Boston '04: Imagine the '68 Dem Convention, but with RFK alive.

[arendt]

About a week ago, I posted a thread saying that the
Dean Campaign reminded me of the Eugene McCarthy
campaign in 1968. Of course, mainly I heard how that
was a smear on Clean Gene.

But, after watching the orchestrated hammering of
Dean by the most opportunistically short-sighted pack
of Democratic candidates I have ever seen, this feels
like the McCarthy debacle all over again. Gene, you may
recall, was accused of being "unelectable". Only this time,
the RFK role is being played behind the scenes by Bill
Clinton. Wes Clark is definitely Cllnton's cat's paw here.
(Go ahead, flame away.)

Clinton needs a cat's paw, because his situation is doubly
constrained. First, as a two-term President, tradition calls
for him to retire from the day-to-day brawling of politics
and limit himself to an elder statesman role (in spite of
his young age). Second, the name Clinton (of either gender)
can mobilize the GOP base to defeat the Dems. Al Gore chose
to run away from Clinton in 2000. Perhaps this hurt him,
perhaps it helped him. Who could ever figure it out, then or
now, in the RW media echo chamber?

For both these reasons, Bill must be totally circumspect;
even Hillary has yet to figure out, much less divulge, how any
potential 2008 candidacy of hers will deploy Bill. But, everyone
knows that Bill is the kingmaker of the Democratic Party. His
elder statesman role resembles the party leaders in the corrupt
old Japanese Democratic Labor Party (DLP). Those guys met
behind the scenes, like some Italian social club, where large
piles of cash and political IOUs traded hands.

But that's about as far as the analogy goes. The DLP was the
dominant party in Japan. Those godfathers had real clout.
In the US today, Bill Clinton's dominance extends little beyond
the DLC. And the fact that that "little beyond" is shrinking every
day is one of the reasons that has pushed him into taking sides
in the Democratic Primary. (Like dissing Dean in NH.) By
endorsing Dean, Al Gore essentially challenged Bill's role as
kingmaker in the DLC social club. The payback has been quick
and in earnest. Al is about as ineffective, if intelligent and honest,
a national-level politician as Gene McCarthy. He surfaced, fired
his shot (which certainly hit SOMEthing), and seems to have been
vaporized by the counter-battery fire.

----

I want to get back to 1968 which, while most forget the fact, was
a three-cornered game between February and June.

If you massage the roles a little bit; with Bill playing an invisible
RFK, and Al Gore playing an amputed-duck version of LBJ, you
can actually argue that Dean is playing two corners of a triangle
reminiscent of the 1968 struggle among: 1) McCarthy idealists;
2) Kennedy partisans; and 3) machine democrats like Mayor Daley.

Everyone knows the 68 convention was a horrible debacle for
the Dems; but just imagine the mess if RFK had been alive!
Would LBJ have done a deal with McCarthy just to spite RFK?
In my opinion, in a New York minute. LBJ and RFK viscerally
hated each other. McCarthy had been decent to LBJ, and LBJ
was remorseful about Viet Nam. There was no decency and
no remorse between RFK and LBJ.

LBJ could have gone with McCarthy as an "End the War" candidate
magnanimously endorsed by a disgraced, but honorable president
who was seeking peace, both at international conferences and by
approving a peace candidate in his own party. LBJ would swallow hard,
but if he could get Bobby, he would swallow a lot.

----

I think the situation in today's Democratic Party has a lot of this
dynamic. By way of Hillary, Bill Clinton still has a dynasty going.
Al Gore has taken on an oppositional role to the DLC which, from
the violence of the counter-attack and the lack of any defense
from the DLC, seems to indicate a growing rift between Clinton
and Gore. Finally, the most overlooked people today are the
state and local level Democratic politicians and operatives. They
have been getting hammered for years. In some places, they
have already been replaced by populists; e.g., Jesse Ventura,
faux-populists; e.g., Arnold Schwarzegger; and inside the party
populists; e.g., Jim McGreevey of NJ (who just endorsed Dean).
These professional Democrats are not overly impressed with the
DLC, which has cost them dearly.

