in the eventual election outcomes), we might well be talking about other entirely different scenarios, for President Richard M. Nixon may well not have even been elected (or re-elected) in the first, second place, and possibly third places.

The popular vote difference between Pres. Nixon and V.P. Humphrey was less than 0.75%, as it was, in 1968, with Gov. Wallace receiving about 1 out of every 7 popular votes (as well as carrying 5 southern states with 46 electoral votes), the absence of which could well have made a decided 'swing' in the eventual outcome.

Ed

 

[Alcott]

All of the states which went for Wallace in '68 (2 of which were less than a plurality) would almost surely have gone for Nixon had Wallace not been a candidate. So the only "swing" that would have made would have been a greater margin of victory for Nixon.

 

[just-want-peace]

I agree, term limits area a good thing. I think we should have them on the Congress also. There becomes a time when people become stagnant, stale and part of the political machine to the point they are the problem and not the solution. I hate to keep picking on the guy but Ted Stevens was a good example...

LB, I really do agree with you at times! I just wish you had been a little less partisan here and included some of the D senators/reps, such as Barney Franks, Ted Kennedy to name just a couple.

I would also add Snowe and the sen from PA, can't remember his name right now.

I would love to see the partisan-ness disappear except for POLICIES, and ignore personalities; but that's probably hoping for too much!!

 

[TomVols]

Clinton may have won a third. He was very popular with the Democrats when he left office...

Nope. Over 2/3 of Americans told US News & World Reports that they would not elect Clinton to a 3rd term

 

[EdSutton]

All of the states which went for Wallace in '68 (2 of which were less than a plurality) would almost surely have gone for Nixon had Wallace not been a candidate. So the only "swing" that would have made would have been a greater margin of victory for Nixon.

That is an assumption, but it is likely a pretty good one.

Point is that about 1 vote of every 7 went to Gov. Wallace.

This probably did work to Nixon's advantage in the North. Allow VP Humphrey to carry only 4 of the close states of the North. IL, NJ, OH, and WI, all of which were decided by less than 4% of the vote, and all of which tend to vote Democratic, and VP Humphrey would have been elected President, even if President Nixon had carried all the states that Gov. Wallace carried.

Ed

 

[LeBuick]

LB, I really do agree with you at times! I just wish you had been a little less partisan here and included some of the D senators/reps, such as Barney Franks, Ted Kennedy to name just a couple.

I would also add Snowe and the sen from PA, can't remember his name right now.

I would love to see the partisan-ness disappear except for POLICIES, and ignore personalities; but that's probably hoping for too much!!

You are right and I do apologize, I thought I did include Barney since he is the biggest waste on the hill in my view... I bet his district will make out good from this stimulus.

 

[LeBuick]

Nope. Over 2/3 of Americans told US News & World Reports that they would not elect Clinton to a 3rd term

I didn't know that, I voted for Ross Perot in the fist and Dole in the second. I thought Clinton was popular with the Democrats which is why I said that.

 

[LeBuick]

This probably did work to Nixon's advantage in the North. Allow VP Humphrey to carry only 4 of the close states of the North. IL, NJ, OH, and WI, all of which were decided by less than 4% of the vote, and all of which tend to vote Democratic, and VP Humphrey would have been elected President, even if President Nixon had carried all the states that Gov. Wallace carried.

Ed

Wasn't Nixon the one who brought the south to the Republican party? And away from the "Southern Democrats"?

 

[billwald]

While we are at it, lets take out the "natural born" clause and let Arnold S. run for the job.

 

[LeBuick]

While we are at it, lets take out the "natural born" clause and let Arnold S. run for the job.

i don't think you'd have much support after the big stink the right made over Obama birth certificate but who knows, he is one of them so it's probably ok. Besides, Arnold just learned that tax increases are sometimes a necessary evil if you're really doing what's BEST for the people...