General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnybody remember the election of 1972?
Nixon vs McGovern.
Why did McGovern lose to Nixon by such a huge majority?
Four years later, Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford.
no_hypocrisy
(46,089 posts)Congress had ratified the new amendment to the Constitution, allowing 18 year olds to vote.
The Vietnam War was still on. The Draft was still on.
You would've thought that between all the Democrats opposing the War and the college kids, McGovern should have had a landslide.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,683 posts)who was supported by dirty pot-smoking hippies. It was the whole "silent majority" routine, with a generous helping of racism thrown in - he appealed to the racist Dixiecrats, who turned GOP and have been ever since. McGovern also made a lot of tactical errors in that campaign, but the election was mostly about Nixon vs. the hippies.
maxrandb
(15,324 posts)Resulting in Dixiecrats jumping to the Retrumplicans.
It's kind of amazing when you think about it.
Going back to right after Abraham Lincoln, the Retrumplican Party began to believe in nothing but "power".
Retrumplicans really have no governing policy other than the inherent belief that they... and they alone, should be in power.
Their embrace of taxcuts and deregulation is not really based in any belief that they work to improve the quality of life of the American people. They simply support them because the 1%, and the 0.0001% support them financially.
The Dixiecrats didn't just move to the Retrumplican Party... They took it over
Overnight, the racist, segregationist beliefs of the Dixiecrats became the operating philosophy of the Retrumplican Party.
Look at what has happened now.
Within months, the Donnie Dipshit Crime Family OWNED the Retrumplican Party.
Look at all that the Retrumplicans have pretended to care about being thrown out the window.
It's a pretty damn good indication that they didn't really believe those things. They have no moral, principled, or ethical connection to them. They were and are, nothing but a means to get what they really want... POWER!
You see, when you really don't believe in anything other than power, you're nothing but an empty shell, ripe to be taken over by whatever keeps you in power.
Think of it like this.
The Retrumplican Party is just like an unmanned nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
Lot's of airplanes and weapons and destructive power, but really devoid of any beliefs or usefulness.
But, when a bunch of segregationist or a mob family move onboard, it's capable of unimaginable destruction.
That's all the Retrumplican Party is. It's an empty vessel just waiting for the next strongman to come along.
It explains why Vladimir Putin found it so easy to takeover.
trackfan
(3,650 posts)was passed. What happened that totally flipped the score within 8 years?
maxrandb
(15,324 posts)The Vietnam War protests happened, and the "implementation" of the Civil Rights Act happened.
I don't think we can dismiss the assassination of JFK as a large part of LBJs landslide. I mean, Americans had just seen this young vibrant man get his Brains blown out, and his wife scurrying back to the trunk of the car to try to gather the pieces of his skull. I'm pretty sure there were a lot of people that saw that image and wanted to send a message that elections and not assassination determined the direction of the country.
For the Civil Rights Act, 1968-1972 saw the implementation and enforcement of the Law.
Suddenly, it was no more just on paper, but you could see African Americans going to the polls.
It wasn't just on paper, you could actually see African Americans exercising their rights.
I'm pretty sure that the Dixiecrats had descended from folks who went through a war and reconstruction, but what was the result of that?
Jim Crow Laws succeeded in discriminating against African Americans. Why would the Dixiecrats think the Civil Rights Act would be any different?
In fact, with the Roberts Court, you might argue that we are precipitously close to backsliding to the Dixiecrats glory days.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)scared a heck of a lot of people. And the slogan, "in your guts, you know he's nuts". Goldwater was just too right wing for voters.
marlakay
(11,457 posts)Before his time on those and the favorite was Ted Kennedy who didn't run because of that accident where girl got killed accidentally.
I remember the 72 election, I was 16 and semi hippie myself those days, thought it was cool he was for pot. Back then though Nixon had been doing a bang up drug bashing with his movies scaring all the parents that said you has hallucinations like acid on just pot.
I know my dad wouldn't vote for Nixon but not for pot either, I bet he didn't vote.
Yeehah
(4,587 posts)and Richard Nixon
LeftInTX
(25,300 posts)Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)I don't recall that his campaign ever mentioned that, because they didn't want to associate him with war. I didn't even know about that until years after. They should have played that up.
