In 1972, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination was Maine Senator Edmund Muskie. He was a popular choice, so popular that he beat Nixon in early opinion polls. Yet Nixon sabotaged his primary candidacy with the desired result of George McGovern becoming the party's nominee. McGovern ran a disastrous race that lost 49 out of 50 states. But what if Nixon's dirty tricks against Muskie hadn't worked, and Edmund Muskie - not McGovern - became Nixon's general election opponent in 1972?
 
IMO, Nixon probably still wins but by a much narrower margin. Muskie could take at least 46-47% of the vote, while Nixon gets maybe 52-53%.
 
IMO, Nixon probably still wins but by a much narrower margin. Muskie could take at least 46-47% of the vote, while Nixon gets maybe 52-53%.

I pretty much agree. Nixon did seem vulnerable for a while in 1971, but by 1972 things like the opening to China, détente with the USSR, a belief that the war in Vietnam was gradually winding down, decreased unemployment (down to 5.3 percent by November 1972) https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/UNRATE.txt and the decrease in the rate of inflation http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table would work in Nixon's favor. But at least Muskie would keep the core Democratic vote, much of which abandoned McGovern.

Nixon's job approval ratings did gradually improve in 1972, even before McGovern clinched the Democratic nomination. https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...roduction/Cms/POLL/yeolj2zgckcektkevrn3ba.png
 
Last edited:
If Muskie's the candidate, does that likely mean the Watergate break-in still occurs? I'd guess yes

Since there's no evidence that Nixon ordered the break-in, and no evidence that he didn't, this area of speculation is uncertain. However, there's no reason that Watergate wouldn't happen with a different Democratic nominee since CREEP's activity was directed against the DNC itself, and not McGovern.
 

Driftless

Donor
Since there's no evidence that Nixon ordered the break-in, and no evidence that he didn't, this area of speculation is uncertain. However, there's no reason that Watergate wouldn't happen with a different Democratic nominee since CREEP's activity was directed against the DNC itself, and not McGovern.

I agree. I still marvel that whoever ordered the break-in: what the hell were they drinking? Considering the arc of the election, that idea was the definition of very high risk, very low reward on the tactical scale. A rather stunning paradox of hubris and paranoia.
 
I agree. I still marvel that whoever ordered the break-in: what the hell were they drinking? Considering the arc of the election, that idea was the definition of very high risk, very low reward on the tactical scale. A rather stunning paradox of hubris and paranoia.

What do you think this ATL electoral map would look like? IMO Muskie would do pretty well in New England and the upper Midwest, maybe the Pacific Northwest as well.
 

Driftless

Donor
What do you think this ATL electoral map would look like? IMO Muskie would do pretty well in New England and the upper Midwest, maybe the Pacific Northwest as well.

I don't know the final tally, but I think you nailed the general trend. Who would likely have been his running mate under the circumstance? Scoop Jackson, Terry Sanford, or ???
 
I don't know the final tally, but I think you nailed the general trend. Who would likely have been his running mate under the circumstance? Scoop Jackson, Terry Sanford, or ???

He'd do well to pick a Southerner. Sanford wouldn't be a bad choice. Jimmy Carter angled for the VP slot in 1972, so he's a viable option. As are Reubin Askew and Dale Bumpers. Nixon would still win most Southern states, but a Southern running mate would at least prevent the bloodbath that McGovern experienced in OTL. Further, it might serve to moderate the ticket's image in key Northern states that went heavily for Nixon.
 
No one was gonna beat Nixon in 72

The only way it could've happened would involve the Democrats nominating a charismatic candidate who could unite the party and George Wallace running as a third party candidate who splits the conservative vote with Nixon. But since the Democrats never had such a candidate in 1972, and Wallace ran as a Democrat and not an Independent, that wasn't going to happen.
 
I agree. I still marvel that whoever ordered the break-in: what the hell were they drinking? Considering the arc of the election, that idea was the definition of very high risk, very low reward on the tactical scale. A rather stunning paradox of hubris and paranoia.

Nixon was much smarter and more competent than Trump, but with his paranoia, his inner circle drew the same kind of weirdos, grifters, and hacks that surround Trump:

watergate.png
 
Last edited:
Top