This Ain't 1972
Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (2)
I just read a post here on DU where a kindly soul warned us all that Bernie Sanders was our modern George McGovern, having absolutely zero chances of winning an election.
Though I'm sure that the warning was given out of the goodness of his/her heart I started counting all the ways that this election was like that election.
What a task! I had to stop when I got to Zero!
I just don't see how 2016 compares to 1972...we've lived through a generation of profound changes since that year. As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to say: "Consider the following..."
- In 1972, a black man had no chance of running for the Presidency, let alone winning it twice.
- In 1972, a woman had no chance of getting the Democratic party nomination, let alone being the front runner.
- In 1972, being in favor of gay marriage was a career killer.
- In 1972, banks were regulated and couldn't destroy the economy.
- In 1972, we had not already lived through 20-30 years of trickle down economics.
- In 1972, there was no Citizens United to act as a lightning rod.
- In 1972, there wasn't a clown car full of insane Republicans running against us (and each other).
- In 1972, there was no Internet to organize the troops.
- In 1972, these thing's didn't all come together to create a perfect storm for populist reform.
- Most importantly, in 1972 we didn't have Bernie Sanders to kick some corporate ass!
So hey all you worry warriors? While we appreciate your sincere concerns, we really don't share them.
This ain't 1972. Bernie Sanders isn't repeating history. He's making history.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Bernie can win, but it will take more than people on DU talking about it.
It will take massive amounts of DONATIONS and willingness to work on the campaign.
My hope is all the overtly proud supporters of Bernie HERE will make many donations and work on the campaign.
I would like to see an accounting of that, actually.
Maybe not the donating part but who has signed up on his website to volunteer to help?
I have
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)
1972, I remember you well. It was a hell decade, that one.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A lot of people thought it was about Nixon.
Especially with those jowls.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Don't remember who, but I heard some show biz type say that on TV within the past year or two.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Odd IRL, apparently.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)Women had been admitted to several of its other schools (Graduate, Medical, Art and Architecture, Drama, etc.) for a long time.
k8conant
(3,034 posts)1969
Yale College admits women for the first time. Women have attended other schools at Yale since 1869, when the first women enrolled in the School of the Fine Arts. Alumna Maya Lins The Womens Table (1993), located in front of Sterling Memorial Library, commemorates the women of Yale. Women arriving on Old Campus in 1969.
http://www2.yale.edu/timeline/1969/index.html
In any case, I remember those years well.
In 1972, I was one year out of college and voted for George McGovern. (I had campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 but couldn't vote yet--I was only 19).
1972 was also when Eagleton got kicked out as VP nominee because of a history of depression and EST and was replaced by Sargent Shriver.
Volaris
(10,594 posts)Time, talent, treasure. We need sustained giving of all three. We need to hold ourselves accountable and inspire and empower others.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)that is why I give to Bernie and hope others do the same.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)Thank heaven he's not around either.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In 1972, Dixiecrats were a significant part of the Democratic party. They're dead now.
onecaliberal
(35,697 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Our opponent next year will be either another Bush, or a certifiable nut case. Good time to be aggressive.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The Zeitgeist is our friend today.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)...his values and objectives for America appeal to Americans across the political spectrum.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)Unknown Beatle
(2,688 posts)First time I voted. I'll never forget the empty feeling I had when McGovern lost to Nixon.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Huge K & R
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Bernie's got my manpower and money, all the way!
barbtries
(29,735 posts)it just is not 1972. or 1988. or 2000. probably more like 2000 than the others which is a source of fear for me since a bush is running. they will try to steal it again. we just cannot let them.
rurallib
(63,166 posts)love him or hate him, Nixon was an incumbent which brings a lot of votes with it.
No incumbent this year. Actually I am guessing Bush is the only name that more than 50% of even Republicans recognize.
captainarizona
(363 posts)It will be difficult enough for hillary to get elected even without commercials showing bernie sanders morphing into che guevara. Think with your head not your heart. I know bernie can't get the nomination the minority voters are for hillary ;but you could damages her chances in the general election. I know the other sides argument is it does not matter hillary has a growing democratic base and the republiscum base is dying off. I hope you are right.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Please delete your post. This is a request from a group host.
However, I do have to say something in Hillary's favor. She does seem to motivate those who don't post very often to speak up for her.