Norbert
(6,039 posts)even though Nixon was hammering him about being unamerican.
Aristus
(66,328 posts)But he was a Naval supply officer in some backwater part of the Pacific War.
George McGovern was a bomber pilot in the far more glamorous European Theater. One would think that would have burnished his patriotic credentials for the election. But, as we have seen far too many times, being a war hero is a liability, not as asset, for a Democrat.
Trailrider1951
(3,414 posts)roamer65
(36,745 posts)If the election were in November, 1974...McGovern would have won it.
Repukes took a beating in the midterms that year.
DBoon
(22,363 posts)Ed Muskie, a very good candidate, was forced out due to Nixon's dirty tricks.
McGovern, a very decent man bu a weaker candidate, won the nomination.
There was a systematic covert campaign to destroy the Democratic candidate. Roger Stone was a key part of this.
This had never happened at the presidential level before, so the Democrats were unprepared.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)in Muskies downfall. He claimed that Muskie cried. Years later Broder admitted that was false.
DBoon
(22,363 posts)I think his name was Declan McCullough
Completely made the statement up and admitted it
Plus Bob Schieffer, a life long friend of the Bush family, on CBS picked up the Wired story and ran with it.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)when the news media was trying hard to not lie. Today, we have Fox News actively promoting falsehoods to Trump's base to keep them on board.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)The NY Times even purposefully misquoted him so the could slam him for it.
unblock
(52,208 posts)Eagleton concealed that he suffered from depression and had received electroconvulsive treatment. Then he revealed it after getting the nod. Back in those days, being seen as mentally unstable was actually a liability, unlike in today's Republican Party....
McGovern has to replace Eagleton with Shriver, and that whole sequence did not make McGovern look presidential.
But there was more ratfuckery than just watergate. McGovern "failed to unify" the democratic party as a major players in different factions didn't like him. But why? I'm willing to bet that republicans spread disinformation and/or other secrets to sow division.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)What party is that?
Did you reply to the right post?
ETA: Oh I see now, fixed, thanks!
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...to be perfectly honest (and looking at it with clear-eyed hindsight, rather than with the "we're on the side of right, so we have to win" idealism of a teen who came of age in the 1960s), I'm not sure any of the Democrats could have beaten Nixon that year, even if they would probably have won more states. The Vietnam War was fading as an issue, and Nixon was receiving plaudits from moderates for his unprecedented diplomatic initiatives to Beijing and Moscow, while conservatives who might have been disgusted by such "appeasement" remained loyal due to the "culture war" and their fear of Democratic Party being controlled by hippies who would make "acid, abortion, and amnesty" the law of the land. Plus, Nixon had the advantage of incumbency, which he lacked in 1968. Muskie, Humphrey, etc. might have done better that November, but I don't think any of them would have won more than a handful of states.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The fundamentals:
GDP Growth was 5.2%
Unemployment was 5.3%
in 1972
____________________________________
Nixon received 43% of the vote and Wallace received 14% of the vote in 68. That's 57%. Nixon consolidated that vote and added some. Also, the Vietnam War was winding down.
God couldn't have beat Nixon in 72.
Here's a graph of Nixon's approval ratings:
He was hovering around 60% approval on election day. That's roughly the percentage of the vote he received.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)My civics teacher had a McGovern bumper sticker on his briefcase all year, the end of the prior school year then carrying over toward November. I felt so bad for him because I knew McGovern had no chance. He was very enthusiastic during the primary season, when I was in his class. Then the following fall I wasn't in his class anymore but while seeing him in the hallway and occasionally speaking to him it was clear he sensed the inevitable.
My dad was huge and vocal for Humphrey in '68 then barely discussed '72 at home. That's how obvious it was. We hated Nixon but all the numbers pointed his way. I do remember we had the McGovern bumper stickers, just for the heck of it.
Nixon was more a crook than competent handicapper. That's what it boiled down to. He didn't grasp the immense value of the situational advantage, and since he surrounded himself with fellow crooks he was determined to steal things he didn't have to steal.
In fact, those burglars actually could have done it the other way. They could have placed secret RNC information under the door of that Watergate office and it wouldn't have impacted the race at all.
