Martin Luther King Jr

[Mister Gee]

Was assassinated fifty years ago today, A wonderful human being and an inspiration to many.

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Mister Gee

[Calahonda]

Was assassinated fifty years ago today, A wonderful human being and an inspiration to many.

 

 

Yes, he finally got Bobby Kennedy onboard, only for the two of them not to see the decade out. I was looking forward to a Kennedy administration with Dr King being an integral part of it, not tricky dicky and co.

[blake]

by no means certain that RFK would have even been the Democratic nominee had he lived, never mind the eventual president. He would have won most of the primaries, but that doesn't mean that he would have got the nomination. The system was different back then.

 

Nixon was a formidable opponent and don't forget that. Also although a lot of people, especially the Camelot worshipping and the younger antiwar crowd, did like Kennedy, a lot of other people didn't like Kennedy at all. Wallace may have got more than the 5 states that he did eventually get in 1968 if RFK and not Humphrey was on the Dems ticket. RFK would certainly not have coasted it. If he had managed to become president in 1968, like his brother before him, he would only have won by the very narrowest of margins.

[Calahonda]

by no means certain that RFK would have even been the Democratic nominee had he lived, never mind the eventual president. He would have won most of the primaries, but that doesn't mean that he would have got the nomination. The system was different back then.

 

Nixon was a formidable opponent and don't forget that. Also although a lot of people, especially the Camelot worshipping and the younger antiwar crowd, did like Kennedy, a lot of other people didn't like Kennedy at all. Wallace may have got more than the 5 states that he did eventually get in 1968 if RFK and not Humphrey was on the Dems ticket. RFK would certainly not have coasted it. If he had managed to become president in 1968, like his brother before him, he would only have won by the very narrowest of margins.

 

Kennedy would have won the Catholic and black vote, and with MLK on the case he would have taken the anti war vote. Nixon couldn’t beat JFK and there was a lot of sympathy post the assassination. As you say it was bound to be close, he was never going to win the conservative vote, but there were a lot more Latino voters than when his brother won, his big problem was that he didn’t have Jackie for his wife.

 

Interesting though isn’t it?

[blake]

RFK was more of a family man than his brother. He had 11 kids for crying out loud even though had he become president in 1968, he would have been the youngest ever, younger than his brother.

 

the legend is that RFK on the backs of blacks, hippies, sundry other unstables, and white liberals in the cities of which there were a lot fewer back then than there is now, would have coasted it in 1968. But it wouldn't have been like that at all. If people in places like France had been allowed to vote, RFK probably would have won easily. Otherwise he would have had a real job on.

 

I think Nixon would probably have won regardless. You wouldn't be the only one that struggles to realise that the US in the late sixties was a much more conservative country than it looked like on television. This is a stage in American politics when the Democrats were struggling to win any presidential elections at all. With most of them, they lost massively and the very few that they did win, they only just squeezed past the line. JFK only just squeaked it in 1960 by the seat of his pants, and contentiously too.

 

RFK's reputation in the civil rights arena would have been a double edged sword. Yes, it would have increased black turnout and in several key states blacks voting was important. But his reputation as a civil rights liberal would have cost him more votes and possibly more states in the south that Humphrey lost to Wallace.

[Calahonda]

RFK was more of a family man than his brother. He had 11 kids for crying out loud even though had he become president in 1968, he would have been the youngest ever, younger than his brother.

 

the legend is that RFK on the backs of blacks, hippies, sundry other unstables, and white liberals in the cities of which there were a lot fewer back then than there is now, would have coasted it in 1968. But it wouldn't have been like that at all. If people in places like France had been allowed to vote, RFK probably would have won easily. Otherwise he would have had a real job on.

 

I think Nixon would probably have won regardless. You wouldn't be the only one that struggles to realise that the US in the late sixties was a much more conservative country than it looked like on television. This is a stage in American politics when the Democrats were struggling to win any presidential elections at all. With most of them, they lost massively and the very few that they did win, they only just squeezed past the line. JFK only just squeaked it in 1960 by the seat of his pants, and contentiously too.

 

RFK's reputation in the civil rights arena would have been a double edged sword. Yes, it would have increased black turnout and in several key states blacks voting was important. But his reputation as a civil rights liberal would have cost him more votes and possibly more states in the south that Humphrey lost to Wallace.

 

l suggest that you google Bobby’s probable extramarital affairs, his father(who had 9 kids)was a womaniser, JFK was a noted womaniser, kid brother Teddy was a womaniser, the apple doesn’t often fall far from the tree. And as for the family man with 11 kids, what’s that to do with it ‘for crying out loud’?

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calahonda

[blake]

he had a lot more kids 11 vs 4, than John F. And Jackie Kennedy wasn't as much of a vote winner as you may think. She might have been popular with the Vanity Fair set. But she didn't go down anything like as well in Kansas and Missouri. There was a touch of Imelda Marcos about Jackie Kennedy. Camelot looked a lot better to people in Europe than it did to a lot of other people in the US who are the ones that actually vote.

 

JFK would have probably won in 1964. He had more chance of winning that election than RFK had in '68, but it wouldn't have been by the landslide that Johnson got.

[Calahonda]

he had a lot more kids 11 vs 4, than John F. And Jackie Kennedy wasn't as much of a vote winner as you may think. She might have been popular with the Vanity Fair set. But she didn't go down anything like as well in Kansas and Missouri. There was a touch of Imelda Marcos about Jackie Kennedy. Camelot looked a lot better to people in Europe than it did to a lot of other people in the US who are the ones that actually vote.

 

JFK would have probably won in 1964. He had more chance of winning that election than RFK had in '68, but it wouldn't have been by the landslide that Johnson got.

 

What is your fascination with the 11 kids? JFK and Jackie had two kids in reality, plus one still birth and one that lasted 2 days. Jackie unpopular eh, you’ll have to work hard on that one, Imelda Marcos indeed, don’t bother with a reply, you’re talking rubbish.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Calahonda

[blake]

all the Camelot thing which Jackie epitomised just wasn't all that popular. It went down OK in Europe, and in more 'sophisticated' US circles but not necessarily in the USA hinterland where elections are won and lost. RFK would have been better advised to appeal to the kind of rustbelt people who couldn't relate to Camelot at all, and who now have enabled Trump to be the president.