Talk Elections

Let's imagine that the revelations about Tom Eagleton's EST and depression were never made public, or never actually happened.  Thereby, he was never dropped from McGovern's ticket.

How would the election have turned out in the end?  Would McGovern/Eagleton have fared better than McGovern/Shriver did?  Or would they have done worse?

The electoral vote would be the same, the popular vote would be roughly the same.

Nixon/Agnew               521
McGovern/Eagleton       17

McGovern/Eagleton win Massachussets and DC.
Nixon/Agnew win everything else.

The problem with the Democratic ticket in 1972 was George McGovern.  No running mate for McGovern could change the results from being a massive landslide win for Nixon.  Ted Kennedy in 1972 may have had the effect of holding some very strong Democratic states, i.e. Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, to add to Massachusetts and DC. 

i agree with winfield's analysis.

-wbecker

Yes, but a big reason why McGovern lost so much support was his indecisiveness over his running mate.  Shortly after the EST revelations, McGovern claimed he still supported Eagleton "1000%", and then just three days later he dropped him from the ticket.  That flip-flop caused a massive loss in McGovern's credibility, which of course, would not have happened in this scenario.

Also, Eagleton was a solid choice.  Much moreso than Sargent Shriver, who had never held elected office and was pretty much a nobody anyway.

I understand the point you are making, however, McGovern's problems and his lack of credibility were not simply as a result of his choice of Eagleton as a running mate.

Even if, as in your original post, Eagleton had not had these depression problems at all, this ticket would still have fared very badly in the election.  IMHO, had McGovern and Eagleton had a good campaign, they would have won no more than the states I had mentioned previously, and wins in those states with McGovern as the nominee were not guaranteed.

People vote for the person at the top of the ticket, and McGovern totally lacked credibility as a Presidential candidate.  He was an extreme liberal, unacceptable to by far most of the electorate at the time.

Even aside from the Eagleton fiasco, the 1972 Democratic convention was a farce and a disaster.  It was taken over by the extreme left wing of the Democratic party.  Nominations from the floor for Vice President included leftists such as Ralph Nader, Benjamin Spock, Cesar Chavez, Jerry Rubin, Mao tse-Tung.

McGovern would pick up roughly 5 points across the board.  Still losing decisively, but maybe adding Minnesota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, etc.

I don't doubt for a moment that McGovern would have still lost by a landslide.  But I'd have to agree more with Boss Tweed that he would have gained about 5 percentage points on average, give or take, and variable from state to state.  That would certainly have been enough to switch a few of the closer states.

Yes, I agree, that is a valid point.

A good convention, a good campaign, could conceivably result in a swing of 3-5% points to McGovern.

In 1972, McGovern lost the following states by less than 10% points
Minnesota                   5.51%
Rhode Island               6.19%
South Dakota              8.63%
Wisconsin                    9.67%
These might then be in play, but it would still be an uphill battle, IMHO.

In 1972, McGovern lost the following states by more than 10% points and by less than 20% points
Oregon                       10.12%
California                    13.46% 
Michigan                     14.39%
Iowa                           17.13%
New York                    17.34%
Connecticut                18.44%
Illinois                         18.52%
These would still be out of reach IMHO.