Member since: Fri Mar 20, 2015, 06:52 PM
Number of posts: 111
Come to think of it, I made a similar comment to AZ Progressive within the last few hours.
AndreaCG
(2,331 posts)Like the Koch brothers weren't kicking in 900 million to the Republican Party and the NYT and WaPo employed honest to god impartial JOURNALISTS back then, but since apparently you can tolerate no dissenting opinions in what is NOT the Bernie Sanders thread I'll leave it at that.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)That's worse than silly. It's McCarthyesque.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)by some recent postings about Bernie. Add this one to that list.
demwing
(16,916 posts)thanks for the props.
dflprincess
(28,455 posts)In 1972 we didn't have "superdelegates". They were created to avoid nominating "another McGovern". And don't think for a second that the Third Way types running the party these days wouldn't be dumb enough to overrule the primary and caucus selected delegates to get their candidate the nomination by getting "superdelegates" to go along with them - especially if the delegate count is at all close. I'm sure they'll be thinking "What else they gonna do - vote Republican?"
jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Line up behind Humphrey" didn't work too well.
dflprincess
(28,455 posts)than Clinton would be in 2016.
merrily
(45,251 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)No one had a clue that it would be all downhill from there.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
merrily
(45,251 posts)tTaxes on the uppermost incomes were very high. In addition, we had, during World War II, knocked out our biggest competitors. We built the national highway system that FDR had envisioned, under the national defense budget. That created a lot of jobs and money to spend. Turning manufacturing to the war efforts had resulted in pent up demand, including for cars to ride those new highways. Unions were strong, so wages were going up.
And Eisenhower/Nixon got the credit for an era known alternatively as "peace and prosperity" and "guns and butter."
k8conant
(3,034 posts)when I earned about $14,000 and my husband was also working. We had money to spare.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)"tuning in, turning on and dropping out."
Besides, there were at least fifteen reasons George McGovern lost that election and they weren't all "he's liberal."
Also, Bubba did not win in 1992 because he was a centrist.
On political myth after another, all with the effect of taking the party to the right.
rbnyc
(17,045 posts)...is that they often note that McGovern was such a great inspirational candidate with such great positions, he was so ideal and he lost to someone so terrible. And I think, are you trying to tell me that the winning strategy is to not have an excellent, inspirational candidate with the right positions? Is that the rationale for supporting Hillary?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)At least, for many people on DU.
There's a few camps, with two big ones.
One of the big ones actually believes in Clinton.
The larger one doesn't care what the policies are - the only important thing is defeating the Republican. Even if the Democrat had identical policies.
merrily
(45,251 posts)follow the Party line, literally.
Finally, no one pays anyone to post for the "left of the left" or for Bernie.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I like his politics and his all too short-lived efforts to make the workings of the DNC more democratic. But, from what I see on TV, he was not personally forceful or dynamic or charismatic. I've seen only snippets and none of his debates, but he came to me across like a nice, mild mannered individual, kind of nondescript.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 06:53 AM - Edit history (1)
Overview :Let's start with this. By 1972, in addition to serving in Congress, Nixon was a World War II veteran (as was McGovern) with 8 years as Vice President during one of the best economies for most voters that this country has ever known to this day, and 4 years as a war time incumbent President/Commander in Chief.
The Democratic Party was well into losing the "Solid South" because a Democratic President (Truman) had integrated the military via an Executive Order, the next Democratic President (JFK) had used the ICC to integrate interstate travel and the next Democratic President (LBJ) had gotten the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act passed.
A lot of opposition to McGovern came from within his own Party:
The Democratic Party's nomination was eventually won by Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, who ran an anti-war campaign against incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon, but was handicapped by his outsider status, limited support from his own party,* the perception of many voters that he was a left-wing extremist and the scandal that resulted from the firing of vice-presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton.
Emphasizing a good economy and his successes in foreign affairs, such as coming near to ending American involvement in the Vietnam War and establishing relations with China, Nixon decisively defeated McGovern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
"It's the economy, Stupid."
I don't know why there was such dissent within the Party, but a field of 20 for the Democratic nomination may have had something to do with that.
Those of you who read "left wing extremist and said, "aha," slow your roll. That perception had a lot to do with wedge issues, which the center right perpetuated, and the rest to do with getting out of Vietnam faster than Nixon was managing. Both ran on getting out of Vietnam. I don't think McGovern lost the election because of the timing of the withdrawal, do you?
