I read once that LBJ told a Democrat he’d speak for him or against him, whichever helps more.
That's one I've never heard, but it sure is funny.
I can absolutely see him doing that.
I've devoured about 10 different books now on the 1968 Election for the Polls thread. I only thought I knew about that race. Almost everything we've ever been told about it - almost all of them rise to the level of myth or at least distortion or "filtered through the lens of the activists."
One consistent thing, though, is LBJ undercutting Humphrey at every turn until the final ten days or so of the campaign. There's even a video out there (I can't seem to find it right now) of Mondale and a few other big Democrats from the time frame saying they weren't sure LBJ wanted Hubert to win until the very end.
But over and over, it was like LBJ was Donald Trump with the loyalty test. Humphrey would say something, LBJ would come right out and say he couldn't promise that. When Hubert put the tiny little gap of stopping the bombing as "an acceptable risk for peace," LBJ didn't even like that even though it was really the only option he had to shake up the race.
Then again, Biden kept snorting to Harris "no daylight, kid," and she was supposed to defend every single one of his policies as the right thing to do, even if she disagreed with it. While I understand that a VP is saddled with the record of the predecessor, you still have to give them some wiggle room. "I agreed with the President on the goal of X, but the way I would go about accomplishing that is (list what you'd do differently)."
Reminder: these guys can't imagine a world without them running it, and they're shocked to suddenly discover the world goes on without them.