Depending on who the Democratic Nominee is, this could be a very, very strange election year.

[JonLeibowitz]

Of course, it will also depend on who the Republican nominee is, but there's a risk this year of repeating the disaster of 1972, I think. Here's an electoral college map of that election:



This concerns me. I was not alive to support McGovern in 1972, but I suppose I can say I didn't know he had a chance of being elected. Instead, this country re-elected a man who was to that time probably the worst excuse for a President in US History. What that demonstrates to me is that elections do not always proceed in a logical or sensible way. Hillary supporters' declarations that Hillary has no chance of losing if nominated, while not directly logical or sensible, are included.

I'm sure my concerns will be dismissed outright, but they remain concerns, and not just for me. Many Sanders supporters share my concern that nominating a politician like Hillary Clinton with her baggage, lies, flip-flopping, and lack of appeal, could lead to an absolute riot of a general election.

Also, Hillary/Castro reminds me of McGovern/Eagleton and their problems for reasons I decline to expand on.

Sanders for President!

[Buzz Clik]

1. Let's be really, really honest:

Are either of these two Democrats truly electable? Clinton has so much baggage that even the Sanders crew cannot help but smear her endlessly.

Sanders is a one trick pony and a self-declared socialist (no one cares about the "democratic" modifier).

No matter who we nominate, if we don't have a lot of help from the GOP (e.g., nominating a friggin' lunatic), we will be romped.

[JonLeibowitz]

5. My position on Sanders' electability:

I think you are right about electability at the present time. However, if Sanders pulls off the upset and mobilizes enough existing and new voters to nominate him in the primaries and caucuses ahead, then he has de facto demonstrated electability. Enough democratic voters and independents will have demonstrated that they care about the issues he talks about.

And no, Sanders is not a one trick pony; that has been thoroughly debunked here.

[Buzz Clik]

12. You cannot "debunk" an opinion or a personal perception. You can only provide counter arguments.

Sanders has been running from the outset on income inequality, the immorality of the huge businesses, and a cluster of tightly related issues. He has been trying to expand this, and he's done a reasonable job.

Does he or will he EVER have Clinton's credentials over the entire gamut of national and international topics? Never.

[JonLeibowitz]

13. .

You said: "Sanders is a one trick pony"

That is a statement of fact. I am allowed to comment that it is a false statement. You made no indication that it was merely an opinion or perception that some have. You proffered a statement of fact.

Clinton's "credentials" on many issues consist of having had multiple contradictory positions on the issues over time as suited her poll numbers, combined with poor decision making in many instances.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Christ.

You said: "Sanders is a one trick pony"

That is a statement of fact.

Opinion.

I am allowed to comment that it is a false statement.

Fact

You made no indication that it was merely an opinion or perception that some have. You proffered a statement of fact.

Pure bullshit.

Have the last word. My opinion is that you are an annoying human being and conversing with you offers nothing to me.

[artislife]

21. Electability...neither has won an national election

but one only won twice for a state held election while the other.....

[Buzz Clik]

23. "while the other....." is a career politician, having never had any other profession.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[artislife]

24. One who wasn't handed everything because of who they married....nt

[Buzz Clik]

25. Are we debating on who has been the lesser leach on society?

Let's call it a tie.

[artislife]

28. I don't know what you are arguing...but then I really don't care

Nothing you have ever posted has been even followable in my opinion

buzz off clik bait.

[TDale313]

2. Look, I'm a Sanders supporter, but...

The dynamics are not the same. This country is so polarized, a solid, say, 40% will vote for the Democratic nominee no matter which candidate, and same on the Republican nominee. There are many reasons to not support Hillary, (including the Clinton baggage we'll be stuck with for 4or 8 years if she wins) but IMO, any of the three Dem nominees will likely win the General against the most likely Republican nominees.

[JonLeibowitz]

4. I don't believe for a second what I wrote. I am showing that everything a recent OP

said about Bernie can also be said about Hillary. Both OPs are not tied in any way to the facts of this election...

[TDale313]

7. Ahh, got it

😀 I thought it was interesting to see this argument being used against Hillary.

[Punkingal]

3. Very clever combination......

[KingCharlemagne]

6. In 1972, Nixon was NOT the worst excuse for a President in U.S. history. That

distinction belongs to either James Buchanan (D) or Warren G. Harding (R), with U.S. Grant (R) earning an Honorable Mention.

[mikehiggins]

8. Worst president in US history (other than George Bush?)

Ronald Reagan, hands down.

I was sorrier when Nixon died than when Reagan did.

[JonLeibowitz]

9. I intentionally excluded those two by saying "to that time" n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

33. As execrable as Reagan and Bush Jr. were, I'm still casting

my ballot for worst U.S. President for James Buchanan. That asshole allowed bands of Southern traitors to seize federal property with impunity, handing the whole mess off to the Lincoln administration. Buchanan's lassitude in the face of Southern treason makes Bush look like a fucking choirboy. YMMV

[Beartracks]

10. Matches my concern. GOP's "Anyone but Hillary!" meme.

Hillary is a lightning rod, and will galvanize the GOP's get-out-the-vote efforts better than the even GOP. They absolutely hate her.

Couple that loathing with a broad "Meh" from a large swath of Democrats... and I fear things could go badly.

On the other hand, Sanders has no national "history" with the GOP (i.e. they haven't been taught to hate him yet) and apparently has some cross-over appeal.

My plan: Vote for the Democratic nominee. Period.

======================

[Attorney in Texas]

18. Clinton is the gasoline in the Republican GOTV effort. We should not give them that gas.

[Beartracks]

32. With down-ticket ramifications, too.

And down-ticket races are vitally important.

