Let's get the history right about '72

[Ken Burch]

George McGovern didn't lose because he didn't "placate" the Humphrey/Muskie/Scoop Jackson types.

George McGovern didn't treat moderate Dems unfairly or unkindly.

It was all the fault of the party regulars, who stabbed him in the back for no reason.

They wanted Humphrey or Jackson imposed, even though neither of them had demonstrated any real support in the primaries and even though both were hopelessly behind in delegates and votes.

There was nothing McGovern or his campaign could have done to get those guys to do what was right.

Please stop the lies already.

George McGovern was a great man, would have been a great president, and was stopped by people who he'd done no harm to.

[Faygo Kid]

1. My first presidential vote. And still my best.

McGovern was and is right. But, I don't blame the party regulars - Nixon stopped at nothing, and he was to blame. The Eagleton thing didn't help.

George McGovern is an American hero. In many ways.

[Hippo_Tron]

2. Also, no Democrat really had a chance of beating Nixon in '72

McGovern lost with the margins he did because of the reasons you speak of above. But Muskie, Jackson, or Humphrey didn't really stand a chance against Nixon either.

[scarletwoman]

3. My first presidential vote, also. Seemed real clear to me that the Party Establishment wanted to

purge the anti-war people out of the Democratic Party. McGovernites were a rabble-driven insurgency that the Party elites wanted nothing to do with.

sw

edited to add: The Party Establishment would rather lose elections to Republicans than allow peaceniks, DFHs, and Leftists into their "big tent". That was the true lesson of 1972.

[AZ Criminal JD]

4. McGovern lost because he broke up the party as Obama is doing now

McGovern disenfranchised voters in Illinois and some other states when he had their delegations thrown out of the convention. In Illinois the voters had elected a delegation headed by Richard Daley and McGovern substituted a delegation headed by Jesse Jackson. Obama is doing the same thing in Florida and Michigan and it will lead to the same results.

[ingac70]

5. Oh please...

MI is going to vote Obama handily in the fall, and Florida is a right wingnut paradise .... a total lost cause.

[AZ Criminal JD]

6. Current polls in Michigan don't show that

I love Obama supporters who whistle past the graveyard.

[lsusteel]

8. Look deeper into the polls...

The base hasn't coalesced around Obama. It will. If it doesn't and the Dems lose in a political climate so hostile to Republicans, the Dem party is dead.

[RainDog]

13. It goes both ways

some democrats cannot stand Clinton and will not vote for her. if she is the nominee, you can bet that Nader will be asked to start up an opposition candidate and lots of the democratic base will vote green. Clinton can try to get "reagan democrats" but there is not guarantee about them, is there?

she also has such high negatives the republicans hope she will run (why, otherwise, do they continuously support her, to the point that Bill is now using Rove talking points to help her candidacy?) because if she is on the ticket, the republican rr will turn out in droves. this will hurt all other democratic candidates running downticket. On the other hand, Obama inspires ppl and gets out the vote.

Just to remind - when Clinton was here, she drew a crowd of 3000. When Obama was here, he drew a crowd of 13,000. If you think that Clinton would have 75 thousand turn out for a rally in Oregon... well, they didn't, did they?

this sour grapes stuff among Clinton supporters is really, really old. I didn't like or support Bill Clinton and yet I voted for him 2 times. Who are you all that you are soooooooo precious that you cannot vote for the nominee, even if he is not your choice? Do you really think you are helping Clinton with this? Honestly some of her supporters on this site inspire me to send money to any primary candidate running against her in the future.

Obama wasn't my first choice. But I got over it. Bill Clinton wasn't my first choice. But I got over it. You should too.

[rwenos]

7. You Exaggerate to the Point of Misrepresentation

The Miami convention was a disaster, reflecting a party at war with itself -- as it had been in Chicago. Frank Mankiewicz tried to (and mostly succeeded) running the 1972 Dem Convention with an iron hand. Remember Willie Brown's "GIVE ME BACK MY DELEGATION!