1. The undefeatable wartime incumbent advantage
The incumbent advantage cannot be dismissed. However, Nixon was not, in 1972 "merely" an incumbent President. He was a wartime incumbent President/Commander in Chief. US voters have never voted a war time incumbent Commander in Chief out of office. NEVER.
2. Voters did not see Nixon as a conservative.
How many posts have you seen at DU claiming that Nixon and Eisenhower were more liberal than today's Democrats? (I disagree almost every time I see one, but I sure have seen a lot.)
In 1968, Nixon had run on knowing how to get the US out of Vietnam with honor or some such. In 1972, he ran on almost having ended the Vietnam War. So, McGovern, an anti-war candidate, was not running so very differently from Nixon.
It's a lot easier for any President to look good to voters with a traditional Democratic Congress, which is what Nixon had had during his first term. Moreover, since FDR and Truman had held the Oval Office for an unprecedented 20 years, mostly due to the New Deal(s) and the Fair Deal.
Republican Presidents and Presidential hopefuls got the message: if you want to be elected and re-elected, be more like FDR, at least during your first term. As a result of those two factors, during the first Nixon administration, a lot of pro-environment, pro-labor, etc. legislation has passed by the Democratic legislature and signed by Nixon, for which the Nixon administration got much of the credit.**
On the foreign policy front, there had been Nixon's landmark trip to "Red" China, widely publicized and widely lauded. At that time, if TV networks were enamored of something, all American homes with TV were saturated with it--no internet, and a very limited number of TV channels other than the three networks. If anything would have been considered far left at that time, it would have been Nixon's trip to "Red" China.
3. Short of Democrats running God himself, Nixon was going to win in 1972, whether his opponent was as right as Mussolini, or as left as Marx or anyone in between; and Democratic politicians knew it.
In 1972, Richard Nixon appeared unbeatable. When McGovern won the Democratic nomination for President, virtually all of the high-profile Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie,[9] and Birch Bayh, turned down offers to run on the ticket. McGovern had been convinced that Kennedy would join the ticket. Kennedy ended up refusing.
McGovern campaign manager Gary Hart suggested Boston Mayor Kevin White. McGovern called White, and received "an emphatic yes", but the leader of the Massachusetts delegation, Ken Galbraith, said the Massachusetts delegation would walk-out if the announcement was made to the Convention that McGovern had chosen White as his vice-presidential candidate, as White had backed Muskie during the Massachusetts primary (yet, Massachusetts ended up being the only state that McGovern would carry in Electoral College votes on November 7, Election Day).
McGovern then asked Senator Gaylord Nelson to be his running mate. Nelson declined but suggested Tom Eagleton, whom McGovern ultimately chose, with only a minimal background check.
id.
In other words, in the minds of Democrats in the know, the 1972 election was baked before McGovern ever started to run! Given that 1985 was not that long after 1972, with DLC founders being party insiders who knew about this very well. Oh, what a patently dishonest web they wove when they claimed McGovern lost because he was too liberal and therefore the Party had to go right to elect Democratic Presidents.
4. Republicans were revving up culture wars, much as they and center right Democrats do today.
Upthread, I posted about WW II veterans in shock, as they watched their children burning draft cards and dropping acid. This morning, I found this.
On April 25, George McGovern won the Massachusetts primary. Two days later, journalist Robert Novak claimed in a column that a Democratic senator whom he did not name said of McGovern: "The people don't know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot. Once middle America Catholic middle America, in particular finds this out, he's dead." The label stuck and McGovern became known as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid." It became Humphrey's battle cry to stop McGovern especially in the Nebraska primary.
id.
I don't know if McGovern was or was not for any of those things. However, I do know that rumors of those things would suffice, especially abortion Roe v. Wade was not decided until 1973. Indeed, until 1965, a doctor could be prosecuted criminally for advising a married couple about contraception. Griswold v. Connecticut.
However, reproductive choice and legalization of pot were not the issues that center right Democrats abandoned. To the contrary, they emphasized that kind of issue.
5. "The Eagleton debacle"
As indicated above, McGovern's pick for Vice President, the first one that stuck, anyway, was Senator Thomas Eagleton. Shortly after that, it came out:
Between 1960 and 1966, Eagleton checked himself into the hospital three times for physical and nervous exhaustion, receiving electroconvulsive therapy twice.[4] He was also known to have suffered from depression.
