Jump to content

Talk:Hubert Humphrey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primaries

[edit]

Was it true in '68 that HHH had not only failed to win any primaries but had not even entered any? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyToday (talk • contribs) 05:03, 28 June 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's correct. Humphrey, who was serving as Johnson's VP, would not have challenged Johnson, so Humphrey's campaign didn't even begin until April, soon after Johnson's announcement that he wouldn't be a candidate. There were many fewer primaries then, and I think that, by the time Humphrey got in, all the filing deadlines had passed. JamesMLane 28 June 2005 09:57 (UTC)

Until 1972 presidential candidates did not necessarily have to campaign in the primaries to win their party's presidential nomination. There were only about 15 or 16 presidential primaries, not enough to actually win the nomination. In most states the delegates were chosen by party leaders (governors, senators, and mayors of large cities) and many presidential candidates appealed directly to these "bosses" for delegate support instead of competing in primaries. In those days the primaries were usually seen as "beauty contests" in which poorly-known or underdog candidates could demonstrate their popularity with voters and thus impress the state bosses who actually controlled most of the delegate votes. However, Humphrey was the last presidential candidate from either party to win a nomination without competing in any primaries; after the disastrous 1968 Democratic Convention the party would change its nominating process so that the only way to win the nomination was through the primaries. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Beginning in 1972 the number of state primaries increased dramatically, and by the 1980s the old practice of having state "bosses" choose delegates to the national conventions was virtually extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lehrer song

[edit]

The song by Tom Lehrer is mentioned three separate times: in the 1968 Presidential election section, the Trivia section, and the See Also section. Each one mentions pretty much the same thing and so I think it is redundant to mention it three times. Where is the proper place for it to be mentioned in the text? Tommy11111 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

[edit]

It was proposed at WP:RM that this article be renamed to Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Jr.. I disagree with the move, per WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things. I'm posting here, anyway, to create a place for discussion of the proposal. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But not Senator Goldwater"

[edit]

That speech deserves mention.71.178.239.117 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice speech. I added a quote from Time about it.--Appraiser 13:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential and Vice-Presidential ambitions (1952–1964)

[edit]

The start of the 2nd paragraph reads: "Although a life-long opponent of bigotry, Humphrey used Kennedy's Catholicism against him in the West Virginia primary." The wording strongly implies that Humphrey attacked Kennedy on the basis of his religion. If this is the case, it should be noted; if not, the sentenced should be rephrased.Plazak 22:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that Humphrey intentionally had rallied the anti-Catholic sentiment, but in a quest to find a citation for that, I found that he did not do that. He was frustrated though that Kennedy was using the issue to imply that people who voted for Humphrey were bigots. So, I changed the first sentence and added a citation, which really covers the whole topic.--Appraiser 13:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durham-Humphrey amendment

[edit]

I think that HHH's most lasting legacy is his co-authorship of the legislation that created the category of prescription-only medications. (Ironic, that. He wanted to go back to college to get degrees in poly-sci, and turns out that he needed that three-year Ph.G. degree in his political career as well...) Shalom S. (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Attempts to Join the Military?

[edit]

Given the intense conscription pressure and the enormous manpower needs during WW II, it seems very unlikely that Humphrey -- who campaigned so vigorously later in life -- would have been rejected by the military for a hernia. It seems quite likely that Humphrey came up with that explanation for his lack of service during a big, popular war, but just speaking as a person who has been drafted, I know that excuses such as hernias or poor hearing were routinely brushed aside and the people were indeed drafted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey did suffer from a hernia for many years, and in fact sometimes had to wear a truss (medicine), so he wasn't making that up as an excuse. As to whether he could still have served in the military in some capacity during the war, I of course don't know. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Solberg's bio says HHH had both a hernia (reported by most sources) and calcified lungs. It also describes his as a very unhealthy adolescent and young adult who used to pass out regularly. So there's more here than just the hernia. However, hernias were potentially disqualifying. I Don't recall just off hand what kind of hernia he had, but when I stumble over the information again I'll compare it to what's already here. Also, at the time people were sometimes removed from the draft roles because they had failed a previous physical when applying to serve. This means that some people got disqualified for some demanding form of service they were requesting, and this automatically disqualified them from serving elsewhere even though they might have been able to pass that less stringent physical. I know this sounds silly, But it did happen back then.Fydorpetrovich (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Humphrey failed an Army physical in December 1944 for a double hernia, color blindness, and calcification of the lungs. He also had fainting spells when he worked at his dad's drugstore, so he clearly had some medical/health issues that could legitimately have kept him from military service. Of course, some men found creative ways to enter military service anyway, like Harry Truman, who knew his poor eyesight would fail him on a physical, so he memorized the eye chart to pass, and did serve in World War One. At least two Humphrey biographies feature numerous letters from Humphrey to local draft boards and friends in which he states that he wants to serve because he knows a lack of military service during the war could hurt his future career in politics. It may not sound very noble, but the letters do confirm that Humphrey did try repeatedly to enter military service, as he knew a lack of service could adversely affect his career, and this proved to be the case, as the Kennedys used the inaccurate draft-dodger charge with great effectiveness against him in the 1960 West Virginia primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.64.244 (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Life Democratic

[edit]

This should be mencioned. He appears like that in the Democrats for Life of America article.85.244.52.62 (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Schorr

[edit]

The section "The Vice Presidency" contains this one-sentence paragraph:

"Humphrey, as Vice President, was regarded as being on particularly good terms with CBS journalist Daniel Schorr."

