No Eagleton Fiasco For McGovern

[MerryPrankster]

In 1972, George McGovern had Thomas Eagleton as his first VP candidate but eventually had to drop him due to concerns about his mental health. However, it was done in such a way that made him look really bad--he publically backed Eagleton, then dumped him in a way that made him look disingenuous.

So what if this had never happened? Maybe someone else is chosen to get the "Old Democrat" urban Catholic vote.

 

[Snowstalker]

He was still the candidate of "abortion, amnesty, and acid". He wins Rhode Island and Minnesota, but nothing else. Maybe New York and South Dakota.

 

[RogueBeaver]

Either he goes for Shriver from the outset or overrides Ted Kennedy's objections to pick Boston Mayor Kevin White. No one else would touch it with a 100-foot pole.

 

[Wildcard F. Kennedy]

Wasn't Ted Kennedy McGovern's first choice, but he (Teddy) wanted nothing to do with it? Not sure if that would have changed anything. Chapiquidick would still be pretty fresh, and honestly Teddy lacks the "star" power that his brothers had. Futhermore, are people really going to vote based on the bottom of the ticket anyway.

 

[Ariosto]

Wasn't Ted Kennedy McGovern's first choice, but he (Teddy) wanted nothing to do with it? Not sure if that would have changed anything. Chapiquidick would still be pretty fresh, and honestly Teddy lacks the "star" power that his brothers had. Futhermore, are people really going to vote based on the bottom of the ticket anyway.

Ted for some reason or another was indecisive on it, according to Gary Hart. First he said no, then during the vetting process McGovern contacted him again and he said he was considering it for whatever reason. Because of that the whole thing got delayed with McGovern only considering Kennedy on the chance he changed his mind. Course he did no such thing.
​

 

[Plumber]

I thought this was an interesting idea, so I decided to do it myself with another of the USA's most lopsided elections, 1972. I gave McGovern all the states Nixon won by a margin of 10% or less, like you did. I expected McGovern to maybe reach triple figures at best.

The result was really unexpected, and I swear I did not do this on purpose...

By contrast, here is what happens if McGovern wins all states he lost by less than 10% IOTL:

Nixon/Agnew (R): 337
McGovern/Cronkite (D): 201

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Plumber gives us the best case scenario for the McGovern Shriver, not Cronkite, ticket. Uncle Walter liked what he did and since his views on the issues are unknown, he is too risky.

 

[Plumber]

Plumber gives us the best case scenario for the McGovern Shriver, not Cronkite, ticket. Uncle Walter liked what he did and since his views on the issues are unknown, he is too risky.

TNF set that up, actually. And Cronkite said he would accept it, and I think it's the only way McGovern can win California. Although I think he would Ohio and Pennsylvania too in that situation.

 

[RogueBeaver]

TNF set that up, actually. And Cronkite said he would accept it, and I think it's the only way McGovern can win California. Although I think he would Ohio and Pennsylvania too in that situation.

[Citation needed] for the Cronkite acceptance.

 

[Ariosto]

[Citation needed] for the Cronkite acceptance.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2009/07/mcgoverncronkite_in_1972.html

Though reading it, it saps my belief that he would have actually accepted.
​

 

[Plumber]

[Citation needed] for the Cronkite acceptance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/24/AR2009072402938.html

 

[RogueBeaver]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/press_box/2009/07/mcgoverncronkite_in_1972.html
​

Thankee for that. Still doesn't change the outcome. We know Cronkite is antiwar, but otherwise Generic D IMO unless someone has more info.

 

[Ariosto]

Anyway, the absolute best that McGovern could have hoped for was Edmund Muskie, who was somewhat willing but persuaded against it when it became clear Hubert was not dropping out after California. Have Hubert drop out and endorse McGovern after the latter more decisively wins the California Primary [as he had originally planned to do, before it appeared he might win], and then you could get Muskie onboard, who was one of McGovern's earlier choices.
​

 

[Apollo 20]

He was still the candidate of "abortion, amnesty, and acid". He wins Rhode Island and Minnesota, but nothing else. Maybe New York and South Dakota.

Ironically, that phrase came from Eagleton himself in a conversation with the columnist Bob Novak although I believe the actual phrase was "amnesty, abortion and acid." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

By the time the 1972 convention and the Eagleton pick occurred, Nixon was well on his way to winning. Avoiding the Eagleton debacle might have thrown a few states McGovern's way -- and left his campaign better remembered once Watergate was exposed -- but it is very hard to see McGovern winning in any event.