The only other race I didn't pay attention was 1984. It was the same situational advantage of incumbent whose party had been in power only one term. By that point I was well into my 20s and had done the historical research, while in 1972 it was mostly instincts.
Reagan's approval had collapsed in late '82 and early '83 but had rebounded in '84. Mondale never had a chance.
Also, I should mention that those mid summer 1988 Dukakis polls were knucklehead polls. Many of us were insisting it at the time. Every time I see a reference here to a Dukakis 17 or 18 point lead I want to laugh. Too many people actually believe that was the foundational state of the race. Meanwhile Reagan's approval was in the 50s and GDP was high. There was 0% chance Dukakis would have won by anything close to that margin, no matter when the race was held. The electorate was nearly 90% white. In 1988 the nation was 33% conservatives to 18% liberals. I did pay close attention to that race due to the situational aspect of GOP holding the White House for two consecutive terms, but I always thought Bush was likely to prevail.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Early polling showed that of the Dem candidates McGoven was the weakest against Nixon. Part of the Watergate scandal was the Nixon campaign screwing with the other Dem candidates so the nominee would be McGovern.
Also the Democratic convention that year was a disorganized mess. McGovern didnt give his acceptance speech until about 1AM. Then there was the whole Eagleton debacle.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Chili
(1,725 posts)McGovern picked Sen. Thomas Eagleton as his running mate, but Eagleton had been treated for depression, even had shock treatments. When this hit the news, all hell broke loose and Eagleton had to withdraw his name. McGovern then picked Sargent Shriver (married to Eunice Kennedy) but it was too late.
I was 12 and was paying attention. Remember all the celebrities backing McGovern, Redford and Newman, et al. But he was beaten badly by Nixon. It was my first cry for the loss of a presidential election.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)I remember only that my parents were pro-McGovern, and I think I carried a pro-McGovern sign to school one day, but really, I was just reacting to my parents own attitudes and hadn't the slightest idea of the politics at the time.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,784 posts)Nixon ran on law and order. Different time, different America to what we have now.
The law and disorder is all on Trump this time.
PlanetBev
(4,104 posts)The first time I was able to vote. McGovern, of course.
DBoon
(22,363 posts)Clearly fogged in
(1,896 posts)skipped school and hitchhiked in the rain to a McGovern rally on the steps of the Capitol in Albany. Those were good days; we believed we could end the war, legalize weed, and, thanks to the new devices called computers, usher in 4 day work weeks and own lakeside cabins. The future was bright.
Now look at this country - what the hell happened?
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)Eight years of Nixon/Ford, twelve years of Reagan/Bush, eight years of Dubya, and four years of Trump. Is it any surprise the bright dreams of the future went totally to sh*t?
Clearly fogged in
(1,896 posts)It seems so long ago that a republicans viewpoints were just a part of who they are, and not imminent threats to all we value. My thoughts regarding a peoples ability to make wise choices are ineffable. :rant off:
LittleWoman
(259 posts)Why change dicks in the middle of a screw, Vote for Nixon in '72
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)I was delivering papers in my neighborhood back then, so I'd eagerly read the front page before packing up my bike with them, and give others the news. One of my favorite customers had a big poster of George McGovern in her front window, easily visible from the street.
While Nixon was known as "Tricky Dick" way back before the 1968 election, he still was not directly tied to the Watergate burglar scandal at the time of the 1972 election. Also consider this, in 1968, Nixon managed to win even with George Wallace siphoning off the votes of the most racist voters in the country. Wallace even won the electoral votes of five states, denying them to Nixon, who didn't have Wallace to worry about in 1972.
The Nixon campaign was able to successfully define McGovern as a peacenik, hippy lover. It's much the same way that the Trump campaign is trying to define Joe Biden with their "sleepy Joe" and being sympathetic to socialism/radicalism. Just as Nixon was not wildly popular with most Americans, his campaign made a lot of the mud stick.
This is why I'm quite fearful as we approach Election Day, 2020.
misanthrope
(7,411 posts)While this nation has incredible and sometimes inspiring potential as exhibited by the flexibility of its governing Constitution for 250 years, its reality is often far, far uglier.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)He screwed up the selection of his VP choice (Thomas Eagleton) and he campaigned primarily on ending the war, which was not the top issue on voters' minds.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)JI7
(89,248 posts)in recent years in the national elections.
Reagan would not win like he did back then today.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)With today's demographics 1984 is no longer a blowout and we actually win in 1988 and 2000.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)since there were such big rallies supporting him in Boulder Colorado. I was kind of naive when I was nine. 🤣
regnaD kciN
(26,044 posts)...as it was the point where cynicism about the future began to set in.
But, in fact, when you look at actions rather than tone, it's hardly surprising. Nixon had managed to pull of a "divide and conquer" move by simultaneously creating detente with the U.S.S.R. and China (the latter a particularly amazing feat), while simultaneously having his surrogates portray Democrats as disloyal Commie-sympathizers. While most of us were outraged about the latter, the majority of Americans approved strongly of his overtures to the other two global powers, seeing them as major steps toward world peace and stability. The economy was going well. And, while the major talking point for McGovern was his opposition to the war in Vietnam, an apparent breakthrough in the Paris peace talks just before the election took the wind out of that particular set of sails and, while that proved illusory, the gradual reduction of U.S. troops (and, just as importantly, the end of the military draft) had reached a level where most voters had lost the fear of their son coming home in a box. Indeed, the last U.S. combat troops were withdrawn within three months of the election.
And then, of course, there was the Eagleton fiasco. Between the poor job vetting him in the first place and the vascillation in first supporting him "1,000%" and, a couple of weeks later, asking him to step down, the McGovern campaign came off looking amateurish and somewhat hypocritical. The fact that it then took McGovern far too long to pick a replacement (mainly because most previous big names who had been considered backed away, apparently convinced they'd be damaged politically from being linked to what appeared to be a sure loser) added to the sense of "wheels falling off" the campaign.
The case Democrats had against Nixon, going into the fall of 1972, lay not so much in what he was doing at the time, but what he had done in the past, and what kind of person he was. And that wasn't enough to sway voters, even though the latter concern proved to have been prophetic over the next two years.
And it's probably a mistake to compare what happened in 1972 to the victory in 1976, as that was a direct aftereffect of Watergate. For approximately two-three years, the Republican brand had been so damaged that some people were speculating they would disappear as a party. The 1974 midterms were a disaster for them, but one might say that the tide had begun to turn even by 1976. Sure, Ford lost to Carter, but the margin was razor-thin, whereas, even at the time just after the conventions, polls indicated that Carter would win in a landslide. And, of course, once the Watergate effect had worn off, Republicans won the White House and held it for the next twelve years, until Bill Clinton came along in the early '90s. Overall, from 1968 to 1992, Republicans won five out of six presidential elections, and I don't think it's far-fetched to say that, had it not been for the Watergate scandal, it would likely have been six out of six.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)If you look at the trajectory of the 1976 race Carter might have lost if it was held two weeks later. If my memory is correct if not for 50,000 or so votes in Hawaii and Ohio he would have lost.
Baked Potato
(7,733 posts)Good guy, wrong time.
LessAspin
(1,153 posts)(Committee for the Re-Election of the President) were George Wallace and Edmund Muskie.
Of course neither made it to the General Election.
LessAspin
(1,153 posts)meanwhile...
Get more sophisticated Cambridge Analytica
Blatant USPS
Crude...
...
Wisconsin Republicans took an active part in trying to get West on the ballot. At least five of his 10 electors are Republican activists or Trump supporters. Also, Lane Ruhland, an attorney for the Trump campaign in a Wisconsin lawsuit, helped file the nomination papers for the West campaign.
In fact, the West campaign is able to file its lawsuit in Brown County because one of its electors, Fred Krumberger, is based there. Krumberger is a Brown County Republican Party volunteer, and his wife, Marian, is the immediate past chairwoman of the county GOP.
One Wisconsin Republican source has said the goal is for West to get 107,000 votes, about what Libertarian Gary Johnson did in 2016. Trump won the state by a little more than 22,000 votes.
Earlier this week, West's attorneys filed a lawsuit in Ohio in the hopes of getting on the presidential ballot there as well.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/kanye-west-campaign-files-lawsuit-to-try-to-get-on-the-presidential-ballot-in-wisconsin/ar-BB18tUIP?ocid=st