Humphrey '72?

Supposing HHH got the Democratic nomination in 1972, rather than George McGovern, how much better do the Democrats fare in November? IIRC, Nixon was relatively weak in '70-'72, and a better Democratic candidate might have made the race relatively competitive.
 
Once Nixon went to China, it was in effect game over for the Dems. If HHH successfully challenges the winner-take-all rule in CA before the DNC Rules Committee, then the ABM forces, led by Southerners like Jimmy Carter, can keep McGovern below 50% on the first ballot. Then Hizzonor wields his veto power and puts Hubert over the top in a manner that makes '68 smell like roses. Keeping in mind Segretti's team, including a young Karl Rove, will be ratfucking Humphrey to the maximum extent possible. No Democrat is going to beat Nixon that year after China.
 
HHH could make things much harder for Nixon, and you have to wonder what effect his nomination would have on the CRP/Plumbers activity.

But, I have to agree that Nixon was very hard to beat in 1972, in part because of the China initiative, and in part because the Democrats were badly divided.

Voters in 1972 were tired of the unrest and the lack of direction the nation seemed to be in. The "silent majority" had a lot of negative feelings about where the 1960's had ended. Resurrecting a '60's figure like HHH would have drawn that into the campaign. The Nixon people would have used it to campaign against the last years of the Johnson administration, using HHH as the stand-in.

On the other hand, IOTL McGovern's nomination spared Nixon the need to mount a real campaign; he could mostly coast through on being the more mainstream of the two in his re-election. Nixon the president vs. McGovern the hippie.

HHH would have forced Nixon to offer a more vigorous campaign, which in turn opens up interesting opportunities for him, or his people, to slip up.
 
Nixon beat Humphrey once- all Tricky Dick would have to do is rerun his ads from '68. No need even for fresh material. I would argue the Dems were doomed when the DNC adopted McGovern-Fraser's recommendations. That ensured the New Left's dominance until the New Dealers quickly reasserted control after Nov. 1972. Also, I don't think Hubert could well withstand a ratfucking. In 1968 he had been blasted repeatedly and effectively by Bobby "if you want to be fed Pablum and tranquilizers", Nixon "kid stuff" and the New Left "FASCIST". Hubert was rather limp-wristed in self-defense.
 
Muskie couldn't take the heat of a Nixon campaign either: he couldn't even take one little dirty trick originating in Florida.
 
Once Nixon went to China, it was in effect game over for the Dems. If HHH successfully challenges the winner-take-all rule in CA before the DNC Rules Committee, then the ABM forces, led by Southerners like Jimmy Carter, can keep McGovern below 50% on the first ballot. Then Hizzonor wields his veto power and puts Hubert over the top in a manner that makes '68 smell like roses. Keeping in mind Segretti's team, including a young Karl Rove, will be ratfucking Humphrey to the maximum extent possible. No Democrat is going to beat Nixon that year after China.
Donald Segretti, Karl Rove, and Lucianne Goldberg were cheap political dirty tricksters in their day. Weren't the true ratfuckers men like E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy?:cool::p
 
UT2020: Yes, Liddy and especially Segretti were. CREEP was extraordinarily amateurish for an organization dedicated to the landslide re-election of the most Rovian President until Bill Clinton. ;) In 1972 Rove was basically the GOP's Dick Tuck: sending Humphrey donors to the South Side of Chicago instead of the Conrad Hilton.
 
Clinton/Rove vs Bush/Rove

UT2020: Yes, Liddy and especially Segretti were. CREEP was extraordinarily amateurish for an organization dedicated to the landslide re-election of the most Rovian President until Bill Clinton. ;)
RogueBeaver. You have shown yourself to be a budding (or full-bloom) historian AND political scientist. So I'm not sure if your reference is meant to be literal, or ironic.:confused: Certainly I am NO Bill Clinton fan. Not anymore. When the lab tests came back on that dress I totally lost any and all respect for that [Anatomically-Explicit Epithet].:mad: But "Rovian"? I would have said "Kennedyesque", and in the WORST possible PERSONAL way. Ted Kennedy lying about Chappaquidik way (I'm one of those who hold to the theory he wasn't in the car when it went into the water).

