McGovern ran for President 44 YEARS AGO. This is NOT 1972. It is 2016.

[Skwmom]

A hell of a lot has happened since 1972. To evaluate Bernie Sander's viability based on 1972 standards is ridiculous.

Our political system is a hell of a lot more corrupt than it was in 1972.

[BeyondGeography]

1. That was Mondale

[TheBlackAdder]

23. The year that Democrats f*cked over Shirley Chisholm, my favorite politician. Unbought & Unbossed!

.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Chisholm



.

[BeyondGeography]

24. You have good taste

[Journeyman]

2. McGovern ran 44 years ago, in 1972 . . .

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. I think you mean Mondale

[Skwmom]

4. I changed my dates.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. McGovern ran on the left when the country had already moved left,

with the counter culture of the 60's.

Bernie is running on the left when the country has moved to the right with Reagan/Bush/Bush policies.

There is a difference.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. McGovern's main issue was the Vietnam War

That was taken away from him when Nixon and Kissinger announced a deal to withdraw American troops in October 1972.

Of course, he also botched his vice presidential choice.

And McGovern was running against an intrenched (and crooked) incumbent, who was passing himself off as a liberal (he actually did support a lot of environmental measures, for example).

[Beacool]

7. It's apparently a time warp for some.

Same speech, different decade.

[californiabernin]

10. To which candidate are you referring?

I've actually been thinking Hillary more represents the past of the party.

Don't get me wrong, they are both strong candidates, but time may be right for a change.

[Beacool]

11. I'm referring to Sanders giving basically the same speech he's been giving since the 70s

with some adjustments, of course. I think that he's a decent man who believes strongly that the system favors the rich, but I don't agree on his proposals. I don't believe that he would be an effective president. With all due respect to president Carter, he reminds me a bit of him. Dogmatic, my way or the highway. They both are so sure that they are on the right side of the issues that they don't compromise. Unfortunately, the House has the largest Republican majority since 1929 and quite a few of them are Tea Party folks. If their own party couldn't control them (ask Boehner), how will Sanders get anything passed???

I have lived in Europe and still have family in three countries over there. The European mindset is different from the way Americans see the world. The only thing I see in a Sanders presidency is gridlock.

[californiabernin]

12. I hear you.

I haven't seen anything about him to suggest to me that he would not compromise if it were the only way to get anything done. I just think he has firmly held positions and does not waver in his beliefs.

I think the fastest way to win back the Senate and House is to build a strong, enthusiastic, grassroots movement. Marching in the streets. I think Sanders telling like it is is can be a powerful force for change. I won't be surprised if he attracts a large number of lower/middle class Republicans. His integrity can change people's minds. People respond positively to him because he tells it like it is, and they know the system has been rigged for years.

Any Republican running against him with their millions of dollars in corporate $$$ is going to have a tough go at it. He will pound them on that, that's for sure. He won't be as kind as he is being to Hillary (who is far less an offender).

[Beacool]

13. Yes, but he can't count on a political revolution to pass his agenda.

Obama had huge crowds at his rallies. Once he became president, they each went on with their lives. The same would happen with Sanders. The young people would graduate from college and find jobs, the other folks would go back to their routine. Who are the millions of people that would take to the streets to demand radical change? I don't see it happening. That's why, although he is honest in his beliefs, I think that he is in some regard selling his supporters a bill of goods. His agenda seems to depend on the American people uprising to demand these changes. Do you really see that taking place?

[jonestonesusa]

19. Actually, what bugs me most about the anti-McGovern meme

is the disrespect for a great man - a decorated war veteran, a lifelong Dem who advocated for values that have stood the test of time and have elevated the Democratic Party above the Republicans. It is slanderous, really, for DEMOCRATS to only talk about the 1972 election loss when talking about McGovern. Not to mention that the opposition party CHEATED - remember that break-in into the DNC headquarters? Remember the enemies list? Remember the secret war in Cambodia, engineered by Secretary Clinton's good buddy Kissinger? Do you consider Nixon's campaign to be a blueprint on how to win?

As much as Sanders supporters get criticized for not respecting Clinton, how about some respect for a great Senator and statesman, George McGovern? Have you investigated McGovern's life and career at all? If so, I don't believe you would be saying "same speech, different decade."

