With total respect, Bernie supporters haven't got a clue. I know because I supported McGovern

[Stuart G]

...We thought that because George McGovern had the "right ideas" he had a chance to become President of the United States. So I worked for him, wrote essays for him, went door to door for him. The whole thing. I even met with the McGovern campaign chief for my state. It didn't matter. Nothing mattered. McGovern lost and lost big.
...Nixon- ..................................................................McGovern
Electoral vote‎: ‎520............................................................17
States carried‎: ‎49...............................................................1 plus DC
Total votes....47,168,000 million................................................29,173,000 million
Percent of vote 60% .............................................................37%
....Bernie is exactly the same. He will lose big. It is too late to change Bernie's personification. It is what it is, and he is what he is. He will lose big if he is our nominee. I hate to say this, but Bernie is NOT our strongest candidate. He is our weakest candidate. Oh, you don't have to agree with this, because you don't know, Bernie evokes a radical personification of our ideas. He sits wrong with people. He cannot change this, he is who he is. Forget Bernie, go for someone who can win, and believe me, Bernie cannot win. His ideas may be correct. But Bernie as a candidate is a sure loser.

[highplainsdem]

1. K&R. From another McGovern supporter.

[zeusdogmom]

14. Here, too

[wryter2000]

65. Same here

Winning the nomination was pretty exciting. The general election, not so much.

[grantcart]

74. + 1 billion

18 years old worked my guts out for McGovern

Came from a Goldwater family and my neighbor was a year older from a prominent Democratic family.

After our tenth rally w McGovern and all great enthusiasm I said to him "I think we might win his".

He broke out laughing "we are going to lose, maybe every state, McGovern advocated for a 100% inheritance tax, and if it was close my family will vote against him"

Watching 49 states go to Nixon was a crushing blow and I vowed never Fucking again


Sanders has been given a pass (again) on his lunatic give away plans that now exceeds $ 50 Trillion for the first 10 years.

That amounts to more than $ 10k PER PERSON PER YEAR.

This is McGovern 2.0

Sanders supporters are not simply clueless they are Donald Trump's best friends.

Sanders is running at half the numbers last time around and he had a four head start. Pathetic.

[Hekate]

135. TY grantcart. Live and learn.

[rzemanfl]

105. +1. n/t

[azureblue]

116. yawn

another FUD post. Things are much different now than back in McGovern's day. The young idealists got teeth now. And they have their own non traditional ways of communicating. They don't like the problems they see as being dumped on them, and Sanders is the only person speaking to them, as a person they understand.

[KPN]

120. Exactly.

[B Stieg]

150. I hope you are correct!

And George was a good man...

[azureblue]

155. He was / "Socialism"

And he had a great platform. But he also had a big gap between His idealism and how to make it work. That's the difference - Sanders has been in service for decades and he has clear explanations on how he can make his plans work.


He also knows who the assholes are that will try to stop him, and they are all big money entities who want to keep making big money. So they throw the word "Socialist" at him and frame the word as an anti American smear.

Far from it - to begin with "We the People of the United States --", precedes "Government of the people, but the people, for the people" Clearly declare that the government is to serve for the betterment of all Americans. Certainly not for big business. Certainly not for the rich few who can buy their way into power. Sanders wants a return to those days when government served its citizens. This is sort of like the days of the 1920's when the rich ran the country and it took a lot of work and literal bloodshed to regain control from the robber barons. Sanders sees this as does the younger voters who are sick of corruption. They see the GOP destroying their future.

It could be a toss up between Sanders and Warren - to me they are peas from the same pod. But I think Sanders' decades of experience tips the scales. A Sanders / Warren ticket would be incredible.

[hangaleft]

141. My first presidential election

And I, too, was ecstatic as I cast my vote for McGovern, only to see my dreams shattered on the rocks.

I’m a hard left-liner. Hell, I might even be a socialist.

But the rest of the country *isn’t*. And America will not elect a self-proclaimed socialist president.

I would love to see a radical lefty like Bernie be elected president. But it will never happen. Not even against the worst president of my lifetime. Mark my words — if Bernie is our nominee, he will not break 40% of the popular vote. Trump will win by a landslide and we will tumble the rest of the way into a fascist dictatorship.

I’m still hoping that Warren somehow pulls it out. If she doesn’t, I don’t really have a second choice. But I guess that I’d go with Klobuchar at that point. She’s electable and would make a great alternative to Trump.

Gotta keep it real.

[Sloumeau]

146. Warren is so much more electable than Sanders is.

Even though they have a lot of similar ideas, there are some key differences:

1. Warren actually did the numbers on her M4All. Sanders did not.

This means if Sanders were the nominee, the Republicans would do their own M4All numbers, and they would be way high. Then they will scare the crap out of Americans with their high M4All numbers. The longer that Sanders did not do the numbers, the more the Republicans would pound him with their high numbers.

2. Warren is a proud Capitalist. Sanders is a proud Socialist who used to be a member of a Communist political organization.

53% of America says they will not vote for a Socialist. That means that Trump will spend countless millions making sure that every American thinks of the word "Socialist and/or Communist" whenever they hear Sanders' name.

3. Warren can fully take advantage of the gender gap, where up to 20% more women want to vote for the Democrats than the Republicans.

4. Warren is wicked smart and is super well educated.

5. Warren is younger than Sanders and has never had a heart attack. Sanders refuses to fully release his medical records after once promising to release them.

This alone could prevent a lot of people from voting for him.

Anyone wanting someone on the Left should be choosing Warren over Sanders. She is way more electable.

[hangaleft]

152. You've hit some of the key reasons why I support Warren and want her to be our next president

For me, Warren’s biggest selling point is her being a capitalist who believes in a well regulated economy to rein in the mega conglomerates which (usage of “who” intentionally avoided) would otherwise take advantage of the powerless. Warren is a tenacious guardian of the rights of consumers.

