How did George McGovern lose so badly?

[DerekG]

This has been bothering me for several weeks. I always believed that the reason why more people don't vote in presidential elections is because both Democrat and Republican candidates are bearly distinguishable from each other (Carter/Ford, Clinton/Dole, Gore/Bush), but HOW IN THE HELL did a moral man like McGovern, who was probably the last liberal Democrat to run, lose so god-damned badly to Richard Nixon? I wasn't born until 1982, so I'm asking others: Weren't there enough Americans who cared about the direction the country was headed to get their ass out and vote?

[quinnox]

1. The first name that comes to mind when

I hear "McGovern", is Dean. This is one of my worst fears, that Dean will end up being nominated, and then pull a McGovern.

[brainshrub]

3. I think Kucinich

I don't see a Dean/McGovern link. Dean isn't a Liberal...he's a middle-of-the-road, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro GATT & NAFTA Democrat.
BTW: I'm 100% behind Dean. He's my guy.
I think that if you want to make a McGovern link, you should use Kucinich.

But that's not the topic at hand is it? I think the question is why did McGovern do so badly?

[CMT]

15. I don't think any of our candidates will "pull a McGovern"

in 2004.

[IrateCitizen]

2. This topic has been extensively debated on these boards

While I was only born in 1973 -- and therefore not around to remember -- I see the analyses falling into two main camps.

FIRST CAMP:
McGovern lost because he was a liberal, plain and simple. He opposed the Vietnam war, and this cost him a tremendous amount of votes. He only carried one state. If anything, McGovern represents the shining example that we must avoid "moving left", and that the real source of victory lies in the center.

SECOND CAMP:
McGovern was a good and honorable man. He stirred a lot of passions within the younger activists within the party. But he was just a victim of the circumstances of his times. There was an incredible social backlash going on across the country against what many saw as the "excesses" of the 1960's. Also, McGovern's handling of the Eagleton affair was extremely inept. Finally, he was the chosen candidate of the party activists, in an attempt to gain access to the party's levers of power after the deep divisions within the party resulting from the 1968 convention.


I tend to agree more with the second camp.

[MarianJack]

9. Actually, somewhere in between.

I was a 17 year old McGovernite who was one of the people who p.o.'d the party establishment sooo much that many just stayed home or voted for tricky dickie. The campaign was horribly run, massively outspent and the party horribly divided.

In the primaries, McGovern had an air of competence that was totally shattered with the eagleton affair and the timing of his acceptance speech (2:00AM EDT.), which was a pretty good speech.

Also, his positions were deliberately distorted by the rethuglicans with the complete cooperation of the news media. Thank God the media is more responsible now. OOOPS, scratch that last sentence!

The consolation is that '72 probably wasn't winnable anyway. I'd hate to see that happen next year , which is highly winnable, in spite of the fuherer-elect in California.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Don't Think The Two Camps Are Mutually Exclusive.....

"Winning Isn't the only thing.... It's everything.."

And Vince Lombardi was a Democrat....

[Faygo Kid]

4. Worked for McGovern

You ask a good question. Don't forget, Nixon manipulated the electorate, frightened them about a McGovern presidency, and lied, notably about Vietnam. The mainstream media bought into it. It is actually a cautionary tale for 2004; many of the same factors - a paranoid, dishonest presidency challenged by a moral candidate they could not understand, only destroy; an acquiescent media; a bad war that was used by the incumbent to challenge opponents' patriotism. McGovern also forgot to connect with pocketbook issues. But, bottom line is Nixon frightened the electorate, used extralegal tactics, and challenged McGovern's patriotism (despite McGovern's war hero record). Man, here we go again! Great post; now that you bring it up, it DOES all look the same. Proud to have cast my first presidential vote for George McGovern (more hair then; better music, too).

[papau]

7. Excellent summary :-)

:-)

[Faygo Kid]

10. Gosh, thanks

As the Cowardly Lion said, I'm speechless.

[Racenut20]

8. This was all true in 72

Mr & Mrs America, like my parents, still did not want to believe their boys died in vain.

[brainshrub]

25. Believe what you want

They can believe whatever they want, but those boys DID die in vain. And the kids in Iraq are pissing thier lives away as we speak.
It was as true in 1972 as it is in 2004.

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. you forgot the pledge to eagleton that he backed him 1000% percent

and then dumped him two days later..that didn't help.

[Faygo Kid]

13. It didn't help, but wasn't telling

I didn't forget it. Just felt it wasn't the major reason for his loss, as incompetent as it was. By the way, here's another: Nixon's "Southern Strategy," playing off the "law and order" cries of the Silent Majority. Much of it was racist. Also, Nixon won Wallace's voters over by his law and order strategy after Wallace was shot and rendered a non-factor. Lots of reasons; I stand by my original post.

[11 Bravo]

16. I cast my first vote for McGovern.

And you are correct. He allowed that bastard Nixon to tar him as unpatriotic. (McGovern won the DFC for 25 missions in the cockpit of a bomber into the teeth of the worst flak barrage in history. Nixon spent WWII in the supply corps, but George flatly forbade his campaign managers from referencing his wartime heroism.) Also, do you remember the "three A's"? Nixon tabbed McGovern as the candidate of Acid, Amnesty, and Abortion; and the prick got away with it.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Yup.