In my scenario, populists (McCarthy) and anti-Clinton DLCers (LBJ)
will unite in opposition to the DLC candidate (RFK). That candidate looks
like Clark since Kerry just flip-flopped himself into oblivion on
the Iraq war. But, I couldn't have predicted 1968 and I can't predict
2004.

Even worse, the press is a partisan wild card that it was not in 1968.
The press will do whatever it can to maximize and prolong dissension
inside the Democratic Party, and then try to bring the weakest of
the resulting candidates to victory by the standard partisan spins.

I never considered this particular alternate history of 1968, but I'm
sure someone on this board has. Enlighten me with how it might
have come out. Then, let me know how you think the current
situation might come out.

Have fun,

arendt

[txnaggie]

1. RFK and the 68 campaign - What If?

There was a novel that came out back in the summer called "Disturbance of Fate" (I think). It was a 'what if' that envisioned RFK going ahead to the Chicago convention, working out a deal with Daley to avert the disastrous riots that plagued the Democrats, and RFK beating Nixon to become president in 1968, with re-election in 1972. And then that's where the "fun" started. Quite an interesting read if y'all have the time. Almost like "Promises to Keep" by George Berneau about JFK surviving Dallas in 1963.

[arendt]

2. Thanks for the reference; and Welcome to DU.

Interesting.

What happened to the McCarthy supporters in this?
They just threw their support to RFK? And the Dems
became a happy, unified, anti-war party?

Seriously, I haven't got time to read the entire novel.
Besides, you already told me RFK beat Nixon. :-).

Good first post.

arendt

On edit: What did LBJ do in this?

[TheDonkey]

9. Welcome txnaggie!

:toast:
:hi:

[newyawker99]

10. Hi txnaggie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mot78]

3. By that logic wouldn't Clark then be Humphrey?

[arendt]

4. No. Clark would be RFK's VP (except he never indicated who that was)

In my reading:

LBJ = Gore
McCarthy = Dean
RFK = Bill Clinton

Humphrey was LBJ's VP.

I said that the machine Dems had to go somewhere. If RFK
was still alive and LBJ was out; they would go with McCarthy.

Humphrey was put up because he was not a radical and
he was LBJ's VP.

Clark is closest to being RFK's VP - except there was no
such person. The whole RFK movement collapsed with
the assasination. Teddy didn't try for another 12 years,
and even then, he was pushed.

----

Looks like this analogy is confusing too many people.
There aren't many responses.

I thought I could get a bite by comparing Clinton to RFK,
and Gore to LBJ. But people seem to want to talk about
Clark's cussing.

What a bunch of maroons!

arendt

[jeter]

7. LBJ would have supported Humphrey, and did

NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY he would have abandonned Humphrey.

Humphrey had entered the race after LBJ backed out in March 1968. Humphrey had more delegates than either RFK or McCarthy.

McCarthy never stood a chance after he lost the California primary. That is why it is referred to as "the crucial primary." Because it was "crucial." The loser between McCarthy and Kennedy was basically out.

Kennedy was actually in third place before the CA primary in delegates. Winning putting him ahead of McCarthy. New York and Massachusettes were next. Obvious Kennedy wins. California had a winner take all system in 68. Which meant that even though Kennedy beat McCarthy 50% to 42%, he won all of the delegates. Which were like 10% of the total and 15% of what one needed to win alone.

Winning NY, the largest state in America in 1968, would have given Kennedy 30 to 35% of all the delegates just with those two primaries.

Add Massachusettes, Indiana, and the couple of others he had already won, he would have had about 40 to 45% of all the delegates. With McCarthy only having a handful: Wisconsin, Oregon, his home state and the few delegates he picked up here and there. Remember LBJ won the New Hampshire Primary (McCarthy only came in a close second), so he to had committed delegates.

The problem was that in 1968, the majority of delegates came from outside the primary system. Unions, party officials and the like. Humphrey never entered any primaries all his support came from these "super delegates."

When Kennedy was killed. Humphrey had about 650 delegates committed to him (source: "RFK must Die"). Kennedy had about 350, with another 200 delegates from NY coming his way and another 50 or so from MA coming. That would have put him right behind Humphrey.

Kennedy with 40 to 45% of the delegates would have had about 800 to 900 committed delegates for the first ballot.

Assuming Humphrey had picked up some more "stop Kennedy votes" he would have had about 700 to 750.

McCarthy would have had about 300.

Johnson would have made up the difference with about 100.

Johnson's support would have certainly have gone to Humphrey. Supporting McCarthy makes absolutely no sense and would have been a shot to his loyal Vice President.

Kennedy would have had three chances:

1) after the first ballot. Some of Humphrey's support jumped ship and supported him. Maybe with some urging from Daley and others.

2) McCarthy withdraws and endorses Kennedy.

3) McCarthy's supporters jump ship and support Kennedy.

McCarthy would have had three chances:

1) after the first ballot. Some of Kennedy's support jumped ship and supported him.

2) McCarthy withdraws and endorses Humphrey.

3) McCarthy's supporters jump ship and support Humphrey. Not likely since Humphrey supported the war and McCarthy's supporters did not.

So here is how I see it playing out.

First Ballot: (1,001 needed to win)

Kennedy, 850 delegates.
Humphrey, 750 delegates.
McCarthy, 300 delegates.
Johnson, 100 delegates.

The second ballot would have been pivotal. Since if Humphrey over took the lead (by collecting Johnson's delegates and peeling away enough of Kennedy's) he would have all the momentum. But it wasn't likely, remember that after the first ballot you can support anyone you want. But Kennedy's California delegation was with him in total. It is likely that some of them would jump ship. But it is also likely that many McCarthy supporters would leave Gene and support Bobby. The second ballot would also be an accurate reflection of where all the delegates stood. Not only who they were "committed" to.

Second Ballot (pivotal ballot): (1,001 needed to win)

Kennedy, 900+ delegates. (I believe it would have been so close
Humphrey, 900+ delegates. that Humphrey may be ahead at this point)
McCarthy, 200- delegates.

McCarthy is the kingpin. If he endorses Kennedy, which is likely, Kennedy certainly win. If he throws his support wide open, then Kennedy wins. If he endorses Humphrey, it will be super tight.

Third and final Ballot: (1,001 needed to win)

Kennedy, 1,000+
Humphrey, 900+

Kennedy wins the nomination.

But this is where I disagree with everyone else. The 1968 election would have made Florida and 2000 look like the best run election ever.

Johnson has no desire to help Kennedy win and the "pause" in the bombing which is followed by news of a potential break through in peace talks won't happen (as it did and gave Humphrey a late surge in the polls).

George Wallace was still in the race and Bobby Kennedy would not have beaten him in the four southern states that he carried. The Democrats still "needed" the south to win in those days. Unless he put a southerner on the ticket, which is certain.

I think the vote totals would have been the same:

Nixon 42%
Kennedy 42%
Wallace 15%

But the difference comes in the electoral college. I see Kennedy losing most southern states, but winning California.

That would have created an interesting situation:

Electoral Votes (270 needed to win):

Nixon - 248 electoral votes
Kennedy - 242 electoral votes
Wallace - 48 electoral votes

It would have gone to Congress, which was controlled by the Democrats. And they would have supported Kennedy.

So Kennedy wins in the craziest election in US history.

Another consequence of this election?????

Reagan in 1972...

Can you imagine an RFK vs. Ronald Reagan Presidential election in 1972?

Reagan ran for the nomination in 1968 but came up well short.

In 1968, there were four major figures in the Republican Party:

Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York. A liberal Republican that failed to win the nomination (and was spat on at the 64 convention) in 1964 and 1968.

Vice President Richard Nixon of California. Who was a two-time loser at this point. No chance for a threepeat.

Governor Mitch Romney of Michigan. Romney killed himself politically in 1968 when said that he had been "brain-washed" by the Viet Cong on a visit to Vietnam in 1967.

Governor Ronald Reagan of California.

Reagan would have been the nominee and it is entirely likely that he would have beaten RFK in 1972. Remember that issues like Affirmative Action, the Death Penalty, Abortion and School Bussing were very divisive and front and center in that election. Also, the economy wasn't doing well and government spending was becoming an issue. Reagan had cut welfare in 1971.

