politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
LBJ refused to run after leading in the primaries. This left three major democratic candidates, Robert Kennedy, who entered the race late, Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Huphrey, LBJ's vice President. The major issue was Vietnam. Kennedy and McCarthy were against the war, Humphrey was stay the course. Kennedy, who just got the lead in primary votes was assassinated the night of the last primary. An open convention was held in Chicago with rioting in the streets. Humphrey was chosen as nominee in a back room deal. He lost to Nixon who said he had a secret plan to end the war. But, of course he lied.
Fact check me all you want
Okay. Are you going to edit out the misinformation in your comment that says losing by less than a percentage point is a landslide, or clarify that none of the candidates were changed after the convention?
Nixon got 301 electoral votes, Humphrey got 191.
Oh, we’re playing “land votes” now? Don’t you think ignoring the popular vote is giving away the game?
If you mean electoral votes, that is what made Donald Trump president. In fact, that makes every president.
Quick question: Did Donald Trump win in a landslide in 2016?
That is more than a little bit misleading
https://web.archive.org/web/20240710212846/https://www.history.com/news/lbj-exit-1968-presidential-race
Better source with lots more details (which makes it harder to excerpt) - https://web.archive.org/web/20240710213056/https://www.npr.org/2018/03/25/596805375/president-johnson-made-a-bombshell-announcement-50-years-ago
A note about those riots -
https://web.archive.org/web/20240710214549/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention_protests
This is completely correct, but just saying he lied is kinda understating the magnitude of the horrifying things he and Kissinger did in that region of the world. A small sample - https://web.archive.org/web/20240710215210/https://theconversation.com/henry-kissingers-bombing-campaign-likely-killed-hundreds-of-thousands-of-cambodians-and-set-path-for-the-ravages-of-the-khmer-rouge-209353
Incidentally, as long as I'm thinking about the terrible things the 1968 election led to, its worth pointing out that Nixon's use of law and order rhetoric brought the Dixiecrat segregationists who were big mad about the civil rights acts fully into the Republican party, who was then able to spend the 1970s dismantling lots of integrative programs and throwing black people into prison for bullshit reasons (like, this is the moment mass incarceration takes off). It's also worth pointing out how a lot of people just remember Humphrey as a spineless Johnson lackey who kept supporting his boss's war even though he really didn't agree with it, but we should remember him as the badass who walked into the 1948 Democratic national convention and said it was time to drop segregationist bullshit and start promoting civil rights.
I imagine we disagree on why it turned out how it did, but I imagine we agree that the world would have been a lot better place if Nixon lost the 1968 election.
I don't know what's misleading. Facts is facts.
I tried to be succinct and write as little as necessary. This medium demands it.
I was actually pretty close to all these events, and some of the players.
I suppose we would actually agree on why things turned out the way it did, but nonetheless history tells us that dropping in a new nominee is a good way to lose.
The world would have been a better place had Robert Kennedy not been killed.
Fair enough about the need to be succinct (that has obviously never been a strong suit of mine), and yes, your first comment was technically factually correct, but the context of Johnson being a weakened candidate who thought he probably was going to lose if he stayed in is important. My argument would be that in situations where we dropped in a new nominee we were already pretty screwed for other reasons, and the need to switch nominees was just a symptom of that.
Y'know, I've actually kind of gotten that impression. I kinda hate to get into personal/individual account stuff, but I've read a lot of your comments at this point and speaking as someone whose own direct campaign experience has been limited to volunreering and chatting with the paid campaign staff, you remind me of some of them in a lot of hard to articulate ways. For lack of a less judgemental way to put it, some of your comments make me think "yeah, this guy gets how it works" and the rest make me think "this guy is everything wrong with the Democratic party!" I only ever seem to end up responding to the ones I disagree with, but either way it's a perspective I appreciate.
110% agreed, even more than Humphrey he was the one who should have won that election. I wasn't alive for The 1968 election, but just reading about the history of it is heartbreaking.