Depending on who the Democratic Nominee is, this could be a very, very

[MineralMan]

strange election year. Of course, it will also depend on who the Republican nominee is, but there's a risk this year of repeating the disaster of 1972, I think. Here's an electoral college map of that election:



This concerns me. I supported McGovern in 1972, but knew he had no chance of being elected. Instead, this country re-elected a man who was probably the worst excuse for a President in US History. What that demonstrates is that elections do not always proceed in a logical or sensible way.

I'm sure my concerns will be dismissed outright, but they remain concerns, and not just for me.

[stone space]

1. Is McGovern running?

If so, he should be included in the Debates, along with the others.

[MineralMan]

2. No, he is not. He is dead.

[stone space]

4. Then I'm not worried about the consequences of McGovern running. (nt)

[MineralMan]

7. A good plan.

[reformist2]

3. Is this how badly you think Hillary will do???

[MineralMan]

5. Uh, no.

I think that's fairly obvious, really.

[AgingAmerican]

12. No, it isn't obvious

[Betty Karlson]

29. It's fairly obvious what you are trying to do - and nobody buys it. eom

[MineralMan]

6. Or, perhaps 1968, which wasn't quite as awful:

[Punkingal]

8. And George Wallace is dead, too.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes, he is. So is Humphrey.

[catnhatnh]

32. We had a great candidate in 1968

But he was assassinated, just like you are trying to do to another great candidate's chances...

[MineralMan]

33. Yes, we did. But after his assassination, the party fell apart

and we lost an election we should have won. I remember that year very well, indeed.

[Hekate]

44. As do I

[AgingAmerican]

9. Your OP has no relevance to anything this century

It only makes you sound desperate.

[stone space]

13. It should probably have been posted in GD.

It's in the wrong forum.

[MineralMan]

19. Nope. It depends on who the Democratic nominee is.

It's a Democratic primary thread.

[stone space]

21. It may indeed, but again, I don't expect the noninee to be McGovern.

The Democratic Party is unlikely to nominate a dead politician this time around, but it would be understandable to me if the Republicans were to consider such a move, given their current crop.

[Punkingal]

24. yes, if they could dig up Ronny to run, they would.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. There is a lawn somewhere with kids on it.

I'm upset about that too, aren't you?

[leftofcool]

11. If Bernie runs, just swap MA for VT and you would have it right.

[MineralMan]

16. Actually, I think the results might be more like 1968.

I can see all of the major swing states going Republican under some circumstances. My projected electoral vote count for the two serious Democratic candidates are in the neighborhood of:

Hillary Clinton vs. anyone but Trump - ~300+ electoral votes. More if she runs against Trump.
Bernie Sanders vs. any Republican but Trump - ~180 electoral votes. ~250 if it's Trump.

[sweetapogee]

43. interesting analysis

Would you be kind enough to share your data?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I am confident that even if Hillary gets the nomination

Democrats will still be favored to retain the White House.

[peacebird]

28. I am confident that if Hillary gets the nom, we lose the White House

[cali]

15. What a mess of an op. And a very foolish comparison.

Things are very different now. For one thing, Nixon was an incumbent. For another, there is no polling that supports your fear mongering. Not to mention that due to political changes, It's very unlikely we'll ever see anything like that again.

[MineralMan]

17. OK. Thanks for your input.

[reformist2]

18. Wild predictions not based on polls are ok for the general, don'tcha know?

I agree with you - the original post is foolish, a late-in-the-game pathetic attempt to scare people.

[Attorney in Texas]

20. I think Clinton could lose almost a bad as McGovern due to independents dislike and distrust of her

plus the fact that she is running as the status quo establishment candidate when the electorate so clearly wants change and a break from the establishment.

If we nominate Sanders, we avoid this risk.

[Proserpina]

23. ^^^this^^^

and that's the "elephant" in the living room!

[stone space]

22. I'd vote for a dead man over this guy.

Hope that addresses your concerns.