It's all in perceptions. McGovern blew the Eagleton affair and was perceived as weak. Not Presidential material. Nixon's spinmeisters capitalized on that, and hammered the "Liberal" label. Much as Johnson hammered the "Conservative" label against Goldwater.

Nixon remembered well how that debate with Kennedy blew him out of the water. He had a five-o'clock shadow and seemed nervous-- the electorate got a bad impression, and it was all over. Curious how everyone forgot about Checkers a few years later, but that lame plea helped sink him back then.

Dukakis lost because they humiliated him over the tank business and Willy Horton, not because of policy.

People vote with their emotions, and vote for who they think will handle the job best, not who has the best position papers.

Image-- it's all image.

btw... Nixon also remembered all those voting machines in the Chicago River, and how his machinations in "Egypt" didn't make up for it. Made them work harder to steal what they could. A lesson they haven't forgotten.

I'll toss my flamebait in here now and say Clark has the image. More image than anyone I've seen running for President in a long, long time.

[Snow]

27. Okay, here's your flame - We just elected a governor on image -

and name recognition. So, hell, why not go next for another candidate with tough, macho, beat-em-up image and wide name recognition - Charles Manson for governor!

[papau]

5. Poor's real problem =lack of money, so George to give $100/mon

to every person who is a citizen.

A great idea - much like Canada's mother's allowance - but it was spun by our liberal media as nutty - and that George was nutty - and that he just was not smart enough to be president.

I believe my respect for the media - what I had left - ended at that point.

I rather like the Social Security appreoach of everyone - rich and poor - get Social Security. And I note that is something the GOP wants to end - and may have Dem support for this - as benefit becomes "welfare" as "means testing" and "rich pay more" tries to isolate a benefit from the universal funding stream of taxes (so we have a "dedicated tax" as in payroll taxes - that have a wage cap - and are responsibile for all funding of the dedicated benefit - except when they are not and payroll taxes pay for defense - as it does now under Bush)

[diplomats]

6. Perhaps because he was perceived as too liberal?

I also think he didn't handle the whole Tom Eagleton-VP situation well. Don't get me wrong, I admire McGovern, but when you get creamed in a presidential election, it's no accident.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. "Too liberal"

That's the typical DLC reaction to McGovern, but when asked, no one has been able to tell me in what way McGovern was "too liberal." (They never define "too liberal," which tells me that they've consciously or unconsciously absorbed right-wing memes.)

I was 22 years old in 1972, and the reaction against him was strictly cultural. I doubt that 10% of the voters could even have told you what McGovern stood for other than ending the Vietnam War. (I don't know whether this was his fault or the fault of the media, though.) Middle America was frightened of rebellious youth and "uppity" minorities. Nixon, not only the incumbent, but a figure who reminded people of the more placid 1950s, portrayed McGovern as the candidate who represented everything that Middle Amerca feared.

"Too liberal," indeed. Read up on what Nixon actually did during his two terms. Today's DLC would consider him too liberal.

[Faygo Kid]

23. Thanks - you're right on the DLC

Someday, others will dissect the 2000 election, where the DLC decided to be "Bush Lite" and bend over and take it. Lessons in both elections for us. With all due respect, I was "only" 21 that year. Where does the time go?

[diplomats]

24. I think the cultural aspect tied into the "liberal" aspect

They went together. Opposition to the Vietnam War was seen as a liberal phenomenon.

[OldSoldier]

12. He lost when he dumped Eagleton

//Note: I use a rather derisive term in this post when referring to the mentally ill. It's for effect; this is how Repugs think.//

Eagleton had received mental health care (electroshock, IIRC) at one time. The GOP found out and was going to make it a campaign issue--do you really want a nut one heartbeat from the presidency?--so McGovern dumped him for Sargent Shriver, who as a member of the Kennedy extended family may have been a worse choice.

McGovern went from having a nut as his right-hand man to being a man who dumps his allies at the first sign of trouble. Lack of loyalty; it's a bad thing in a public servant.

[wyldwolf]

14. Huh?

Democrat and Republican candidates are barely distinguishable from each other?

First, totally offbase. Do you want to do a run down, issue by issue, of the candidates you mentioned?

Do you think we'd be in this mess if Gore was running things?

As for McGovern, why the big surprise? There is an assumption by some on DU that far left is what America really wants.

But each time America can choose such a candidate, we don't.

I'm making no judgement call as to whether or not a true McGovern-type Wellstone-type liberal would be good for this country. I'd like to see it myself.

But the US is NOT a partisan country. The majority of us are in the center (I suspect slightly left of center.)

Traditionally, too far to either side makes for a weak candidate election wise.

No, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Nixon, Ford, etc. were NOT waaaaay to the right.

Clinton, Gore, Johnson, Kennedy, etc. were not waaaaay to the left.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. Bush Jr ISN"T far to the right?

Just what would be your idea of a far-right politician? Mussolini?

[wyldwolf]

22. Pat Buchanan...

for example, who has called Bush jr. a moderate.

