Cronkite does his best to provide Hubert Humphrey's wins to seem like a bigger win or "....they anticipated they would pick up that state; however, they didn't realize he was going to win that big." Everything for Nixon is "what was anticipated." There is also A LOT of "Humphrey is doing better than John Kennedy did in 1960." There is also a lot of, "Nixon is not doing quite as well as he did against John Kennedy." I also notice that when Hubert Humphrey wins a state; Cronkite is walking on water... voice is louder and it's all party like it's 1999! A Nixon win is more a subdued tone with something being said about Humphrey doing better than John Kennedy did in 1960! This coverage is more partisan than today's cable news networks: Fox News, MSNBC. That's saying a lot! 2:47:00 -- One of Cronkite's biased and wrong assumption is that Humphrey was doing better with the "city vote" than John Kennedy did in 1960. The rationale part of me, without looking at the results, would say, of course... Election turnout usually increases over past one............BUT, then old Cronkite said something where his voice sounded like he was dying inside. "Humphrey is getting 62%, while Kennedy is received 61% back in 1960." 1% difference! LOL!!!!!! He was wrong anyway. Humphrey UNDER PERFORMED Kennedy with the urban vote (1960 vs 1968).
+Ryan Schroer This copy is from the Vanderbilt University TV News Archives. Until the mid 1970's, their recordings were made in black-and-white, and such recordings, whether black=-and-white or color, can be distinguished by the time code on the top of the screen.
George Washington is campaigning for the Oklahoma Senate? He's alive?! I guess he came back from the dead and moved to Oklahoma! Lol!
Commentators:
Walter Cronkite & Eric Sevareid
Reporters:
Mike Wallace
Dan Rather
Roger Mudd
Cronkite does his best to provide Hubert Humphrey's wins to seem like a bigger win or "....they anticipated they would pick up that state; however, they didn't realize he was going to win that big." Everything for Nixon is "what was anticipated." There is also A LOT of "Humphrey is doing better than John Kennedy did in 1960." There is also a lot of, "Nixon is not doing quite as well as he did against John Kennedy." I also notice that when Hubert Humphrey wins a state; Cronkite is walking on water... voice is louder and it's all party like it's 1999! A Nixon win is more a subdued tone with something being said about Humphrey doing better than John Kennedy did in 1960! This coverage is more partisan than today's cable news networks: Fox News, MSNBC. That's saying a lot!
2:47:00 -- One of Cronkite's biased and wrong assumption is that Humphrey was doing better with the "city vote" than John Kennedy did in 1960. The rationale part of me, without looking at the results, would say, of course... Election turnout usually increases over past one............BUT, then old Cronkite said something where his voice sounded like he was dying inside. "Humphrey is getting 62%, while Kennedy is received 61% back in 1960." 1% difference! LOL!!!!!! He was wrong anyway. Humphrey UNDER PERFORMED Kennedy with the urban vote (1960 vs 1968).
That's...a lie. Nixon was ahead in the polls for most of 1968 and HHH almost made a huge comeback.
@@rgreenberg35 Nixon would have had a larger lead the whole time, and a bigger win without Wallace in the race.
"Vote" Toothpaste, The dragon killer. 🤔Man, They REALLY DID have better drugs in the '60s! 😜
i was only 6mos old(born on May 7 of this election yr)!
Close to 3...Born Dec.8,1965 !
@ScooterpupReljac We do.
@elwin38 Ha, me and you have the same birthday, just different years!
Color coverage? Even 45 years later, that's false.
Yes, I know it was originally in color. I just find that statement funny!
+Ryan Schroer This copy is from the Vanderbilt University TV News Archives. Until the mid 1970's, their recordings were made in black-and-white, and such recordings, whether black=-and-white or color, can be distinguished by the time code on the top of the screen.