WI: McGovern loses Democratic nomination in 1972

Suppose that George McGovern, a very different kind of liberal than his predecessors, failed to gain the momentum needed to win his party's nomination in 1972. How that happens isn't particularly important. That means the nomination likely goes to Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Ed Muskie or Henry Jackson. Any one of those men is likely to be more friendly with labor unions and the traditional Democratic base than the social justice-oriented McGovern. While Nixon will probably still win re-election that Fall, I'm interested in the knock-on effects on the Democratic Party later down the road. Would social justice become as central to modern liberalism without their man winning the nomination? Without the labor movement's feud with their party's nominee, would Democrats shift as far to the right economically as they did OTL in the '80s and '90s? Without that activist takeover, how are various reform movements like LGBT rights and feminism affected? Do they try to do more outside the Democratic Party apparatus, or do they continue to affect change from the inside?
 
Modern social justice in America was defined by the civil rights movement. And arguably its biggest proponent in Congress was none other than Hubert Humphrey. I'd want to believe that labor and the Democrats wouldn't fall out so badly ITTL, but a big part of the transition was demographic, with the entry of white professionals into the Party. They'd still come, because of Vietnam and the like, and I don't think they had the same loyalty to unions, so while I think there'd be some changes, I don't know how radical they'd be.
 
Humphrey or Muskie might still select Tom Eagleton as VP as a good middle-of-the-road, mid-American running mate!

and we might still have the same scandal where the presidential candidate at first supports Eagleton and then asks him to leave :p and might even give the same reason, not the history of depression, rather it's the failure of Eagleton to disclose
 
John McKiethen would deadlock the electoral college because McGovern would still run along with Paul McCloskey and take DC and George Wallace would make another Presidential run on the American Independent ticket would take Alabama, and then he'll die in a plane crash, leaving Spiro Agnew as an acting president, as the economy collapses as a result of the political uncertainty caused by the deadlocked EC, eventually resulting in George Wallace and Donald Rumsfeld becoming Presidents one after the other and the latter screws up the nation so bad that it collapses in on itself while the USSR, led by a more liberal ruler akin to Khrushchev, essentially takes over the planet.

...

...

Okay, in all seriousness. I'm betting on Humphrey clinching the nomination, maybe he does more civil rights stuff IF he wins and if he lasts into the tail end of the 70s in office, stagflation might still torpedo his presidency's approval ratings allowing Reagan to again be President in the 80s.
 
Humphrey or Muskie might still select Tom Eagleton as VP as a good middle-of-the-road, mid-American running mate!

and we might still have the same scandal where the presidential candidate at first supports Eagleton and then asks him to leave :p and might even give the same reason, not the history of depression, rather it's the failure of Eagleton to disclose
Maybe Muskie, but for Humphrey it would be redundant to have two midwestern pro-labor guys. He'd want to choose someone for greater geographic diversity.
 
If George lost in 72, HHH would be the nominee. Jimmy Carter really wanted the VP nomination in 72. I could see Humphrey picking him. HHH would have studied his defeat of 68 and realized he needed more help in the south. I can't see HHH and Carter winning in 72 but it be closer. Say Nixon still has the Watergate problem and resigns, You would see a McGovern vs Carter race in 76. Since Carter was not part of the stop McGovern movement in this alternative 72, they get along better. So they end up being running mates in 76 vs Ford. Who would be the top of the ticket? I hope George. If Carter is the President, I think George would put a little steel in to Carters spine on Iran being a combat WW 2 veteran. That might stop the Reagan revolution of 1980. I doubt it though. America was turning more right wing than.
 
. . . would put a little steel in to Carters spine on Iran . . .
I know that's the public perception on Carter, but I don't think it's at all accurate.

He supported the Guatemalan regime during their on-again, off-again campaign against indigenous groups, as well as a shitload of other military regimes.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/18/jimmy-carters-blood-drenched-legacy/

And he went ahead with a rescue plan for American hostages in Iran, which honestly was probably ill-advised.
 
Modern social justice in America was defined by the civil rights movement. And arguably its biggest proponent in Congress was none other than Hubert Humphrey. I'd want to believe that labor and the Democrats wouldn't fall out so badly ITTL, but a big part of the transition was demographic, with the entry of white professionals into the Party. They'd still come, because of Vietnam and the like, and I don't think they had the same loyalty to unions, so while I think there'd be some changes, I don't know how radical they'd be.

So it comes back to Vietnam, then. Would white professionals run to the Democrats with as much enthusiasm in a scenario where a more hawkish candidate wins the nomination, though? I could see Humphrey still managing to woo them over, but someone like Henry Jackson may just be a bridge too far. Could see a dovish independent ticket in that case, but who knows.
 
A hostage rescue wasn't a bad idea, but the plan used was indeed flawed.
I agree. Nothing wrong with a rescue plan for the Iranian hostages in the abstract. But I think the particular plan, which I understand to a large extent was handcrafted by former Navy man Carter, had real problems with it.

I think Jimmy Carter was pretty accurately criticized for being a perfectionist and a complicator.
 
Nixon would destroy Muskie or Triple H. It would not be quite as bad as McGovern in OTL, but Muskie cracked under pressure several times and reading "Fear and Loathing" you get the sense that everyone had his number and it would not take much of Nixon and his squad to make him fall apart. Triple H was by this point a hack promising a dozen things a day to half dozen people at a time and he would not have mobilized the youth vote. Not after the '68 thing. Even partnered with Jimmy Carter he would not unseat Nixon and his machine. Nixon "got" the American electorate on a level that not many politicians have since then. I think LBJ is the only other figure I can name in the same span that you felt had a firm grasp of the political reality until undone. Nixon had '72 in the bag, because he created a machine capable of winning a general election and would have relished going up against someone like Triple H gearing up for another losing run.

As to the long term effects... I don't think that many. The disillusionment was already there from activists. If anything, it might actually inspire people to think that if a true lefty was given a chance, it would not be as bad as Triple H did, or Muskie. But the instruments of power in the party were all in the hands of the men who presided over the '68 Convention. They would have paid lip service to the concerns of activists while finding another middle of the road guy. But, the '72 loss might have made the parlor game of "Will Teddy Run?" more serious. If Carter is the losing VP candidate in '72, it makes his run in '76 easier, though now he will face other "outsiders" if Watergate still happens in this timeline.
 
So it comes back to Vietnam, then. Would white professionals run to the Democrats with as much enthusiasm in a scenario where a more hawkish candidate wins the nomination, though? I could see Humphrey still managing to woo them over, but someone like Henry Jackson may just be a bridge too far. Could see a dovish independent ticket in that case, but who knows.
Or maybe not/
A Humphrey/Jackson ticket would have geographic and ideological balance, perhaps enough to eke out over Nixon. At least, come close enough to rattle him into less belligerence. (It is only in these later degenerate times that ideological purity is demanded on a Presidential ticket.)
Or I could be full of manure.
 
As I am thinking of it, would Scoop Jackson (running as VP with Humphrey) attract enough of the "hardhat" vote to eat into and nullify Nixon's "Southern Strategy"?
 
Top