There would have been no "Nixon goes to China" which saved the Nixon Presidency. The GOP would have argued that Kennedy "lost Vietnam." That the communists "were getting away with murder."

Also, Reagan would have carried California and most of the south. That spells a Reagan victory in 1972.

[arendt]

11. Thanks. I was hoping someone had these facts at their fingertips.

Great contribution to the thread.

As for being right or wrong, see my response to Hedda Foil below.

arendt

[hedda_foil]

5. I almost always agree with you arendt, but this time your analysis is off.

As a strong RFK supporter in '68, the candidate who most closely resembles him is Dean. McCarthy was a good guy, but he came across as a bit of a wuss and his supporters were, in fact, mostly kids. Dean's supporters average age is 44, though he is re-energizing the college-age and 20-something formerly non-voters as well. Dean is a fighter for classic American values and rebuilding the type of coalition that FDR and later JFK and RFK developed.

McCarthy was extremely liberal and ran as a single issue candidate. Dean is a classic moderate Democrat who first stood out for his stance on the Iraq War but who is not an antiwar candidate in the sense of McCarthy or Kucinich (who is the closest to McCarthy of the current candidates.

Here's a rundown of Dean's support at the beginning of October before his minority support began to build.

http://www.deanvolunteers.org/Survey/


Dean Meetup Survey Results
Bentley College (Waltham, MA) and Dean Volunteers conducted a survey of attendees at the Dean Meetups. We attempted to address three key questions in the survey:
Who attends Meetups?
What are the political beliefs of Dean Meetup attendees?
Are Meetups politically effective?
The survey received 579 valid responses from 16 Meetup venues in 13 states, all at the October Dean Meetups. Our findings:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demographics

Demographically, Dean Meetup attendees were mostly white (91%), middle aged (44 years, on average), middle income (about $67,000 per household) professionals (44%).

For comparison, the national average for Internet users in the general population is 80% white, about 36 years of age on average, from households with an average income of $62,000 (Pew Internet & American Life Project, summer 2003 survey ).

Our Dean Meetup respondents almost universally reported heavy Internet usage: 91% went on-line at least once a day.

For perspective, Pew found that in 2002, 59% of the on-line audience sought election news from the Internet at least once a week, down from the 75% who reported that frequency of use during the presidential year 2000.
Conclusions: Dean Meetup attendees fit the stereotype of predominantly white and middle-class. The average age is higher than the stereotype. Internet usage is well above average.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Preferences

In the 2000 election, 72% voted for Gore, 12% for Nader, and 2% for Bush.

66% self-identified as strong Democrats; 19% as independents.

39% self-identified as progressive; 32% as liberal; 11% as populist.

On a scale of 1-5, where 1 means strongly oppose, 3 means neutral, and 5 means strongly favor, the average response for other selected politicians was:
3.6 for Bill Bradley
3.1 for John McCain
3.0 for Ralph Nader
2.0 for Ross Perot
1.1 for George W. Bush
Conclusions: Dean supporters are stereotyped as supporting maverick candidates -- but our survey found selectivity in support. John McCain edged out Ralph Nader, a sign of non-ideological support. Ross Perot was opposed despite his maverick reputation. Bush's universally low rating is the closest item to consensus in the survey results.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Preferences

We asked which respondents' opinions of the other Democratic presidential candidates. On the same scale of 1-5, the average response was:
4.9 for Howard Dean
3.2 for Carol Moseley-Braun
3.1 for Dennis Kucinich
3.0 for Wesley Clark (this was 2 weeks after he entered the race)
3.0 for John Edwards
2.9 for John Kerry
2.8 for Bob Graham (this was 1 week before he withdrew)
2.5 for Dick Gephardt
2.5 for Al Sharpton
1.8 for Joe Lieberman
Conclusions: Dean supporters viewed only Moseley-Braun and Kucinich favorably, and even they barely scored above neutral. Lieberman scored by far the most unfavorably, despite that 72% of respondents voted for him in 2000.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campaign Effectiveness

Campaigns care about support as expressed in donating and volunteering as well as voting. Our results indicate this is Meetup's greatest strength:

53% of Dean Meetup attendees have donated to political campaigns.

