No Eagleton Fiasco For McGovern

Jeremy Lin

Banned
I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy had ran earlier in 72' when he had momentum on his side and Liberal was not a dirty word in this country?
 
I wonder what would have happened if Kennedy had ran earlier in 72' when he had momentum on his side and Liberal was not a dirty word in this country?

You need to butterfly Chappaquiddick, that is possible if Kennedy accepts his invite to attend the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16th. However even if Kennedy does this and doesn't have another public indiscretion Nixon is still going to be near unbeatable in '72. Kennedy's best chance is 1976.
 
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 McGovern and Wallace become public knowledge. Nixon 46 percent, McGovern 43 percent Wallace 9 percent.
George Wallace isn't going to go Third Party, he had already privately given Nixon his word he wouldn't, and he really doesn't have anything to gain by trying to replicate his strategy from '68.
 
George Wallace isn't going to go Third Party, he had already privately given Nixon his word he wouldn't, and he really doesn't have anything to gain by trying to replicate his strategy from '68.

I think Wallace had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said that to Nixon. a a Another big help to McGovern would be the Agnew scandal happening a year early.
 
On Different Worlds, someone wrote a TL where McGovern won.Nixon has to resign in 71 because of a bribery charge. Seems the Hoffa pardon was a payoff for the Teamsters 1968 endorsement. President Agnew's kickbacks and tax evasion become public knowledge in late October 1972.
 
I think Wallace had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said that to Nixon. a a Another big help to McGovern would be the Agnew scandal happening a year early.
I think Wallace would have preferred to run a surrogate rather than himself. It doesn't exactly bode well for his chances if he appears to run as an Independent every time he doesn't get the Democratic Nomination.
 
I think Wallace would have preferred to run a surrogate rather than himself. It doesn't exactly bode well for his chances if he appears to run as an Independent every time he doesn't get the Democratic Nomination.

He would have run if the race was close. But McGovern got it...
 
He would have run if the race was close. But McGovern got it...
I have been working on a timeline [which I will likely never get around to releasing] in which McGovern not only does better, but wins the Presidential Election. However the Vietnam War being nastier, in essence the Troop Drawdown being much slower, was required as a background piece for the setup. Basically:
  • (200,000) men remain in Vietnam by 1972, with casualties being higher as a result.
  • McGovern does better given the larger Anti-War movement.
  • Almost takes New Hampshire but comes up short.
  • Arthur Bremer gets hit by a bus, or something along those lines.
    • McGovern narrowly beats Wallace in Michigan
  • McGovern carries Ohio, California by decisive margins
    • Hubert Humphrey endorses McGovern as a result
    • Ed Muskie follows
  • Kevin White becomes McGovern's running mate
    • Opposition is downplayed because of Humphrey's and Muskie's endorsements. However at the same time, even while doing better in the polls, it doesn't make the others more willing to join McGovern on the ticket.
  • Agnew's Corruption Scandal comes out, though late
    • Basically it is known, but doesn't become prominent until the sparks are fanned by the McGovern Campaign
  • Some Conservatives turned off by Richard Nixon's more Liberal politics and support Schmitz.
 
We're getting a bit far afield here. The original premise was a lack of the Eagleton fiasco, ostensibly as a result of the choice of a different VP candidate. Confining the (subjective) analysis to that single POD, I'd have to say that about all it would do would be to mitigate the GOP landslide modestly. McGovern's stances were a bit much to swallow for much of the electorate, and Nixon had the strong advantage of incumbency. I could see perhaps adding a few states to McGovern's total (perhaps RI, CT, HI, MN) but on the whole, Nixon pretty much still wins in a walk.
 
We're getting a bit far afield here. The original premise was a lack of the Eagleton fiasco, ostensibly as a result of the choice of a different VP candidate. Confining the (subjective) analysis to that single POD, I'd have to say that about all it would do would be to mitigate the GOP landslide modestly. McGovern's stances were a bit much to swallow for much of the electorate, and Nixon had the strong advantage of incumbency. I could see perhaps adding a few states to McGovern's total (perhaps RI, CT, HI, MN) but on the whole, Nixon pretty much still wins in a walk.
Gaylord Nelson, I believe, was the last one McGovern had asked before he went with Eagleton. Have Nelson, for some reason or another change his mind, and we might end up seeing this:

genusmap.php


Still not that pretty; However, McGovern got hammered pretty hard, and I don't see him being able to make up the double digits that were required in places like New York.
 
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.


I think the VP nominee can drag a ticket down. I think McCain might have won in 2008 if he'd had a running-mate like Giuliani or someone comparable that would appeal on star-power and middle politics.
 
Top