I LOVE her and think she is our strongest candidate (with the possible exception of Bloomberg, who I would like to avoid like the plague for a number of reasons, the biggest being his longtime support of stop and frisk).

[Magoo48]

178. If she were more electable, more people would be voting for her.

[Sloumeau]

192. People do not vote just based on perceived electability.

People also vote based on a candidate holding positions on issues similar to their own positions, and they also vote based on hope--as in, "I hope Bernie can give me Medicare For All". He can't, but some voters still hope for it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

158. That was my first presidential vote.

So disappointing and we got Nixon back.

[DanTex]

2. Was McGovern consistently polling ahead of Nixon?

I wasn't born yet, so I wouldn't know. But he must have been, right? I mean, if not, nobody would really try to compare Bernie today to an election from 48 years ago.

[Aaron Pereira]

18. Nixon was leading all the way by a wide margin. There's no reasonable comparison.

1972
Month Richard Nixon (R) % George McGovern (D) %
May 53% 34%
June 53% 37%
July 56% 37%
August 57% 31%
September 61% 33%
October 60% 34%
November 62% 38%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_United_States_presidential_elections#1972_United_States_presidential_election

[Progressive2020]

30. Exactly Right

Good post with numbers to back up your position rather than the opinions that are being passed off as facts without numbers by others.

[snowybirdie]

59. And McGovern's

First VP pick was found to have suffered mental problems in the past. He had to be replaced a few weeks into the campaign. Sad! That didn't help.

[Butterflylady]

93. You just don't get it

You can't even begin to compare Nixon to Trump

[Gothmog]

94. Nixon did not have this much oppo on MCGovern

I am very worried about down ballot races. sanders is a very weak candidate and would be easy for trump to destroy. In addition to the well written 101 page memorandum with oppo on sanders with a 1000 pages of backup from the Clinton campaign trump has his own oppo file on sanders that would destroy such a weak and divisive candidate like sanders.

Link to tweet

trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

sanders was such a weak primary candidate that the Clinton campaign did not use its oppo but trump would have fun destroying such a weak candidate like sanders

I will vote for the nominee of the party but I fear that the nomination of sanders will lead to a Speaker Kevin McCarthy

[Perseus]

107. Hmmm, Democrats working against Democrats

Please, do spread the "Clinton Opposition Research on Bernie Sanders" around, give everyone you know the link, if Sanders becomes the nominee you have made your contribution.

"So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base?"...This assumes Sanders is stupid, which he is not. It assumes that Sanders lives in a fantasy World, which he doesn't.

There was a woman who was interviewed by Ari today, she used to support Biden, now she switched to Sanders...The reason? All this vitriol against him, a lot from the Biden side, has turned her against all the other candidates. Just food for thought.

[Gothmog]

112. sanders was such a weak candidate in 2016 that the Clinton campaign never used this oppo

I have never taken sanders seriously as a candidate because sanders has zero legislative accomplishment and I do not understand or believe in magical voter revolutions. This memorandum was prepared in 2015 by the Clinton campaign but never used because sanders was never perceived to be a serious candidate. sanders was eliminated mathematically by the Super Tuesday contests

Russia hacked the Clinton campaign and published this memorandum to generate controversy. Russia evidently succeeded

[Progressive2020]

115. Sorry

The Republicans have opposition research on EVERYONE. They had reams of opposition research on Hillary. Should that have stopped her from running? Of course not. The had Benghazi to hang around her neck, the e-mail situation that they cooked up, and years of conspiracy theories against her and Bill Clinton. Oppo research is done on all potential candidates. That is no argument against that person running for office. If it were, no one would run for the office of President.

[FakeNoose]

109. George McGovern was the ultra-liberal candidate in the 1972 primaries

McGovern did OK in the '72 primaries, but only because Ted Kennedy decided not to run. Ed Muskie started strong but then dropped out, Hubert Humphrey did well in the Midwest, Gene McCarthy, Shirley Chisholm, Henry Scoop Jackson, George Wallace all snagged a few primary votes, but nobody had a mandate going into the convention.

So McGovern was selected at a "brokered" convention because no Dem candidate had a clear majority after the fractured primaries. To make things even more confusing, many state delegates (voting attendees) lost their credentials for puzzling reasons. It was definitely something that should never happen again.

Needless to say Nixon (who would have lost to Kennedy or Muskie) won by a landslide mainly because the news media ignored the Watergate break-in story until after the election was over. Woodward and Bernstein were 2 young beat reporters for the Washington Post who kept the Watergate story alive, and almost nobody else paid attention.

[Mr.Bill]

131. It was too soon after Chappaquiddick

for Kennedy to run in '72.

[pnwmom]

111. Polling wasn't the major industry it is today. nt

[DanTex]

113. Yeah. It was a totally different situation and a different time.

I have no idea why anyone tries to compare them.

[dawg day]

132. Another oddity though is that Nixon destroyed the front runner (Muskie)

with his dirty tricksters.

He made sure he didn't go up against the strongest Democrat.

[Scotch-Irish]

147. Bernie and McGovern are totally different candidates.

Bernie is highly charismatic and dynamic, and speaks the language of a huge number of independents.

[520to17]

179. Hart says Sanders is no mcgovern

Hope I get this right brand new here. Gary hart just wote an article in the wash post comparing them. I would put the link if I knew how

[Rhiannon12866]

191. Here you go, found it for you. And Welcome to DU!

Gary Hart: I knew George McGovern. Bernie Sanders is no George McGovern.

By Gary Hart
Feb. 28, 2020 at 10:21 a.m. EST
Gary Hart, a Democrat, represented Colorado in the U.S. Senate from 1975 to 1987.