52% reported stronger support for Dean as a result of this Meetup.

Less than 1% reported weaker support for Dean as a result of this Meetup.

73% will get more involved with Dean campaign because of this Meetup.

Less than 1% will get less involved with Dean campaign because of this Meetup.

74% reported that they had invited others to attend Meetups.

32% reported that this was their first Meetup.
Conclusions:Over half of the participants claim stronger support as a result of their attendance. That's a sign of strong political effectiveness, especially because this Meetup was attended by 120,000 people. The donation rates indicate that over one-third of Dean's entire donor base attends Meetups. One-third of the attendees were newcomers -- that growth rate is consistent with past Meetup attendance growth rates.

[arendt]

12. OK. You got me. I really wanted to put Bill Clinton in the spotlight.

It really took a sledgehammer to try to turn Dean into Clean Gene.
The post was really a stalking horse for a deeper content. Your
comprehensive response leaves me no room to debate.

I did it because I wanted people to address the "hidden hand" in
this campaign: Bill Clinton. By casting him into the role of a
"out of the picture" RFK, I hoped to put him into the discussion.

Does anyone here doubt that Clinton and Clark are thick as
thieves? Both from Arkansas, both up by their bootstraps.
Clinton appoints Clark to high military posts over the objections
of many offficers.

Admittedly, this is hard to decode, because the military couldn't
stand Clinton. They objected constantly. OTOH, why waste political
capital annoying the military with controversial appointments
unless its all part of a long-range campaign to "groom" Clark
for later office by giving him high rank and high visibility. Yet,
spinning it the other way, Clinton knew Kosovo was going to
be tricky, and he wanted someone he could trust running it.

But, anyway you spin it, these two guys are close. I simply do
not believe that Clinton does not favor Clark as the DLC candidate.
First, all the other DLC candidates are non-winners at this point.
I mean Kerry has toasted himself on both sides with his constant
flip-flops; Lieberman is roundly despised by the Dem base;
Edwards is simply too young and too hawkish; and Gephardt
is too union for Mr. NAFTA/GATT. So, it makes sense that the
DLC is still shopping for someone to "do" Dean for them.

It is not automatically an insult to say that Clark is being opportunistic.
He has a long history of dallying with the GOP and even the PNAC.
He was on the board of a company doing Homeland Security work.
Then he sees the DLC candidates shooting themselves in the
foot while Dean is cleaning up, and this lightbulb goes off: I could
actually get the DLC to back me, I'm a blank slate outsider with
unbelievably valuable military credentials, plus I'm tight with the
Big Dog.

Which brings us right back to Bill Clinton.

Does anyone think Bill is taking a vacation in Hawaii for the
duration of the 2004 campaign? Neither do I. He is playing,
as I said, behind the scenes. And, quite frankly, with the GOP
secrecy and now the DLC/Clinton hidden hand, is there any
honest, up-front campaign out there? No wonder people are
fed up with inside-the-beltway politics - its all codewords and
image and spin.

Who wants to talk about Clinton?

arendt

[Zomby Woof]

6. does that mean the cops...

Are going to be there too, beating the shit out of people?

Ah, 1968 Chicago, where Democratic Mayor Richard Daley said "The police are not there to create disorder, they are there to preserve disorder." :crazy:

History does not repeat itself, and there is no equivalent of RFK alive today.

[arendt]

14. Actually, Boston cops are very laid back.

I went to a bunch of anti-war marches, and one anti-Bush/Romney
demo. First, there simply weren't that many cops in proportion to
the crowd size. Second, the cops were chatting with the crowd.

The Boston cops think twice about busting heads because you
never know which important person's kid that head belongs to.

Now, you want head busting, go to NYC. I went to Feb 15, and
they were nasty.

Besides, the media would want the demonstrators AGAINST the
Dems not to be busted; while they will want the anti-GOP demonstrators
given the "Miami/Philadelphia" treatment.