Clinton spent most of the eight years between 1991 and 1999 dealing with an endless (and mostly bogus) series of political charges that kept him too busy to get any work done. You could do a good sized dissertation just on the PROVABLY (that is, you can actually prove the NEGATIVE) false charges about the Clintons, never mind all the ones that had a kernel of truth (most lies do) or even those that represent substantial charges. In the end, it all came down to a lie about a semen stained dress.:rolleyes: Because ALL the other charges that Ken Starr's $70,000,000 investigation dug into came up with nothing. Whitewater (We lost $68,000 on that deal, what would they have done to us if we'd made money?-Hillary), Troopergate (disgruntled), Vince Foster's suicide (complete with note), Rose law firm files (delivered LATE but DELIVERED), Jennifer Flowers (truthful as it turns out, but she said Bill and she were meeting at a hotel that wouldn't be built for another six years, rendering her testimony useless), and finally Linda Tripp's ratfucking of Monica Lewinsky. It's no wonder Tripp works for her husband today. Who else would hire her?:D Clinton's conspiracy was a conspiracy of one. Only he and he alone, IN the West Wing, knew the claims against him were true. I just don't see where "Rovian" comes into this.

I associate "Rovian" with a pathology of constant electoral politics where you are constantly running for office, running for re-election to that office, even running your boss' administration as IF there WERE another election coming when in fact the MAN is term-limited! The Bush Administration was run much like a Prime Ministership at least in the sense that you could lose power come friday afternoon! Rove actually sat in on meetings in the Situation Room dealing in matters of War and Peace, giving advice (To Colin Powell's exasperation) on the domestic political effects of their decisions! If there are more expanded definitions to "Rovian" than what happened with Nixon and Bush II, I haven't had it explained to me. I would appreciate it if you could do so, giving more details on Rove's activities that would expand the concept of the adjective. I have come to appreciate your views on 1950s to present day American political science.
 
When I say "Rovian" I mean an elected leader with strategic or *operational* cunning, who often indulges themselves in dirty tricks, or just especially cunning political strategy in and of itself.

Take the 2004 GOTV strategy: that was partially a Californian (hint, hint) invention.
 
Last edited:
I was framed!

UT2020: Yes, Liddy and especially Segretti were. CREEP was extraordinarily amateurish for an organization dedicated to the landslide re-election of the most Rovian President until Bill Clinton. ;) In 1972 Rove was basically the GOP's Dick Tuck: sending Humphrey donors to the South Side of Chicago instead of the Conrad Hilton.
One thing I've never understood is if Segretti was such a nasty individual, how he alone out of all the conspirators in CREEP and the West Wing he actually managed to stay on the Bar??:confused:
 
To be honest, I have no idea about Segretti. :eek: But he was Karl Rove's mentor, so he left a legacy that persists to this day. :D
 
Last edited:
You say Bill was Kennedyesque. Since Clinton calls RFK the first New Dem in his memoirs, you're 100% correct. ;) I'm not going to call RFK Clintonesque, because their moral standards are night and day, on fidelity anyways.
 
When I say "Rovian" I mean an elected leader with strategic or *operational* cunning, who often indulges themselves in dirty tricks, or just especially cunning political strategy in and of itself.

Take the 2004 GOTV strategy: that was partially a Californian (hint, hint) invention.
I get it. So what you're saying is Clinton's "Rovian" nature wasn't claiming things like Bush I or Dole were somehow "cowards" instead of the heroes they were. It was in dramatically PROVING he wasn't drafted simply because he drew a high draft number. As you know, Vietnam wasn't WWII. Not EVERY able-bodied man got called to service, but US veterans didn't want to HEAR that, even though they knew it was true. No one denies that Clinton was the best political genius the Dems produced since the '60s (hint, hint):D.

That's why he was able to turn things around on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy(VRWC) for so long (Until the dress). He was dealing for years with people so pathologically motivated by their HATE that if they didn't destroy themselves BY themselves, Clinton and his people could help them along to their destination.:rolleyes: The VRWC never lacked for money, but it did lack for central direction and talent. The gulf in mental talent between the likes of Ted Bolton, Ken Starr, Anne Coulter, Lucianne Goldberg, Jonah Goldberg, Richard Mellon-Scaife, Matt Drudge, Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberts, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity vs Bill Clinton.;) It's never a good idea to go after someone in a blind fury, as the VRWC did for so many years. It allowed a far more brilliant mind that they could call on to give them the Ginsu time and again. Remember the "black love child"? THAT story got released into the media THREE times during the Clinton Wars and THREE times Matt Drudge had to issue retractions.:rolleyes:

But all the cunning in the world won't do you any good when you put the noose over your own head...:eek: If the VRWC and its' minions in the US House of Representatives hadn't engaged in that pointless act of political/sexual self-gratification that was the impeachment process (the GOP base demanded it, come hell-or-high-water) the '98 election would have been a GOP landslide instead of a wash (Bye-bye, Newt). Nothing displayed the incompetence of the VRWC than the idea they would get THIRTEEN Democratic Senators to defect and vote for removal. Even when Clinton was at his worst, he was still running rings around his enemies. Clinton may have survived, but the only winner in that whole mess was Hillary.:eek:
 
Top