2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMcGovern's defeat was caused by his stands on "social justice" not on economic or foreign policy.
The issues that destroyed McGovern's chances in 1972 were his heroic stances in support of gay rights and reproductive choice. I admire those stands and still do. He was right to take them. But it was those stances, not McGovern's opposition to the Vietnam War, his support for increased social spending, and his Keynesian economic policies, that helped Nixon his 49-state sweep(thanks to the China trip and the "dirty tricks squad" Nixon was certain to badly defeat any Democrat anyway, including Ed Muskie, Hubert Humphrey or Scoop Jackson, but those particular stands gave Nixon more to work with).
Today, HRC takes stands(as does Bernie)that go further than McGovern ever did on those social issues. The polls show those issues are no longer "deal breakers" with any blocs of voters who would even consider voting Democratic.
A McGovern-style defeat simply isn't possible this year.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Even his words, for goodness sake.
It's f'ing embarrassing.
Even more so because you know she doesn't mean it. She will just change her tune later, just when the average American is counting o her to hold the line as promised.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)What suprises me is really we have been losing since Reagan but it's taken this long for people to realize it.
Suddenly they looked up and their parents were doing way better than they are.
They are only going to have SS to retire on and their kids are bogged down with student debt and living in their basement because they can't find a job with a living wage.
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)between certain of the party establishment that melted down in '68 and the "reformers". Now it is partly pure ideology. Sanders's social justice literally frightens the sadly regressing establishment over things the most conservative Dems in '68 held dear. He has worked well with the party and with that "old" agenda and the red button issues of war and rights are transformed. By contrast what the Obama and Clinton campaigns have offered and delivered is degenerated pablum. He will have no trouble getting to the heart of the actual crises and the voters. Neither the parties nor the wealthy want to go there at all. They have become the niched minority going down in electoral defeat unless raw undemocratic power beats the people down, unable to appeal to their worst instincts.
Sanders- unlike Dukakis and possibly McGovern will have no trouble working with the party, but will the pros work for him under the current state of affairs? The party itself is developing an addiction for losing as much as for big money.
Onlooker
(5,636 posts)... he had great political views, but like Mondale could put anyone to sleep with his flat speaking style. Whatever one thinks of Sanders, he's certainly not a boring speaker.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)We should worry about this century.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's important to show how this year can't be like that.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The rest of use are just here on overextended visas.
That pisses them off, because statistically they skew older.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)...who couldn't stomach any suggestion that the U.S. wasn't the "good guys" in a war or might walk away from a war without a total victory. They passionately hated the Dirty F____ing Hippies for their sexuality, drugs, and rock 'n roll, as well as their politics.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The "F__k the hippies" types were totally right-wing on all issues.