Hunter Thompson's "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail - 1972" does about as good a job of describing the struggle as any of the bromides between the two dominant wings of the Democratic Party on display on this thread. McGovern had the power at the convention, and used it. They even lost a floor vote on purpose!

Then Sen. McGovern gave his acceptance speech at 3 am East Coast Time. Brilliant.

And no one was beating Nixon, in the middle of a war, with Henry Kissinger lying through his fucking teeth about "peace is at hand," and Nixon able to manipulate the War (most particularly stopping the bombing) just before the election.

Senator McGovern was a fine B-17 pilot, a fine liberal and a fine candidate. But he was never going to beat Nixon. As disgusting as that is.

[Faygo Kid]

9. Extraordinary. What a phenomenon.

Never miss an opportunity to trash Obama, do you? Even in a thread about Nixon-McGovern.

Never saw such hate of a Dem candidate in my lifetime. Any they accuse us of being in a "cult."

Extraordinary.

[Ken Burch]

10. The Illinois delegation was racist. It was wrong for Illinois to have an allwhite delegation

In fact, it was against party rules. And Daley refused to accept any compromise. Plus, Daley's cops were almost entirely to blame for our loss in '68.

You have got to accept the fact that HRC wouldn't win even IF Florida and Michigan were seated.

[AZ Criminal JD]

11. It was not an all-white delegation.

McGovern was trying to get revenge for 68. Daley had the last laugh when McGovern went down.

[Ken Burch]

12. it was at least 90% white. There was no significant AA or Hispanic representation.

It was a delegation that didn't represent anyone(since the candidate who won the Illinois primary, Ed Muskie, had already withdrawn from the race.)

If Daley had been willing to even take a halfway position, a compromise might have been reached. But he had no right to insist on the bogus, unrepresentative delegation he'd put together out of no actual political reality be seated.

[Hamlette]

16. the biggest problem was California

which broke party rules and held a winner take all primary. McGovern won by 5% but got all 273 delegates. When these delegates were challenged, because California broke the rules, McGovern's ppl saw to it that they were seated.

That's what put McGovern over the top.

He insisted on breaking the rules.

The lesson is, it seems to me, if Hillary insists on seating MI and FL by breaking party rules and wins, she'll be the McGovern.

[Ken Burch]

17. McGovern was certain of being nominated anyway.

No other candidate had any hope of putting together enough delegates to stop him.

And it goes without saying the party wouldn't have been able to stomach Humphrey again after '68.

[Hamlette]

18. Humphrey was actually ahead in popular vote...but a small percentage

but remember Wallace was running as a dem that year so the numbers are all over the map

There were also like 2 dozen candidates running.

those were wild times

[RainDog]

14. Scoop Jackson = Birth of the Neo-cons

Before they (trying to remember all of them... Perle, Kristol...) migrated to the Republican party, the men who have now done more damage to our nation than ANY terrorist could ever do were the "Scoop Jackson" democrats. Like now, they were wrong then. It is a very, very good thing they were not allowed to take control of the democratic party.

This is the thing that I see - I wasn't old enough to vote when McGovern ran, but I remember some of that time and the outright violence in the streets and the political direct action are NOTHING like that now. nothing. -- wasn't this when the SDS was still in action? -- they were definitely part of that political climate. This was PRE watergate. Watergate changed the U.S. political scene - there is no way to compare the two times with any honesty.

Times change. Obama is not at all like McGovern. McGovern was all about the war. Obama is about America. About rebuilding this nation after it has been looted and robbed by the neo-cons and crony crooks of the Bush administration. Bush has only 25% of the population who think he's worthwhile. Nixon had the "secret plan" to get the U.S. out of Vietnam. Bush has been a total foreign policy disaster.

The internet wasn't around back then. If it had been, you would have known about Kissinger meeting with Pinochet and the dictator in Argentina. They internet would have kept this information available - that Kissinger okay'd death squads in south america. Americans know about Bush's torture regime now. This is not then.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Yup, people need to stop pretending it's 1972

It's not even close. Democrats are going to be united behind Obama by the time the convention comes around.