I'm going to link to the George McGovern Wikipedia page, and I don't think that any of us on a DEMOCRATIC site should be putting down McGovern until at least this common source is read in its entirety.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

[redstateblues]

8. Mondale said he would raise taxes if elected and was lauded for his honesty

Unfortunately he only won one state. His home state MN

[Art_from_Ark]

14. Mondale was running against a popular incumbent

An actor who know how to play to crowds. And that actor was lucky because his 1982-83 recession was becoming a fading memory.

[jonestonesusa]

21. Mondale also didn't develop much of a vision for how increased taxes would be beneficial.

Last edited Fri Feb 5, 2016, 07:35 PM - Edit history (1)

I remember the statement from the debate pretty well, since it was the first election where I was old enough to vote. Referring to Reagan, he said something like "Both of us will raise taxes, but one of us won't say that they will. I just did." (too lazy to look it up). Anyway, IMO Mondale emphasized fiscal responsibility to balance the budget, but didn't really try to outline an alternative economic approach as Sanders is doing, emphasizing that a higher tax to bring about single payer will save families money in health care expenses, or that a penny tax on stock transactions can support college access for all. Tax fairness polls reasonably well these days (increased taxes on the wealthy). It just happened in California, our largest state, where Jerry Brown is governor.

One more thing about Mondale - after the first presidential debate the gap was narrowing, but then in the second debate, Reagan made that corny joke about the age issue - I'm not going to exploit my opponent's youth and inexperience for political purposes. That's largely what the media covered after the debate, and it helped to stall Mondale's momentum.

Last point - I think it's time that responsible politicians and citizens push back on the tax revolt rhetoric that is counterproductive to national progress. We are not helping ourselves as Democrats to run away from the need for revenue if we're going to avoid disaster - underfunded schools, failing infrastructure as in Flint, a general failure to sustain an innovative and responsive public sector. We have to put up the grown-up pants and challenge the Republicans so that our social systems can actually serve people through enhanced revenue when needed. I believe we have no ethical choice but to stop running away from the tax issue.

[OrwellwasRight]

9. 1972 was a veritable paradise of income equality compared to now!

Wages rose with productivity, unions covered 35% of all workers. there was far less reason to be pissed off about your economic circumstances--which is why Nixon won on the bullshit Vietnam/communism issue.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. Vietnam wasn't a bullshit issue in 1972

At least, not in the sense that millions of newly-minted 18-20-year-old male voters were worrying about whether they were going to be drafted, and then relieved to find out they weren't after Nixon and Kissinger made their announcement about withdrawing from Vietnam in October 1972.

[OrwellwasRight]

17. Excuse me. I was unclear.

I believe that the domino theory and that we had to be in Vietnam to keep the U.S. safe from communism was bullshit. And that is what Nixon won on. He did not win on the anti-War vote, which of course a very important movement that eventually ended that tragic war.

I hope that is clearer. My apologies.

[Art_from_Ark]

18. That might be what he won on in '68

Although Humphrey wasn't exactly the anti-war candidate. And of course, Wallace was siphoning off Democratic votes.

But in 1972, the Paris Peace Talks had been going on all through the summer, and Nixon was pledging to get us out of Vietnam-- just in time to win over a large voting block that McGovern had been counting on.

And Nixon had even been shedding his Cold Warrior image by opening up to China, actually visiting the country in February 1972.

[OrwellwasRight]

20. Totally disagree on China.

The reason he could to China was that he was a "cold warrior." That was the point, only a total hawk could afford to do it -- anyone else would have appeared "too soft."

Ever heard of Pinochet?

Nixon and Kissinger were cold warriors, period.

And voters bought it in 1972 BECAUSE they economy was nowhere as shitty as it is now. This election will be about the economy and Bernie's message is playing. This is not 1972.

[Juicy_Bellows]

15. And one big difference - the Interwebs.

Those inclined to do so can look up anything and don't have to rely on their local paper or 3 channels that report the news at the time. It's a whole different ball of wax.

[jonestonesusa]

22. Thanks for this badly needed OP

Half a century of tarring and feathering McGovern, a great man and Senator, is enough!!

Plus, wasn't there a Bill Clinton involved somewhere in that campaign??

; )