==============

[Attorney in Texas]

11. Comparing these Sanders' and Clinton's favorability/unfavorability charts show why Clinton loses but

Sanders wins:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Touché.

Last edited Sat Jan 9, 2016, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Well-played.

I remember the 1972 election quite well, and there are no significant similarities or analogues that I can think of between it and the upcoming one. McGovern was nominated after a contentious battle among at least nine candidates, including Edwin Muskie, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace. Muskie was the victim of Nixon's dirty tricks (and poor organizing); Humphrey had already lost in '68; and the right-winger, Wallace, was injured in an assassination attempt. Once McGovern had the nomination he had a lot of problems. Support vs. opposition to the Vietnam war had caused a huge rift in the party, and several prominent Dems turned down his offer to be his running mate. Finally Thomas Eagleton accepted, but he wasn't well-vetted and when it was learned that he'd had treatment for mental health problems McGovern waffled badly before withdrawing the offer. After being turned down again by just about everybody he got Sargent Shriver to do it. This incident was a total disaster and, combined with the ongoing controversy over the war and Nixon's incumbency, probably cost him the election.

There is no incumbent president to run against this time. Although Nixon was never Mr. Popularity, in 1972 he was still getting a lot of support for his visit to China, and the public didn't yet know how badly Vietnam was going. McGovern's campaign was damaged by unforeseen circumstances and a number of self-inflicted injuries. You can't compare the that election with this one. But there's a lot of disingenuous "concern" going on right now, because, hey, look, another grass-roots campaign by a liberal!

[Punkingal]

15. Great post. Very well said. A walk down memory lane.

[libdem4life]

17. Yes, it was definitely a confusing and volitile time. We also had to be 21 to vote. That's equally

archaic.

[kath]

19. Great OP.

Thanks for it.

[Paulie]

20. Well played

[MisterP]

22. after 1972 the Scoop Jackson Dems actually coalesced as a faction

the Dems had to Nixonize, had to start fighting dirty and appear tough: what that meant of course was encouraging a rabid partisanship, changing positions on a dime, warmongering, and appealing to people's basest emotions

[mmonk]

26. It's funny. That election is what has been used

by the corporatists as an excuse to elect them instead of any people's representative for president.

[RKP5637]

27. Whatever happens, one can count on most Americans, at least half or so, voting like

a dumb bag of rocks!!!

[stevil]

29. I'm not a Hillary or Sanders supporter....

I do have an opinion on who might be a better candidate though. But addressing your Hillary scenario I think the race would be really close, too close for comfort. Not a blowout either way. There is so much to lose and hopefully either candidate will be able to rally the several coalitions that could make it a safer election.

Bonus - Trump nomination would guarantee a Hillary win.

All the above is opinion only.

[Attorney in Texas]

30. Sanders and Clinton both beat Trump, but Sanders wins bigger, and Sanders beats Rubio and Cruz

who might beat Clinton (especially Rubio)

[SheilaT]

31. In 1972 Richard Nixon was running for re-election.

An incumbent always has a very strong advantage. He also was not considered a bad President, and still really isn't, despite how things ultimately turned out for him. Even those of us who strongly disliked him and wanted him gone as President, did not consider him that terrible. We just didn't like a lot of his policies, especially his hypocrisy over the War in Vietnam, which he'd pledged to end when elected in 1968, but managed to drag it out so he could still say he was the one who could end it when running for re-election.

While the Watergate break-in had already occurred and had been reported in the press, it wasn't much of a story yet, and wouldn't be until the middle of 1973.

Under him we got the EPA, the Clean Air Act, OSHA, far-reaching and very liberal things. I recall co-workers who thought OSHA was nonsense, and knowing how dumb they were to think so.

He was widely praised for going to China and beginning the normalizing of relations with that country.

He also invaded Cambodia, financed right-wing dictators, did his best to totally screw over anyone he saw as an enemy.

But his spectacular failures were not especially front and center at that time, and his viciousness and venality likewise wasn't particularly well known. His resignation in disgrace was still in the future.

Oh, and it was under Nixon that we had wage and price controls, something almost totally forgotten today, which laid the groundwork for the inflation and the high interest rates of the late '70s, which is almost totally blamed on Jimmy Carter. A the time the controls were put in place, by executive order. Clearer heads at the time pointed out that once the controls would remove, inflation, and possibly unemployment, would rebound. That's essentially what happened.

You also need to understand to what extent McGovern screwed up his campaign, chiefly with his selection of Senator Tom Eagleton of Missouri as a running mate, and his then total abandonment of Eagleton when that man's history of depression came to light. It pushed a lot of undecideds to voting for the Republican.

McGovern was simply a poor candidate, but I don't feel as though I know enough about the others running to offer a better alternative, one who actually would have won.

[ram2008]

34. Trump will beat Hillary

But Hillary beats Rubio. I think the election will be framed differently depending who the nominees are.

Hilary vs Rubio = Experience election: she makes Rubio look like the cheap suit lightweight that he is. Generic D v Generic R. Hillary win.

Sanders v Rubio = Comfort/Safety election: Would America feel more comfortable with Rubio or Sanders as pres? Rubio win.

Hillary v Trump = authenticity/special interest election: Who is speaking whats on their mind and not controlled by various interests? Trump win.

Trump v Sanders = ideological election: Who has the best ideas to make America the way it should be? Unfettered survival of the fittest capitalism vs Democratic socialism. Sanders win.

That's my take anyway. As for Cruz, he's such an unlikeable creep that I believe either Sanders or Hillary would beat him badly.