With the emergence of Bernie Sanders as the seeming front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, there is now much talk about whether the Vermont senator is another George McGovern, the party’s 1972 presidential nominee, and whether the party is therefore poised for a 1972-level wipeout.

I served as national campaign director for then-Sen. McGovern before becoming a U.S. senator and presidential candidate myself. I can’t confidently predict the outcome of a Sanders nomination. What I can say, having known George McGovern, is that Bernie Sanders is no George McGovern.

McGovern’s personal and political biography made him a far different candidate from Sanders. As much as he is viewed by the conventional wisdom as one of the most liberal nominees ever to have been selected as the Democratic standard-bearer, McGovern, in his time, was far less liberal, in terms of expansion of government, than Sanders is now.

Both ran against the Democratic establishment, yet the comparisons between the two men are more facile than fitting. McGovern was much too complicated to be boxed into a “far-left liberal” category. It might be convenient journalistically, but it is not accurate.


More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gary-hart-i-knew-george-mcgovern-bernie-sanders-is-no-george-mcgovern/2020/02/28/06aa177e-59b0-11ea-ab68-101ecfec2532_story.html

[Kurt V.]

3. i can say with utmost confidence that this isn't 1972.

[Stuart G]

6. Bernie will lose, McGovern lost.

[Kurt V.]

13. my point is America of 1972 is not recognizable to America 2020.

[Demsrule86]

38. The America of 1972 was more liberal than today...we have less chance than McGovern.

We have never sent a left candidate to the white house.

[Kurt V.]

54. i agree. but that's a snapshot and discounts the trend of the body politic moving right.

Today its the opposite. imo.

[brewens]

181. Compare wages, health care, union membership and pensions now to 1972.

There are a lot more reasons why middle class, and those that used to be, want to see some serious change. Back in '72, my dad was a union mechanic and life long democrat. I know both he and my mom voted for McGovern. Both born and raised in Montana too. On ranches.

Since they have never let us have a real liberal run, we haven't seen how well one would do. If Bernie becomes the nominee, he may really be able to get people fired up. He needs to really pound how serious voter suppression is and push hard to GOTV. Nothing like telling people they can't do something to make them go out and get it done.

[Perseus]

89. And your data to backup your conclusion?

Please explain, its so easy to just throw something out there without real argument.

I believe it would help us all understand how you came up with that conclusion, how you derived it, I want to make sure I don't support someone who has already lost, according to you of course, so please help out.

[Nanjeanne]

11. +1

[KPN]

45. Oops -- wrong post. Let me move it down one post.

I did agree with your +1 though!

[Voltaire2]

4. After the Republicans got their asses handed to them by LBJ vs Goldwater 486-52

the Republican Party abandoned all efforts to move their party right and remained a centrist party right to this day.

In some alternate universe.

[thesquanderer]

24. 16 years from Goldwater to Reagan. We're way past due for McGovern wing redemption.

They didn't compromise on their beliefs, they kept fighting for them. We've spent much of the past 40 years capitulating.

[KPN]

42. Precisely! Thank you for that!

[Demsrule86]

44. Really...do we have the Senate...no. Do we have the majority of state governments...no. Did the

left side of the party win the midterms in 18 or the majority of special elections since 16...um no. Do we have the presidency...no. There is no reason to believe that a left candidate can win in 20. The country is further to the right than it was in McGovern's day. We can not reelect Trump to make the 'progressive wing' of the party happy by fielding a candidate who can't win. And I maintain that all Democrats are progressive but for want of a different term...

[thesquanderer]

64. I believe Dems held the House, Senate, and majority of governorships when Reagan was elected.

The conservative Republicans didn't wait until all the winds favored them. They simply never gave up.

[brush]

138. Centrist to this day my ass.

[Celerity]

145. The poster was being facetious.

They said in an alternate universe.

[Progressive2020]

5. Calling The Race

You are calling Sanders a loser before the race is even run. Imagine if someone said the same about Hillary in 2016. What are you basing this view on anyway? Numbers, polls, or a gut instinct? If Sanders wins the nomination, will you go out and fight for him, will you vote for him, or are you already defeated before the fight is even on? This is self defeatism. I will support whoever gets the Democratic nomination, whether it is Sanders, Bloomberg, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobuchar, or anyone else. This defeatism right out of the gate is a bad idea, I think.

[Stuart G]

10. You can think what you want. This is not defeatism, it is what it is. The truth.

[Progressive2020]

20. Again

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2020, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

What are you basing your position on? Do you have numbers, polling data that supports this idea that Sanders can not win against Trump? Or is it just your opinion? These things can become self-fulfilling prophecies. If one person says that Bernie can't win, they might convince someone else that this is true, and that person may not go out and vote for Sanders. And so on with other voters.

This view could reduce turnout if Sanders wins the nomination. We need to support and fight for whoever gets the nomination, whether it is Sanders or someone else. This self-defeatism is mentally weak, in my opinion. So, I do not think this is "the truth". Back your position up with numbers, or at least admit that this is your opinion, not a fact, or "truth" as you put it.

[calguy]

70. The experience I have gained in the last fifty years qualifies me to say

No far left democrat can get elected president. Let alone a part time democrat who calls himself a socialist.
I too was a hard core McGovern supporter. Bernie supporters remind me of myself all those years ago. I can still remember the sting of that defeat like it was yesterday. It taught me a lesson that I will never forget.

[DaDeacon]

83. No black President until Obama

I heard the same things now. White people will not vote for a black president etc. He's too radical. Many of the same centrist voices then saying the same shit now.

[Progressive2020]

97. Exactly Right

Conventional wisdom is not science, and Obama got elected in spite of people saying he could not. The conventional wisdom also said that Donald Trump could never be elected President. I wish it were otherwise, but there are a lot of fools and idiots in this country. I remember early on various media pundits were laughing at the idea of Trump running, much less winning.

