Is Joe Biden the new Ed Muskie? ...

[BooScout]

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/31/is-joe-biden-the-new-ed-muskie-a-cautionary-tale-of-the-1972-frontrunner/

Is Joe Biden the new Ed Muskie? A cautionary tale of the 1972 frontrunner

Democrats are beginning to reckon with the fact that, right now, the story of the 2020 election looks likely to end with Joe Biden being elected president.

That is very far from saying that Biden is a sure thing. Early frontrunners stand a pretty good chance of becoming a party's presidential nominee, as Hillary Clinton did four years ago. But Democrats can look to their own past for a legendary example of a frontrunner who was viewed as a consensus, "moderate" candidate and who went down in flames.

That happened in the tumultuous election of 1972, when Richard Nixon was running for re-election. He appeared beatable, thanks to a weakening economy, accusations of corruption (although the Watergate scandal hadn't begun to dominate the news) and continued civil unrest. On the other hand, Nixon had substantive foreign policy achievements: He was winding down the war in Vietnam and opening diplomacy with China, which would lead to his famous handshake with Mao Zedong.

During the year before the election, Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine — a laconic, inoffensive mainstream Democrat who had been Hubert Humphrey's running mate during the 1968 election — led in most primary polls and tended to do well against Nixon in one-on-one matchups. Muskie was seen as acceptable to most factions of the Democratic Party, except the far left: He was liberal but not radical; he favored ending the war in Vietnam but was a staunch anti-Communist. His nomination seemed assured and a victory over Nixon was at least plausible. Much of the smart money in politics saw Muskie as the next president.

(more) https://www.salon.com/2019/08/31/is-joe-biden-the-new-ed-muskie-a-cautionary-tale-of-the-1972-frontrunner/

[hlthe2b]

1. Because Joe Biden is an empathetic, caring person in contrast to the total sociopath, Trump...

We are doing Muskie comparisons? REALLY?

Damn...

[samnsara]

2. anything is possible..

..i remember thinking WHO IS THIS PERSON? when Bill Clinton was amongst the candidates during our caucuses.

[DownriverDem]

21. Don't forget

Biden's number are still strong. DU's preference is by more left leaning folks than nation wide.

[onetexan]

31. Agree, this article's a buncha malarky

[Cattledog]

3. Muskie didn't get the nomination

because of dirty tricks by the Nixon WH. McGovern got the nomination and look what happened.

[NYMinute]

4. Muskie did not have Biden's empathy, charisma and authenticity. nt

Matthew Rozsa is "concern-trolling" for the far left and to create new anti-Biden narratives.

[still_one]

6. This is no surprise coming from Salon, who went out of their way to propagate as many

anti-Hillary OP Eds as they could

[OKNancy]

8. I looked up this writer and he has not been slanted

At least as I could see. He seems pretty level-headed. The title of the article doesn't really reflect what the author is getting at.
I think the poster here thinks it is a bad article for Biden, but it is not at all.

[still_one]

10. That may be, but after their distorted coverage toward Hillary in 2016,

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2019, 08:37 AM - Edit history (2)

I stopped reading them because their anti-Hillary one-sided bias was so evident.

Perhaps they are now more objective, and present ALL views since then, but they left a very bad taste in my mouth

https://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/05/the-fall-of-saloncom-004551

I also do not think it is valid to make a comparison between 1972 and today, though the resurgence of overt racism is unfortunately alive and well, and that is extremely troubling

It is also way too early to make pronouncements of "sure things"

Muskie's downfall came at the expense of the illustrious press before the NH primary, when they accused him of crying when an editor of a NH Newspaper impugned Muskie's wife's character.

Muskie denied that he "cried", and said it was outrage and anger he was expressing toward Loeb for lying about his wife. Loeb was extremely anti-Muskies, and referred to him as "Moscow Muskie"

The cards were stacked against him, and the media in general was NOT fair at all in their coverage

[comradebillyboy]

39. I totally agree with you about what trash the once great Salon

turned into. I have similar feelings about HuffPo as well.

I'm an old guy and I remember the 1972 elections. I don't see much similarity between then and now. Comparing Biden to Muskie is sort of meaningless.

[still_one]

40. We are exactly on the same page, including with HuffPost

[NYMinute]

11. In an era where 70+% only read the headlines

and not the whole article ... it is still damaging.

[still_one]

17. You are absolutely right NYMinute, and I am at fault for that also

[BooScout]

45. No I don't...

I don't think it's a particularly bad article for anyone. I think it points to what we might learn from history. To me, the article was interesting. Nothing nefarious was intended on my part.

[Fiendish Thingy]

33. That's funny- my perception was that Salon was decidedly pro-HRC and anti-Sanders

With a few exceptions, most of the primary season articles were pro Hillary.

[LongtimeAZDem]

38. You have got to be joking; do a site search on salon.com for that time range

[elocs]

5. Muskie couldn't have done worse than McGovern, my 1st presidential vote.

Imagine how history would have been changed if Muskie had defeated Nixon.
But not to worry next year because it's a lock that anyone the Democrats nominate will beat Trump.

