in a nutshell. I was also a McGovern supporter in 1972.

Didn't Nixon successfully use his running mates medical history (psychiatric) agasinst him

And was not that information obtained during the Watergate break in

Do you think there has been some change in the country?

Like the middle class numbers?

Like Media?

Like the number of unwinable wars?

Like Climate Change?

Like GMOs?

Like national events that have impacted the American Psyche--Watergate, Hostage Crisis, Oil Embargos, Dot com bust, 9/11, Katrina, Fracking earthquakes, Fukushima, James Byrd Jr., Treyvon,Arab Spring, Sandra Bland, Trump, Ferguson, border children, legalize pot, marriage equality....

The world has changed at a faster and faster. We are not so young and shelterd as we were.

Muskie would most likely have been nominated but for our Secret Police apparatus... or elements thereof.... sabotaging his effort.

Nixon would have likely beaten any DEM , but the point is: no sign of any effort by police state elements ( yet) to help Sanders and hurt Clinton.

Therefore: Sanders movement seems to be stronger and more broad-based than McGovern's campaign. Since they are doing it on their own.

Also: the electorate's had a pretty good ( if painful) education over the last 44 years.

Please see post number 20 below.

on those dirty tricks, but rather on McGovern's platform, which the Rs summarized as "amnesty, abortion, and acid"

said Eagleton's medical record would not affect their vote. "

IMO elections are decided on voters perceptions of what candidates would do to advance their priorities, not on dirty tricks.

IMO it was "amnesty, abortion, and acid" that did in McGovern, not dirty tricks that don't relate to pocketbook voter concerns

Sargent Shriver (the husband of Eunice Kennedy Shriver) took his place as McGovern's running mate.

Really, though, all these references to 1972 are complete and utter BULLSHIT. This isn't 1972, Richard Nixon has been dead for more than 20 years, there is no crooked Republican incumbent, no Watergate break-in, and the Vietnam War is not a campaign issue, much less the biggest campaign issue.

.


I wish people would just read shit before they post stupid stuff!


Two weeks after the Democratic Convention, after McGovern named Thomas Eagleton as his VP pick, McGovern was called for his "1000 percent" comment, that things were great when his running mate had received electroshock treatments for bipolar disorder! This called in McGovern's lack of judgment for selecting his cabinet! The Nixonians attacked him unmercifully.


(Note: At the time, it was believed to be fatigue and depression, later revealed to be Bipolar II.)



Then, the day or two before the election, he told a heckler to kiss his ass, which was recorded!


.

though I disagree.

VP nominations occur after the convention has does the top of the ticket.

The general election is fought on issues and slogans. The successful Republican meme against McGovern was not that he chose Eagleton, but that he was the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid". We all know what the Rs would sloganize about SBS, whose cynical issue priorities, designed for policy free "where's mine" appeals to millenials, the Rs would interpret with shorthand for needlessly bigger government.

ended on July 13th. The dirty trick revelation of Eagleton's past receipt of electronshock came soon after. By Election Day, Eagleton had been replaced as Veep nom by Ahnold's father in law Sargent Shriver.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Democratic_National_Convention

So any lasting harm to D GE chances would have to have come from GM's "1,000 percent support" remark four months before November.

IMO, chances that the "1,000 percent" remark could have swung many votes from GM to RMN are so remote that I literally thought a flurry of incoherent posters here must have been off their meds.

IMO, elections are decided when in the voting booth they weigh their perceptions of how each candidate would advance their own personal priorities, especially on pocketbook kitchen table issues. IMO it was many months of Republican saturation ads about "amnesty, abortion, and acid" that must have swayed many voters, not four-month-old amusing stories about "1,000 percent support". Do you disagree?

thanks anyway for clear writing to correct my misunderstanding of a series of posts that seemed--and still seem--pretty far-fetched.

"Eagleton had been replaced as Veep nom by Ahnold's father in law Sargent Shriver"

In 1972, Maria Shriver was a high school student, for crying out loud! She didn't marry Schwarzenegger until 1986, long after the 1972 election. So in 1972, "Ahnold" was NOT part of the family.

And Sargent Shriver was a decent man. Geez, he was a driving force behind the Peace Corps, for crying out loud! And he would have been a hell of a lot better vice-president than Spiro Agnew, who had to resign in disgrace!

Enough of the smear shit, already! It's rubbing off on you!

what I intended. Do you agree that much later, Sargent Shriver, who IIRC, died only recently became Ahnold's father-in law?

I was a big admirer of Sargent Shriver , whose economic opportunity initiatives in cities were practical and lasted until Reagan-Democrat suburbanites allowed them to be terminated.

in connection to the 1972 election, since there was absolutely no connection. Why bring up future black-sheep relatives-by-marriage when they are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand?

yes, nutshell

What the fuck - the Hillary campaign is trying to rewrite history now

but if you wish to describe this as an obvious revenge hit by a rightwing run US government then be my guest

http://www.fec.gov/audits/1984/Title26/84GeorgeMcGovern.pdf

Quite contrary when all was said and done it was revealed Nixon paid the Watergate Burglars out of a slush fund he kept in a safe in the Whitehouse

But since Hillary wants to keep rewriting history lets dig up all the political favors the Clintons have been trading all the way back to Bill as the Governor

and that could be revenge

Send over the FEC -- it'll keep them busy instead of looking into actual corruption of the system with many more "zeros" at the end

I'm shocked, shocked. They should have formed a SuperPAC instead,.