As it stands, this is a disconnected bit of trivia. Any reason to leave it in? Plazak (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that Humphrey believed his smoking habit had caused his cancer? (92.3.231.108 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Moral Test of Government

[edit]

I think someone needs to find out which speech and what date Hubert Humphrey said this with a source and cite it, or remove it from the article. I Googled the quote and general fractions of it and all I find are other random quote sites with a copy/paste of the quote Wikipedia has, but no YT clip of the speech or any reliably official-looking source. For all I can tell, it's just a popular myth and wasn't actually ever said, or at least not by Humphrey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.230.26 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bartleby's Quotations states that Humphrey delivered these lines in a speech dedicating the new Hubert H. Humphrey building in Washington, DC on November 1, 1977, shortly before his death from cancer. Their source is the Congressional Quarterly, which is certainly legitimate. Additionally, I also found an article on the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute website which includes the quote. I do think it's legit, although if someone could find the Congressional Quarterly article it would be conclusive. The link to Bartleby's is here: http://www.bartleby.com/73/724.html. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

contributions of $500 or less

[edit]

The "The 1968 Presidential election" section ends with an out of place single-line comparing the percentage of Humphrey's campaign fundraising to Wallace's. It seems essentially irrelevant to an encyclopedic article, but it may just be poorly integrated into the body of the article. Thoughts? Pro-Apocalyptic (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think similar numbers about Nixon should be there also. Why compare two of the three candidates in the race, without mentioning the third? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.202.206 (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have deleted the sentence. It is completely irrelevant to the rest of the section and seems totally out of place, and the fact that it only compares Humphrey's funding to George Wallace and not Nixon also makes it oddly placed. If someone wants to add Nixon's fundraising and somehow connect it to the rest of the section then it can be returned. 2602:304:691E:5A29:2C02:4037:343A:9B90 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Willkie Republican?

[edit]

Humphrey biographies I have read (Solberg, etc) do say that he said he voted for Wilkie in '40, But voting for someone doesn't make you a member of their party. (That's why we have the well-known term Reagan Democrats)

These biographies are also quite clear on Humphrey's life-long dedication to the Ideals of the democratic party. I think some confusion arises from the fact that Humphrey ran for only Non-partisan offices before his Senate race in 48. (by statute, no affiliation could be listed on the ballot for his Mayoral races)

However He was approached after his 48 loss by a group of wealthy Republicans who offered him both political support, and a large house (!), if he would become a Republican.(From Solberg)

He has also been described as a life-long Democrat by various sources. I'll find specific page citations some time soon, but wanted to post this here first to see if there's going to be any major resistance to this change. I might also point out in this context that the source used for claiming he was a 'Wilkie republican' is a general book about politics, not a biography of HHH.Fydorpetrovich (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have a problem with the entire quote. It is cited, but the citation is from The American Conservative, a right-wing journal, so it is a biased, non-neutral source. Not only is the source's claim that Humphrey was a "Willkie Republican" in error, but it is also in error when it states that Humphrey was opposed to "Bryanism" (William Jennings Bryan), as Humphrey repeatedly expressed his admiration for many of Bryan's ideals as a graduate student and political leader. In fact, his biographer Solberg, and other biographies, all argue that Humphrey was a Midwestern prairie populist in the Bryan tradition. The source, in short, gets several of its facts wrong regarding Humphrey, and is obviously written from a slanted, biased viewpoint. I would suggest that the entire quote simply be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.53.244 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Cohen's biography of Humphrey, Undefeated: The Life of Hubert H. Humphrey, clearly states that Humphrey supported FDR, not Willkie, in the 1940 campaign, and he even debated a Willkie supporter on a Minneapolis radio station. Combined with the error from the quote regarding Humphrey not following in William Jennings Bryan's footsteps, I have deleted the quote from The American Conservative and replaced it with cited statements from Cohen's more neutral (and accurate) biography. The passages from Cohen regarding Humphrey's support of FDR is on pages 66-67 of his book. 2602:304:691E:5A29:91B7:A767:28BA:7C3C (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Solberg's biography, and I don't remember reading anywhere that Humphrey voted for Willkie in '40. Maybe I missed it, but the gist of Solberg's writing was that Humphrey was a committed New Deal, FDR Democrat in all four of FDR's elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.64.244 (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Solberg writes that a prominent Minnesota Republican claimed that Humphrey told him that he voted for Willkie in 1940, but given the evidence presented by Solberg, Cohen, and other biographers this appears to be highly unlikely. The Minnesota Republican was one of those who was trying to get Humphrey to enter Minnesota politics as a Republican rather than a Democrat, and was "disappointed" when Humphrey refused and did join the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party. In other words, the only claim that Humphrey voted for Willkie comes from a highly suspect source, not Humphrey himself, and all other evidence - such as Cohen's mention that Humphrey supported FDR against Willkie in a debate on a Minneapolis radio station - pretty clearly negates that assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.154.64.244 (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

