Talk:United States presidential election, 1964

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Please see Wikipedia:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy for standards for all "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages.

Contents

[edit] Vice President after JFK assasination?

After the JFK assassination, and when LBJ 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)