 

[MacCaulay]

If anyone's read The Wild Blue, it offers an interesting take on it.

Stephen Ambrose and McGovern were good friends, and throughout McGovern's candidacy, Ambrose kept pushing him to emphasise his war record. But I think the general thought (which may have been true) was that in the '70s, the left still couldn't distinguish between supporting the troops and supporting the war.

Personally, I think if he had really pushed his war record he would have had a better chance. My dad, who's jumped to both sides of the fence (though he's voted third party many a time as a protest vote) is fairly conservative but he's always said he would've at least taken a look at McGovern if it didn't look like he was trying to ignore his own past as a bomber pilot.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

As said above, the result changes from a catastrophe for the Dems to a mere disaster.

 

[serbrcq]

Is there any way McGovern could have possibly won outright?

I'm not convinced there is, myself, which is too bad (I admire the guy a lot), but the way the primaries turned out soured a lot of the Democratic establishment on him, and his propensity to do things like declare Ho Chi Minh the "Vietnamese George Washington" didn't exactly help. Neither did Kissinger announcing a possible peace deal right before the election, torpedoing the main issue of his candidacy.

But could a better campaign manager or greater support from the party establishment have turned it around? Maybe a serious military fiasco in Vietnam (say, a mutiny with American soldiers firing on each other)? It might be possible with a really big PoD, like Nixon being assassinated or Watergate blowing wide open right away.

 

[Duke 4]

I think the Senator had a decent chance. Certain things had to happen though. 1. Wallace does not get shot and runs a third party race. 2. His speech is during prime time. It is one of the best convention speeches of all time and no one heard it. 3. He gets Shriver his second choice after White(Kennedy was everyones first choice that they had to be asked to get turned down.) But Shriver was in the USSR at the time and they could not get a hold of him. 4. He exploits his war hero record over Nixons setting on his ass playing poker in the navy. 5. Watergate is exposed even more because now it is a decent race. If all that happens he wins But more realistic is this. I think if Shriver or White is the VEEP right off the back that George can get over 180 to 200 electoral votes. What this does, is that McGovern runs in 76. He wanted too. He can say I told you so and he can beat Carter in Iowa. He can win the race in 76. He would not have been timid in dealing with Iran. All this stuff about him being a super liberal is nonsense. He was a Senator from South Dakota. South Dakota is very red. He is liberal but not an over the top like they made him out to be. Saying no way he gets the nomination in 76 is wrong. The people who vote in primaries had all ready voted for him once. Making it a good race in 72 gives him a huge leg up on to be honest with you is weak field that Carter eventually beat.

 

[serbrcq]

I think the Senator had a decent chance. Certain things had to happen though. 1. Wallace does not get shot and runs a third party race. 2. His speech is during prime time. It is one of the best convention speeches of all time and no one heard it. 3. He gets Shriver his second choice after White(Kennedy was everyones first choice that they had to be asked to get turned down.) But Shriver was in the USSR at the time and they could not get a hold of him. 4. He exploits his war hero record over Nixons setting on his ass playing poker in the navy. 5. Watergate is exposed even more because now it is a decent race. If all that happens he wins But more realistic is this. I think if Shriver or White is the VEEP right off the back that George can get over 180 to 200 electoral votes. What this does, is that McGovern runs in 76. He wanted too. He can say I told you so and he can beat Carter in Iowa. He can win the race in 76. He would not have been timid in dealing with Iran. All this stuff about him being a super liberal is nonsense. He was a Senator from South Dakota. South Dakota is very red. He is liberal but not an over the top like they made him out to be. Saying no way he gets the nomination in 76 is wrong. The people who vote in primaries had all ready voted for him once. Making it a good race in 72 gives him a huge leg up on to be honest with you is weak field that Carter eventually beat.

These could all be linked together into a rough timeline:

Wallace escapes being shot, thus he campaigns harder and makes the primary a narrower fight - encouraging McGovern to run a tougher campaign to keep up, and perhaps gaining him more support from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who are opposed to Wallace's Southern populism.

More establishment support might mean better campaign managing (more war-record emphasis, faster VP selection meaning McGovern's convention speech isn't in the middle of the night and he doesn't get Eagleton).

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Ariosto is right Muskie is the beet running mate he is respected and Catholic. I would also have Wallace avoid being shot and run as the American Independent Party. The Nixon massive efforts to sabotage McGover and Wallace become public knowledge. Nixon 46 percent, McGovern 43 percent Wallace 9 percent.