In fact, many hard right folks call Bush jr. (as laughable as it is to you and me) a liberal.

[CMT]

17. It was clear that no Dem would have defeated Nixon in '72

Watergate was considered a minor scandal not involving the president directly.

The economy was picking up, unemployment was only 5.5%

Nixon was "de-escalating" the war and bringing troops home.

Nixon went to The Soviet Union and China for summits "detente"

McGovern probably did only marginally worse than a Muskie or a Humphrey would have done in 1972.

[Warren Stuart]

18. In answer to your question, No

There weren't enough Americans who cared, even though Watergate was still fresh in everyone's minds, it didn't resonate. It would take two years after the breakin for Nixon to resign in disgrace.

The 1972 campaign had a locker romm feel, either you supported the Home Team (and everyone did) or you were someone who understood the issues. Apparently few understood or cared enough to understand. I campaigned for McGovern, it was unrewarding and fruitless. I could have been talking to a brick wall for all the good I was doing.

Flip-flopping on Eagleburger was a blow.

[jiacinto]

26. They reject his policies period

They associated McGovern with the social disturbance/civil unrest of the late 1960s and the early 1970s. They rejected the New Left. They also thought McGovern was going to raise their taxes.

Also Nixon's staff did break into his headquarters in June. But that wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway.

[Iverson]

28. "Democrats for Nixon," Eagleton

Right wing Democrats just couldn't accept the winner of the primaries, so they undercut him by forming Democrats for Nixon. It was a hell of a P.R. move.

Also, in the 1970s, even temporary mental illness was not as socially acceptable as it is today. McGovern's original choice for V.P., Thomas Eagleton, had been treated for clinical depression (I think), and that was a major setback to the campaign.

[IrateCitizen]

29. Carlos, please read the posts of those who were alive in 1972

and actually witnessed the whole "McGovern phenomenon".

As many pointed out, it wasn't so much McGovern's policies that were rejected, as much as it was what he represented.

Nixon represented law-and-order. Nixon represented "baseball, mom and apple pie". McGovern was seen as representing all of those young activists and "uppity" minorities that had been behind so much social change in the 1960's. While you are correct in stating that it was his perceived connection to social change that was rejected, that is hardly the same as his "policies".

[Iverson]

30. that'll happen

:thumbsup:

[jiacinto]

31. That's what I mean

You said what I wrote in the reply.

[no name no slogan]

33. Two big reasons

Number one: Nixon's big money/swindling machine. Nixon's Campaign to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) was literally shaking down big-name Democratic contributors. Tip O'Neil has some great anecdotes about this in his book "Speaker of the House".

Number two: The Eagleton mess. George gave in to the apologists at the convention and nominated Thomas Eagleton, a pro-big-business with a good conservative background. After it was exposed that Eagleton had electro-shock therapy in the past, McG and the rest of the party abandoned him, and McG selected Sargent "Dingbat" Shriver (a Kennedy by marriage) instead.

This hurt McG in several ways:

A) His early activist, grassroots supporters were alienated by his selection of a shill like Eagleton and saw it as a sell-out of their values. Also, many of the activists were replaced with Democratic machinery drones after he won the nomination, even further alienating his base support.

B) By picking (then dropping) Eagleton, he showed what many would consider a "severe lack of judgement". It was common knowledge at the time (in political circles, at least) that Eagleton was a drunk and had past mental health problems. Many people in the party heirarchy had doubted this choice early on, but McG's people chose to ingore their advice and settled for Eagleton.

C) Nixon had too much money, and was way too damn powerful to beat-- and he wasn't afraid of playing dirty, even if it meant breaking the law. Remember, Watergate started as a botched third-rate burglary of the DNC office in the Watergate complex.

[reachout]

34. A Media Perspective

While I don't have all the information in front of me, I wrote a paper years ago about the media and its role in the 1972 presidential election.

Some key points (that I remember):

Nixon had an abiding dislike for the media. He blamed it (in part) for his previous losses in his bids for the presidency and governership of California. He largely avoided the media whenever possible in his 1968 campaign.

Once he became POTUS, Nixon purged reporters he didn't like by denying them access to the administration (sound familiar?). He became so effective at shutting out those who reported on him negatively, that many within the White House Press Corps were intimidated against publishing negative reports (as many later confessed).

So, the press wanted to stay on Nixon's good side. Edmond Muskie was seen as the strongest Democrat vying for the nomination, and the only one who could defeat Nixon. He was villified in the press as emotionally unstable after an incident in which he appeared to be crying while denouncing an editorial attacking his wife. Once Muskie was gone, a second term for Nixon was seen as fait accompli by many.

Obviously the press didn't want to anger a President who was known to be vidictive against his opponents, and whom they largely believed would win reelection. As a result, they turned into stenographers for whatever distortion on McGovern the adminstration threw out there. Plus, while it was obvious that Nixon had a stronger and better organized campaign, the press definitely played this point up for all it was worth. They regularly portrayed McGovern as ineffective no matter what he did.

At least in part, Nixon's victory can be attributed to the same attitude among the Washington Press Corps that allowed such a long time to pass before the truth of Watergate came out.