The hospitalizations, which were not widely publicized, had little effect on his political aspirations, although the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was to note, in 1972, immediately after his vice presidential nomination: "He had been troubled with gastric disturbances, which led to occasional hospitalizations. The stomach troubles have contributed to rumors that he had a drinking problem."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton
Also
Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations, and in fact decided with his wife to keep them secret from McGovern while he was flying to his first meeting with the Presidential nominee.
id.
At that time, no one wanted a man with a background of mental hospitalization and rumors of alcoholism a heartbeat away from the Presidency, especially during war time. While Eagleton eventually left the ticket, this choice, for that time, was comparable to McCain's choosing Palin. People questioned McGovern's competence and judgment.
McGovern later approached six different prominent Democrats to run as his vice-president: Ted Kennedy, Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, Abraham Ribicoff, Larry O'Brien and Reubin Askew. All six declined. Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law to John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy, former Ambassador to France and former Director of the Peace Corps, later accepted.[28] He was officially nominated by a special session of the Democratic National Committee. By this time, McGovern's poll ratings had plunged from 41 to 24 percent.
No doubt, there were other factors that insiders knew, but never made it into wikipedia. However, the above sampling will suffice for now.
* An example of limited support from his own Party for nominee McGovern was Democrats for Nixon.
Polling cited by Connally indicated that as many as 20 million Democrats would cross over to vote for Nixon and invited "all those millions of Democrats who realize that in this Presidential election President Nixon is simply the better choice."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Nixon
You can bet those cross overs were not liberals. That election also had extraordinarly low turnout.
**Major Legislation January 1969-January 1971
December 30, 1969: Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, Pub.L. 91173
1969: Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91172
January 1, 1970: National Environmental Policy Act, Pub.L. 91190
April 3, 1970: Environmental Quality Improvement Act, Pub.L. 91224
May 21, 1970: Airport and Airway Development Act, Pub.L. 91258, title I
August 12, 1970: Postal Reorganization Act (United States Postal Service), Pub.L. 91375
August 15, 1970: Economic Stabilization Act
September 22, 1970: District of Columbia Delegate Act, Pub.L. 91405
October 15, 1970: Organized Crime Control Act, Pub.L. 91452 (including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO" December 30, 1969: Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, Pub.L. 91173
1969: Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91172
January 1, 1970: National Environmental Policy Act, Pub.L. 91190
April 3, 1970: Environmental Quality Improvement Act, Pub.L. 91224
May 21, 1970: Airport and Airway Development Act, Pub.L. 91258, title I
August 12, 1970: Postal Reorganization Act (United States Postal Service), Pub.L. 91375
August 15, 1970: Economic Stabilization Act
September
1970: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91453
October 26, 1970: Bank Secrecy Act, Pub.L. 91508
October 27, 1970: Controlled Substances Act, Pub.L. 91513
1970: Rail Passenger Service Act (Amtrak), Pub.L. 91518
December 24, 1970: Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91572
December 24, 1970: Plant Variety Protection Act, Pub.L. 91577
December 29, 1970: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Pub.L. 91596
December 31, 1970: Clean Air Act Extension, Pub.L. 91604
December 31, 1970: Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91609, including title VII, National Urban Policy and New Community Development Act of 1970
January 12, 1971: Foreign Military Sales Act of 1971, Pub.L. 91672
1971: Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Pub.L. 91695
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_United_States_Congress
Major Legislation January 1971 to October 1972Passing legislation on revenue-sharing was a key event of the congress. President Richard Nixon had it listed on his list of top policies to cover for the year. Nixon signed the bill into law at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The law gained support from many state and local officials including: San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto whose city received $27 million in revenue-sharing money in the first year. Alito said that many projects that would not have been possible could now be done, "That will effectively enable us to meet those programs which up to now because of very tough budgeting we've had to trench."[
December 18, 1971: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub.L. 92203, 85 Stat. 688
December 23, 1971: National Cancer Act, Pub.L. 92218, 85 Stat. 778
February 7, 1972: Federal Election Campaign Act, Pub.L. 92225, 86 Stat. 3
March 24, 1972: Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 92261, 86 Stat. 103
June 23, 1972: Title IX Amendment of the Higher Education Act, Pub.L. 92318, 86 Stat. 235
October 6, 1972: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.L. 92463, 86 Stat. 770
October 18, 1972: Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Pub.L. 92500, 86 Stat. 816
October 21, 1972: Marine Mammal Protection Act, Pub.L. 92522, 86 Stat. 1027
October 27, 1972: Consumer Product Safety Act, Pub.L. 92573, 86 Stat. 1207
October 27, 1972: Noise Control Act, Pub.L. 92574, 86 Stat. 1234
October 27, 1972: Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub.L. 92583, 86 Stat. 1280
Approved Constitutional amendments
See also: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
March 23, 1971: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified July 1, 1971)
March 22, 1972: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment (unratified; ratification period expired in 1979 or 1982)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_United_States_Congress
demwing
(16,916 posts)Progressives have the opportunity for our own perfect storm of reform in 2016.
