McGovern doesn't drop Eagleton

[Michael Z]

Assuming George McGovern doesn't drop Thomas Eagleton from his ticket, how would this have affected the 1972 election?

Personally, I think it would have made little difference, but the farce over Eagleton and Shriver probably did cost him a few EVs and turned what might have been a somewhat respectable loss into an outright landslide defeat.

[True Democrat]

He would've done slightly better if he Eagleton had really shown that he was competant:



503-35

[Lincoln Republican]

If McGovern had not dropped Eagleton in 1972, McGovern would have fared no better in the election than he had without him.

Nixon still wins all states but Massachusetts.

With Eagleton still on the ticket, Nixon may have even increased his share of the popular vote.

The public was very uneasy over Eagleton's hospital stays for being treated for nervous disorders.

The McGovern campaign was farcical from beginning to end.

[WalterMitty]

wouldnt have made much of a difference either way.

[Dr. Cynic]

McGovern was an open sacrificial candidate. No matter what he did, he would lose handily. The only two men with a remote shot at beating Nixon would've been Ed Muskie or Hubert Humphrey.

[Michael Z]

McGovern was an open sacrificial candidate. No matter what he did, he would lose handily. The only two men with a remote shot at beating Nixon would've been Ed Muskie or Hubert Humphrey.

What about Scoop Jackson? Or was he too much of a hawk over Vietnam?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

McGovern was an open sacrificial candidate. No matter what he did, he would lose handily. The only two men with a remote shot at beating Nixon would've been Ed Muskie or Hubert Humphrey.

The Interesting fact of that is before the primaries McGovern reckoned the hardest bit of his task would be getting the nomination.
One of the reasons he did so badly was that the Democratic establishment feared a McGovern presidency as much as they did a Nixon one. Which may explain the Union vote (Despite the myth McGovern did rather well among blue collar workers in the primaries but after the nomination many of the unions sat on their hands - similiar to what Irish and German community Democratic machines did to Cox in 1920.)

McGovern tended needed the "Anti-politican" vote to do well. But after the Eagleton affair that was finished, he came across too much as a phoney. Though he did have 41% iirc in the polls before the affair - which is higher than he actually got. Most potential McGovern voters then stayed at home (very low turnout in 72') leaving him only with hardcore Democrats and moderate-liberal Anti-war types.

I'd Reckon:

(no clue about percentages)

Of course things might have finished very different had McGovern got the person he wanted to be his running mate - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

It's Liberal (in parts) Reputation. Plus McGovern didn't do as badly there as in many other states in OTL.

Actually on the night of election the McGovern campaign team rated California as a "toss-up". In my map I gave all the states McGovern expected to win\thought he a had chance on the real election night to go to him (excluding CT).