Please see post number 20 below

Nothing. Different demographic, the Internet which counterweights MSM propaganda and Bernie's coalition which is only part leftie but also kaleidoscopic and chalk full of southern whites, most indies, and lots of conservatives. Boomers listen to MSM to get misinformed and under informed while millenials outnumber then are are literally wired to uncover bullshit, including HRCs.
Bernie will be POTUS and everyone can see it coming except those beholden to or reliant on conventional wisdom

experience here, having lived with the Nixonian consequences of our own naivete about cynical pols, willfully ignorant of policy, and focusing not on the priorities of Democratic constituencies, but on cynical promises of pie one the sky for naive target youth.

too... hell, I remember Eisenhower.

That said, you are comparing apples and oranges. Too much has changed since 1972. The selection of Eagleton was a doomer for McGovern. Throw in the Nixon dirty tricks (recall KKK Karl Rove cut his nasty political teeth as a campus member of Nixon's CREEP) and it was over before it started.

The money-corrupted times, the diverse coalition of supporters, the internet and social media that instantly counter MSM BS make Bernie much more viable than the very honorable Grorge McGovern.

This Boomer is on board with Bernie and will never vote for Hillary Clinton -- panderer, political cameleon, Wall Street BFF, pro-MIC corporatist...

Bernie will not be swift-boated, dean screamed or McGoverned. We will not allow it. That is the big difference!! And you can take that to the bank.

last debate.

Nixon got ahold of the medical records of McGovern's running mate and conducted a rather ruthless (Hillary-like) smear campaign.

That tripe might fly with millennials who don't remember nor were taught any recent history - but for those of us that were there

BULLSHIT

Did you read what you wrote before you hit "post".

Please reread what you have posted and use "self-delete" as appropriate, liberally.

focus on those dirty tricks, but rather on McGovern's platform, which the Rs summarized as "amnesty, abortion, and acid"

Contrary to the OP's protestations, that was exactly what happened! At the time, it was used to create doubts about McGovern's decision making abilities and to smear the Democratic party as a whole.

Was better off for having Nixon.

eom

A very different picture indeed.

Completely different now. We have the internet.

Sanders is not McGovern. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

BTW, check your watch. It's not 1972.

And that's why we will lose the GE if she is the nominee.

Instead of Carol Burnett, we have the Kardashians.

Loved Carol Burnett and wish we had that kind of TV now instead of all the reality trash!

As someone who remembers and lived through 1972, the comparisons are ridiculous!

Feeling the Bern here in SC!

Because the comment of the day has already been won... ^^

You interpret me as saying Clinton = Nixon?

with my initial reaction. It's reassuring. I don't claim to be the best writer, so any misunderstanding could be my bad. But let's get real here.

I have posted this ad nauseum...

McGovern was up against a sitting President. One with approval ratings in the 60s.

Sanders would be up against Donald Trump.

There is no parallel between the two. Keep pushing it though.

I'd LOVE to know where Hillary is going to win in the GE. Specifically the swing states. Where the heck is she getting independent support to win. So another blowout there also.

The clown car is down to two governors. The big Wall Street / Koch money IMO is likely to propel the last surviving governor to the nomination.

Kasich still brags about how he was instrumental in getting "welfare reform" in the 1990s. If he is elected, we well may get workfare for Medicaid as well as for adult food-stamp recipients in every state.

Kasich also is known for refusing supplemental unemployment insurance extensions funding for Ohio--free money from Washington during a recession.

has less of a chance in the South than Bernie.

He has virtually very little money left as he blew it all on NH.

Where my fiancé places his wagers, Kasich is a 20 to 1 underdog to get the nomination. So if you like him, now's the time. For perspective JEB is 6 to 1.

Kasich will not win any of the winner take all states save his home state.

of "billionaire class" PAC money available to the last governor standing, and in the GE. Money talks, and Bernie's ....

how did that work out for you?


anyone actually believe she has a snowball's chance with these numbers?

Swing state... Just one of many

People talk about Sanders supporters being dreamers. It's a dream to think those numbers will get much better.

Do you really think SBS ever again will do as well in any other primary state as he did in 95 percent white NH, next door to his home state?

Ironically, it was George McGovern who enabled loud-mouths from nowhere to dominate unrepresentative caucuses patterned after IA's. McGovern chaired a DNC commission to prevent repetition of the violence at the Chicago Dem convention in 1968. He used that platform to start a personal campaign for the presidency in 1970, the shameless Hicksville cynical pol.

