Here's why Bernie is NOT at risk of a George McGovern-like defeat:

[Ken Burch]

1)Unlike McGovern, Bernie has a LOT of labor support. You will not see the AFL-CIO staying neutral in a Trump V. Sanders race in the way they did in '72.

2)Unlike McGovern, Bernie has significant support in all age groups.

3)Unlike McGovern, Bernie isn't facing a Republican incumbent who had the power of the federal government at his disposal to disrupt and sabotage his opponents' campaigns.

4)Unlike McGovern, Bernie is not campaigning at the height of the Cold War, and the ideological paranoia that doomed McGovern no longer exists among any significant cohort of voters who would even consider voting Democrat. The voters know that Bernie's support for social democracy has nothing in common with the so-called "Communist threat" of the 1947-1989 era, and no longer have an unshakeable belief in "the magic of the market".

5)And in a complete reversal of the way things were in '72, the issues that cost McGovern support among traditional dems(LGBTQ, rights, defense of reproductive rights support for a rational,support for humane drug policy, opposition to mass incarceration and police institutional bigotry)are now positions on which there is strong consensus support among ALL Democratic voting blocs and the majority of the American electorate(and issues which, as HRC's supporters like to remind us, HRC has been more outspoken about then Bernie in some cases).

The lesson of 1972 is not that Democrats can't ever nominate an idealist or a crusader. The lesson of 1972 is that you're going to lose 49 states no matter what when Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew and CREEP are your opponents.

[demwing]

1. Happy to be the 1st K&R /nt

[PatrickforO]

2. Very good. And true.

[merbex]

3. So true n/t

[onehandle]

4. Unlike Bernie, Democratic Senator McGovern was a nominee.

And a Democrat for more than five minutes.

[Nonhlanhla]

5. Unlike McGovern, Bernie won't be the nominee.

And for that reason he is not at risk of a McGovern-like defeat.

[Herman4747]

11. There's still a chance your beloved candidate...

could be indicted DUE TO HER OWN DAMN INCOMPETENCE!

[Nonhlanhla]

14. Indictment fairy hopes...sad. nt.

[Herman4747]

17. Actually, her incompetence is even sadder. nt

[NurseJackie]

24. Thank you!

[2banon]

25. Unlike McGovern, your candidate may enjoy a place in history with Nixon.

What will you have won when that happens?

[thesquanderer]

6. More reasons

6) unlike McGovern, he would be running against someone who is extraordinarily unpopular even among members of his own party

7) unlike McGovern, he will presumably not have to go through the debacle of replacing his VP candidate part way through the campaign

8) unlike 1972, he would be running in a time where the demographics of the country more clearly favor his party

and sadly, 9, the most obvious reason he is not at risk of a George McGovern-like defeat is that it is unlikely he will be nominated in the first place.

[redstateblues]

7. More like Mondale who promised to raise taxes on the middle class

He won ONE state. His home state MN

[Tarc]

8. Funy how the entire OP misses a key demographic among "traditional dems"

People of color, i.e. the demographic that Sanders performs poorest in.

[Ken Burch]

13. They wouldn't back Trump no matter what.

And Bernie's vote share has improved among POC as the process has gone on.

To be on the safe side, you campaign should stop claiming Bernie doesn't care about racism. And admit that it was bullshit to ever claim that Bernie moved to Vermont to get away from black people.

Neither of those things ever needed or deserved to be said about him..

[Tarc]

15. I have never heard of the "moved to Vermont" claim, that's pretty silly

But the truth is that he stopped actively courting the PoC vote after getting blown out in South Carolina, and it probably cost him the nomination.

Btw, saying things like "they'll never vote Republican" implies that you take their vote for granted. That's generally kind of a turnoff, and emblematic of why Sanders performed poorly in that demographic.

[2banon]

19. How does this comment address the OP?

[Tarc]

20. It doesn't involve you, so...

[2banon]

23. This Op involves my personal attention.

please stick the subject at hand, thanks in advance.

[Tarc]

29. I'll do what I please, and you won't gainsay that a smidge

You're welcome.

[2banon]

35. ..

[2banon]

21. This Op intended to address the misnomer that Dems had to move to the right cuz McGovern

1972. Entirely different discussion.

Got derailing the topic on your agenda?

Please address 1972 elections, if you have more insight on how the events transpired, if you can.

[Tarc]

26. I am quite comfortable with what I said, thanks

Sanders is ever bit an "way out there" candidate as McGovern was in 1972. It wouldn't be a 49-1 drubbing; a wet potato could be our nominee and the likes of Mass, NY, etc....would never vote GOP again...but Sanders would get trounced in the swing states one the GOP attack machine focused its ire upon him. The "fantasy" creative writing, the praise for Fidel Castro and Daniel Ortega, all of this would be red meat for them.

Clinton can and will play Trumpy like a fiddle.

[Eric J in MN]

9. What was McGovern's position on gay rights? NT

NT

[Ken Burch]

16. A minority plank offered by a delegate named Madeline Davis for open supports of gay rights lost

This somewhat coded wording(remember, it was 1972 and even these less-than-forthcoming words was enough to freak out guys like George Meany at the time) was what ended up in the platform, as part of a list of proposed new rights:

"The right to be different, to maintain a cultural or ethnic heritage or lifestyle, without being forced into a compelled homogeneity;"

And later, this(again considered shocking for the era, and phrased using language that would never be used in a Democratic platforn now fortunately) as part of an elaboration of the "right to be different" concept

"Americans should be free to make their own choice of life-styles and private habits without being subject to discrimination or prosecution".

(I know, I know..."their own choice of life-style"?



but in 1972 even saying that could cost you the Catholic and Baptist vote).

[B Calm]

10. K&R. Great post Ken!

[KingFlorez]

12. There is more polarization now

There aren't going to be any 50 state landslides either way anymore. With that said, it's all a moot point.

[2banon]

18. Amen to that. A necessary History Lesson for those that weren't around at the time.

and for the Revisionists that LOVE to distort factual events.

Bravo, Ken..

[brooklynite]

22. McGovern is a pretty low bar to set...

I'm not looking for a candidate who can lose repectably; I want a candidate who can win. And I continue to see a number of risks of having Sanders as our nominee.

[hellyall]

31. Myopic view.

It's your view and only one opinion. Not a very good bet, I'm afraid. That 8% is going to haunt you.

[Gomez163]

27. BECAUSE HE WON'T BE NOMINATED

[YouDig]

33. This is the reason.

[upaloopa]

28. No, it's because he will not be in the general.

[CobaltBlue]

30. The people who are saying Bernie would not win the general…

are full of *s*.

This is the same group of people who say, “look at the math!”—and then avoid doing just that when looking at those general-election polls.

[dubyadiprecession]

32. You don't have to get defensive and say Bernie is not a risk like McGovern..

for losing. He won't be our Nominee for one thing. Another, is that train wreck trump is such a lousy candidate to beat.

[LuvLoogie]

34. Here's why: McGovern was the nominee.