Why did McGovern lose so badly?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gore Sr.'s vote against Civil Rights Act = Wellstone's vote for Defense of Marriage Act

Both serious mistakes, but doesn't cloud the rest of their records on the issue. Gore Sr. later said his vote against the Civil Rights Act was a mistake. Wellstone called his vote for DOMA "one of the worst votes I have ever cast"

[Beet]

Why did McGovern lose so badly... I think the reason is that his platform was: Withdraw from Vietnam. And guess what Nixon did... withdrew from Vietnam!! Thereby robbing voters of any reason to vote for McGovern. If 100 U.S. troops were dying per week in Southeast Asia in October '72, McGovern would have done far, far, better, maybe even have won. But the fact is, a peace accord that most thought was serious was signed that year and most people genuinely believed the war was over.

College campuses began to die down as students did not have as much to protest about. Nixon may not have given them what they wanted as fast as they would have liked, but he did do so in the end. Voters naturally saw the end of the turbulence of the late '60s as a good sign.

As peripheral to this, Nixon did run as a liberal Republican, a now extinct breed of creature. This was back before the L-word became dirty. In the summer of 1971 he imposed wage and price controls, something unthinkable now, soon after his famous Clintonesque declaration of his Keynesian principles. It seemed to work: inflation fell in 1971-72 for the first time in years, and the economy boomed. The poverty and unemployment rates were to reach lows in 1972 that would not been seen again for over a generation.

He also had landmark summits with China and the Soviet Union that year, which marked a major realignment splitting the communist powers and paving the way for detente. People were thrilled at a new ally China to be used against the USSR.

So in sum the percieved end of the Vietnam war deprived McGovern of his message (btw, does Kerry have a message other than that we are losing jobs...in this he is very similiar to McGovern), and peripherally to this

Nixon was a moderate (left-wing liberal by today's standards)
Campuses calmed down
Wage and price controls seemed to work
The economy was booming (record high for the Dow)
Poverty, unemployment wealth inequality were at historic lows
Opening up of China and Cold War detente

[Beet]

Btw, acsenray, please consider registering in the Fantasy Elections board if you haven't already... we'll need your vote for the upcoming elections.

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

The governments job is NOT to give handouts to the people. Plain and simple. Show me in the constitution where it exists. It's not there. Its not one of the constitutionally mandated jobs of the Federal government to provide a welfare state. If the states want to set up welfare programs then I believe it is their right to. Any federally mandated program for benefits such as welfare are unconstitutional, IMHO. Their is a old saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life." Instead of handing out free checks the states need to encourage people to go out and find work. The only people who should recieve any benefits whatsoever from the government (on the state level) would be those who are permanently disabled and the elderly. I have no problem with temporary unemployment with a max of 6 weeks. That's my belief. I will not call you names, I am above that.

[migrendel]

One could argue that welfare benefits are part of a group of substantiated rights under the General Welfare Clause. This could be based upon the concept of welfare benefits as property rights under the Due Process Clause, the position accepted by the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, and the implicit notion that there is a right to an education, adumbrated in Plyler v. Doe.

I must caution you that I do not necessarily accept this interpretation. I do not believe that the Constitution is an economic document, which explains my reluctance to interpret it to encompass economic rights, such as welfare benefits. I shall have to think about it. But, should that ever come to pass, this is how it shall happen in all probability.

I also believe that welfare legislation is allowable under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's appropriate that your name is StatesRights, since you would skew the idea of federalism to the point of depriving the federal government of meaning. Is Social Security unconstitutional? Are regulatory rules unconstitutional? Is federal agricultural aid unconstitutional? Of course not, by any interpretation of the Constitution standard today, but perhaps if your ideas ever become ones adopted by the judiciary.

[migrendel]

Here's an example of your ideas of federalism run amok. If this bill ever becomes law, watch out. Since I don't know how to represent all the characters in the exact address, just go to www.thomas.loc.gov and type in We the People Act in the bill text bar. The first result is what I mean. And make sure you're sitting down.

