Talk:1964 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vice President after JFK assasination?

After the JFK assassination, and when Riggle took over control of the country on 22 Nov 1963 who took LBJ's former role as Vice President? There is never any mention of this. Thank you.

US NAVY man stationed in Naples Italy

That was before the Constitution was amended to provide for selecting a new Vice President. There was no Vice President from Nov. 22, 1963 until Humphrey was sworn in on Jan. 20, 1965. I've added the fact that the office was vacant. JamesMLane 18:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why no debate?

Wikipedia mentions why Nixon refused to debate Humphrey in 1968, and McGovern in 1972, but why was there no Johnson-Goldwater debate in 1964?

SBE

I am not sure, but I believe that at the time, there had never been a debate between an incumbent president and a challenger for the office. It was just "not done", is all, and Johnson had no reason to break precedent. But let me check and see if Ike did it... Ellsworth 16:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 1960 was first TV debate. I think 1976 was first with incumbent (Ford-Carter). I do not think there was one in 1972 (Nixon-McGovern). I doubt there was one in 1968 (Nixon-Humphrey) --JimWae 18:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  • The article on U.S. presidential election debates makes no mention of any presidential debates, televised or otherwise, prior to 1960. So this would tend to confirm that head-to-head debating between major-party candidates is a fairly recent innovation.Ellsworth 19:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ellsworth is correct - until 1976 no President had ever agreed to debate a challenger on television or radio. It was considered to be "beneath the dignity" of the office, and it was also considered foolish for an incumbent to give his challenger equal footing, so to speak. The only reason President Ford agreed to debate Carter in '76 was because he was trailing Carter, badly, in the polls, and he desperately needed to do something to catch up. Plus, Nixon's terrible performance in the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in '60 was blamed by many for his defeat to JFK in that election, and so neither Johnson nor Nixon (in 1968 and '72) had any desire to risk a repeat of that disastrous appearance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnson did not run in the general election in 1968 so any comment as to his desires to participate in a debate or not is pure speculation. Highground79 (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Johnson wasn't a candidate in the general election in '68, the dates listed (1968 and 1972) were for Nixon.

"Consequences" section

I want to dispute the following statement: "The decision to escalate the war caused the party to turn to the far left.." This shows a strong conservative bias; has the author ever heard of the DLC?

The problem with evaluating how liberal the Democratic party has become is that to a conservative, liberals will always seem more liberal than they really are; people in general tend to treat their own views as the political center, and anybody to the right of them is conservative, while anybody to the left of them are liberal.

What the statement basically refers too is the shift from the "Old Left"-which was basically social conservatism and fiscal liberalism too the "New Left"-which was socially liberal too fiscally conservative. After all, wouldn't McGovern, Mondale, Ducakis and arguably Kerry be considered the "far-left"? And the DLC is less conservative than the avarage New Deal-era Democrat. I see no reason too delete it. Est300 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

Electoral picture peculiarity (Red States - Blue States)

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the title of this section (adding "Red States - Blue States"), to make this thread more obvious and more easily found. I had the same question and came here to see if there was a mention of this 'peculiarity'. The thread pointed to above has a nice discussion with the answer. AugustinMa (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

could the heads of wikipedia just switch all the old maps to Dem blue and GOP red? It would be a lot easier for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.15.205 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Eisenhower endorsing Goldwater

I remember watching on a documentary special that former president Eisenhower endorsed Goldwater in a half-hour interview on the ABC network, but it interfered with the then-popular serial Peyton Place, and in turn actually worked against Goldwater because the electorate wanted to watch their show. Can anyone find a source for this? I may have some facts mixed up but I'm pretty sure that's the basic story. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

margin of victory

I've modified this sentence, because according to our own figures it appears to be incorrect:

As of 2006, Johnson's 22% margin of victory in the popular vote is the largest such margin in Presidential election history.