[edit]

Was he:

United Church of Christ or United Methodist?

because its quite relevant, both are Protestant but its:

Calvinism/Reformed (Congregationalist tradition) vs. Methodism

which is a significant difference.Ernio48 (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of HHH

[edit]

In the article, there is a link to a panoramio featuring the statue of Hubert H Humphrey in front of the Minneapolis City Hall. Panoramio will be permanently unavailable following November 4th, 2017, as it was closed with promise of a year of access the year previous. I'm not well-versed in how Panoramio works, but it would be excellent if someone could either grab the image from that site or get a new one in person before it becomes inaccessible. - A HHH Job Corps Student - 173.165.233.165 (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hubert Humphrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hubert Humphrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A week later

[edit]

What happened to the statement that he could have won if the election had been held a week later.

There is no valid reason for its removal. 114.73.110.224 (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was removed because it was unverifiable speculation. He could've won if he had gotten more votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The latter states: "Many observers concluded that he would have won the election had it been held a week later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.110.224 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2020

[edit]

Under "Fifth Senate term", line 2 "economic surplus" should be "economic stimulus", according to paragraph 15 of the cited source Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

For further reference, Congress.gov, S. Res 17, 95th Congress, 1977-78: [1] 24.151.83.95 (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.congress.gov/bill/95th-congress/senate-resolution/17

George Wallace

[edit]

Strange to me that there is no real background on George Wallace running in the 1968 election. He is mentioned, but only by his surname. Surely we can add his first name and create a hyperlink to his wiki page.

I would do this myself, but I'm not certain how it's done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace 2605:A000:BFC0:21:94E6:7356:1FEF:7D78 (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected edit request

[edit]

Humphrey is notable far more for being a politician, not for being a pharmacist. Politician should be placed first in the lede paragraph. I would be bold and add it myself but I don't have the permissions. 82.35.44.68 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed--it was a minor role to help the family and he disliked the role & rejected proposals to make it a career. I just dropped it. Rjensen (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Management

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 August 2023 and 5 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elvtf99 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Elvtf99 (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Hubert Humphrey

[edit]

These page incorrectly states the Humphrey was the 38th Vice President when in fact he was 36th. 2601:481:8600:3CC0:7D9D:320F:DFE3:407A (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey was the 38th vice president. Perhaps your mistake comes from the fact that he served under LBJ, the 36th president. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New photo?

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There has been a consensus reached to keep using the B&W Image that is currently being used for the infobox of this article. ~HistorianL (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an actual color version of Hubert Humphrey's 1965 Vice Presidential portrait (top), should we use it as his Wikipedia photo? – Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think somebody made a better version, which corrects the color degredation of the original. Should we hold a vote on whether to use the color version or the B&W version? – Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A vote should not be held because, as I have said multiple times, just because there is a colored image doesn’t means it is the better option. Image 1 and Image 2 are very low quality images and blurry and we don’t even know if they were actually produced by the US Government, while Image 3 is of better quality, doesn’t have sunmarks on the image and more accurately shows what Humphrey looked like in 1965 HistorianL (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't speak to the quality of the color picture or my edit since I'm obviously biased, but at the very least I do think it's pretty clear that this is a work of the U.S. Government. Source credits the U.S.S.S. and even if we disregard that it appears as though both photographs are from the same shoot. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the website where I found it is the personal collection of a Secret Service agent, where the Secret Service is directly cited as the author of the photo. – Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the vote being held, I submit my vote for Option 3 HistorianL (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will submit my vote for Option 2 – Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 is my preference. Sandcherry (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been almost a week since the start of the vote, i am assuming that this vote has now concluded, with Option 3 winning 2-1. I also believe that we should add the discussion closed template, since the vote has concluded. HistorianL (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, we should keep discussion open in the event a better version of the color portrait is found Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that happens, a new vote can be proposed. In terms of this talk page, the vote was 2-1 for the B&W Image, even after almost more then a week and a half after the intial vote had started.
It would simply be to close the discussion at this point in time, and it can always be reopened in the future HistorianL (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to close the discussion and reopen it if needed.Sandcherry (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Photo 1
    Photo 1
  • Photo 2
    Photo 2
  • Photo 3
    Photo 3
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

[edit]

"and statesman" in the very first sentence. Statesman is in the eye of the beholder. He was a politician who ran for many political offices. If he was a "statesman," provide ample details. His political views do not confer statesmanship. BlackKnightGC (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harpsund meeting (in section "United States Senate (1949–1964)")

[edit]

When Humphrey met Harold Wilson at a socialist leaders' meeting at Harpsund in 1963, Wilson wasn't yet the British prime minister (PM at the time was Harold Macmillan, not a socialist by any count). The article should be corrected accordingly.--2003:F0:F3D:F201:869:B15E:324F:F126 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hubert_Humphrey&oldid=1245072257"