How bad did the '68 riots hurt the democrats?

[DrWeird]

Because I can't help but think the riots-to-be during the NYC Republican Convention will be a stake through the heart of their campaign. And I say "riot-to-be" because it must be a foregone conclusion by now. The way things are looking for Bush, the war, a million plus angry protestors being pushed around by abusive police, Michael Moore's new film, the late summer heat, and several days of protest should equal a riot to rival the WTO riots in Seattle and Rome, "free speech zones" or no. And the more violent the police, the more angry people will get, and more protestors will come out of the woodwork.

[WI_DEM]

1. it hurt the democrats

because it was a metaphor of what was happening in the country in that year with riots not only at the convention but in most of our largest cities as well against Vietnam and on civil rights. It also hurt because people thought "if the democrats can't control their own convention--how can they manage the country?"

[vetwife]

6. I agree..We lost didn't we....

and got stuck with Tricky Dick !
How come every time we get a Dick in the White House. america gets.......,,Uh never mind !

[bobbieinok]

23. Democrats lost because anti-war purists refused to vote for HHH

[tabasco]

26. That's right. Perfect was the enemy of good.

Humphrey was a damn great American and this country would be SO much better of if he had been elected.

[greatauntoftriplets]

28. Sigh. Humphrey was too closely associated with LBJ's failed policies.

If only RFK hadn't been killed....

On edit: I was too young to vote at the time. Had I been 21, I would have voted for Humphrey.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

2. the difference is in '68

the rioters were liberals angry with a liberal party

this year it will be liberals going after the GOP. my fear is that the media will try to make it look like the democrats were behind anything that might happen

[Bandit]

3. I think the Democrats won everything that year but the main prize

Back then we were a liberal movement that was just starting to be felt. We knew the Republicans would Never adopt anything we wanted but the Democrats at least listened. Some did that is.

[ewagner]

4. I think it hurt

because it was seen as a culture war. Remember, we were just beginning to awaken from our decade-long snooze of the 50's and early 60's. We still believed that the "normal" American Family was the Cleavers....Mom, Dad, Wally, and of course, The Beaver.

The people who demonstratedin Chicago didn't look like the Cleavers. They were foreigners to most of middle America.

[Jose Diablo]

15. Yep, youthful beavers

Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver were not happy with Wally, the Beav' and don't forget Eddie.

:D

[tritsofme]

5. I don't know if it will have the same effect,

In 1968 not only were we knee deep in blood from Vietnam, we had one of the most messy nomination battles in history.

I think these days people are more snooty and will look down at the protestors and undesirables and trouble makers. That's why I pray the guys that go over there to protest do not get violent.

[AP]

13. Anyone who thinks Republicans don't want riots is fooling self.

Bush wants riots.

Nixon's advance people in '72 PLANNED riots. In the watergate hearings they had letters from advance people describing how they expected protests. WH officials had written "good" and "excellent" and "!!!" in the margins.

Really, they drive people to the right.

I wouldn't be surprised if Republicans will run false flag operations trying to encourage rioting.

The news after the last two marches in NYC (since the convention was scheduled) had stories about police provoking peaceful marchers. It's so obvious to me that they were testing techniques for the convention.

[NMDemDist2]

7. since LBJ declined to run as the imcumbent that year

i think that had more to do with the dems losing, plus Nixon was a household name and with all the chit hitting the fan, I don't wonder that folks longed for the old "I Like Ike" days.

the riots were a part, but more LBJ giving up the ticket IMO (but I was only 13 at the time)

[bluestateguy]

8. Among other reasons for choosing New York City

Is that if there is violence in the streets the Republicans and their echo machine can wave the bloody shirt: "These police and firefighters have sacrificed so much for their country and these thugs are spitting in their faces", blah, blah, blah.

[Trailrider1951]

9. What really hurt the Democrats in 1968 was the murder of our front-runner

on June 5, 1968, after he won the California primary. The party was in terrible dissaray going into the convention, with a split right down the middle between pro-war Hubert Humphrey and anti-war Eugene McCarthy. The GOP benefited and Nixon was elected.:puke:

[NMDemDist2]

10. so true so true and HHH was weak at best eom

[AP]

12. Then wha'ts the excuse for '72? Anti-war protests benefitted Nixon just

as much as Chicago convention riots.

