In 1968 Eugene McCarthy, Democrat, was running in the DNC Primary, he filled Fenway Park with

[Thinkingabout]

65,000 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

Only Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota proved willing to openly challenge Johnson. Running as an anti-war candidate in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy hoped to pressure the Democrats into publicly opposing the Vietnam War. Normally, an incumbent president faces little formidable opposition within his own party. However, McCarthy, although he was trailing badly in the national polls, decided to pour most of his resources into New Hampshire, the first state to hold a primary election. He was boosted by thousands of young college students, who shaved their beards and cut their hair to be "Clean for Gene." These students rang doorbells and worked hard in New Hampshire for McCarthy. On March 12, McCarthy won 42% of the primary vote to Johnson's 49%, an extremely strong showing for such a challenger, and one which gave McCarthy's campaign legitimacy and momentum. Senator Kennedy announced his candidacy four days later, on March 16.

The second faction, which rallied behind Senator McCarthy, was composed of students and intellectuals who had been the early activists against the war in Vietnam; they perceived themselves as the future of the Democratic Party.

Senator McCarthy had the largest crowds and he did not win the nomination.

[leftofcool]

1. The kids just don't vote. Too busy texting.

[hedda_foil]

3. There was no way to text in '68.

And this was on Rachel Maddow's show last night.

[Human101948]

26. No, we were smoking dope and listening to LPs on the record player...

reading R. Crumb comix and fluffing our Afros.

[Thinkingabout]

2. You have a point.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. McCarthy was challenging an incumbent President as of the NH primary

but Johnson later announced he would not run again. IIRC, the Dems really fractured after that, once RFK got in but was then assassinated. Humphrey finally got the nom with the support of labor unions and the party machinery, but RFK had been popular with minorities and they didn't necessarily go automatically to Humphrey. Also, after RFK was assassinated the antiwar vote was split and at the convention some went to McGovern, who entered later, rather than to McCarthy. In 1968 the antiwar movement was gaining support but was mostly an issue with young (draftable) people; most Democrats, including the party moneybags, still supported the war. That's one important reason why Humphrey got the nomination and not McCarthy. It was a very, very different situation - nothing like what's happening now.

[emulatorloo]

5. Very well said, thanks for posting. Eom

[Thinkingabout]

6. The point is McCarthy had the largest crowd recorded, he did not win the nomination.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. And I was trying to point out why.

McCarthy's success in NH occurred before the withdrawal of LBJ and the entry of RFK. At that time of the NH primary McCarthy was the only antiwar candidate (I was in college then and campaigned for Gene, so I remember this well). His popularity was huge among college students and left-wingers but nevertheless was mainly limited to supporters of the antiwar movement. Although we didn't see it at the time, in 1968 most people, including most Democrats, still supported the war. McCarthy couldn't have won; if RFK had lived he might have, although the party machine supported Humphrey (who was actually a better candidate than we gave him credit for, but he was associated with LBJ's war).

[KingCharlemagne]

25. Historical note: The Tet Offensive in the southern part of Vietnam (January 1968) was a rude

wake-up slap in the face to many heretofore complacent Americans, as it showed that Westmoreland's strategy of attrition was an abject failure. While most Dems still supported the War at the time of the NH primary, Tet caused cracks in that support. it was, let us say, a mile long but an inch deep (after Tet) .

[Fawke Em]

13. But did he also have very large crowds in Oregon, California,

Iowa, New Hampshire, Arizona, Texas and North Carolina?

Were people lining up for miles to see him in Colorado and Nevada?

I see what you're doing, but one - or even three - big rallies is a bit different than the "rock star" status Bernie is achieving in all parts of this nation.

[TM99]

30. Fer Christ's sake, the argument is ridiculous.

Obama had large crowds and won. McCarthy had large crowds and lost.

Sometimes it has been predictive of winners and sometimes it has been predictive of losers.

But the reality here is that if Clinton was getting the large crowds, every last Clinton supporter who is now yammering on and on about crowd size does not equal electoral victory would be arguing that it does.

[uponit7771]

42. So the size of the means little? tia

[TM99]

43. Your question makes no sense.

Try asking again with correct sentence structure.

Thanks.

[artislife]

35. Was it all summer long, spanning the country?

No.


This OP is a classic example of cherry picking.

Thank you for reminding us so clearly how it looks.

[DianeK]

41. does that provide comfort to you?

[Time_Lord]

7. I wasn't even born in 1968.

So I have zero clue as what you are talking about. I'm undecided, and I'm viewing socialism as a very good thing for Americans.

[aidbo]

19. You weren't even born then? And you call yourself a Time Lord?! :)

[Thinkingabout]

20. Eugene McCarthy had a crowd of 65,000 for his run for DNC nominee 1968.

It did not result in McCarthy winning the nomination. In other words, drawing a large crowd does not win elections.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. Drawing ONE large crowd does not win elections.