Michael Moore was the only media figure to get it right. He knew what was up, he knew that the conventional wisdom of the pundits and media elites was wrong. He knew how and why Trump might win. It is no coincidence now that the same man (Michael Moore) is now supporting Sanders. So, I believe that Sanders could be elected despite the naysayers. I will vote and fight for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. People disparaging Sanders should make the same pledge.

[Dream Girl]

98. Obama won because of the strong black voter turnout, a minority of whites voted for him but it was

enough to get him over the hump electorally

[DaDeacon]

103. Killer Mike says it best...

[Progressive2020]

117. Killer Mike Is Great

I have seen him interviewed on TV. He is a strong thinker and a powerful speaker. Thanks for posting that Killer Mike/Bernie Sanders ad.

[mtron32]

183. We only make up 12% of the population...

Obama got much more white support or he wouldn't have been elected. The man ran as a progressive and governed as a scared centrist, lost near 100 state government seats throughout the country as well as a supreme court seat. Perhaps if he governed as he ran we'd be in a different spot but clearly the country is more progressive than many frightened DU'rs are suggesting it is.

America likes our ideas, run on that shit and stop trying to be Republican light.

[Butterflylady]

108. Once again that argument is no good anymore.

We're talkin now about Trump, not McCain. Even the Republican party is not the same anymore.

[DaDeacon]

140. Neither are we....

[mtron32]

184. The Republican Party is what it's always been...

Trump just shed the facade and decided to live in the open. Democrats are still as fearful as they always have been.

[redstateblues]

157. Sorry. Bernie is no Obama

[anamnua]

174. And no Catholic until Kennedy! NT

[brush]

182. Obama was is a Dem, not a socialist, and he somethimes quoted Reagan.

Not to mention he is a great speaker, charming and has a great family.

[mtron32]

185. Could've fooled me

They called him a socialist from day one, may as well head it off at the pass

[brush]

188. You mean Palin's dumbass crowds? They also called him a nazi and communist...

Last edited Sat Feb 29, 2020, 02:57 AM - Edit history (1)

sometimes on the same poster. He was none of those things of course.

Sanders however is a socialist—a self-avowed one in fact. There's no getting around that, and the repugs have the oppo to prove it.

[mtron32]

190. Exactly, so why fret about it

[Perseus]

99. Everyone thought the crook in the WH would not be elected, and there he is.

Did you think the creature would win the presidency? I certainly did not.

"No far left democrat can get elected president." I don't know if these conclusions that people make are based on sound bites, or detail research, because for everything I have heard and read about Sanders, he is not a "far left" candidate, he is not a "Socialist" (don't forget that for republicans, all Democrats are socialists), he is a "Democratic Socialist" which is capitalism with regulations, the government providing social services as it was intended to do, no $400 million bonuses, etc.

The worst part of all this is that 90% of people cannot explain what "Socialism" is, its just a word that people like to toss around, Democrats toss it to Sanders and republicans toss it to every Democrat around, even those who are not running. People have forgotten that Obama was accused, over and over, that he was a socialist.

We are eating our own, this needs to stop.

[Progressive2020]

110. I Agree

I agree with everything you just said. They are going to throw the word "socialist" at Sanders, and Trump has already used the smear word "communist", but Sanders is not that. He is a Democratic Socialist which is capitalism with regulations and a strong program of government social services, as you point out. They smeared Obama also, and yet he still won.

I also agree that we are "eating our own". It is funny to see some people at DU who used to complain that Bernie did not support Hillary enough after she got the nomination, and now those type of folks are deriding Sanders when he seems to be leading the current Democratic field. So "do as we say, not as we do".

I voted for Hillary in 2016 and prayed that she would win. I would suggest that those who are not Sanders fans at least say that they will vote for him in the General Election if he wins the nomination. I myself will support whoever wins the Democratic Primary. I urge everyone else to make the same pledge, whether it is Bernie, Bloomberg, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, etc. We must defeat Trump at all costs, whoever the nominee ends up being. It does not help us to chop down the candidates that are running.

[calguy]

124. The only problem with your analysis is......

3/4 of the country doesn't agree with you. Republicans will brand Sanders as a communist disguised as a socialist. And it will stick. They have mountains of research to prove their point. And most of the country will believe them.

[TreasonousBastard]

167. This is the opposite of defeatism. We have a number of candidates superior in...

every way to Sanders, so why would we go with such a weak one?

[Demsrule86]

49. It is a realistic view of Sander's chances of winning the EC.

[Butterflylady]

104. I base it on what I've lived thru in the past

And what will happen when the Republican party with 1 and 1/2 billion dollars will do. They will hang the word socialist around his neck and annihilate him. They'll scare everyone and have everyone believing he's communist. With that kind of money they can succeed.

[Progressive dog]

7. Same here, I was young and clueless

[bluewater]

8. When was that? 1972?

Has nothing changed?

It's been about 48 years.

OMG, it's been 48 years... I am so old....

[pbmus]

17. Not a whole lot has changed...except this thought took 15 seconds to write and communicate

Back to you....that has changed, and I am not sure that change is for the better...?

[PatSeg]

9. That was such a devastating loss

And sadly, I think McGovern was a better candidate than Sanders.

[4now]

12. I still remember how much I cried that election night

I really thought he would win.
But we got Nixon instead.

[NurseJackie]

15. Bernie will NEVER be our nation's president.

McGovern was an humiliating (and totally expected) defeat.

[OliverQ]

19. Better get used to President Sanders then

because none of the moderates are going to win.

Personally I'd prefer Warren, but I'm not sure she can turn things around.

