Chicago 1968 Commentary

Was the Convention a success or a failure?

The Convention was not a success, but it failed on its purpose for several reasons. One, there was so much massacre due to confrontation that was going on between members of the public and the police. Lives were left in the unrest, and there was no order after the Convention (Musser, 2021). It was a convention that experienced too much chaos, disorder, and even unrest. The connections were also not a success because they saw Martin Luther King killed. He was one of the most promising and brave leaders who could have taken the American presidency. However, his life was lost in an assassination that has never been uncovered.

Did the Democrats pick a good candidate? How does he compare to Nixon?

The Democrats were very accurate in the selection of the candidate. The candidate was up-and-coming and had the potential to be the president. Under his presidency, American could have enjoyed the best presidential leadership ever. He had learned a lot to lead a country from his boss, the former president. He had acquired skills as well as knowledge in the presidency. Therefore, he was a ready candidate for his boss when he served as the vice president. Thus, Democrats had a good selection of a candidate. From polls, it was even sure that Hubert Humphrey could have won the election were it not for his negligence over FBI Surveillance. If he could have used this surveillance to his advantage, he could have won the election, bearing in mind the small margin of votes that made Nixon the president (Boomhower, 2020).

There were a lot of differences between Hubert Humphrey and Nixon that made Hubert Humphrey a better presidential candidate. One, he was a peace-loving mind. After informing Lyndon Johnson that Nixon was planning to use China-assisted support to compromise the election results (Critchlow, 2018), he opted not to confront Nixon and his team. He opted to let the ballot deice, but he eventually lost to Nixon, who is believed to have compromised the votes and results.

Hubert Humphrey was not as corrupt as Nixon was. He had the advantage of using the presidential system, comprising the election results, and winning the poll. However, he chose to retain election integrity and even decided to retain his race to the presidency as clean as possible, unlike Nixon, who planned to use all corrupt earns to win the polls.

Hubert Humphrey did not have the guts for the election as Nixon displayed. Nixon was obsessed with winning the election, and he had all the determination with him. Unlike Nixon, Hubert Humphrey did not even mind the advantage that FBI surveillance could have given him during the election. If he capitalized on FBI surveillance, it could have been possible for him to cover and even surpass the small margin of win that had been set by Nixon (Chambliss, 2018).

Certainly, Hubert Humphrey was also a coward and never had the guts to confront the ill in the election. He had all the information and the plans to leak votes Nixon had. He never knew the machinery in place that was to ad Nixon win the election. However, he was brave enough to blow the whistle. Thus, no matter how much support people tried to give him, he lost the election. Even though his supporters’ voters were close to winning his presidency, the deceitful strategies used by Nixon gave him a small margin win. This would be a win that Nixon could never have if Hubert Humphrey were brave enough to disclose the ills and corrupt strategies that Nixon had in place to compromise polls.

Is he likely to win back white Democrats who are likely to support Wallace?

If Hubert Humphrey was to run for the presidential position once again, he is likely to win even from white people supporting Wallace. One reason he is likely to win is that he would suffer from setbacks experienced during 1968. During this time, there was a significant divide among democrats. There were not set to win as they were much divided. This meant they had no common voice and could not mobilize their votes. However, under the unity of democrats, Hubert Humphrey had a high likelihood of winning over Wallace.

Secondly, he is likely to take the significant contribution of FBI surveillance during the election period. This would help Hubert Humphrey seal any loophole meant to compromise the pools. Thus, he would squarely win over Wallace. He is likely to set a high margin to cover up for Wallace. During the 1968 election, he lost become of not working closely with the FBI for surveillance purposes.

Furthermore, he would start his campaign early enough like any other candidate. In his 1968 presidential bid, he declared his candidature when it was just late. Thus, he never had time to leverage the full support he could have received from his supporters. If he is to run again for the same position, he would understand the early campaign’s role in winning the election. He is likely to leverage his popularity and win the election with ease.

Did the protesters change things for good or ill?

The protests were inevitable, and there was a lot that was changed. The Vietnam War ended as America was wishing (Harewood, 2021). They had reached a point where they felt the war was baseless and was headed nowhere. Therefore, ending the war was all Americans wanted, and it finally ended. Secondly, there was a withdrawal of American soldiers from Vietnam. Americans felt that their soldiers were being killed in a war that was not prosing anything. Therefore, they wanted their sons to withdraw from the bate field and return to their families. After the arrest of more than 660 protesters and more than 1000 sustaining injuries, it was inevitable, but US troops had to be withdrawn. It was a protection that was deadly but fully inevitable for America.