McGovern 1968

In OTL McGovern was seen as unable to run because his Senate seat was up in that year. Suppose that had not been the case.

I think that both the 'Bobby' and 'Gene' wings would have supported him.

It would have been pretty clear that he had a moral right to the Democrat nomination.

LBJ's control of the machine might have denied him the actual nomination.

That, along with other events in Chicago, might have caused a massive walk out.

As I understand it US opinion was divided on the wisdom of the war.

Given a first past the post voting system and 3 pro war candidates against one anti war one well.....
 
Umm... no, just no. McGovern was not then or later a viable candidate. The bosses controlled 75% of the delegates- and Daley's backing Humphrey after 6/6. A "moral right" based on what exactly? There are no moral rights, only a candidate's political viability, backing and muscle. McGovern was a Democratic loyalist and would not wreck his career for a stunt that would just increase Nixon's victory margin. It makes as much sense as Hillary running as an independent against Obama out of spite. Even Gene McCarthy endorsed Humphrey backhandedly in the end. McCarthy would be the candidate of the left, just as Humphrey was the New Deal candidate and RFK was the DLC candidate. Their support is not interchangeable, period. It's just as ridiculous as saying Bill Clinton's and Paul Wellstone's voters are interchangeable.
 
Dividing the suburban vote and the Latino/black vote nets you a Nixon landslide. Not that I object to this map...

genusmap.php


(R) Richard M. Nixon/ Spiro T. Agnew: 379 EV, 44.1%
(D) Hubert H. Humphrey/ Edmund S. Muskie: 112 EV, 38.3%
(AI) George C. Wallace/ Curtis E. Lemay: 45 EV, 11.2%
(PF) George S. McGovern/ : 0 EV, 6.6%

Incumbent President: Lyndon Johnson (D)
President-elect: Richard Nixon (R)
 
I have talked to Senator McGovern about why he ran in 68. First off he was asked to run in November 67. He declined because of two major reason. 1. He was running for re election in the Senate. 2. He like everyone else did not see how 68 would start out with TET and LBJ quitting. He did say though he would have had a chance if Robert Kennedy had backed him behind the scenes. But that it would have been very hard to win. He told me that he would not have been suprised if LBJ would have stayed in the race if RFK had stayed out of the race. He did not think RFK would have beaten HHH in Chicago,
 
You talked to McGovern? Interesting... but the first approached to run in November was Bobby by the New Leftists (through his "Deep Throat" Al Lowenstein). In retrospect it was perhaps the gravest strategic error of his political career not to jump in then, since that would have butterflied McCarthy and allowed a sweep of all the primaries. But I can see why- better to wait till January or February (after all, Nixon only announced on Feb. 1) to rebut the idea that he was the New Leftist candidate. Then it was James Gavin who was asked as well as other antiwar senators. McCarthy was in every sense the last person on that list.

RFK backing McGovern is pure fantasy- their friendship was purely personal, and they're from polar opposite wings of the Democratic Party.

Beating HHH in Chicago: Unfortunately for Hubert the bosses care more about who would be the Nixon-beater and the best POTUS. Minnesotans (or South Dakotans) need not apply. Nor did HHH check with Hizzonor, who all but confirmed (through Dan Rostenkowski) that California determines Daley's allegiance.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
A bit off topic, but what if McCarthy had won the California primary (he only lost by 4%)? Would Daley have backed him? I'll admit it's terribly unlikely, but it's food for thought.
 
RFK's methodical GOTV effort, conceived on the fly due to the 6-point Oregon loss, would likely prevent such an eventuality. How do you prevent turnout that varied between 95-100% (quite literally- in one LA precinct everyone voted) among black and Hispanic voters, whose LA County margins gave Bobby that short-lived victory? CA for him was the firewall due to the Oregon loss, much as South Carolina was for Bush in 2000 or NH for Hillary in 2008. Losing would mean game over, and Daley backs Humphrey. It also seriously damages RFK's '72 or later prospects for obvious reasons. So in sum, the choice for Daley was Bobby or Hubert- never Gene, who was completely unelectable and far too leftist.
 
McGovern wanted RFK to run also in November. Yes he said to me that RFK told him he would support him if he would have ran. So i did some checking. LOOK magazine in 1968 in an interviw with RFK says the same thing and McGovern says the same thing in his autograpphy "Grassroots" You can ask him yourself. He has a Library in Mitchell South Dakota on the campus of Dakota Wesleyan University. He lives acroos the street from it. I got to meet him this summer and have spent time in person and on the phone talking to him. He did say that he thought Humphrey had it wrapped up in Chicago.
 
Hmm... quite possible, but that would mean RFK staying out. Since he made the preliminary "yes" decision in the summer of '67, I don't see how that works out. Also- Bobby could be, and often was, coolly calculating. If McGovern ran and lost against LBJ, LBJ still loses, and Bobby wins in 1972 or 1976. If he (RFK) enters in '68 and wins, so much the better. A win-win scenario both ways.

Now, as for Chicago- I've explained a dozen times how HHH was clearly the inferior candidate by every possible metric. Leaving aside all those metrics (ideology, popularity, New Deal Coalition, fundraising, organization, etc.), where RFK sweeps the board, the fundamental question is this: "Would you sacrifice the White House just to postpone Bobby Kennedy's presidency by 4 or 8 years, and elect Nixon in the process?" Lyndon Johnson would answer yes, but Dick Daley thought differently. These are the people who picked FDR, Truman and JFK. Their political judgment always overrides their personal feelings, which can't always be said for Johnson or Bobby.
 
Top