[NurseJackie]

22. Bernie will NEVER be our nation's president.

Better get used to President Sanders then

Trump wins 40+ states if Bernie is nominated. Get used to saying "President Donald Trump" for another four years... then "President Donald Trump, Jr" for another eight... then "President Ivanka Trump and VP Eric Trump" for another eight.

America will never elect a Socialist.

[OliverQ]

25. Lol, that's absolutely nonsense.

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2020, 09:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie is polling nationally at +8 against Trump. He's winning Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA. He's going to win all the usual Democrat states like California, New England, etc. He has the highest support among young voters and Latinos. He has an 18% win margin with Independents, he's 2nd highest with African Americans.

How on Earth do you think those statistics will result in a 40 state loss?

American has elected Socialists numerous times. In fact, Bernie polls higher when he's listed as a Socialist than when he's listed as a Democrat.

[NurseJackie]

27. Bernie will NEVER be our nation's president.

American has elected Socialists numerous times. In fact, Bernie polls higher when he's listed as a Socialist than when he's listed as a Democrat.

Do you even listen to yourself?

We're done. I haven't insulted you. Why are you insulting me?

[OliverQ]

72. I'm not insulting you.

I'm asking if you're aware what you're actually saying, because you haven't supported your position with any evidence.

[SilasSouleII]

69. Can you really trust polls?

When I hear that R's in open primary states are changing to undeclared, voting for Bernie, then changing back to R just to help Bernie become the nominee, I am super suspicious that R's are doing the same in polls.

[Dream Girl]

100. Bernie will never be elected. It's so sad and frustrating to see the blindness.

[OliverQ]

122. People said the same thing about Trump.

[Garrett78]

142. Agreed. See post #37.

Many people completely misunderstand the electorate based on outdated conventional wisdom.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. +100

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[Demsrule86]

52. It is not a president Sanders that we fear...it is that President Trump gets four more years.

I pray that either Biden or Bloomberg can prevent this catastrophe.

[Stuart G]

75. You are not alone in that belief. I also fear "President Trump" for four more years.

Bernie supporters may think I am wrong, but Bernie cannot unite us against Trump. Look what Bernie has done to us right here. Bernie has divided us right here in a discussion as to who can win and who can lose. It is a discussion not a war. Bernie is a divider, not a unifier. Is that correct?

[Wellstone ruled]

31. Seeing some similiar signs

developing. Remember that McGovern nightmare. Great Guy personally and had some good ideas,but,zero stage presents or charisma. And his Election Team really sucked.

[OliverQ]

16. Comparing the McGovern election to today is just dishonest.

Bernie is polling better than any other candidate in the race. How on Earth do you think he's going to lose 49 states?

[Stuart G]

28. Here is how...Bernie looks radical. Socialism is a radical word

.....Bernie is not radical. But, he will be painted as such. He is not a socialist, but he will be painted as such. The Trump campaign will be highly effective in painting Bernie. Trump doesn't want Joe, because Joe can beat Trump. Let me be honest about this. The state I live in, Illinois, will vote for the Democrat whoever that is. (that is what I believe) but Indiana won't. How about Iowa and Wisconsin? Will those states vote for Bernie?
Get it together. Of course you do not believe me, that is your right. But Bernie will lose, because he has painted himself a certain way. I did not paint him, Bernie painted himself.

[OliverQ]

35. Obama was called a Radical Socialist for 8 years.

Truth is, Americans love Socalism, especially Republicans. They rely on it constantly. They just like attacking the word because they don't know what it means.

Wisconsin has a long history of Socialism. Bernie is winning in Wisconsin, MI, and PA according to the polls we have from them. We'll need some updated polls to know for sure.

Who cares about Indiana? It's not a swing state and no Democrat is going to win there.

[redstateblues]

47. The difference is that Obama isn't a Socialist. It didn't stick. Bernie is a Socialist

[OliverQ]

62. Bernie isn't really a socialist either.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/opinion/bernie-sanders-socialism.html

Reagan called Medicare socialized medicine and said it would destroy everyone's freedoms. Now it's one of the most popular social programs in US history.

Advocating for the kinds of programs the rest of the civilized world already has isn't Socialism.

[uponit7771]

133. He calls himself some type of socialist, a lot

[Dream Girl]

134. Sorry but I don't Romberger Obama being called radical soialist

Are you just making stuff up?

[progressoid]

160. Are you kidding? That was a staple at Fox news. They loved to call Obamacare socialism.

Newt wrote a book called, "Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine"
Savage wrote a book called, "Trickle Down Tyranny: Crushing Obama's Dream of the Socialist States of America"
etc.


Here are a few memes from your fellow Americans...

[Dream Girl]

161. I guess cause I don't watch Fox. Doubtful those folks were hard to persuade

They just needed something to say. No substantiation or reason to believe. Bernie, however is a whole nother kettle of fish!

[NurseJackie]

50. He has also spent a lifetime of painting the Democratic party as being "corrupt"...

He has also spent a lifetime of painting the Democratic party as being "corrupt" and "feeble". Why would anyone want to support a party when they're constantly being told that "Democrats are ideologically bankrupt" and "Democrats are intellectually bankrupt". How does it attract voters into the process and to our party whenever they continually hear that "Democrats are the party of the elite" and "the party of the one-percent".

Why would ANYONE turn out for Democrats when the party is being smeared and denigrated with LIES about how "Democrats are the same as Republicans" and "there's no difference between the GOP and Democrats"??

Honestly, I'm sick of it! This is the type of rhetoric that divides and weakens the party. It drives people AWAY from the party. It does not encourage people to vote, or to become involved. It does not motivate people to support down-ticket candidates, nor does it motivate people to donate or volunteer or canvass or phone bank or work the polling places.

