I don’t know what’s misleading. Facts is facts.
I tried to be succinct and write as little as necessary. This medium demands it.
I was actually pretty close to all these events, and some of the players.
I suppose we would actually agree on why things turned out the way it did, but nonetheless history tells us that dropping in a new nominee is a good way to lose.
The world would have been a better place had Robert Kennedy not been killed.
Fair enough about the need to be succinct (that has obviously never been a strong suit of mine), and yes, your first comment was technically factually correct, but the context of Johnson being a weakened candidate who thought he probably was going to lose if he stayed in is important. My argument would be that in situations where we dropped in a new nominee we were already pretty screwed for other reasons, and the need to switch nominees was just a symptom of that.
I was actually pretty close to all these events, and some of the players.
Y’know, I’ve actually kind of gotten that impression. I kinda hate to get into personal/individual account stuff, but I’ve read a lot of your comments at this point and speaking as someone whose own direct campaign experience has been limited to volunreering and chatting with the paid campaign staff, you remind me of some of them in a lot of hard to articulate ways. For lack of a less judgemental way to put it, some of your comments make me think “yeah, this guy gets how it works” and the rest make me think “this guy is everything wrong with the Democratic party!” I only ever seem to end up responding to the ones I disagree with, but either way it’s a perspective I appreciate.
The world would have been a better place had Robert Kennedy not been killed.
110% agreed, even more than Humphrey he was the one who should have won that election. I wasn’t alive for The 1968 election, but just reading about the history of it is heartbreaking.