According to our articles, Johnson won this election by a margin of 22.6% (61.1-38.5), while Nixon won the 1972 Presidential election by 23.2% (60.7-37.5), making Johnson's margin of victory in the popular vote the second-largest. --Delirium 22:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Turns out it's actually the fourth-largest: 1920, 1936, and 1972 all had wider margins. Maybe our first sentence should no longer say it was "one of the most lopsided presidential elections in United States history"? Depends on what you consider "one of" I suppose. --Delirium (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Also 1924: margin of 25.2%. But LBJ's 61.1% is, I believe, the highest percentage of the popular vote. Dynzmoar (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MFDP

The following edit contains quite serious charges against a number of people, some of whom may still be alive:

At the national convention the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) demanded all the Mississippi seats although it had not followed party rules and had few voters. To appease the MFDP, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Reuther and the party's liberal leaders offered it two seats. The country's most prestigious civil rights leaders, including Roy Wilkins, Martin Luther King, and Bayard Rustin all accepted the solution (as did all the states except Mississippi and Alabama), but the MFDP, coming under control of Black Power radicals rejected any compromise. It therefore lost liberal support and the convention went smoothly for LBJ without a searing battle over civil rights. <:ref> Evans and Novak (1966) 451-56<:/ref> Johnson carried the South as a whole in the election, but lost the white vote in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina

It is based on a deeply political primary source, not confirmed by a secondary source. That the reversion of this edit also deleted sourced, and as far as I know, undisputed detail makes this yet more regrettable. As for motivation, I shall not conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Scranton's Campaigning for Goldwater

I've corrected the erroneous statement that Scranton failed to endorse Goldwater. Time magazine on September 25, 1964 reported Scranton's campaign schedule of 31 days in 9 states!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,876157,00.html

Scranton thereby managed to make himself look ridiculous after his intemperate attacks on Goldwater pre-convention.

Errors of this kind give Wikipedia a bad reputation.

Dynzmoar 16:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lbj1964.jpg

Image:Lbj1964.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Color of bar under candidate picture/color of map

so there is a blue bar under Johnson, a red one under Goldwater, which is the current de facto color scheme, but where are the GOP states blue and the Dems still red in this map then, if the bars are the modern scheme? I don't get it. I also think why not just make the map the currently and widely used scheme, to make things easier for people to understand and make the map more consistent?Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gov matthew e welsh of indiana.gif

The image Image:Gov matthew e welsh of indiana.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Govrhodes.jpeg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this image from this article. It is being used under fair use rationale on the article concerning his governorship. The image is his official state portrait, and is copyrighted. It has been tagged, and I would rather not have it deleted. Please feel free to add a fair use rationale for this article, or even better, locate a public domain image. Charles Edward 11:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What happend to Nixon

Why was he so unpopular after Kennedy's time and then suddenly so popular winning to elections? What happened? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nixon ran for Governor of California in 1962 and was defeated, badly, by the incumbent Democrat, Edmund G. Brown. The fact that Nixon, a former Vice-President and national figure, had lost a governor's race to Brown, who was viewed nationally as something of an inept bumbler, led many in the news media to write off Nixon as a "dead duck" politically. Nixon didn't help himself with his infamous "last press conference" the morning after losing the California governor's race, in which he appeared to have been drinking heavily (he denied it) and told reporters that "you won't have Nixon to kick around anymore" and that it was his last press conference, as he was quitting politics. However, in 1966 Nixon began to rehabilitate his image by helping GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates in the 1966 elections, and as the Democrats fell into fighting amongst themselves Nixon's stock rose considerably. Two good books to read for all of this are Stephen Ambrose's Nixon: The Education of a Politician and Nixon: The Triumph of a Politician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Error: Johnson as the first Southern candidate elected since Zachary Taylor

This is clearly wrong, Wilson has this distinction, so I am removing the claim from the trivia list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.231.245 (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of definition. Wilson was born in Virginia but was governor of New Jersey when elected. Dynzmoar (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnson considered himself to be as much of a Westerner as a Southerner, and in his failed 1960 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination had promoted himself as a Western-style cattle rancher, not a Southern segregationist (the tactic failed as many liberal delegates labeled him as a Southerner in spite of his efforts). As such, you could argue that no "real" Southerner was elected President until Jimmy Carter in 1976; unlike Johnson Carter had no qualms about advertising his rural Southern background. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sixth most lopsided?

