Running racism in America thread

Levis? Wranglers? Jordache?

 

Dems rallied around Humphrey because the popular RFK was dead. Nixon might have played outside the rules (certainly he did in 72) but the Vietnam War was wickedly unpopular which is why LBJ didn't bother running for a second term.

 

I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of the situation - including the part where looting is wrong.

I think a majority of America is all ears at this point on potential remedies.

 

The question is how.

Nobody can dare say things haven’t been tried. This is not 1968, no matter what anyone says. Not in the sense that racism doesn’t exist - it still does - but policies and initiatives have been tried since 1968. Lots of them.

 

He didn't just "say" it. He posted on Facebook.
Sorry ass person to feel that way and apparently stupid, too.
I'd love to have a dollar for every ignorant person who has lost their job because of a Facebook or Twitter post.

 

Health was also a factor for LBJ (he died just five years later).

Dems rallied around Humphrey, but not because of RFK. Prior to Kennedy's assassination on June 5, 1968, Humphrey hadn't won a single primary (mostly because he entered the contest too late and there were only 14). The race in those states had been between two anti-war advocates - RFK and Eugene McCarthy. They had earned over 2 million primary votes apiece. Humphrey was only in the conversation because of pledged delegates in states that didn't run primaries. Progressives scream about the DNC being corrupt and keeping Sanders out now; they would have been apoplectic under the 1968 rules.

Following RFK's death, McCarthy had a strong argument to be the people's choice. He had won New Jersey on June 4 and won Illinois on June 11. He was staunchly anti-war. He had earned more votes than any other candidate in the primaries, including RFK. But delegates spurned him and went for Humphrey on the first ballot.

I think limiting the shift to Humphrey just to the death of RFK is too simple. It was the establishment and old delegate system digging its heels in over the opposition of a large, vocal anti-war movement.

 

Maybe he'll lose his job too for those reasons:

 

Johnson was in failing health, but there was enormous pressure too from the fact that Vietnam was turning on him. Getting out of the way was as much a recognition of that as it was his health.

But for the convoluted rigged nature of the primaries, does Humphrey really get a sniff if RFK isn't killed? And if you tell me no—which I think you could do with compelling arguments—it still doesn't mesh with what is going on today, which is my overall point. Warren didn't really hurt Sanders' chances. Biden got legit wins in the primaries. And it's the Republican party that is trying to find a way out of a crisis to make itself look better and stave off outside challenges.

 

Sanders' backers believe Warren hurt him. They argue that she split the progressive movement early and then hurt him further when she stayed in the race despite fading substantially in the poll. And the last perceived slight was her lack of endorsement when she finally did suspend her campaign.

McCarthy was very bitter toward RFK once Kennedy entered the race. There was this perception that RFK let McCarthy do the hard work of taking on Johnson, of advocating an anti-war stance against the sitting president, only for the better looking, more charismatic candidate to swoop in on the same platform.

And if RFK isn't killed, yes, I think Humphrey is still in the picture and even potentially still the favorite. With only 14 primaries, the Democratic establishment had plenty of delegates to line up behind their backroom pick.

No, it's not a perfect comparison to today. But the split in the party between establishment and outside movement, the fluctuation in the leader during the primary process, and the overall unrest in the country creates similar circumstances.

 

Solo, do you know of any books that detail what you're saying with regard to Humphrey, RFK, 1968? I dig that stuff and would like to read them, if any good ones exist. Thanks.

 

Bullshit on that. Wallace in '68 fit perfectly into the glove of Nixon's Southern Strategy, which was simply to deny the Democrats their solid Southern bloc vote at the time. All Nixon did was build on Goldwater's '64 map and add onto the edges. Wallace was Nixon's pawn, nothing more, nothing less.