Hi Michael, thank you so much for hosting this AMA!

I've often seen Nixon's platform in 1968 described as being founded upon "watered-down" elements of Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign. Were the two campaigns and platforms intrinsically linked / similar in their fundamental assertions, or is this an over-simplification? Nixon obviously was not campaigning for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act, so in that he clearly didn't mirror Goldwater, but how did their platforms compare in other areas?

Thank you very much for doing this AMA, Mr. Cohen! If I may ask, would it be possible to elaborate on George Wallace's political strategy in the elections and the legacy of his candidacy in future campaigns as far as rhetoric goes? Was he seen as a "protest" candidate at the time?

How much did the summer months, with the assassination of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King along with the riots in the major cities change the tone of the election between the spring and fall?

So looking at the decade following the 1968 election, what do you see as the cause of what seems to be a 'split' in the Republican party, and the success of the "Moral Majority" wing, so to speak? Perhaps my understanding is a bit off, but it seems that by 1980, the division is pretty clear and the coalescing with Falwell's group, mobilizing Christian voters for the Republican Party, was pretty big, but not necessarily universal, as can be seen with Republican John B. Anderson's attempt to run as an independent. Did Anderson represent a real, alternative path that the Republican party might have gone down, or was he more just an aberration with little resonance in the Republican base by that time?

I really appreciate all the questions. It's always fun for me to talk about 1968! I have to run but feel free to submit any additional questions and I'll try to take a stab at them tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks again ... and if you haven't already - buy the book!

• Michael

Thanks for being here Michael,

Nixon was relatively more progressive than Kennedy on Civil Rights in the 1960 election, but a brilliant strategic move by Kennedy with speaking out against MLK's recent arrest swung the African American vote to the Democrats. Later in 1964 Goldwater took several solid stances against Civil Rights legislation, which later led to the the defection of many Southern Democrats to the Republican party and of course we know that Nixon devised the 'Southern Strategy' to win help him win the White House.

How much moral and ethical conflict did this cause for Nixon, who had been fairly progressive with Civil Rights earlier in his career, to play towards a more racist base in order to win the White House?

What I found most interesting was Nixon in the lead-up to 1968.

Did he meet resistance within the party trying to establish himself as the party elder gearing up for a run? This year for example, the GOP primary was so crowded I know Governor Bush met some (though not a lot) of resistance within the party and had to fight to gather the campaign team he wanted amongst other candidates like Governor Walker, Senator Cruz, Governor Kasich. Nixon moving to New York, baiting LBJ into slapping him down, etc etc kind of seems very forthright and almost as if he determined, by himself, that he was leading the party. Was anyone trying to put him back in his place in the lead-up to the election to make room for Rockefeller/Romney?

I know the book discussed how he seemed different and I think someone said "cuter" if memory serves. Was there backlash on the ground with voters as he was running again? Modern sensibilities kind of make me think that he'd be met with scorn for being so ambitious and relentlessly trying to get elected.

Nixon's run just seems so incredibly impossible with today's electorate it was so fascinating.

Thank you in advance for doing this AMA. My question is, how much - if at all - does urban versus rural demographics factor into the politics of division in the 1968 election?

In your opinion, did Ronald Reagan have a serious chance at winning the 1968 primaries?

During the 2016 election, many comparisons were made to the 1968 election in it's tone, it's heated rhetoric, and it's divisiveness, which you often wrote on your twitter and in your columns was a bad comparison.

For the sake of our readers who don't want to go digging back to find those explanations for why the 2016 election doesn't compare to the 1968 one, (without getting into stating political opinions about Trump or Clinton, of course), could you explain why the elections are so different and why those comparisons were bad?

First off let me just say how much I loved the book! I bought the audiobook and it made my commute into work so much better! My question to you is 2 parts 1. Do you think that if Humphrey had made his Salt Lake City Speech at the DNC he would have won? 2. What kind of President do you think Humphrey would have been?

Hello Michael, thanks for joining us.

So one thing that interests me about 1968 is it's impact on the political coalitions that tied together the two major parties. With regards to the New Deal coalition in particular, would you say the election is the one that mortally wounded it or did that come earlier/later?

Similarly, between 1968 and 1972, which election discouraged the left of that time more when the results came in? Or were they both tied together in those people's minds.

How did most voters (or the different segments of voters, if you want to go into that) perceive the choice before them in the fall election as it regards Vietnam?

Hope I haven't missed this.

How badly was Nixon hated by Democrats in 1968? Was he "the loyal opposition" or more "Totally beyond the pale." When I listen to stuff like Phil Ochs' cover "Here's to the State of Richard Nixon" I get the impression it was pretty poisonous. Was it as toxic as it is today?

Obviously this is a subjective question, but do you consider 1968 to be a bigger realignment than 1964?

Not to hog up your time but I do have one more question, you mention that Eugene McCarthy ran as a challenge to Johnson and the Vietnam War and that he never liked campaigning or even thought he could win. Why did he run so many times in the future? Did he regret not working more passionately to win the nomination or did he just like to present a platform and try to give it a voice?

In case you come back, I'd like to ask you a question submitted by /u/yodatsracist that I'm also very curious about and didn't get an answer: "In the 1950's and 60's, what made people vote Republican or Democrat? It wasn't just a question of conservative or liberal yet, and I'm having trouble understanding how groups chose one candidate or the other."

My own questions:

Why was 1952-1972 a period of electoral landslides?

Regarding 1968-present, what's Roger Ailes's role in shaping modern politics?

Where and when do/did wedge issues and "culture wars" come into play?

Thanks!

What has been the result on the Democratic party of the events which you portray in your book? How has the "politics of division" impacted Democratic strategy and make up?

What effect did this election have on the internal divisions of the Democrat Party? I often read or hear about the Democrats having a moderate and a progressive wing usually starting from 68. Did this division emerge or become more apparent in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy won the New Hampshire primary against Johnson?

Thanks for doing this! Is it fair to say that nationwide polarization of our two parties as of say 1994 makes our system less stable, more vulnerable to rapid swings due to internal dynamics of even just one party?

This may be a reductionist question, but what singular social trend was the election of 1968 best representative of?

I do not know if this is true or not but it does make some sense. That "radical liberals" grew up to be conservative and vice versa. How true is that?

I thought I'd ask another question because why not.

I remember reading somewhere years ago that LBJ actually considered re-entering the race at the convention. As limited as counter-factual history can be, what would have happened if LBJ either stayed in the race, or jumped back in?

Thank you Michael for joining us for this AMA today! I just want to leave a brief reminder, given the political topic, for the readers here of the 20 Year Rule. Questions which are seeking to historically contextualize and find historical precedents for the modern political scene are welcome, and you will find few more suited than Mr. Cohen when asking about the developments of the last five or six decades, but we still will remove questions which are entirely about modern politics, or which unnecessarily grandstand in order to make a point as opposed to an honest inquiry. Thank you!

I'm beginning to start doing my dissertation planning and am thinking of doing it on Bobby Kennedy's 1968 presidential run; which I know is a rather niche topic.

I was wondering to what importance you give Bobby's run, and subsequent death in the wider narrative of the 1960's liberalism, and the conservative backlash that was seen in the 1970's and 1980s? Lots of the stuff written about Bobby's campaign presents him as being the only person in America who could have bridged the divide between African-Americans/White Working class voters/Anti-war students.

Likewise would you see any parallels between Kennedy's run in 1968, and Obama's campaign in 2008?