[Proserpina]

25. That's not one of your choices, unfortunately

We can't recycle, we can only revolutionize!

[pengu]

26. I agree, Trump would lose in a McGovern style landslide to Sanders

If the nominee is Clinton, it would be dangerously close.

[Alfresco]

27. “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.” ― Oscar Wilde

In response to the copycat post

[MineralMan]

34. I didn't realize someone had done a copycat thread.

Interesting. I'll go have a look at it.

[stone space]

35. pssssst...two copycat threads.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251987943

[MineralMan]

36. That one's a follow-on thread.

The other one is almost verbatim for the language I used. That is a copycat thread. I don't care, of course, but it's interesting all the same.

[stone space]

37. I hope that the distinction doesn't detract from the flattery. (nt)

[MineralMan]

38. LOL

I'm not sure I felt flattered in the first place. Interested, but not flattered. If I wanted to be popular here, I wouldn't be writing what I write as OPs. Instead, I write what I think and let others decide what they think about what I write. I'm not dependent on popularity in any way. I've never sat at the popular table, really.

[TDale313]

30. Pure bullshit.

There is no way with this polarized electorate we'd see a blowout like that. In fact I think given the math either Bernie or Hillary would win if they were the nominee.

[MineralMan]

40. The margin of victory in our presidential elections is a thin one.

Since we use the electoral college, a small shift in voting in a few major states can alter the outcome dramatically. We don't elect our Presidents through the popular vote.

In 1972, for example, Nixon won with 60.7% of the popular vote, against McGovern's 37.5%. Yet, the electoral vote was an overwhelming 520 to 17 vote, completely out of proportion to the popular vote.

The reality today is that about 10 states end up deciding who becomes the President. They are swing states, that tend to flip back and forth on which party wins the election. A few other states might also go Republican that normally wouldn't if the voters in those states were not impressed with the Democratic nominee.

While you're probably correct that we would not see such an overwhelming electoral victory, we could easily see the presidency go to the Republicans. Very easily. More like 1968 than 1972, I'd guess.

[TDale313]

41. Agree with that...

It's certainly not a sure thing that the Dem nominee would win (although I personally think it's likely either Bernie or Hillary would win, given the likely Republican nominees)

My only point, really, was that the blow-out map of '72 is not really likely in today's environment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Bullpucky.

There are no significant similarities or analogues that I can think of between the 1972 election and the upcoming one. McGovern was nominated after a contentious battle among at least nine candidates, including Edwin Muskie, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace. Muskie was the victim of Nixon's dirty tricks (and poor organizing); Humphrey had already lost in '68; and the right-winger, Wallace, was injured in an assassination attempt. Once McGovern had the nomination he had a lot of problems. Support vs. opposition to the Vietnam war had caused a huge rift in the party, and several prominent Dems turned down his offer to be his running mate. Finally Thomas Eagleton accepted, but he wasn't well-vetted and when it was learned that he'd had treatment for mental health problems McGovern waffled badly before withdrawing the offer. After being turned down again by just about everybody he got Sargent Shriver to do it. This incident was a total disaster and, combined with the ongoing controversy over the war and Nixon's incumbency, probably cost him the election.

There is no incumbent president to run against this time. Although Nixon was never Mr. Popularity, in 1972 he was still getting a lot of support for his visit to China, and the public didn't yet know how badly Vietnam was going. McGovern's campaign was damaged by unforeseen circumstances and a number of self-inflicted injuries. You can't compare that election with this one. But there's a lot of disingenuous "concern" going on right now, because, hey, look, another grass-roots campaign by a liberal!

[Tennis Magnet]

45. It truly shows your age.

I'll be in my 4th decade this year, and I have never heard of McGovern only except he lost in a landslide against a popular president.

There is no incumbents this year, and Bernie is gaining a LOT of steam and will be ready to take on the responsibilities, including bringing in Democratic representation in the House and the Senate with his long coattails.

Remember the enthusiasm gap? It's still there for Clinton, it's a mile wide, a mile deep; Bernie doesn't have that.