Repeatedly drawing many large crowds might be a sign that one could.

[zappaman]

8. President McCarthy was a good man.

One of our best presidents behind President Kucinich IMO.

Take your negativity elsewhere!

[Truprogressive85]

9. intersting

Is this some how about Sen. Sanders and his big crowds ?

if Sen. Sanders = Eugene McCarthy than , HRC = Hubert Humphrey ? and we know the outcome of that election

[Armstead]

11. Perfect response

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The situation was very, very different then. See my posts, above.

You can't draw any analogies from then, considering the events that occurred like the assassination of RFK, not to mention the enormous effect of the Vietnam war.

[JI7]

15. except this time there is the Obama Coalition which has defeated the Southern Strategy

but everything is different . if Sanders maintains large crowds and hillary's are much lower when voting starts getting underway i think it will say something.

people mention howard Dean's large crowds also but Kerry actually had larger crowds just as we got closer to voting .

[KingCharlemagne]

28. +Infinity! - nt

[earthside]

31. In this case, Hillary is Nixon.

She is the political figure around these days that most reminds me of Nixon.

Except Tricky Dick could actually give a pretty good speech occasionally ... while Hillary cannot.

Democrats are making a tremendous mistake with Mrs. Clinton.

The bigger point in response to the OT is that perhaps we ought to pay attention to who is drawing the large crowds and why. Those presidential nominee candidates who don't draw the crowds usually lose in November.

[JI7]

14. they would have all been better than the person who ended up being elected President

[Fearless]

16. I hear Hitler had large crowds too.

So what??

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I remember '68. So who is Hubert, who lost? Who is Bobby, who died? What depth is the one to which

some will not sink?

[elleng]

18. Martin O'Malley said "History is full of times when the inevitable frontrunner

is inevitable right up until he or she is no longer inevitable."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-29/martin-o-malley-takes-aim-at-hillary-clinton-s-crown-

[Warren Stupidity]

21. DNC primary? No such animal.

McCarthy dropped out. LBJ dropped out. RFK stepped up. Bang gone. Humphrey selected to run.

1968 was one of the oddest years in us history. Multiple assassinations, huge riots, a war clearly not going well at all, widespread draft resistance, nightly body counts on the news, peace and love became revolution. Nixon.

Hardly a year one wants to use as a predictor for the future.

[KingCharlemagne]

29. Historical note: McCarthy did not drop out. His name was placed

In nomination at the Convention, but labor and the party bosses had lined up behind HH.

[Thinkingabout]

22. Well, maybe this did not happen for some but for the history books it happened.

For more information read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_McCarthy_presidential_campaign,_1968

And since many references are made to 2008, this is another comparison.

[WI_DEM]

23. While McCarthy's showing was good--it should also be remembered in NH

LBJ was a write-in canddiate while McCarthy's name was on the ballot.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Yes, and the reason why primaries needs to play out, not all of the time does the one we may want is

The nominee. Big crowds does not always predict the nominee.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Gene lost in NH. LBJ quit after NH.

[Smarmie Doofus]

27. True, big crowds don't translate into electoral strength. * Necessarily.*

Goldwater is another example. He outdrew his GOP rivals.... and beat them in the primaries, but also outdrew LBJ and got clobbered.

However: it's better to draw BIG crowds than small crowds. ESPECIALLY in the pre-convention stage. Big crowds= foot soldiers and people that will go the extra mile. True believers.

You can't buy that kind of advantage in most state primary elections.

Sorry, Hillary.

[davidpdx]

32. Of course, so Bernie Sanders is now Senator McCarthy

Faulty analogy. Must be desperate if you copy your material from Wikipedia.

[Thinkingabout]

38. No, just saying big crowds does not always produce the nominee.

[MineralMan]

33. I remember 1968 like it was yesterday.

That election year, I was still in the USAF and watched what transpired both from my assignment in Turkey and then here in the US. That year almost turned me away from politics forever. Watching the convention disgusted me with where we were headed.

I recovered from that disappointment and continued to support Democratic candidates, but the animosity and mistrust generated by the 1968 election taught me that I needed to focus on what I believed to be important and ignore the vehemence of campaign politics. Instead, I worked to get Democratic voters to the polls in 1968 and in every election after that. I refuse to participate in self-defeating, destructive Democratic Party politics during primary elections.

I'm satisfied with making my choice of candidates and stating that choice. If others want to tear candidates down during the primaries, I won't be participating in that. It's just a bad, bad idea. Every time.

[artislife]

36. 1968

You know what is really sad about this? That this now looks like every day police brutality on traffic signal light violations, or no seat belts or not leaving the pool party.

[workinclasszero]

37. Same thing with Bernie

Big crowds mean squat as far as winning elections. You need big crowds at the voting booth, that's where Bernie is going to lose.

Just ask President Rmoney and VP Ryan.....

Oh wait.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I kept my beard but voted for him anyway. I'd do it again.