I don't want us to replay 1968.

[Ken Burch]

That year, the party leadership insisted on imposing a nominee they knew was hopelessly behind in the polls, just to stop the insurgents from winning.

It looks a lot to me as if the party leaders this year are willing to do the same thing, for the same reasons.

Why do they not learn from history?

[PatrickforO]

1. Because they stopped giving a shit about the American people

long ago.

[cantbeserious]

2. This Revolt Has Been Building For Years - The DWS, DNC, DLC, Third-Way Has Only Themselves To Blame

eom

[aaaaaa5a]

3. I don't want a replay of 1972

This was when the party nominated a candidate loved by the base, but so wacky, and so far to the left, that we ended up losing 49 States.


Why can't people learn from history?

[Ken Burch]

4. There was no candidate unloved by the base who'd have done better.

If Ed Muskie(who I originally supported)could be destroyed in New Hampshire by one or two minor Nixon dirty tricks, he was doomed to go down in flames in the fall too.

McGovern never deserved to be cut loose by the party insiders because Muskie was smeared. McGovern's primary campaign was exclusively positive and he was blameless for Muskie's collapse.

In fact, after the Nixon China trip, ANY Dem was probably doomed in '72, no matter what.

We don't have to be inflexibly hawkish to win the White House, and most voters don't want us to keep fighting in the Arab/Muslim world.

[livetohike]

5. +1000 and I was so sure he would win! n/t

[Ken Burch]

7. The election was decided by the Nixon China trip

Once that happened, it was going to be difficult for any Dem to do well.

Scoop Jackson would have lost in a landslide.

McGovern's platform had nothing to do with it.

[book_worm]

10. While I do believe that any democrat would have lost in 1972

It could have been a lot closer. No, it was not lost just by China but the landslide element came due to McGovern's mishandling of the Eagleton situation. He was so sure Kennedy (Edward) was going to run with him that he and his team didn't adequately check out Eagleton. The first poll after the convention showed lots of undecideds (53-37) for Nixon with room for McGovern to grow. After the Eagleton affair and his dumping from the ticket McGovern was down at one point 64-30.

[Ken Burch]

11. He only ended up with Eagleton because other Dem senators refused to take the vp slot.

Two of them, for no good reason, were nasty enough to publicly announce they had turned McGovern down. McGovern had done nothing to either of them to deserve that.

They took Eagleton out of desperation...and I think he may have leaked his own mental health records just to force McGovern to look like a jerk by removing him from the ticket. Eagleton was an obsessively hardline anti-choice type(after Eagleton's death, Robert Novak revealed that it was Eagleton who had actually been the anonymous "Midwestern Catholic senator" who smeared McGovern as the candidate of "acid, amnesty, and abortion" as quoted in an Evans and Novak column in the spring of '72) and hated McGovern for his extremely moderate position that states with a pro-choice majority should be allowed to legalize abortion, while states that opposed it would be allowed to keep it banned.

It could have been closer, and there was never any good reason for the party establishment to disown McGovern in the fall of
72.

But the notion that McGovern's platform was the cause of his defeat has no basis in reality. If McGovern's views were actually unpopular, Nixon would not have felt politically obligated to get out of Vietnam in January of 1973.

[book_worm]

12. Read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail: 1972 by Dr. Hunter Thompson

best account of the 72 campaign.

The wholesale slew of Democrats who turned down McGovern came when he was looking for a replacement for Eagleton--Kennedy, Humphrey, Muskie, Jackson, Nelson, Mondale all turned him down until they got a Kennedy in law, Sargent Shriver.

The only serious person that McGovern had in mind for the VP at the convention in 1972 was Edward Kennedy, who had told him he didn't want it, but McGovern was sure that when he was the nominee and was asking Kennedy to be on the ticket he would bend, but he didn't.

The only person other than Kennedy who was then put forward was Mayor Kevin White of Boston, and Kennedy vetoed him for some reason. Kennedy and others suggested a young Missouri moderate who was Catholic and had good ties with organized labor named Tom Eagleton. That is how he entered fray.

Doesn't matter--had the Eagelton thing not happened McGovern would have lost but it probably would have been a closer election.

[book_worm]

13. p.s.

I agree that McGovern was a good man and would have been a good president and it is a shame he wasn't elected. I also think Humphrey would have been a very good president.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. McGovern was NOT a "far left" wacko!

Geez! He was a decorated World War II veteran who wanted to end American involvement in the Vietnam War, for crying out loud!

Enough of this bullshit revisionist history!

[karynnj]

16. McGovern was not wacky. the Republicans smeared him

He was a WWII war hero, who was instrumental in writing the first food stamps legislation.

Nixon smeared him as for acid, amnesty, and abortion. In retrospect, he was swiftboated. Not to mention, much as we hated Nixon, he had a lot of support. His drawing down troops gained a lot of moderate support.

[book_worm]

18. They can and will smear any Democratic nominee

and if they can smear as good a man as McGovern and get away with it then they can do the same with Bernie.

[karynnj]

20. agreed and that includes Clinton

The idea that there is nothing new to throw at her is not true. Contrast how little REALLY worked against Obama.

This will be the first tough race that HRC faces against the Republicans. The only other even moderately tough race was against a very wounded Pre 2001 Guiliani, who dropped out citing medical problems rather than extremely low approval ratings after he told the media he was divorcing his well known wife before he bothered to tell her! Guiliani was then replaced by a pretty unknown Long Island Republican.

I dread the GE for EITHER Bernie or her.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

21. They still smear Carter

...

[Arazi]

19. Revisionism isn't a good idea for us right now

We really can't afford it. Trump's going to take this thing and I don't think any of us who have studied history will enjoy saying I told you so

[book_worm]

8. Actually Humphrey was ahead in the polls over Nixon in Gallup

HHH became a candidate on April 30, 1968--in early May he was behind Nixon, but as the months before the convention continued he gained a lot of ground. He was leading Nixon by 5-7 points in June, July and early August. It was only after the disaster of the Chicago convention that he fell far behind, by 15-points. On election day he lost narrowly by less than 1% and many now feel he would have won had not the Nixon campaign sabotaged the cease fire that Johnson had announced only days before the election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/110548/gallup-presidential-election-trial-heat-trends.aspx


Second, HHH was well ahead in delegates prior to RFK being assassinated. He had about 1000 delegates compared to RFK's 700 and not sure what McCarthy had. Humphrey got in too late to really compete in any primaries--and besides primaries didn't really become important until 1972. There were relatively few primaries in 1968.

http://chicago68.com/c68myths.html

[w4rma]

9. At least the Clintons will be completely discredited and gone from politics forever.

It's a small silver lining to losing the Supreme Court, again, and having to put up with a President Trump.

[Robbins]

14. 2016 will be end of democratic party

the GOP will have total control over government.ACA repealed.medicare and food stamps cut.more corporate wellfare and more defense spending.planned parenthood defunded,US becomes right to work nation.

with gerrymandering and citizen united and voter id law even if public soars republicans can't be defeated.

we will back to w years when dems cared more about being bi-partisan than fighting.

as long as top 1% keeps giving them money dem establishment doesn't care.

[Vinca]

15. I think that's exactly what's going to happen though.

But, look on the bright side. Comedians will be dancing in the streets.

[Nanjeanne]

17. Because they are petrified their special place at the top of the ladder will be

Taken away from them. Where they will have to work for the people and not for some corporate sugar daddy. Where their cushy places as corporate lobbyists will not be as secure when they leave office.