Why did McGovern lose so badly?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:59:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Why did McGovern lose so badly?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Why did McGovern lose so badly?  (Read 19893 times)
Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 30, 2004, 01:44:00 AM »

How did George McGovern manage to get beaten so soundly by, of all people, Richard Nixon in 1972?

I've heard people say 1972 was the only time they ever voted Republican.

What made Nixon so great?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2004, 01:56:00 AM »

Well, Watergate certainly helped to inflate his percentage of the vote that year a bit.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2004, 02:08:46 AM »

ah, great point. a lot of people forget what exactly Nixon resigned over.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2004, 03:24:01 AM »

yeah, but even before watergate, Nixon was heading for a sound victory--which puzzles me as to why he authorized the break-in.

Then again. Nixon, especially compared to other more modern republican presidents was fairly liberal/centrist. You can't knock the guy for everything, somethings yes...others no.

Plus McGovern got painted as a farout lefty-regardless if he was or not.

Its not surprising Nixon won in the fashion he did.
Logged
Umengus
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,474
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 30, 2004, 06:07:08 AM »

The problem was Mc govern was a very bad candidate.
Logged
lidaker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 746
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: 0.88, S: -4.67

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 30, 2004, 07:54:06 AM »

McGovern seemed to represent the leftist youth movement who smoked weed and had long hair and all that stuff. He seemed to much to the lest, to much opposed to the war. And he wasn't a good candidate - no charisma, no media skills. And there were a bunch of minor and major scandals eroding his credibility. His reputation as a plain-speaking guy was severely damaged when he forced his first VP candidate Terry Eagleton to step down due to mental ill-health, after first having said that he stood by him by "one thousand percent".
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2004, 08:56:02 AM »

Watergate probably gve Nixon 1-2%, and McGovern was a bad candidate.  Nixon would have beaten anyone, but McGovern allowed him to score a landslide.
Logged
PBrunsel
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,537


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 30, 2004, 11:09:15 AM »

Nixon was able to give Americans the image of McGovern being a big spending liberal. McGovern also fliped-flopped on Vietnam. Nixon's 1972 Campaign ammased husge sums of money. His adds appealed to the South, minorites, women, and Blue Collar Democrats.  
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2004, 10:53:31 PM »

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
bandit73
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,952


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2004, 10:57:02 PM »


The difference is that Kerry is probably going to win.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2004, 11:19:32 PM »


40% Chance.
Logged
bullmoose88
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,515


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2004, 05:56:12 AM »

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.

Nixon didn't win a disputed election in 1968.

Another thing...he was closer to the center in 1972 than Bush is now.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2004, 06:40:51 AM »

Of course, the centre wasn't exactly the same as it's now either...
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2004, 07:24:10 AM »

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.

I'd see your point if Kerry advocated complete unconditional withdrawl from Iraq.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2004, 12:13:23 PM »

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.

I'd see your point if Kerry advocated complete unconditional withdrawl from Iraq.

He does, he just flip flopped to try and appease moderates. I hope most voters see that.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2004, 01:07:57 PM »

He does, he just flip flopped to try and appease moderates. I hope most voters see that.

Ehh...no he doesn't.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 31, 2004, 06:06:15 PM »
« Edited: May 31, 2004, 06:06:34 PM by Better Red Than Dead »

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

Rising Prices, Unpopular war, Negative media against a incumbent. hmm.

I'd see your point if Kerry advocated complete unconditional withdrawl from Iraq.

He does, he just flip flopped to try and appease moderates. I hope most voters see that.

When did he ever advocate that? it's not a flip flop if he never did.

if you're thinking most voters will assume things you are assuming with no hard evidence, you are wrong.
Logged
AndyTheMan
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2004, 09:14:36 AM »

Take a look at the Nixon attack ads here. In his book about the 1972 election, Hunter Thompson mentions these ads as one of the many reasons McGovern got clobbered. http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1972,,ss,,,
Logged
acsenray
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2004, 04:27:17 PM »

There were a lot of reasons, of course. One was the P.R. flop of the Democratic convention (McGovern's acceptance was in the wee hours of the morning). Another was Nixon's dirty tricks throughout the election that knocked out all the stronger Democratic candidates one by one and sabotaged Democratic events. Another was the succesful tarring of McGovern with the "Triple A" brush.