It's divisive. It creates suspicion and resentment. WHY DO THAT? WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT?? WHY???

I promise you this, I will NEVER reward that type of bad behavior. I'm a loyal and stalwart Democrat. I refuse to hand-over my party to a Socialist who has nothing but contempt for the Democratic party.

Seriously... all I'm trying to say is the Bernie's negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections. What good purpose does that serve?

[Stuart G]

186. Yes, Bernie ......"has spent a lifetime of painting the Democratic party as being "corrupt"..."

And if people here do not think that the Republicans will use that, against Bernie and the rest of the Democrats, well, do some research..
...Republicans will do or say anything to stay in power...Just one example you know about already....

.........Did Republicans vote for impeachment?..One?...Trump is a pathological liar. They support him now, they have supported him and always will support him

....TRUMP IS THEIR CANDIDATE. When push comes to shove the Republican Party will support their candidate with unlimited money. The Republican Party will attack Bernie in ways you cannot imagine. It is pretty quiet now, because the Republican Party wants Bernie to be our nominee. When or if that happens that Bernie is our nominee, the shit storm will be here. That storm will be unimaginable. Anyone who underestimates the Power and Money that the Republicans have to spend against us is a fool. Never underestimate your opponent.

...Never over estimate your own power. Listen to others. Get all information possible...If you do not think that the Republican Party wants a "Socialist" as our nominee, then you don't know history. And the Republicans will label Bernie as a "Socialist" and he & we will have to spend enormous amounts of time and money denying that this is who Bernie is now...What a waste..

Yes, ...we will have to spend enormous amounts of time and money denying that Bernie is a socialist. Guess what? For many years he claimed just that. And we will have to spend all that time and money defining what a Socialist is..and denying that Bernie is a true "Socialist" and someone who believes in "Socialism"

....Get a grip on it. Bernie will lose, and Republicans want him as our candidate, because Republicans know he is the easiest Democrat to beat...Of course true believers wont believe, as I didn't believe in 72.

...One more very important idea. If we nominate "Bernie" as our candidate, then the focus could and will center on the "Socialist" that the Democratic Party nominate.. How does that sound?.....When the real focus .......MUST BE ON THE LIAR AND CROOK WHO IS NOW IN THE WHITE HOUSE...!!!!

...Do you understand?..That is what the Republican Party will do if Bernie is our nominee. Study who and what the Republicans do to stay in power. That is the truth..

[NurseJackie]

187. Thank you. If we're explaining... then we're losing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

36. DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join The Revolution!!

[evertonfc]

21. He doesn't stand a chance in the

EC and the GOP hasn't put thier 300 million war chest on air with his socialist fawning from way back. He will cost of the House too.

[thesquanderer]

26. Bloomberg has pledged to throw his support behind the nominee. So we'll see that 300 million...

...and raise it three times over.

[IADEMO2004]

51. Hope Bloomberg doesn't read DU

[Demsrule86]

53. No amount of money will elect Sanders.

[denem]

23. If Bernie is McGovern, Biden is Mondale.

Answer: Neither is either.

[KayF]

29. this is such a boomer thread

[Devil Child]

32. No shit!

It was helpful for inducing a needed chuckle

[lunasun]

55. How many of the 2020 voters were not even born yet when this happened ?

What ever Year this was being referenced I have to ask how would Pete who is one of the top candidates in 2020 do back then ? Should someone not vote for him in 2020 because he would have lost big time back then ?
Both he and sanders seem to be doing just fine so far 2020

[Dream Girl]

101. Maybe, but Boomers vote...

So there's that.

[catbyte]

153. Thank you so much for the insult. I really appreciate it.

[KayF]

163. not meant that way at all

100% just teasing. I love your animal posts.

[KPN]

34. No comparison. These are dramatically different times and problems. McGovern didn't have the huge

base that Sanders has (and has had for several years now) coming into his race or through it. His focus was the Vietnam War and rural America, not the income inequality that affects the vast majority of Americans today. Aside from the young, America largely supported our involvement in Vietnam. The one similarity might be the character assassination that his opponents in the primary carried out effectively to undermine him during the GE. He got lambasted for supporting amnesty for draft dodgers by his own party. Same thing regarding his support for legal abortion.

BTW, thanks for your total respect. I respect your choice as well, but having been around and voted in 1972, disagree with your equating the two.

[Stuart G]

43. It is not my view of Sanders , it is the view of the "middle of the road voter" that counts.

Not people here, but the average voter in states like Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin..etc. Illinois will vote for the Democrat. We will see. If Bernie is the nominee, I totally hope I am wrong. But we will see.

[Progressive2020]

119. Sanders

Sanders has shown that he has appeal to disaffected working class blue collar types in the industrial Mid West. In 2016, Bernie beat Hillary in the Wisconsin Primary and the Michigan Primary. Hillary lost Michigan narrowly to Trump. Trump lied and convinced working class voters in those states that he had their back. Nearly four years later anyone with sense understands that that was a lie.

If Hilary almost beat Trump in those key Mid Western States, I think that Bernie has a real shot there. Working class people would love to have guaranteed Health Care and increased Minimum Wage, and these are hallmark policy positions of the Sanders Campaign. I think that Sanders might surprise people and do very well in the Rust Belt.

[Garrett78]

37. The electorate has changed drastically since then. And opposition to the status quo...

...is the driving force in the US today. Today's so-called independents are more partisan (more likely to always vote for the same party) than the average party-affiliated voter of the 1970s. They're also less likely to actually vote than the party-affiliated, partly due to being disenchanted with the status quo.

And true swing voters aren't as great in number as some claim--more importantly, what they tend to swing against is the status quo or party in power (it's not a well-defined ideology or party platform that dictates how/if they vote).

