WI: Humphrey loses Ohio to McGovern

Gorrister

Gorrister

I'm in the process of re reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and I'm onto the May section.

Here Hunter S. Thompson talks about the all important Ohio primary, where both McGovern and Humphrey were aiming to win. Humphrey had a pretty solid lead with Labor and Blacks, which helped him win by a narrow 41-39 victory over McGovern. If McGovern won, it'd give him enough to win the nomination (I'm not sure about that claim though).

So, let's say that there is a 1.1% swing from Humphrey to McGovern, which would put him ahead by .52%. Would Humphrey drop out after this loss? What would happen with Wallace, who also lost in Indiana to Humphrey that night? Would McGovern sow up the nomination earlier, allowing him to focus on attacking Nixon?
 
jpj1421

jpj1421

spookyscaryskeletons said:
I'm in the process of re reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and I'm onto the May section.

Here Hunter S. Thompson talks about the all important Ohio primary, where both McGovern and Humphrey were aiming to win. Humphrey had a pretty solid lead with Labor and Blacks, which helped him win by a narrow 41-39 victory over McGovern. If McGovern won, it'd give him enough to win the nomination (I'm not sure about that claim though).

So, let's say that there is a 1.1% swing from Humphrey to McGovern, which would put him ahead by .52%. Would Humphrey drop out after this loss? What would happen with Wallace, who also lost in Indiana to Humphrey that night? Would McGovern sow up the nomination earlier, allowing him to focus on attacking Nixon?
Click to expand...

If Humphrey were to drop out, having failed to win Ohio, giving McGovern a bit more strength going into the election as he can contrast himself to the reactionary McGovern then....he still loses the general election, but maybe not as badly. Now, if McGovern is the clear nominee at that point, maybe the Watergate burglaries and wiretapping just doesn't occur, because why bother? This would lead to a Nixon administration where the biggest scandal has to do with unpaid taxes, and the popular Nixon (maybe) pushes his buddy John Conally as the Republican nominee in 76.

That might be a bit of a leap, but I'm having trouble figuring out if there will be much of a difference for McGovern just because he unites the party more easily. Maybe Wallace dodges the assassination attempt better for whatever reason...or he dies, that's hard to judge.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Is this 1968 or 1972?

Either way, George McGovern would get the crap kicked out of him by Richard Nixon. And furthermore, Daley, Meany, and their buddies will NOT accept McGovern in 1968, and they control things utterly and completely-this is part of why Chicago was a mess. McGovern only won in 1972 because the rules in the Democrat Party had changed, big time.
 
Gorrister

Gorrister

Realpolitik said:
Is this 1968 or 1972?

Either way, George McGovern would get the crap kicked out of him by Richard Nixon. And furthermore, Daley, Meany, and their buddies will NOT accept McGovern in 1968, and they control things utterly and completely-this is part of why Chicago was a mess. McGovern only won in 1972 because the rules in the Democrat Party had changed, big time.
Click to expand...

I'm in the process of re reading Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 and I'm onto the May section.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about 1972.
 
Last edited:
Gorrister

Gorrister

jpj1421 said:
If Humphrey were to drop out, having failed to win Ohio, giving McGovern a bit more strength going into the election as he can contrast himself to the reactionary McGovern then....he still loses the general election, but maybe not as badly. Now, if McGovern is the clear nominee at that point, maybe the Watergate burglaries and wiretapping just doesn't occur, because why bother? This would lead to a Nixon administration where the biggest scandal has to do with unpaid taxes, and the popular Nixon (maybe) pushes his buddy John Conally as the Republican nominee in 76.

That might be a bit of a leap, but I'm having trouble figuring out if there will be much of a difference for McGovern just because he unites the party more easily. Maybe Wallace dodges the assassination attempt better for whatever reason...or he dies, that's hard to judge.
Click to expand...

If Humphrey is forced to quit earlier, it could lead to some parts of the "Stop McGovern" movement backing Wallace more, especially after the sympathy bump from the assassination attempt. The next few primaries would be on Wallace's turf, so he could possibly turn the primaries into a two way fight?
 

Realpolitik

Banned
spookyscaryskeletons said:
If Humphrey is forced to quit earlier, it could lead to some parts of the "Stop McGovern" movement backing Wallace more, especially after the sympathy bump from the assassination attempt. The next few primaries would be on Wallace's turf, so he could possibly turn the primaries into a two way fight?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter. The "Old School" Democrats and the hawks-the Scoop Jackson/Pat Moynihan wing of the party-will not support McGovern, and that's all there is to it. All the New Deal, working class Catholics and Southerners and Westerners... McGovern is just completely out of sync with them. McGovern is going to need a serious "external force" to win, and I personally think it is near ASB levels.

Daley, Meany, LBJ, Wallace, and Humphrey all either gave pro forma support and sat on their hands or they privately supported Nixon, as did the Jackson wing of the party.
 
Gorrister

Gorrister

Realpolitik said:
It doesn't matter. The "Old School" Democrats and the hawks-the Scoop Jackson/Pat Moynihan wing of the party-will not support McGovern, and that's all there is to it. All the New Deal, working class Catholics and Southerners and Westerners... McGovern is just completely out of sync with them. McGovern is going to need a serious "external force" to win, and I personally think it is near ASB levels.

Daley, Meany, LBJ, Wallace, and Humphrey all either gave pro forma support and sat on their hands or they privately supported Nixon, as did the Jackson wing of the party.
Click to expand...

But this is 1972. :confused:
 
Gorrister

Gorrister

Pericles said:
Not that it would hurt him, it's
benefit would just be very little.
Click to expand...

It said in the book that Ohio would've pushed McGovern over the top. If Humphrey's weakened, then McGovern should be able to take the rest of the non Wallace friendly primaries, allowing him to sow up the nomination on the first ballot.
 

Pericles

spookyscaryskeletons said:
It said in the book that Ohio would've pushed McGovern over the top. If Humphrey's weakened, then McGovern should be able to take the rest of the non Wallace friendly primaries, allowing him to sow up the nomination on the first ballot.
Click to expand...

I know but in the election, an early Mcgovern success would do little and from the election same as OTL.
 

David T

I don't think that Humphrey would have dropped out if he lost narrowly in Ohio. (Remember, it was not a winner-take-all state. Humphrey got 75 delegates there, McGovern 65. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1972 If you reverse the figures it does not change the overall delegate count much, though of course it has a psychological effect.) He had just won a major victory in Pennsylvania the week before; the same day as the Ohio primary, he beat Wallace in Indiana; and significant primaries like Maryland, Michigan, and above all winner-take-all California were still to come. Now it is just possible that if he lost Ohio, he would have dropped out after Wallace won Maryland and Michigan, but I doubt it. More likely he would still try to make a last stand in California.

Even if I am wrong and Humphrey did drop out earlier, I don't think it would make much of a difference. McGovern would still be seen as too "radical" by many Democrats, and combined with the advantages Nixon would have had against *any* Democratic candidate, and which I discuss at https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=9808546&postcount=31 this would be enough for a Nixon landslide. (Also, I don't think this butterflies away the Eagleton fiasco.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top