I agree history does not repeat, but as Mark Twain said, it does rhyme.

arendt

[DFLforever]

8. OK I'll take a turn but I see some differences

McCarthy's money dried up after Kennedy entered;
At this time Dean is still independent of that type of donor.

I loved Gene McCarthy and worked on his campaign but Dean is a lot tougher, in fact has the self-confidence and possibly (I pray to God) ruthlessness of an RFK and cannot be as easily screwed by LBJ/Bill Clinton who is presiding not over a gov't but the decaying corpse of a rotting political party.

DK seems more the pure, anti-war candidate that McCarthy was although I can't see him winning any primaries as McCarthy did.

I think LBJ/Clinton will make a deal with Dean, if and when he survives this onslaught...Hilary is already coopting his language, 'taking America Back' etc, ad nauseum. I don't know who Clark is in this mix, HHH? Dependent on Big Dog's patrongage, more independent but without Humphrey's political experience and skill.

Finally, if Dean is the winner by March ...I think he should take increased precautions for his personal safety ...but not because of LBJ/Clinton.

[arendt]

13. Thanks for playing.

Interesting change. You want:

LBJ = Clinton (not Gore, but equally not running for office)
HHH= Clark (very good comparison)
McCarthy = Kucinich (equally valid)

RFK = Dean (on basis of ruthlessness and conservative bent)


Everyone remembers how ruthless Bobby Kennedy was, but
many people forget just how conservative Bobby was. Hell,
he was co-counsel for JOSEPH McCarthy. The other counsel
was the infamous Roy Cohn.

Just like Jeter, you think that LBJ would have made a deal
with RFK. Interesting.

I sort of like your version.

arendt

[hedda_foil]

15. I don't think the analogies quite hold although I see where you're going.

LBJ would never have backed RFK. There was an old and abiding hatred that had to have been exacerbated by Bobby's increased popularity in '67-'68. Also, after JFK's death, Bobby underwent a metamorphosis which turned him far more liberal (in terms of social justice) and compassionate than he had been before he lost the brother to whom he was most devoted. Don't forget, as well, that Bobby counseled JFK against going to war with Russia during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Bobby was an individual who evolved tremendously over time. In that sense, there is a strong similarity between him and Dean.

Humphrey really doesn't equate to Clark because Clark is a blank slate with some charisma and military appeal (which some people seem to be looking for at this time). Conversely, Humphrey had zero charisma (dumpy looking, balding badly and with a high-pitched and monotonous voice) and was burdened by being perceived as LBJ's yes-man. (I realize he was a terrific Senator but he was a lackluster VP and became the candidate only by default. He was virtually no-one's favorite.)

edited to close parens.
Where I strongly agree with you is that Clinton is doing everything he can to maintain control and that he encouraged Clark to run as the standard bearer of the DLC position and strategy. Whether he will reveal his hand publicly ... My inclination is that he won't unless Clark is very close to sewing up the nomination and just needs a boost to put him over the top.

[arendt]

16. Thanks. Anyone else want to comment on Clinton's role here?

> Where I strongly agree with you is that Clinton is doing everything he can to
> maintain control and that he encouraged Clark to run as the standard
> bearer of the DLC position and strategy.

Thanks for validating my thinking, especially on how totally "hidden"
Clinton (and Hillary) are keeping their roles.

> I don't think the analogies quite hold although I see where you're going.

As I said, the analogies were a roundabout way of bringing up Cliinton
while trying not to start a flame war. Clearly, it was too forced and too
roundabout. So now, I'm out in the open.

Its not Dean vs Clark; its Dean vs Clinton and the DLC. That should
be obvious from the way all the DLC candidates are blasting Dean.
Are Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, and Sharpton hitting Dean for saying
Saddam's capture is a zero? I haven't heard that from them. This is
an inside-the-DLC-clubhouse brawl; only Howard brought his own
gang of money-raisers.

arendt

[arendt]

17. Very interesting on RFK's evolution after JFK's death

Perhaps that could be used by the Dean camp to justify
his change in status. The motivating event could be 911
and the assault on the middle class.

arendt