Clinton '16 and LBJ '68

At this time in 1967, President Johnson was ahead in polls and looked like a sure bet for the 1968 nomination.  Enter Senator McCarthy, and things changed in New Hampshire.  (For the record, the 1968 NH primary was March 1968, or a bit later in that cycle than we are in this one.)

Today, Secretary Clinton has a big lead, but it is getting smaller.    

As the world turns, Senator Sanders is gaining on Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire.  One poll is an exception.  A second poll may be a sign of things to come.  This is from The Washington Times:

The survey by Suffolk University found the 41 percent of likely Democratic primary voters would back Hillary, while 31 percent said they’d back the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a Socialist.

Maybe the Hillary Clinton staff should go back and read a book about the 1968 campaign.

Back then, Senator McCarthy lost to President Johnson in New Hampshire.  However, McCarthy’s strong showing proved that President Johnson was not electable because of the Vietnam War.  It also proved that the excitement was with McCarthy and not LBJ.

President Johnson quit the race less than a month later.

Again,  McCarthy did not defeat LBJ.  He just showed how vulnerable the president was.

Sanders may do the same thing to the Clinton campaign.  I agree with R.E. Tyrell, Jr.:

From my conversations with Democrats and with media types, I sense their unease with Hillary. They would rather not talk about her problems. They acknowledge them but rush on to cite the multiplicity of candidates in the Republican field. My answer to them is that a multiplicity of good candidates is better than the Democrats’ scarcity of candidates. They know I am right, and in the weeks ahead their unease will grow.

All of my senses tell me that Clinton will be the nominee.  Let me add a couple of thoughts:

1) I would not be shocked if her candidacy implodes later this year.

2) I would not be surprised if a lot of Democrats are hoping for an implosion – i.e., a post-Clinton party free of all of these scandals and problems.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

At this time in 1967, President Johnson was ahead in polls and looked like a sure bet for the 1968 nomination.  Enter Senator McCarthy, and things changed in New Hampshire.  (For the record, the 1968 NH primary was March 1968, or a bit later in that cycle than we are in this one.)

Today, Secretary Clinton has a big lead, but it is getting smaller.    

As the world turns, Senator Sanders is gaining on Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire.  One poll is an exception.  A second poll may be a sign of things to come.  This is from The Washington Times:

The survey by Suffolk University found the 41 percent of likely Democratic primary voters would back Hillary, while 31 percent said they’d back the Vermont senator, an independent who identifies as a Socialist.

Maybe the Hillary Clinton staff should go back and read a book about the 1968 campaign.

Back then, Senator McCarthy lost to President Johnson in New Hampshire.  However, McCarthy’s strong showing proved that President Johnson was not electable because of the Vietnam War.  It also proved that the excitement was with McCarthy and not LBJ.

President Johnson quit the race less than a month later.

Again,  McCarthy did not defeat LBJ.  He just showed how vulnerable the president was.

Sanders may do the same thing to the Clinton campaign.  I agree with R.E. Tyrell, Jr.:

From my conversations with Democrats and with media types, I sense their unease with Hillary. They would rather not talk about her problems. They acknowledge them but rush on to cite the multiplicity of candidates in the Republican field. My answer to them is that a multiplicity of good candidates is better than the Democrats’ scarcity of candidates. They know I am right, and in the weeks ahead their unease will grow.

All of my senses tell me that Clinton will be the nominee.  Let me add a couple of thoughts:

1) I would not be shocked if her candidacy implodes later this year.

2) I would not be surprised if a lot of Democrats are hoping for an implosion – i.e., a post-Clinton party free of all of these scandals and problems.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.