[OKNancy]

7. I don't think you read the whole article

The point was that the Democrats messed up by not nominating the cooler Muskie and instead went for McGovern (who lost big)

An excerpt

There is a lesson here, and not the superficially obvious one — namely, that the Democrats should have chosen Muskie because McGovern was too far left to win a general election. In fact, neither Muskie nor McGovern understood their own political strengths and weaknesses, or what the Democratic Party needed in that election year.

[Cattledog]

12. Exactly. OP shoots self in foot.

[still_one]

15. Actually Muskie was completely trashed by the media before the March 7 NH Primary when he called

the publisher of the Union Leader Newspaper, William Loeb, a liar, and lambasting him for impugning the character of his wife.

That "cool, calm, image" was completely destroyed by the press, from the Washington Post, CBS News, to the Boston Globe, saying that Muskie broke down and cried.

The NY Times who was there, was one of the few outlets who could not confirm that.

That effectively did him in. It was viewed as a "sign of weakness" at the time

Nixon and his henchmen were actively doing their dirty tricks also. The cards were stacked against the Democrats from the get go, and no matter who our candidate was in 1972, it would have been very tough for Democrats to win. Nixon's Southern racist strategy was in full force then, and Wallace ran as a Democrat in the 1972 primaries on his segregationist, racist platform, which only helped Nixon's Southern Strategy

If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been taken from us in 1968, I think a lot of things would have been different

[bigtree]

9. Hillary also led Obama by over 20 points in Nov. 2007

...on experience and stature.

So this article is bullshit right from the first sentence.

[mr_liberal]

13. McGovern lost in a landslide... lost 49 states with just 39% of the vote.

....the two McGovern-style progressives in the race, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

[still_one]

16. Yes, he lost in a landslide, but one cannot ignore what was happening at the time. Nixon's dirty

tricks, Watergate, his racist southern strategy, and George Wallace running as a "Democrat" on a segregationist platform.

What is concerning is that many of those same factors in 1972 have re-emerged, and that is very concerning

[Otto Lidenbrock]

19. McGovern had to rescind his VP pick

Because it turned out the guy was medically treated for depression in the 60s. It was a time when depression was seen in a negative light and there was a lot of fearmongering over a "mentally unstable man being a heartbeat away from the presidency".

McGovern initially stood by his man but he eventually was pushed into switching which also made McGovern look a dithering decision maker.

[Always Randy]

14. A better question --Is Warren the new McGovern?

Warren is certainly loved by us Democrats, but the loathing and fear of Warren by the GOP will make them galvanize is a much stronger way than they did against McGovern. I do think Biden can swing a lot of the GOP in the general.

[Buckeyeblue]

18. I don't see the country getting excited about Warren

I think she might be too academic. She doesn't break down her ideas about the economy in easy to understand ways. She also seems to be a little emotionally distant. I think Biden is really good at keeping his message simple. He has great empathy. It's really too bad he wasn't the presumptive nominee in 2016, because he had put in his time as VP and deserved it.

I think who he picks as VP will be important because if he decides to be a one term president, that person will need to be the presumptive nominee.

[Ba2020]

43. Those are some of my reversations about Warren

That's what's giving me reluctance in backing her fully. Right now she is my third choice,after Harris and Buttigied. And there's that the whole DNA thing she bungled up badly. Biden is too old school.

[Buckeyeblue]

44. I agree that Biden is too old school

But we might need him as a transitional president. We should have learned our lesson with Obama's successful presidency and nominated youngish intelligent people. As much as I like Hillary, she was not the right person to run last time. But her running scared off others (I think).

[delisen]

22. Warren seems quite popular in the field

and she is respected by many Wall Street and investment oriented voters-who acknowledge that she at least knows what she is talking about even though they are apprehensive about regulation.

[Always Randy]

24. thank you for your response ---key word is apprhensive

that apprehension will be a battle cry for the wealthy and the GOP-----and the anti-Hillary crowd is alive and well----don't get me wrong about Warren----I like what she says and does---I just don't think she would fare well in the general--

[delisen]

51. I think Warren will do fine in the general election

[LincolnRossiter]

26. A much better question.

+1.

[LongtimeAZDem]

35. This is more accurate, IMO

[vsrazdem]

20. At this point, anybody who doesn't vote for whoever has a D next to their name is an idiot.

All the talk about electability means nothing when you look at where we are in this county today. I will vote for whoever has a D next to their name, and I believe most of the country will also.

[yardwork]

23. This is a good time for the left wing to think about the 1972 election.

That's an election that Democrats should have won. Muskie's campaign was destroyed by a biased media doing the bidding of Nixon's ratfuckers.

Then, Democrats nominated George McGovern, a decent but not charismatic war veteran who had been a capable senator - and we allowed the media to destroy his campaign as well. McGovern was unfairly cast as a "wimp," similar to the way John Kerry was swiftboated.

