Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A question about RFK [View all]RFKHumphreyObama
(15,164 posts)80. That having been said
I doubt RFK would have got the nomination in 1968. LBJ intensely disliked Bobby and there are some indications that he was preparing a smear campaign against him to erode his momentum. Plus the party bosses and Democratic leadership had much more influence over the nomination back then (it was only in the aftermath of the tumultuous events of 1968 that McGovern and his accolytes succeeded in changing the rules to make the process more open and accountable) and the powers that be were backing HHH to the hilt. Even RFK's campaign manager has said, if my memory serves me accurately, that RFK would not have won the nomination that year.
I think he may have got it in 1972 or '76', however
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Though in the Muskie hypothetical, that would put two "Northeasterners" on the ticket
villager
May 2012
#2
It's a good mantra. Sadly, the current owners/sponsors of the Democratic Party
villager
May 2012
#82
that would have been a great choice. gonzalez's work was the first time i got a clue about
HiPointDem
May 2012
#16
Good thoughts, but note that Brown had lost the governship to St. Ronnie in '66
villager
May 2012
#12
Yes that would have been one thing against having Brown as VP. But beyond California, Brown
yellowcanine
May 2012
#37
well then that is possible. But I think Bill Cosby would have been more universally
WI_DEM
May 2012
#33
No effin way. The Southern Strategy didn't kick in until 1972. It was a response to Wallace in
yellowcanine
May 2012
#44
Even for a hypothetical it is a bridge too far. The old South hated RFK. They would have swung to
yellowcanine
May 2012
#61
Not Shriver (family), Not McCarthy (Catholic) not Clark (LBJ's Attorney General)
WI_DEM
May 2012
#23
You're right overtly LBJ did alot for HHH but behind the scenes he believed HHH was disloyal.
craigmatic
May 2012
#51
Whatever bad traits he had, LBJ was a real Democrat and would NOT have backed NIXON
UTUSN
May 2012
#54
I like LBJ too but politicians have been known to buck party loyalty in private.
craigmatic
May 2012
#57
It's not a matter of "liking LBJ" but somebody of his party accomplishment would be like FDR turning
UTUSN
May 2012
#74
Are you saying that, even after he won the California Democratic Primary and
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#66
One can argue pretty convincingly that, pre-1972, Nelson Rockefeller was to the left of Carter,
coalition_unwilling
May 2012
#68
John Connally would have been an interesting choice but probably too much of a hawk
yellowcanine
May 2012
#52
CONNALY had already declared independence from LBJ & by the time of the JFK trip to Dallas
UTUSN
May 2012
#59
The Texans were all fighting each other but they also all would make nice if it meant
yellowcanine
May 2012
#64
RFK still needed LBJ to at least be somewhat neutral. As for Connoly, he was a political chameleon
yellowcanine
May 2012
#77
My last word is that the premise of the OP is wrong. It would have been HHH/RFK had RFK
yellowcanine
May 2012
#65
I'd have been thrilled with a McCarthy/RFK ticket. But, we got Humpty.
Tierra_y_Libertad
May 2012
#83