Thanks for digging up the exact numbers on 1968. I was sure that “massive rout” was way off, and you’ve confirmed that.
This isn’t just dissing someone for misspelling a candidate’s name or the like. Your historical correction really blows the author’s whole thesis out of the water.
"Massive rout," my butt. Nixon took 43.4% of the popular vote versus Humphrey's 42.7%, with Wallace taking the rest. Since when is 43.4% a "massive route"? Since when is a 0.7% difference between the winner and the runner-up called "massive"? Since when is having 56.7% of the voters vote *against* you a "massive rout"? Sheesh.Richard Nixon was elected in a massive rout in 1968
He's obviously confusing it with the 1972 election.
9 posted on August 19, 2014 at 1:25:48 AM EDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
Thanks for digging up the exact numbers on 1968. I was sure that “massive rout” was way off, and you’ve confirmed that.
This isn’t just dissing someone for misspelling a candidate’s name or the like. Your historical correction really blows the author’s whole thesis out of the water.
Certainly it transforms the issue - but to the extent that it does, wouldn’t you say that it blows up Pat Buchannan’s thesis - not the thesis of the author of this piece, which is that Pat Buchannan is wrong?OTOH if you consider that most of George Wallace’s votes probably came out of the hide of Richard Nixon - he of the “infamous Southern Strategy” - you might take Pat Buchannan’s slant on the 1968 result.