Shouldn't this election be considered the fifth most lopsided, if we're measuring wins by the difference in percentages? Wcp07 (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

California Primary

This map of Democratic primaries shows Brown as the winner of the California primary. This is not quite accurate. There were two slates of Democratic delegates entered in California. Both were listed on the ballot as uncommitted, and both were privately pledged to vote for Lyndon Johnson. The winning slate was headed by Governor Brown, and the losing slate was headed by Mayor Yorty of Los Angeles. (New York Times, June 4, 1964, page 20)70.27.110.11 (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy

Would these be the same results if not greater if President John F Kennedy was not killed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.130.69 (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's speculation, but some historians have argued that JFK would have been re-elected in 1964 had he lived, but would have won by a smaller margin than LBJ. As a native Southerner, Johnson was able to carry some Southern states (such as Texas and the Carolinas) that Kennedy probably would have lost. Goldwater also came very close to winning Florida and some small Western states such as Idaho, and (again, this is speculation) Goldwater might have carried one or more of those states if JFK and not LBJ was running in '64. Kennedy would almost certainly have been re-elected over Goldwater in a landslide, but his popular vote would probably have been in the 57-59% range instead of the 61% LBJ received, and his electoral vote total would probably also have been slightly less. Just my opinion, based on some readings of different historians and journalists regarding the election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.2.144.48 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Later trend

"In future elections these states, along with the rest of the South, would vote increasingly Republican." This may be too broad a statement. The trend was sharply reversed by Carter, who nearly swept the South in 1976. Clinton (1992 & 1996) and Obama (2008) also made some inroads into the all-red South (1984, 1988, 2000, 2004). Dynzmoar (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It said "increasingly" not "entirely" or "uniformly". Besides, Democrats have lost a lot of traction in the South since the 1960's, especially since 2000. Est300 (talk)

Psychiatrists "evaluation"

The following was deleted:

"Fact Magazine published an article polling psychiatrists around the country as to Goldwater's sanity. 1,189 psychiatrists appeared to agree that Goldwater was "emotionally unstable" and unfit for office, though none of the members had actually interviewed Goldwater.Will, George (3 October 2010). "With their hands tied, Democrats pound the table". Atlanta, Georgia: Atlanta Journal-Constitution. pp. A23. The article received heavy publicity. In a libel suit, Goldwater was ultimately awarded $1 in compensation. Along with several other prominent cases, this marked the end of the effectiveness of most civil libel suits in the United States."

It is a fact that Fact magazine did indeed publish this article and that no psychiatrist ever personally evaluated Goldwater. They just didn't like him. But it is true. Know any politician who has successfully used libel to combat wrongful arterial about him? It was common before this which made the editors a lot more chary about printing attacks and innuendo. Nowdays it is routine.

Perhaps another citation can be found. But the material is true. It is there. Not too sure how to get a reference here. The NY Times is hardly going to print this with all of its obvious ramifications. The Times may be accurate but it sticks to subjects it "likes" and "fairness to Republicans" is not terrifically high on their list. Student7 (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Margin of victory

Maybe there should be a separate article on presidents with huge margins of victory. Harding, who went down under the teapot dome scandal. Roosevelt who was supposed to have stopped the Depression, but never did. WW II finally did. It was the longest depression ever, now believed to be extended through his foolish policies. Johnson who pursued a unwinable Vietnam strategy and couldn't win his own party's nomination 4 years later and was forced to withdraw. And Nixon who was forced out of office. This is hardly the matter of laurels that appear here. And are repeated, over and over. Student7 (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Other records

1964 was also the last time that the Democratic candidate was not on a state ballot (Alabama). The unpledged Democratic candidates for electors were segregationists and had George Wallace's endorsement. It's unclear how LBJ supporters voted.