Conventional wisdom of the past is no longer wise, and we fail to recognize that at our peril. But people like Carville have a really hard time accepting that their formula is outdated. The notion that we should select a candidate or run a campaign based on appealing to middle-of-the-road voters or winning over the MAGA hat wearers is dangerously mistaken.

Dems should take the following to heart:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944 (the headline is misleading, as that's not what she says)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/14/politics/independents-pew/index.html

[Devil Child]

39. Nice crystal ball you have!

My crystal ball says that I’m not going to vote for McGovern this primary but if I vote for Sen. Sanders everything I’ll eventually be celebrating his election to President of the United States.

My handy crystal ball tells me we’re gonna be alright no matter who our nominee is.

[redqueen]

40. "With total respect"? And you follow that by saying people are clueless?

Seriously?

[redstateblues]

41. The US will elect a sociopath before it elects a Socialist

I have spoken with a number of Dem leaning Independents who will not vote for Bernie in the GE. They won’t vote for Trump either though. There’s a lot of them out there. Bernie’s self avowed moniker is a millstone around his neck.

[Stuart G]

57. It already has elected a "sociopath" and many of us knew it.

..What matters to me is that we win. I don't think Bernie can win, and you do. I clearly thought McGovern would win. He was against the "killing in Viet Nam." He lost.

Bernie will be painted as something he is not, by the Republicans. The Republicans will have unlimited money to defeat Bernie. Bernie is not our strongest candidate in my opinion. We need our strongest candidate to beat Trump, not the one that may have ideas that are "most liked."

[walkingman]

46. All Bernie needs is the Black and Hispanic vote - if he can get that he will easily win -

that is a Big IF - we shall see in the coming weeks.

I was around for the '72 election and most of the McGovern supporters were the "anti-war" crowd. These days we have those of us that supported McGovern in 72 and also those that are tired of Corporate America owning our Government. We're tired of the never-ending wars, most legislation on both sides of the aisle being written by lobbyists, tired of the Inequality, tired of the "War on Women", and also sick and tired of the GOP and their unwavering support for the WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Bernie has overwhelming support by young people and to his credit has been consistent his entire political life.

I think the only mistake he might have made is his MFA position - if he would simply compromise and adapt the Buttigieg "Medicare for those who want it" - he would win easily.

America is MUCH, MUCH more progressive that we were in 1972 - and ready for REAL Change.

I ,like most everyone else, wants someone that can rid us of TRUMP - time will tell but I am considering voting for Bernie (I did last time) in the Texas Primary. If he shows solid support by Blacks in SC and Hispanics in Nevada - that will make up my mind.

[Demsrule86]

58. That is nonsense...I don't see how anyone can say America is more progressive with a straight face.

Sure the coasts are more progressive but nowhere else...we are on the ropes in the Senate and in the state governments...I fail to understand how anyone can look at the Senate in 72 and say we are more progressive now. We have a Senate that will be almost impossible to win now and in the future...we are not a progressive country...wish we were but we are no such thing. Maybe if you go by popular vote we might be progressive but that is not how the Senate or the EC works.

[walkingman]

118. What I said was that "America is far more progressive than we were in 1972" - it is a fact. In 1972

Gays were still mostly in the closet, no gay marriage, weed was a prison offense in many states, women were just beginning to have equal opportunities, religiosity was front and center, we still had the draft, the hair wars going strong. In the 70's most "progressives" were carterized as radicals, rioters, marijuana smokers, draft dodgers, and hippies.

Admittedly I do think that most young people (or at least the ones I knew) were all united against the war and the music was far superior to any EVER. But the vast majority of Americans were by no means "Progressive" in fact we were just about to see the election of Reagan, the Bushes, etc. The beginning of the corporate takeover and war on unions. While it seems like things were better in our youth - we were really just a small minority - that is not the case today.

AMERICA IS FAR MORE PROGRESSIVE THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN.

[Progressive2020]

121. You Are Correct

The Hippie Generation really succeeded by changing the culture and the social/political climate. The counter-culture became the norm, and a lot of progress has been made since then. Of course the Repubs and Conservatives had their own counter-revolution, the Reagan Revolution, but we have responded to that as well. And Millennials tend to be more progressive as a group than any other demographic. So, you are exactly right- America IS Far More Progressive Than It Has Ever Been.

[Demsrule86]

137. If that is true...then why doesn't America vote in a progressive way? And they don't.

Here in Ohio, abortion is all but illegal...terrible laws...we have a really tough Senate and the odds are not in our favor...the Senate is red, the GOP has more states in their column...and there is still no protection for LGBTQ in many states... Racism is on the rise...and puritanism is on the rise it seems to me...many of those in the 60's became Reagan backers in the 80's.

[Celerity]

144. The nation on balance is staggeringly more progressive on certain issues

LGBTQ rights for instance. Electing a black POTUS for another. Marijuana for another. Abortion for another.

Sanders will not win, but the country is not at 1972 shit levels on a multiplicity of very important things.

[Zambero]

48. An analogy if you will

Put up a more extreme McGovern against a more evil Nixon, and the evil one wins.

[mikeysnot]

56. Duly noted...

[Stuart G]

60. I watched Hillary lose in a close election. That was awful.

It is my opinion that Bernie will lose by a large margin, not close. Believe me, it ain't about me. I will vote for Bernie. This is about the average voter who sees Bernie differently than I do or you do. Bernie has for most of his life defined himself as a "socialist." Now Trump will drive that home in ways that are horrific and awful.
...Most people do not know what that word means. Trump will use that against Bernie and change it to "communist" .....We already live in a "socialistic" society, and people do not know it. There is free education up to the 12th year, free or very cheap water, social security, etc.
..Trump wants Bernie because Bernie is the easiest to defeat, not because he is "radical" but because he "looks radical", and can be painted as "radical."