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

One could argue that welfare benefits are part of a group of substantiated rights under the General Welfare Clause. This could be based upon the concept of welfare benefits as property rights under the Due Process Clause, the position accepted by the Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly, and the implicit notion that there is a right to an education, adumbrated in Plyler v. Doe.

I must caution you that I do not necessarily accept this interpretation. I do not believe that the Constitution is an economic document, which explains my reluctance to interpret it to encompass economic rights, such as welfare benefits. I shall have to think about it. But, should that ever come to pass, this is how it shall happen in all probability.

I also believe that welfare legislation is allowable under the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's appropriate that your name is StatesRights, since you would skew the idea of federalism to the point of depriving the federal government of meaning. Is Social Security unconstitutional? Are regulatory rules unconstitutional? Is federal agricultural aid unconstitutional? Of course not, by any interpretation of the Constitution standard today, but perhaps if your ideas ever become ones adopted by the judiciary.

You have to ignore me sometimes as my ideas on how the Federal government should be run are usually about 150 years behind modern times. Although I believe to go back to a more laissez faire Federal government would be the best direction for the individual and I believe we would actually attain more freedoms this way.

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

Here's an example of your ideas of federalism run amok. If this bill ever becomes law, watch out. Since I don't know how to represent all the characters in the exact address, just go to www.thomas.loc.gov and type in We the People Act in the bill text bar. The first result is what I mean. And make sure you're sitting down.

I agree with some parts of it, on others I am somewhat iffy on. I do agree however that Roe V Wade violates the constitution because the states laws on abortion were the way to go. I believe the same for gay marriage as well. The courts are slowly usurping powers from the states in a way that many of us do not notice until those powers are gone.

[acsenray]

Senator Beet, how do I go about doing that?

Regarding the "Southern Strategy." I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that we all know what we're talking about here and there's no need to harp on it further.

After all, it's been staring me right in the face all this time. Senator States' Rights? What a giveaway! Thanks for pulling my leg.

[migrendel]

Even if the Courts reached conclusions contrary to the ones I would on those issues, I would oppose the law. I do not believe we can afford to disrupt the federal system and withdraw jurisdiction piecemeal on some legal controversies.

[Nym90]

Acsenray--

Once you get 18 posts, you will be eligible.

Make a post in this thread, stating your screen name, party, and home state.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=2153;start=435

You are too late to vote in the Presidential election next week, but you will be able to vote in, and run for, future elections.

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

Senator Beet, how do I go about doing that?

Regarding the "Southern Strategy." I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that we all know what we're talking about here and there's no need to harp on it further.

After all, it's been staring me right in the face all this time. Senator States' Rights? What a giveaway! Thanks for pulling my leg.

The senator part is fantasy elections.

[gorkay]

To get back to the topic...
1. The Democrats failed to nominate their strongest candidate that year.
2. The Republicans took some underhanded steps to assure that the Democrats did not nominate their strongest candidate (although it might have happened anyway).
3. The Democratic convention that year was a disorganized, uncontrolled mess that turned off voters (and was, along with the '68 convention, one of the main reasons that subseqent conventions were tightly scripted).
4. McGovern didn't get to give his acceptance speech until 4 in the morning, so very few people heard it.
5. The Vice-Presidential nomination was a debacle, with McGovern offering it to a number of people who turned it down, only to have it accepted by Eagleton, who had to be de-nominated (another debacle).
6. The visits to China and Russia and the sham "peace" agreement Kissinger patched together in Vietnam had Nixon riding high.
7. Nixon refused to debate McGovern.