[Jose Diablo]

16. Body bags

Bringin' the Beav' home.

Nixon said he would end it.

[AP]

17. Nixon won becaue of body bags?

[Jose Diablo]

19. Vietnam

Mr. and Mrs, Cleaver came to view Vietnam as a disaster. Nixon promised to stop it and he did.

It was like the victorian view that changed when WWI finished. You had the the 50-60's filled with news clips of victories in WWII/Korea. People went into Vietnam with like a victorian view of war. Marching off into glorious battle and all that 'grass processed by bovines'.

Then the body bags came home. Friends and neighbors saw the results and said what have we done?

Mr. and Mrs Cleaver voted for Nixon because he said he would end it.

Seems like that lesson got forgot after 9-11.

[AP]

20. He ended the draft just before '72 election, which people believed was....

...a sign he was ending it, but he didn't end it for a little while longer, and not because he was trying to be responsive to the public will.

I'll say this again: during the Watergate investigation, documents were presented to the public which showed that during the '72 race, Nixon was trying to provoke protests. It was probably because they felt that it would make moderates vote Republican.

[Jose Diablo]

21. Well protests or not

Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver decide who is president. Even with corrupt voting. Trust me when I say vote fraud didn't begin with the computers.

I see your point though about agent provocateurs.

Still, the Cleavers trusted the government in 72. That trust was not broken until after the election and Watergate got a full steam coverage in the media. Then Mr. Cleaver said, "I think Nixon is being railroaded" and Mrs. Cleaver said, "I think Nixon should not be president". Congress listened to Mrs. Cleaver and out he went. Of course, the tapes helped Congress decide this too. When the tapes showed what a rat Nixon was and how much he cussed (this made a lot of people mad also).

From what I remember, the general population was split on Nixon, until the tapes. And even after the tapes, many, just like today didn't care one way or the other.

[bobbieinok]

22. Nixon swearing on tape cost him the support of the conservative Christian

[union_maid]

25. McGovern was a good man, but the wrong candidate

The Republicans chose their candidate. They wante to knock Muskie out and apparently they did, but in retrospect, I guess he wasn't tough enough for the nasty game that is presidential politics. Muskie seemed to have a better shot to resonate with the swing vote than McGovern who was perceived as too liberal to govern the whole nation. It's always about the swing vote. Ironic, isn't it? It's always about the minority of people who don't really think about politics all year and decide on a candidate in the weeks just before an election and only have a general idea of the issues facing the country. Ironic, but true.

[bobbieinok]

24. read up on the republican dirty tricks of 72 and CREP, watergate breakin

Hunter Thopson - Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail

also The Boys on the Back of the Bus

[AP]

11. Drove people in the middle into arms of law and order republicans.

Lots of people thought, hey, maybe there should be a limit to freedoms. Maybe we need a little repression. Mabye the Republican world view is right.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Oh yeah it hurt us real bad...we continued to have a firm grip on the

house and/or senate for decades after that passing some of the best environmental and labor policy and and finally acknowledging women's issues......along with protecting the little guy...I love the crap that gets posted here about how the 60's put us back...prove it.

LET THE FUCKING RIOTS BEGIN!

[denverbill]

18. There were a LOT of factors in 1968.

Don't forget George Wallace, a conservative Democrat, split off a LOT of the Democratic vote in the South. Look at the popular vote, even with Wallace included.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/national.php?year=1968

Richard Nixon Spiro Agnew Republican 31,783,783
Hubert Humphrey Edmund Muskie Democratic 31,271,839
George Wallace Curtis LeMay American Ind. 9,901,118

[tinanator]

27. there wont be any riots

unless the police start them. I dont think they will.
It will be a remarkable display of the same cooperative, peaceful power and determination that has prevailed at all the many HUGE protests GW has united in the last 4 years.