It was also the only time that the Socialist Labor Party finished third, if the unpledged Alabama slate isn't counted as a distinct party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynzmoar (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Observations"

To avoid "observations" which may be merely WP:OR, it is important to have a reliable source actually point this out. It may amuse the editor to point out that the last time a dog peed on a President's leg was in 1845. But this may not meet sufficient notability to be placed in an article. An outside citation is important. Student7 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Formatting changes

Recent edits have made formatting changes which bring this article into conflict with the formatting used in every other presidential election article up to 2012. I reverted most of them and I think they should be discussed before being made again. One is the removal of the "Results by State" table, which doesn't seem to have any valid reason to be done. Next, the standard format for U.S. presidential election articles is to round percentages to one decimal point in the main infobox, but then to provide more complete results to two decimal points in the Results section of the article. I don't see a compelling reason to provide less precise numbers. Also there were changes made to the "Close States" section, removing the number of electoral votes that were decided by close margins, and adding redundant "Democratic by" and "Republican by" labels, which seems like overkill, since the point of that section is to highlight the states that were close, not to focus on who won them, which is already provided by the main infobox electoral map, and in full numerical detail by the Results by State table. Finally I changed a reference to "FDR" back to "Roosevelt"; the previous line mentions "Franklin Roosevelt"; the proper formal way to refer back to him is as Roosevelt, especially since all the other names mentioned (including Johnson/LBJ) refer to them by their surnames, not by initials, and in any event it shouldn't be assumed that readers know that "FDR" refers back to "Franklin Roosevelt". Inqvisitor (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• OH! I see. I thought you'd reverted my recent changes, and I failed to see what you'd done. My mistake.—GoldRingChip 17:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Please find an agreement before making such changes. If agreed upon the new layout, then change all artciles. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Nixon?

Why is Richard Nixon listed as Republican candidate? Nixon declined to run in 1964, because he knew that he would lose to President Johnson. Another defeat would destroy his chances for the presidency in 1968 or later, so he choose not to seek the nomination. Likely he thought about running before JFKs death, but after November 1963 Nixon made the decision not to campgaign in the 1964 election. Or are there sources which prove that Nixon wanted seriously to run? --91.103.112.54 (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Helpful link?

Came across this archived NY Times link on the results of the election written in 1964, might be of use: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/12/specials/johnson-goldwater.html

--Wowaconia (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

wrong word in describing a change

Today, March 31, 2015, I used "loser" where "lower" was intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pat Brown?

Pat Brown never seriously campaigned for president or against Johnson. As far as I know he was supposed to be his running mate. --89.13.123.137 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States presidential election, 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120220092200/http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=R&campaign_id=168 to http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=R&campaign_id=168

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential election, 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5lHSBSuc4 to http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110413151441/http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/reagan_southern_strategy/index.html to http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/03/reagan_southern_strategy/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

West Virginia Electoral Votes

Numbers in map add up to 537 (I believe West Virginia is 7, not 6) 28th September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.29.176.52 (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. Both the 1964 and 1968 election maps erroneously indicate 6 electoral votes for West Virginia when it should have 7. West Virginia had 5 congressional districts in the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guns of Brixton (talk • contribs) 09:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Notes for Later Editing

Freedom Now was a minor African-American Party that considered running its own candidate for the Presidency; names discussed here were Gloria Richardson of the Cambridge Movement, and Albert Cleage who was a major Civil Rights and Religious figure in Detroit, Michigan. [1]

States Rights Party had a Convention in Louisville, Kentucky, where they nominated John Kasper for President and Jesse Stoner for Vice President. Article also mentions that George Lincoln Rockwell attempted to gain entrance into the convention, but was turned away by Edward Fields for being a "known leftist". [2]

Unpledged Elector Movement Gains Steam in Louisiana - April 11th, 1964 [3] --Ariostos (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)