Thanks for the excellent post, merrily!
merrily
(45,251 posts)It's so long that I did not think anyone would actually read it.
That's the trouble with the meme machine. A meme takes 30 seconds to post; disproving it takes a lot of research and drafting. It's one reason I find posting with rightists tedious.
Shortcut: anyone who attributes a Presidential election win or loss to a single fact is not into political analysis.
.
kentuck
(112,676 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)and the country is ripe for an authentic populist.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Silly, aren't they?
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)But then I saw it worded better upthread...so I'll repeat that. Damn Straight!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)dirty tricks and early computer technology to help Nixon win. I googled to find those posts but only found these at DU2.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x860460
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x20781
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)OP.
Gothmog
(154,120 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)If Sanders' message doesn't resonate with you, then support the candidate with the message that does.
You're a smart Gothmog. You'll figure this stuff out eventually.
Gothmog
(154,120 posts)Unfortuantely, no one has provided to me an explanation as to how Sanders is viable in the general election. I fear that you will find others who will not be supporting Sanders until they see an explanation as to how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where he will be outspent by a large margin.
demwing
(16,916 posts)it's because you support him, and are working to see him succeed.
It's all so clear now...
Gothmog
(154,120 posts)How is this ad from McGovern any different from the campaign that Sanders is running against everyone who is accepting super pac money? http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders
demwing
(16,916 posts)Because they are not, and so your comparison to Bernie is suspect at best (complete bullshit at worst).
Gothmog
(154,120 posts)The reason that McGovern lost are the same factors facing Sanders such as (a) not being in the mainstream, (b) not being well financed, (c) having a message that is easy to attack in negative ads and (d) facing a candidate with more resources. McGovern had a great deal of passion from the anti-war people who were worried about Vietnam. That passion reminds me of the passion of the passion of the Sanders supporters on the issue of income inequality.
Passion by itself is not sufficient. McGovern was the candidate that Nixon selected to run against and Howdy Gowdy and company are trying the same trick in this election. McGovern was to the left of the country according to the polling and so it was easy for Nixon to brand him as a lefty who was not in the mainstream. Sanders is a proud socialist but that term polls poorly and it is not hard to make that term radioactive with enough negative ads. McGovern ran as an outsider and so is Sanders. That campaign does not work so well in the 1972 general election and I am not comfortable with that campaign given the stakes in this race.
demwing
(16,916 posts)Because he was an incumbant President who oversaw a growing economy and a shrinking war. Plus, McGovern was a poor campaigner and made a mess out of his VP selection.
Bernie has none of those challenges, but your sincere concern will be noted and afforded all the attention it deserves...
Gothmog
(154,120 posts)McGovern was underfunded compared to Nixon and now under Citizens United, the GOP will have an even large funding advantage over Sanders. If anything, Sanders is in a significantly worse situation compared to McGovern
Have fun supporting Sanders.
merrily
(45,251 posts)chervilant
(8,267 posts)I am watching the wellspring of support for Senator Sanders from millennials and a significant percentage of our young adults, the ones who use social media and the internet for their news and information. Every time I turn on my computer, I read about another group or celebrity endorsing Senator Sanders. Now, isn't that amazing given how little exposure the M$M has given his campaign?!?
And, let's just contemplate that fact: Bernie is getting no money from the corporate megalomaniacs. Wow! He's done so much with so little?!? Reminds me of that scene in Erin Brockovich when Ed Masry responds to the wet-behind-the-ears PG&E attorney's condescending assertion that PG&E "is a $28 billion corporation."
It is to laugh.
Go BERNIE!!!
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)commenting on the NYT and probably elsewhere that Sanders = McGovern.