McGovern Assassinated in '72?

So, I was reading the Wikipedia article about Arthur Bremer, the would-be assassin of George Wallace, for historical interest (by the way, his story, while nasty and dark, would make a great movie). Now, it's a matter of common knowledge (on AH.com, at least) that he first thought about killing Nixon, but was put off by security, but I discovered this, too: On May 7th, 1972, he wrote in his diary "Yesterday I even considered McGovern. I have to kill somebody."

What if he went through with killing George McGovern? How would the race pan out if he succeeded, or if McGovern was paralyzed? Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
The party decides based on delegates, though, and Humphrey didn't have anything like a majority of them by this point.

If 400 votes in California were for Humphrey, he would have won the nomination in a brokered convention IOTL. Likely this POD causes Humphrey to win outright.
 
He'd still lose (the economy was awesome, the Vietnam War was almost over) but by much smaller margin. Likely something like a 52-47 margin in favor of Nixon.

Giving HHH two elections that could be made into TLs. One thing: I couldn't find a source for California. Can you give me some more info?
 
Giving HHH two elections that could be made into TLs. One thing: I couldn't find a source for California. Can you give me some more info?

I read it in some book on the election. I can't remember which one. Much of McGovern's advantage came from caucuses like Obama and Sanders after him. In addition, McGovern was able to make a coalition not too dissimilar to Obama's coalition, with minorities (which, unlike Sanders, a guy who's not too dissimilar to him, he was able to steal from HHH, who was considered a civil rights hero) and New Lefties.

This caucus advantage was inexistant in California, but at the same time the college vote was higher. The result was a narrow race won by McGovern. This was just enough to push him over the edge. Without California, likely the other candidates would unbound their delegates for Humphrey, giving him victory.

Another thing to note is Wallace. He was actually doing quite well in the Midwest before the assassination attempt. If he isn't dead, he'll win more Midwestern states. That's going to make many people shit their pants. Wallace may even go independent.
 
Giving HHH two elections that could be made into TLs. One thing: I couldn't find a source for California. Can you give me some more info?

The California situation was set forth at some length in the classic "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72". Then, it was a winner-take-all state with the state winner getting all the delegates.

McGovern getting shot would probably put the anti-war left on a different trajectory; they'd be spared the 49 state loss but after JFK, RFK and MLK and now GSM, there would be a pretty strong feeling that "the system" kills those who propose change. Assuming Watergate still occurs in some form, by the time '76 rolls around, you could wind up with a nominee occupying the McGovern part of the political spectrum, say a Fred Harris or Mo Udall, the result of HHH losing in '72 (again) and a party base eager for a chance to have a liberal nominee. Regardless, there would be a great deal of AH speculation about "What if McGovern had lived and won?"...
 

Stolengood

Banned
McGovern was able to make a coalition not too dissimilar to Obama's coalition, with minorities (which, unlike Sanders, a guy who's not too dissimilar to him, he was able to steal from HHH, who was considered a civil rights hero) and New Lefties.
Sanders has always reminded me more of Eugene McCarthy, actually... particularly in how they both reacted to the slow but inevitable loss.
 
Sanders has always reminded me more of Eugene McCarthy, actually... particularly in how they both reacted to the slow but inevitable loss.

But, of course, in McCarthy's case, the selection process really was rigged and controlled by party officials, while in Sanders' case, if anything, the undemocratic caucus system helped him do so well despite a massive gap in the popular vote.

But yeah, that is a more apt comparison.
 
Harris and Udall were traditional liberals, not McGovernites.

They were, but they both were in pretty good stead with the McGovernites. They were the kind of candidates who might be acceptable to both the party establishment including labor and the anti-war McGovern wing. I should have explained that. And while Harris and Udall may not have been "McGovernites" they were, for the most part, in the same leftward part of the political spectrum as opposed to someone like Carter or Jackson.
 
Thanks! I'll check out the relevant FLaG chapter.

I'd add that Humphrey winning isn't impossible. If stuff about Anna Chennault or something comes out during the election, well...

Also, I seem to recall Frank Church being an endorser of McGovern. Might he be the McGovernite the Dems turn to in this scenario?
 
Top