Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:16:36.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Whom Did Wallace Hurt in 1968?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Richard A. Brody
Richard A. Brody
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Communications
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , September 1976 , pp. 924 - 926
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Favorability is measured here by candidate “thermometer” ratings in the SRC sample and by a Likert scale in the ORC sample. Previous studies have shown that the two formats yield identical results as far as the decision rules are concerned.

2 If we were willing to assume that the observed distribution of “second preferences” held throughout the region, in the South, Humphrey would have had popular majorities in all five of the states that Wallace carried in 1968 (including Georgia and Arkansas where Humphrey ran third). In the six southern states that Nixon carried, however, a combination of Wallace weakness and Nixon strength means that Humphrey would not have gained a majority of the popular vote in any of these six states. In the 26 states outside of the South that Nixon carried, Humphrey's slight lead as “second preference” to Wallace, would not have helped him at all. Even in Ohio, Missouri and New Jersey, (where distribution of the Wallace vote in accord with the division for the entire non-southern region gives Humphrey his greatest boost, he falls short of the requisite majority. Thus under the assumption of uniform distribution, Humphrey gains all of Wallace's 45 electoral votes but still comes up short in the final tally.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.