I guess we better never try again. Settle for Hillary 2016!

He's been the Burlington mayor, a US Representative, and US Senator for over 40 years now.

Clinton has served in an elected political office for how many years now?

to deal every day with all the issues his Burlington constituents raised when he was mayor 30 years ago.

Since then, he's had the luxury of choosing the issues he would address with his considerable talent for blowing hot air.
Bur how does either experience prepare him to be president?

Hillary can't get the enthusiastic support of Occupy Wall Street, with her $250,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs and CitiBank

Hillary can't get the votes of some anti-war activists, with her Iraq War Vote.

Hillary can't get the votes of many young people drowning in student debt, with her NO We Can't platform

Hillary can't get the votes of some people exhausted with fighting private health insurance companies, with her stubborn insistence that we must all remain at the mercy of the private, for-profit insurance industry.

We may lose in the fall, even with Bernie as the nominee. I'd MUCH rather lose with Bernie than Hillary. Better to go down to defeat fighting for what I really want, than fighting to defend the indefensible (the speeches, the Iraq War vote).

I still can't understand why the Democratic leaders all lined up behind Hillary with all her obvious impediments to winning. No way am I going along with their flawed judgement with my primary vote.

And, it's some of Hillary's "accomplishments" that will cause me not to vote for her.

with another Nixon should Rs turn Bernie into another McGovern.

"Amnesty, abortion, and acid" IMO is very mild compared to what Madison Avenue would concoct against SBS.

Is the only alternative Hillary?

I don't think so.

over one that does? I couldn't.

Eugene McCarthy acted as foil to what seemed an inevitable re-election of the sitting president, LBJ by questioning his policy toward the war. In truth, LBJ had been forced to depend on Republicans votes to get much of his agenda passed (Civil Rights). McCarthy was forced into a brokered convention after the death of RFK with Humphrey and McGovern (who entered late) Humphrey and the establishment controlled the convention for the win in Chicago but that gave us Nixon's presidency.

As someone pointed out up thread it will come down to kitchen table issues. One difference this time is the fact that the voting age was lowered to 18 meaning more younger voters but that may not be enough to turn the tide if we are in a severe recession which will be blamed on the Obama administration (by both sides). If Hillary goes out for any reason and Biden comes in it could very well be a repeat of '68. And that will not be pretty.

Are small donations less accountable than large? Probably. Nixon had large amounts of cash, ostensibly from large numbers of small donations as well as some large. It was far easier to give both large and small sums of cash in that era with bigger bills, less tracking but the drug wars changed that. Today plastic has largely replaced cash and is more easily tracked.

I still have my McGovern / Shriver button in my jewelry box. I don't think I ever met John Lewis but did picket Wallace and Le May at what seemed more like a KKK convention than a political rally. Was I scared? Damn right!

all over again. Confrontations between CPD and "antiestablishment" youth in Grant Park across Michigan AV from the Hilton were so scary when replayed on TV that they played right into R hands for the GE. I fear SBS similarly is whipping millenials into such a frenzy that they will riot against HRC and ensure Kasich or Trump get to appoint successors for both Antonin Scales and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Hopefully, the Democrats will be wise enough this time to nominate a progressive instead of another Humpty.

about the Chicago Seven, Yippies, SDS? The 15,000 people in Grant park were whipped to a frenzy and launched against an edgy, agitated Chicago police force with disastrous results for all to see on live TV. It was not spontaneous ignition.

SDS!! Reds!! Radicals!! Troublemakers!!

convention you've planned there, in Philadelphia. Be a shame if anything happened to it"?

LBJ's murderous war and applauded the cops who brutalized the demonstrators.

It was 45 years ago. Get past it.

This means nothing to the self styled "progressive economist"; a point that, if either appellation were accurate, would not be true.

APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY
From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy....
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy


The original study:

From the Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"

Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT

Sanders defeating any Republican in a head-to-head matchup? This is head-in-the-sand know-nothingism and bespeaks a malign agenda.

in October, long after the conventions are over, and a billion or two has been spent on saturation ads. The polls you are citing, from even before IA, IMO are completely worthless

refuses to back down and gets it!!! This is the generation and this is the time.

It is a growing movement. The establishment should see that.

of dishonesty, deception, to manipulate voters.

Bernie is going to win the nomination. I agree he is going to win. But, I think he will win the general as well. Republicons just don't have enough sure thing states to win.

Last edited Sun Feb 14, 2016, 09:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Sanders for Obama? Glowng speeches with the ambiguous "hope and change" platitude.

was there, then, too: "Don't vote for this naive, inexperienced neophyte who can give a good speech."

This is 2016 not 1972. Also Bernie polls better against repubs better than her.

The Democratic party wasn't a right wing machine then.

wall street)

Not Nixon.

This is why we want Democrats to Be Democrats again. Clinton ushered in republicanism in our party & its done ENOUGH damage.

No more.

And this isn't 1972.

Where you been?

if the party establishment and Hillary supporters have their way.