General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: why dont Democratic Party power players like a primary? [View all]merrily
(45,251 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)
That has been the goal of the Democratic Party's right wing for a very long time, well before McGovern. However, McGovern's dramatic loss was used as an excuse to shift the party rightward again.
McGovern made the DNC more Democratic. After he lost to Nixon--and no, that loss was not attributable to McGovern's policies---the right wing of the Party got his party reforms repealed. It also tried to institute Super Delegates, to ensure that the Party could overrule a primary if primary voters chose anyone the right wing of the Party considered too liberal. That failed but only temporarily.
After Mondale's 1984 loss to Reagan, the right wing of the Party seized the moment again. This time, it succeeded in instituting Super Delegates--something even the GOP did not even try until much later. The DLC incorporated in 1985. In 1992, DLCer Bill Clinton ran against Poppy and won, helped by Ross Perot's third party candidacy. In 1996, Clinton ran again and won, helped by both Ross Perot and the advantage that all incumbent Presidents enjoy.
A mythology that Third Wayers were the only electable Democrats, at least at the national level, grew and persists to this day, despite some horrific national elections for Democrats.
In 2012, we saw an incumbent go primary-less, even as the story was being circulated and repeated that there would be no primary contest if Hillary chose to run.
Yes, the Super Delegates are always there to overrule the primary vote, but that would also create a huge p.r. problem and possibly, at last, a revolt. Hence, trying to get away without a primary is far preferable from the standpoint of the Third Wayers who have controlled the Party since the Clinton administration.