George Wallace in 1972

Wolfpaw is right. He would win the American Independent Party nomination once again. Because of Nixon's courting of the South and because third party candidates lose support ( Look at Perot 96 and Nader 04) he wins maybe 8 % of the vote. He wins Alabama and Mississippi but I doubt anywhere else. Nixon does not have the same popular vote landslide but still sweeps the electoral college. Wallace did not do well in the states where McGovern did well but not carry ( RI, MN and SD). So I don't know if he could have taken enough Nixon votes to help McGovern carry these states. Even so Nixon win 45 states.

P.S. The POD is very easy here. Have Arthur Bremer get arrested for shoplifting. I read that one of the police officer who arrested assumed much of stuff that the crammed Bremer's car was stolen. You can also have him take shot at Nixon on April 14, 1972. He misses and is arrested.
 

JoeMulk

Banned
If George Wallace won the Democratic nomination it would be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. The dixiecrats would have alienated the new deal coalition far worse then the New Left ever did. Essentially it would turn the Democrats back into a southern party and most liberals would vote for Nixon.

Not saying such a scenario is likely but thats probably what the result would be inevitably.
 
You can also have him take shot at Nixon on April 14, 1972. He misses and is arrested.

Now see, what this makes me wonder is what happens if he hits! :eek: I mean, how many famous assassinated guys would that make over the last slightly-more-than-a decade? Like...5? And I suppose Spiro Agnew would then become President! :eek::eek:
 
Now see, what this makes me wonder is what happens if he hits! :eek: I mean, how many famous assassinated guys would that make over the last slightly-more-than-a decade? Like...5? And I suppose Spiro Agnew would then become President! :eek::eek:

I wrote about this in my Rating the Alternative Presidents. I thought that Agnew is considered a failure because of the two scandals. Watergate and Agnew's tax evasion. After Agnew had to resign on October 10, 1973, because he did not declare his bribe money on taxes. White House tapes revealed that he authorized the Watergate cover up in June 1972. He got little credit for the SALT Treaty he signed that same month in Moscow.
 
Wallace is too far to the right for labor, too far to the right for African-Americans. He only appeals to the white working class and the South. You can't win the Democratic nomination in 1972 without support from at least SOME elements of labor (McGovern had the UAW) and African-American support.
 
Even if Wallace isn't hit on May 15 1972, I highly doubt he'll make that much of a splash in the later primaries. Best case scenario IMO is that he's hit but only suffers a minor flesh wound and goes on campaigning TR style.

Only 6 state primaries remain post May 15. Provided Wallace survives, he'll surely win Maryland and Michigan like he did in OTL, perhaps with larger numbers. The next three primaries -Rhode Island, Oregon and of course the all important California- I can't see Wallace winning in, increasing his vote % yes, but winning? No. McGovern still wins these IMO. Wallace also probably doesn't stand much of a chance in New Jersey either given his views on Civil Rights.

That being said, New Mexico could definitely go Wallace's way, considering he garnered 29% of the vote there in OTL. Wiki says 100% of South Dakotan Democrats voted for McGovern is that right? Perhaps Wallace could win there as well but it's admittedly a stretch.

At any rate, Wallace's survival means he comes into the convention with a stronger position than OTL, but not by much. It's tough to see the rest of the party rallying behind him of all people to stop McGovern.
 
What if he doesn't get shot and paralyzed? Can he win the democratic nomination?

No; he goes to the convention w/a few dozen more more delegates then OTL but won't win for the reasons others have cited. The other candidates will make an "Anyone But Wallace" pact amongst themselves.
 
Wallace is too far to the right for labor, too far to the right for African-Americans. He only appeals to the white working class and the South. You can't win the Democratic nomination in 1972 without support from at least SOME elements of labor (McGovern had the UAW) and African-American support.

Who do you think fills the ranks of organized labor at this point in history but working class whites?
 

JoeMulk

Banned
Who do you think fills the ranks of organized labor at this point in history but working class whites?

rank and file might have voted for Wallace but the big bosses like Meany wouldn't have allowed for his nomination to happen.
 
rank and file might have voted for Wallace but the big bosses like Meany wouldn't have allowed for his nomination to happen.

So, they would risk reelecting Nixon for the sake of party liberals often ambivalent to their concerns?
 
they might, just because a Wallace nomination would seriously damage the party long-term.

One would have thought that being owned by Labor would have damaged the party over time.

I see two options:

  • Build an anti-Nixon coalition around a "reformed" Wallace who holds the "right" views on most issues from a labor/scope of government standpoint, and hope that this hurts Nixon enough in the Rustbelt and throughout the South to deny him reelection.
  • Back party bosses in an effort to deny the nomination to the candidate with the most delegates, thereby causing a controversy that makes 1968 seem like a board meeting by comparison and risk destroying the party permanently over what are/were largely settled issues.
 
If you delay the 18 yr old vote and weaken the McGovern-Fraser reforms then Wallace has a shot, especially if there are more student protects, civil rights violence, etc that gins up his supporters.
 
Top