[Fuzzy Bear]

To get back to the topic...
1. The Democrats failed to nominate their strongest candidate that year.
2. The Republicans took some underhanded steps to assure that the Democrats did not nominate their strongest candidate (although it might have happened anyway).
3. The Democratic convention that year was a disorganized, uncontrolled mess that turned off voters (and was, along with the '68 convention, one of the main reasons that subseqent conventions were tightly scripted).
4. McGovern didn't get to give his acceptance speech until 4 in the morning, so very few people heard it.
5. The Vice-Presidential nomination was a debacle, with McGovern offering it to a number of people who turned it down, only to have it accepted by Eagleton, who had to be de-nominated (another debacle).
6. The visits to China and Russia and the sham "peace" agreement Kissinger patched together in Vietnam had Nixon riding high.
7. Nixon refused to debate McGovern.

I can’t over-emphasize the degree to which Reason #3 did McGovern in.  I was a 15 year old peacenik at the time, a Democrat at heart from a Democratic family, whose view on McGovern was simply that he was against the war, and that was the big issue.  But even I, young as I was, watched that convention in horror.  I watched hippie types and a black guy in a dashiki all over the place.  I watched a 20 year old female college student nominating Eagleton, instead of some prominent pol from Missouri.  I watched a Vice Presidential floor fight where folks were casting votes for a bunch of nobodies, Mao Tse-tung, Roger Mudd, Snoopy, etc.  The VP vote spectacle was what was responsible for pushing McGovern’s acceptance speech back to 2 am EST.  I knew lots of folks from nearby Queens and Brooklyn who were nominal Democrats, but socially conservative, and I just knew that those folks would be turned off no end by the spectacle.  The whole thing struck me as folks who really weren’t thinking about what they were saying or doing, or what the consequences of all of this were.  (The most dignified moment in the VP carnival was the Alabama delegation’s unanimous support for Eagleton’s nomination as VP on the grounds that if Gov. Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to nominate his pick for VP.)

McGovern was likely to lose in 1972, period, but the irresponsible spectacle that was the 1972 Democratic National Convention was what began the road to carrying only one state plus DC.  And memories of that convention linger to this day.  This was the convention that caused America to believe that the Democratic party as a whole was irresponsible, and, to some degree, their inability to put on a convention that didn’t come off as threatening to large numbers of DEMOCRATS .  It was one thing to lose the Southern states; it was another thing to lose Rhode Island, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and New York.  McGovern never recovered from the horrible presentation that was the 1972 Democratic National Convention; the circus atmosphere overshadowed his eloquent acceptance speech.  There were many reasons he won, but the specatacle of that convention opened the door to a 49 state loss.

[SWE]

Why did you bump a decade old thread?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Because this is a timeless topic.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"]

Yeah, this thread is interesting.

[Paul Kemp]

Anyone miss StatesRights...?

McGovern = Kerry. Watch and see.

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

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.

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.

Also hilariously, StatesRights named a pro-slavery racist as his most comparable politician and called Lincoln a fascist.

Lincoln was a facist, commie. LBJ was a great humanitarian towards the black man, huh? Welfare is a form of economic slavery! And the Democrats insist on public assitance. The elitist plantation mentality still exists in the Democratic party.

Welfare holds people back from the true potential. Most people will take the freebie over having to go out and work for it themselves.

Disagreeing with policy on policy grounds is one thing. So you don't like welfare ... It's still more than ridiculous to equate it to slavery or segregation or racism. (For one thing, it has nothing to do with race.)

Welfare absolutely DOES have a lot to do with race. Dependence on the government is equivalent to slavery in the same way as the slaves were dependent on the plantation master. What party is the party of the free check handout? If you keep people dependent on you you can easily subvert them to your way of thinking.

All in one thread. lol.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I bumped this thread again because of the topic.

That McGovern lost so badly because he was out of step with the clear majority of Americans is obvious, but it could be argued that Trump was as well, yet he won.  Obama was as liberal as McGovern, and he won twice. 