But most importantly -- something nobody has mentioned yet -- is that 1972 was the year that the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" (a.ka., appeal to racist whites) really kicked into high gear for the first time. This is really the ongoing appeal of the Republican party in the south and rural midwest. The Republicans have successfully positioned themselves as the "we're one of you and we'll protect you against THEM (i.e., other Americans) party."
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2004, 02:05:53 AM »

But most importantly -- something nobody has mentioned yet -- is that 1972 was the year that the Republicans' "Southern Strategy" (a.ka., appeal to racist whites) really kicked into high gear for the first time. This is really the ongoing appeal of the Republican party in the south and rural midwest. The Republicans have successfully positioned themselves as the "we're one of you and we'll protect you against THEM (i.e., other Americans) party."


Give it a rest already. Democrats are the party of the slaver and history backs me up on that. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Logged
acsenray
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2004, 10:16:08 AM »

Give it a rest already. Democrats are the party of the slaver and history backs me up on that. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Using similar logic, I could say that the Republican party is the party of slavery, because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder and he was a member of a party called the Republican party. Never mind that it wasn't the same Republican party. In the same way, the Democratic party that exists today has nothing to do with the Democratic party of the slaveholders, especially considering that all the people with the attitudes and agenda of the slaveholders switched to the Republican party since the 1960s. Which party did Strom Thurmond die a member of, eh?
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2004, 12:03:04 PM »

Give it a rest already. Democrats are the party of the slaver and history backs me up on that. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Using similar logic, I could say that the Republican party is the party of slavery, because Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder and he was a member of a party called the Republican party. Never mind that it wasn't the same Republican party. In the same way, the Democratic party that exists today has nothing to do with the Democratic party of the slaveholders, especially considering that all the people with the attitudes and agenda of the slaveholders switched to the Republican party since the 1960s. Which party did Strom Thurmond die a member of, eh?

Democrats still believe in a form of slavery. It's called dependence on the federal government. Dependence = Slavery.
Independence = Freedom. Have we forgotten Senator Byrd from West Virginia? Renowned KKK member.
Logged
acsenray
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2004, 01:42:47 PM »

Byrd has also repudiated his KKK membership, apologized for it, rejected the ideals of the segregation movement, and since has pursued a liberal agenda. How many southern Republicans have done that?

As far as equating liberal social policies with slavery, that is merely a slogan. It says nothing about the realities of racial politics in the two parties.
Logged
acsenray
Rookie
**
Posts: 51


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2004, 01:51:12 PM »

BTW, Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat NOT a Republican. The Democratic Republican Party which he founded in opposition to the Federalist Party dropped the "Republican" part of the name by 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran for president. One of the Democratic Party's big annual fundraising events if the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner.

Jefferson was neither a Democrat or a Republican in terms of the modern party names. He and his followers referred to themselves exclusively as "Republicans" and the "Republican party." The Democratic-Republican party (which became the Democratic party) was not created until the split between Jackson and John Q. Adams's National Republicans in the 1820s. Jefferson himself never used, nor had ever heard of the name "Democratic-Republican."

The point is that Jefferson's Republican party is not the same party as today's Republican party. Similarly, the pro-slavery Democratic party of the mid 19th century and the pro-segregation southern Democrats of the 20th century have nothing to do with today's Democratic party, especially since all the segregationists switched to the Republican party.

And, BTW, today's Democratic and Republican parties both claim Jefferson as a model and a hero. So that counts for nil.
Logged
??????????
StatesRights
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,126
Political Matrix
E: 7.61, S: 0.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2004, 01:13:30 AM »

BTW, Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat NOT a Republican. The Democratic Republican Party which he founded in opposition to the Federalist Party dropped the "Republican" part of the name by 1828 when Andrew Jackson ran for president. One of the Democratic Party's big annual fundraising events if the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner.

Jefferson was neither a Democrat or a Republican in terms of the modern party names. He and his followers referred to themselves exclusively as "Republicans" and the "Republican party." The Democratic-Republican party (which became the Democratic party) was not created until the split between Jackson and John Q. Adams's National Republicans in the 1820s. Jefferson himself never used, nor had ever heard of the name "Democratic-Republican."

The point is that Jefferson's Republican party is not the same party as today's Republican party. Similarly, the pro-slavery Democratic party of the mid 19th century and the pro-segregation southern Democrats of the 20th century have nothing to do with today's Democratic party, especially since all the segregationists switched to the Republican party.

And, BTW, today's Democratic and Republican parties both claim Jefferson as a model and a hero. So that counts for nil.

They did not "all switch" as you try and make it out to sound. Most blacks flipped to the Democratic party in the late '40s because Southern Democrats threatened to cut off benefits if they didn't ditch the GOP. Some of the most vile racists I know are Democrats. Racism does NOT have party lines.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 11 queries.