Why did McGovern lose so badly?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

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?

[Nym90]

Well, Watergate certainly helped to inflate his percentage of the vote that year a bit.

[So the Heroes Fall]

ah, great point. a lot of people forget what exactly Nixon resigned over.

[bullmoose88]

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.

[Umengus]

The problem was Mc govern was a very bad candidate.

[lidaker]

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".

[© Tweed the Younger]

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.

[PBrunsel]

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.  

[??????????]

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

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

[Bandit3 the Worker]

McGovern = Kerry.

The difference is that Kerry is probably going to win.

[??????????]

McGovern = Kerry.

The difference is that Kerry is probably going to win.

40% Chance.

[bullmoose88]

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.

[Vasall des Midas]

Of course, the centre wasn't exactly the same as it's now either...

[© Tweed the Younger]

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.

[??????????]

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.

[© Tweed the Younger]

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

Ehh...no he doesn't.

[So the Heroes Fall]

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.

[AndyTheMan]

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,,,

[acsenray]

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."

[??????????]

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.

[acsenray]

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

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?

[??????????]

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

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.

[acsenray]

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.

[acsenray]

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.

[??????????]

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.