The same people who ran Nixon's dirty tricks in 1972 were back to do the same against Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004. Roger Stone is still here. There is a lesson in 1972 for us today. It doesn't matter who we choose as our candidate if we allow the Republicans and the media to lie about our candidates.

Remember the Dean Scream. That was Muskie redux.

[calguy]

28. All the dirty tricksters of today.....

Are more skilled, more experienced, and much better funded than Nixon's henchmen ever were. We must not take these people lightly. That's why I think Joe gives us our best chance. As good Warren is, I really think the modern day dirty tricksters would rip her to shreds.

[yardwork]

29. They will rip ANY of our candidates if we let them.

In 2016, many Democrats helped the Republicans destroy a great candidate. In 2004 we allowed them to cast John Kerry as a coward. They will lie, cheat and steal. We have to stop enabling them.

[BooScout]

47. + 1000

You nailed it in one.

[yardwork]

54. Thanks, Boo.

[LincolnRossiter]

25. There are so many articles that simply don't need to be written...

Does this guy have a relevant or salient point?

[paleotn]

27. What's the point?

The whole premise is BS. Nixon in 72 was absolutely nothing like IQ45. And Biden is not Muskie by any means. And this isn't early 70's America. Projecting into the future from similar circumstances in the past is fraught with danger. Just ask the Wall Street guys. But this comparison is so apples to watermelons it's ridiculous from the start.

[bucolic_frolic]

30. Yeah, he is, and Trump is the new Eisenhower

in fact, beef is the new egg, and laetrile is the new cure for cancer. Not only that Edsel is the latest pickup, and Nike is the new coiffure. I mean, the thoughts of this writer are so de rigeur unnecessary! Someone didn't take their meds.

[Polly Hennessey]

32. Keep trying dear Warren acolytes.

[Baclava]

34. Lol, at least its not another gaffe thread Biden apologists have to twist into pretzels defending

[Gothmog]

36. I remember the 1972 race well

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2019, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Nixon got to pick the Democrat he ran against. trump does not want to run against Biden and so we are seeing a ton of attacks on Biden that are really weak. Gaffes will not be an issue the 2020 general election given trump's lies and inability to speak

[treestar]

37. "OTOH, Nixon had substantive foreign policy achievements."

Donnie Dotard has zip.

But it sounds like we should not let Biden fall like Muskie did.

[BlueWI]

41. I don't know.

Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2019, 01:49 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm pretty skeptical about all of the alleged parallels between 1972 and 2020. They all need to stop.

[highplainsdem]

42. LOL! I'd say that's the most ridiculous comparison I've seen yet, but I just saw another

anti-Biden piece comparing Biden to Warren G. Harding.

Oh, the desperation of Biden critics...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

46. No.

[Drunken Irishman]

48. The Democrats weren't going to win the 1972 election no matter who they nominated.

Muskie probably would have made it closer than McGovern, who ran one of the worst presidential campaigns in modern American history, but he would have struggled to beat Nixon, whose popularity was trending upward throughout most '72.

The better question is if Watergate still happens with Muskie as the nominee.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

49. Nobody is the new anybody and nothing is the new anything. Not this time.

While it's generally true that lessons can be learned from history, there is very little in our recent history that is analogous or similar to the election and administration of Trump. Consequently, to compare any election to the most recent one, or especially to the upcoming one, is pretty useless. Biden may be ideologically similar to Muskie, but if he's nominated he'll be running against someone who is not Nixon in any respect except as to to criminality (and in '72 the details of Watergate were not yet known). And even Nixon's criminality pales beside Trump's. Nixon seemed to be, and for the most part was, a conventional and thoroughly mainstream Republican, not in any way extreme for the time or anti-establishment - Nixon was the Establishment.

And, as the article acknowledged, Nixon did have some foreign policy successes, while Trump has been nothing but a disaster in that area. And neither Warren nor Sanders is the analog of McGovern, who ran on a single issue: opposition to the Vietnam war. In 2020 there will be multiple issues, not the least of which is the sheer awfulness of Trump himself. The election of Trump was a black swan event, and his administration and the effect on the political landscape isn't like anything that has happened before. This is terra incognita, and dumb articles like this don't tell us anything.

[myohmy2]

50. I think you're right...

...safe establishment candidate Muskie became a fish out of water...

...to be the leading candidate at this stage of the race is more of a curse than a blessing...sustaining daily attacks and criticism weakens most candidates by the time of the primaries...

...the steady plowing of the electorate field by Bernie will yield him a harvest of many more votes in 5 months...

...Godspeed, Bernie...

[qazplm135]

52. bit of a difference between Nixon in 72 and Trump in 2020

Nixon was weak but a "normal" President with positives and negatives. So, pretty much like a large number of incumbent Presidents.

Trump is weak, not a normal President, with a ton of negatives and almost no positives.

So, yeah, no. He's near the bottom of my primary list, but if he wins the nomination, he can win just like the rest of our candidates.

[Mike Nelson]

53. Maybe in that...

... Muskie and Biden were/are the "establishment" candidate? Otherwise, I don't see any startling similarity.