1972 was a realigning election, in the sense that it jolted traditional Cold War liberals out of the Democratic Party.  The defection of Southern Democrats began in 1964, but the defection of the anti-Communist liberals of the Democratic Party began in earnest in 1972.  If you read Elliott Abrams' "When You Can't Stand Your Candidate" article, he describes how neocons (that, in 1972, were DEMOCRATS) abhorred McGovern, but believed that they could win the party back.  They thought they had done so with the nomination of Jimmy Carter in 1976, but, over time (in Abrams' words) they came to believe that Carter was advancing his own brand of McGovernism, especially in foreign policy.  The 1972 Democratic campaign pretty much established the anti-war cultural liberals as the driving force of the Democratic Party, and pretty much served notice on the Scoop Jackson Democrats that their days were numbered.  (If Carter had the kind of Congressional voting record on the Vietnam War that Scoop Jackson had, he would never have been nominated for President; this was a Democratic Party that repudiated the President who signed the Civil Rights Bills into law over the issue of Vietnam.)

The Democratic Party, over time, rebuilt itself by welcoming in liberal Republicans who (A) were rather dovish and (B) were usually culturally liberal.  The Southerners and Cold Warriors left before these folks took their place.  The cultural liberal Republicans moved to the Democrats in the late 1980s, mostly over their distaste for the Religious Right's ascendency within the GOP.  In 1972, however, they were not yet willing to bolt the GOP, at least on the Presidential level.  1972 was, however, the year where it became inevitable that these folks would not be long for the GOP.

[fluffypanther19]

man, BRTD has been on this site since forever.

answering the question: mcgovern lost because he was a very bad candidate

[darklordoftech]

He alienates the New Deal Coalition and the Obama Coalition wasn’t there yet.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The alliance between the AFL-CIO and the Democratic Party which was central to the New Deal completely broke down as well. The conservative unionist who had ran the AFL-CIO since its birth, George Meany heavily favoured the failed campaign of Scoop Jackson in the primary, and then went for HH Humphrey; which was probably a bad call on his end - Jackson was extremely unlikely to unite the party and triple HHH would also have been a dud. Maybe they'd have best stuck with Muskie even post Canuck letter. Instead the AFL-CIO were lumbered with a candidate that didn't really get them at all - the first Democratic candidate since Jennings Bryan to represent an agricultural area, in a right to work state with little New Deal-era unionist traditions.

I get the sense the Democratic/union establishment refused to grapple with the new reality of the McGovern-Fraser commission (or didn't really understand the new rules), which is why many of them didn't even bother and viewed their nominee with scorn.

Nixon's unbelievably underhand campaign also deserves a mention, but that goes without saying. The Federal Reserve also started to behave in a rather less than independent fashion, inflating the currency enough that growth increased from zero to seven percent. There additionally was the shift within the Nixon administration to free trade which wooed internationally-oriented businessees and banks (who were the businesses that for the most stayed Democratic throughout the New Deal.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nixon's unbelievably underhand campaign also deserves a mention, but that goes without saying. The Federal Reserve also started to behave in a rather less than independent fashion, inflating the currency enough that growth increased from zero to seven percent.

I've only ever seen this mentioned in Perlstein's book on Nixon, and, given the inflationary and economic troubles that plagued the decade, I don't feel it receives nearly enough public scorn.

[Orser67]

Nixon's unbelievably underhand campaign also deserves a mention, but that goes without saying.

Given how many people talk about Nixon being "good except for Watergate", I actually don't think that it goes without saying. Nixon's underlings undertook a whole campaign to undermine individuals they perceived as stronger candidates (especially Muskie) and promote McGovern (whom he regarded as the weakest candidate).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Nixon was a Eisenhower Republican despite being a Southern strategist. The only family to have success was Kennedys and they died. But Sgt Shriver was part of Kennedy clan, Enuis and Maria Shriver Kennedy and Schwarzenegger; however, we would never know what could of been, if Shriver was the nominee,  not McGovern, if he was the Veep