Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could Ed Muskie have beaten Nixon in 1972?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:31 PM
Original message
Could Ed Muskie have beaten Nixon in 1972?
As I understand part of the justification for super delegates is to prevent another McGovern from happening. This seems to be a reasonable premise, assuming that the alternative in 1972, Ed Muskie could've actually beaten Nixon.

I don't doubt that Muskie would've probably done better than McGovern. But could he have actually beaten Nixon? And if he couldn't have beaten Nixon does the fact that he would've done better still justify having super delegates? Put another way, is losing 49 states any different than losing 39 states?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Muskie would have run a respectable race and lost 54-46.
The problem with the McGovern campaign is that it permanently labeled the Democrats as the "wimpy" party. At least a Muskie run would not have done that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Didn't the "wimpy" stuff start with Eisenhower?
Eisenhower attacked Truman's policy of containment as wimpy and said that he would defeat communism instead of containing it. It seems like the Democrats spent the entire Cold War trying to one-up the GOP on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That may be true that it was somewhat of a competition, Democrats didn't come
off as being "soft" on defense or at least not in the same way McGovern did. Bear in mind also that Truman's doctrine of containment was in stark contrast to Henry Wallace's doctrine of appeasement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. It wouldn't?
Have you forgotten Muskie's infamous breakdown? When all the newspapers reported him crying on the steps of the Manchester Union-Leader as he responded to press allegations about his wife?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. At least he never would have said he would get down on his hands and knees and beg
to the North Vietnamese. There's a key difference between being emotional about personal matters and being an honest to goodness wimp.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. "is losing 49 states any different than losing 39 states"? Yes.
Losing 49 states is seen as a repudiation of the entire party and everything it stands for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I agree. It's a sign you've been rejected by everyone, everywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spider Jerusalem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Reminder: Superdelegates gave Walter Mondale the nomination in '84.
Gary Hart would have probably fared better against Reagan, but the superdelegates went with the tried-and-true party insider. Who turned out to be another McGovern; he won the District of Columbia (which has never gone Republican; McGovern won there, too), and his home state of Minnesota (the latter by 3380 votes...narrowly avoiding a 50-state Electoral College shutout).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. True, but I want to leave that for another thread...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
andym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
7. who knows?
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 05:50 PM by andym
Who knows? Between dirty tricks and being an incumbent, Nixon was already well-positioned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC