Re: McGovern

[CTLawGuy]

I was reading about the election of 1972, and I asked myself, would any of the other Democrats have done better against Nixon?

AFAIK, the other Dem choices were Sen. Ed Muskie, who had been savaged by the media for apparently crying when someone attacked his wife, and Hubert Humphrey who had already lost to Nixon in 1968. The party chose the man with military experience, McGovern, probably because he was "electable".

Maybe some years are bad for Dems... like 2002.

[BootinUp]

1. Hey you can check out some tv ads from '72 here

http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1972,,ss,,D,mac,

cool

I'm going to watch a couple...

[BootinUp]

2. OMG, I watched 1 1/2 of the McGovern clips

It reminded me of Dean.

[CTLawGuy]

4. one big difference

McGovern was a military veteran. Isn't that supposed to make you electable?

I'm confused.

[BootinUp]

5. He was a pilot in WWII

earned the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was not a 4 Star general though.
http://search.eb.com/elections/micro/364/22.html

McGovern campaigned on an immediate end to Vietnam. His campaign had a populist flavor.

I am not saying he is exactly like Dean. Just that the populist take back your government stuff is kinda earie.

Look we may be screwed in '04 General or no, but I gotta go with my gut.

[CTLawGuy]

6. going with your gut is fine

but I find it funny that people compare Dean to McGovern and then say he is unelectable because he has no military experience.

[BootinUp]

8. When I say that I think Dean

is unelectable, it is not just because he has no military experience. I don't really want to go through the whole thing unless you do though. There have been many threads/posts on that already.

[AP]

9. I say this a million times, and, unlike other things I write here, I don't

think I've ever seen anyone repeat it. So, here we go again.

Here's what I think was McGovern's problem:

It doesn't matter that he served. What mattered was that he totally DEFINED himself by the Vietnam war. The conduct of the war was totally within the control of his oponent (a lesson Kissinger learned in '68). When November neared, Nixon started talking like he was going to pull out of Vietnam. People thought, well, since McGovern really hasn't defined himself according to things like, say, the economy, or anything else, and since they saw the one reason given to vote for him dissipate, they decided to stick with the guy the knew rather than the guy who was an unknown quantity on every remaining issue.

I think Dean runs the risk. But I think Clark aslo runs the same risk.

I think Clark is very valuable to the field because people will impute his military experience on the whole field. It will make people think of DEMOCRATS as being good on national security if Clark is a Democrat.

However, I think if Clark is nominated, Bush simply needs to trun Iraq over to the UN and that's the end of the Clark candidacy. After the election, Bush will invade Syria and Iran.

[BootinUp]

10. Yes, the power of the incumbent

Your point is valid. Frankly, until I heard Clark back in August or so I didn't think we stood a chance. I know others may disagree with me, but I find him to be quite multi-faceted and able to take the battle on the repubs turf. And its going to waged on their turf in my opinion.

[AP]

11. I think Clark could, but I think that his ability to define himself

rather than be definied by the media and the Republicans will be pushed to its limit. I think his inexperience as a politician (or with skills required to control perception of message and person) will become apparent if he gets nominated and Bush pulls the war carpert out from under his feet.

[mdmc]

14. thanks for this link

I watched most of them, then looked at the maps, and other parts of the site. Very nice. :dem:

[BootinUp]

15. I thought the Nixon ads were quite good

They overpowered the McGovern ads which I liked too. I also watched some ads from other elections, this is a video library going back to '56. Check out the Big Dog in '92. He was really somethin'

[Deesh]

3. Nixon's Landslide

A few months after his landslide victory over George McGovern, Nixon's empire began to crumble. His staff and Cabinet turned on each other "like rats in a slumfire," in Hunter Thompson's memorable phrase.

The people who lined up in the rain to vote for Richard Nixon owe George McGovern an apology. He was a good man and would have lifted the country, where Nixon just tore it to bits.

The press (and some others) are now comparing McGovern with Howard Dean, with 'electoral defeat' the thread running through the comparison. I don't buy it. McGovern was gentile and sought to round the edges, more pastor than politician. Dean is more Spartan and white-knuckled. He'll swing back. Hard.

I think Bush is no intellectual match for most of our announced candidates. But there's not much difference between Karl Rove and Donald Segretti, so our nominee this time has got to be smart AND tough.

[BootinUp]

7. There was this one Nixon ad about McGovern on Defense Cuts

(See my other post for a link to the ad)

They had these little army men, navy men, little carriers, fighter jets, and they explained that McGovern wanted to slash the military while they knocked the little men over and wiped the majority of the little carrier fleet off the table.

ouch
McGovern=Soft on Defense

[carpetbagger]

12. Odd answer to who would have done well against Nixon...

Paul McCloskey.

The truth is, however, that this year we've got a great first tier of candidates, many of whom can do well against Bush. This is not 1972, when the top candidates all went crashing down, literally or figuratively.

[John_H]

13. The actual mcGovern history is utterly irelevent.

The media and GOP pundits will make it the story line. And 2000, 2002, the war, and even the primary absolutely proves--like it or not--that America follows the storyline. That's just the way it is.

We have one (two if Kerry weren't toast) candidates who can "break" the McGovern storyline. But it seems, alas, we're going to run the one most succeptable to it.