We should only select the most principled candidates, regardless of electability

[BluegrassStateBlues]

That always works out well.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

And, I'd vote for McGovern again,.

[msanthrope]

16. That someone with your user name is quoting the Monroe Doctrine originator approvingly is funny, and

giving this History nerd a laugh.

[liberal_at_heart]

22. damn right. I love that quote. I don't give a damn what anybody else thinks of my vote. I will vote

my conscience.

[Shrike47]

2. My husband and I voted for McGovern. It was lonely in that voting booth.

Ideological purity is what the Tea Party is demanding. It doesn't make for electability.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

3. If I were around at the time, I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.

McGovern was a great man, but he wasn't electable. Electability matters.

[RobertEarl]

11. Electability?

Nixon was elected because he lied. And was a crook.

So you are saying that as long as one is electable, even if a liar and a crook, it's ok by you?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

17. No. That's preposterous. nt

[RobertEarl]

21. Yes. Your proposition is preposterous.

Good of you to recognize it as such.

Didn't take long for you to realize it, eh?

McGovern was the best person for the job. Just because the majority of America was fooled by the crooked liar does not mean McGovern was not electable. It just meant too many were fooled again. And they are easily fooled. Reagan and the Bushies are evidence of that.

And who would have thought in 1990 that a black man could be electable? Not many.

As you claim, your 'electable only' proposition is preposterous bordering on delusional.

[LiberalElite]

29. I voted for him too nt

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I canvassed & voted for him.

[steve2470]

4. My dad born in 1917 voted for McGovern. Just too bad so many others in FL voted for the CREEP nt

[dawg]

5. So, what is it that makes a candidate "electable"?

Agreeing to support the corporate agenda 50% of the time? 60%? (Is 40% enough?)

Being tall and handsome? (or pretty?)

Telling people what they want to hear rather than the truth?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

7. The ability to get at least 51% of the vote? nt

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Only knowable after the fact.

And thus not qualified as a way of selecting candidates. What you are saying is 'only back winners' and that's every gambler's mantra, really.

[dawg]

14. That one's kind of hard to determine until after the fact.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Money.

[jsr]

31. A corporate seal of approval is important.

Of course, the candidate must be articulate and photogenic with no criminal record. And s/he must believe in guns and Jesus.

[quinnox]

6. That should be the goal, to elect the most progressive candidate

if everyone voted that way, maybe there could be a president who could shake things up dramatically. God knows we need it.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. So you are saying always select the 'most electable' without any concern for principles?

There is no other consideration but 'electability' which is speculative? It's all about who would be good on Leno?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

12. I don't think it SHOULD be that way, but that's the reality.

In the end, if a candidate doesn't get the votes... it doesn't matter how principled they are.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Bingo …

But for some a moral victory is better than an electoral victory.

[wilt the stilt]

10. McGovern was my first vote

and to this day my proudest. Many things went wrong that election starting with Tom Eagleton. There was probably no one who could have beaten Nixon at that time. In reflection, America sure elected a asshole.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Walter Mondale was also a highly principled guy.

BTW: I do give Massachusetts credit in that first map!

[Scuba]

15. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[NuclearDem]

18. Apples and oranges.

First, the Republicans during the Nixon era weren't batshit crazy right wing. That was the administration that signed the EPA into law, after all.

Second, with millions of young people coming of voting age or already voting, don't you think it's time to capitalize on a massive progressive surge among them? We're overwhelmingly in favor of LGBT rights, pro-immigration reform, pissed at the laissez faire capitalists that are stealing our future, tired of war, sick of the surveillance state, pro-gender equality, and far less religious than our parents.

Why not run someone who agrees with even 75% of that? Young people will vote for someone who isn't the same old middle of the road candidate and actually offers real progressive ideas. The Democrats have the constituencies to do so, but don't have the guts to capitalize on it.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

19. We have the choice to do that in the primaries.

I vote for the most principled candidates a lot of times, but they only end up receiving 5-6% of the vote.

[MineralMan]

20. I voted for McGovern. I knew he would not get elected,

but I could only vote for him. He was the Democratic candidate. That did not work out well at all. Not at all.

I can't really imagine voting for anyone but the Democratic candidate. So I never have. Sometimes my choice won. Sometimes not.

I will never vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Never. I will vote for candidates in primaries who may not have much of a chance, but not in general elections. I vote for the Democrat, because the alternative is a Republican.

[Chathamization]

23. So you think Humphry would have defeated Nixon in '72?

It seems like the reason he lost the primary was because McGovern ran a superior campaign. I imagine Humphry would have gotten more insider support than McGovern, but I don't know how likely his success would have been.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. HHH had already lost once to Nixon, in 1968.

And that was with Wallace takin much of the RW vote away from Nixon. HHH would have lost again, but I think he would have done better than McGovern.

HHH was viewed as an extension of LBJ.

[Chathamization]

25. Yep, that's why taking '72 as a cautionary sign always seemed strange to me

Particularly since '68 seems to work much better as a cautionary tale.

[Niceguy1]

28. I vote based on character

And principles. I don't vote based on popularity