[empedocles]

61. Elections are won by pluralities. FDR amd LBJ won, and accomplished a lot.

[bucolic_frolic]

63. If you think Obama had difficulty passing legislation

try Bernie. Maybe 15% of Congress is aligned with him.

[Indepatriot]

66. This is not 1972, Sanders isn't McGovern...

And the Democratic Party is no longer a party that has a large contingent of racists that would support a vile segregationist like George Wallace. Times have changed. And polls show Sanders every bit as strong in the GE as any other Democrat, stronger than most. Oh, and he's the favorite to win in most polls now, and has received more votes than any of the other candidates, so there's that...

[Stuart G]

67. One more point to consider..Bernie maybe "moderate", but he does not "look moderate."

[Prosper]

68. One monumental definitely game changer that made it impossible

for McGovern but demands Bernie. The economy. 1972 was the pinnacle along with 1973 of the FDR happy days are here again prosperity. I worked in a coal mine in eastern Ohio. The parking lot was loaded with 1972 cars. Young kids just graduating from high school could get married and live on their own. But what went along with the prosperity was complacency. When people make good money it is hard to sell them anti-depression/recession insurance. I was a grievance commissioner, safety committee official and secretary treasurer. Times were great and lots of high paying jobs were everywhere. Companies valued workers and troubles were few and far between. A lot of people felt like they didn’t need the Unions or McGovern. 48 years later and the US doesn’t even rank in the top 10 for any metric measuring livability or affordability or quality of life. It is now more like 1928. Some people are living great all the while denying the huge stock market bubble. The fed is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into the stock market trying to keep it from crashing while the DOW counts those billions as positive market growth and stability. Bernie or somebody like him is desperately needed to get money into the spending hands of the poor. McGovern was not needed when he ran in 72. He would be a landslide winner in 2020.

[Evolve Dammit]

71. "His ideas may be correct." Well, yes, they really are. So you are too afraid to even try in the

primary season to help shape a platform?

[lunasun]

128. ++One of my favorite signs I have seen at Warren campaigns - Hope Over Fear

[tiredtoo]

73. As someone who did not support McGovern

I would say... That happened when? 1972 you say Hmmm?

[Jakes Progress]

76. Totally accurate. But

you cannot argue with acolytes and true believers.

I supported McGovern's ideas, but we lost. (I have a McGovern/Shriver t-shirt.)

I completely support Bernie's ideas, but we will lose.

Too many think they are unique in their wisdom. After all, everyone they like to be with agrees with them.

McGovern didn't really get saddled with what Nixon gave us. Bernie will be labeled as the one who gave the country to an autocrat.

[lees1975]

77. No

First of all, Bernie leads Trump head to head nationally, and in a lot of states where polls have been taken. He would have gotten the turnout that Clinton didn't get in 2016, especially in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Might even have carried West Virginia because they love his health care and free college proposals.

Any Democrat running will have a shot at 55% of the electorate, maybe more, including Bernie.

[Jakes Progress]

81. To those citing polls as their savior.

If russia can manipulate elections and influence votes, you can't be so naive as to believe that they can't manipulate polls to give trump the candidate that he most wants to run against. trump is an idiot. But the vast sums of corporate money propping him up have done the research.

[calimary]

78. Yep. I was there too.

Watched him go on to lose 49 states. And the young voters were enthralled with him. Even the Vietnam War was a factor in our favor. No dice.

I can’t help but see a parallel with now.

[Squinch]

79. And BS doesn't have McGovern's relatability.

[Paladin]

80. Don't be surprised if some BernieBros hit you with some snide age-ism.

It happened to me, here at DU, back in 2016---when I revealed some knowledge of McGovern's 1972 campaign. Some of Bernie's crew dismissed me as a clueless old fart. Jeez, I erased a bunch of individuals, back then; it felt good to do so. I may be old, Bernie acolytes: but I haven't forgotten.

[DaDeacon]

92. The hipocrcy is blinding

You insult everybody who supports a candidate by saying they are clueless and you decide to play the victim if the insult you back?!?! My word Trumpland is everywhere

[lunasun]

130. Did you forget Trump won ?

[Bradshaw3]

82. I worked for the McGovern campaign and you are completely wrong

You may have "supported" him but you obviously don't remember anything about that race. We knew in advance he was going to lose (so did McGovern by mid-fall) and by a big margin after the Eagleton debackle. All you offfer are a bunch of unsubstantiated claims (albeit written with overweening self-assuance, although I'm not sure why) and terrifying numbers from the 1972 election, as if that proves your point. As others pointed out in this thread this is NOT 1972 and the polling is way different from back then.

There was also a war and an angry electorate that took their anger out on McGovern and the hippies. This is a completely different electorate, that may be angry, but more people are angry at drumpf than any Dem.

BTW if you are going to name-call a candidate for the Democratic nomination, at least learn how to spell the slur. Or maybe you were inferring that Bernie is loose (which could be good for a candidate).

[IronLionZion]

84. Nixon resigned and his people went to prison

even his VP Agnew resigned for corruption.

Our party implemented superdelegates to prevent lefties from winning the nomination after that so you're probably fine. After all, superdelegates put their thumb on the scale for Mondale and that worked out super well for defeating Reagan.

[Perseus]

85. Bernie has a chance to become president, only of the rest of the Democrats who do not

support him at this time stop the war against him, otherwise I feel that eating your own will succeed. I wish this negativity with Sanders would stop, I am sure republicans are enjoying it immensely.

It has to stop, it all began when people who do not support him realized he is getting the most support and not their candidates of choice, but we need to stop eating our own, it won't end well.

One more thing, trump doesn't even come close to Nixon. Nixon was intelligent, he spoke well, and yes he screwed up, but he was not a traitor, he was just power hungry. That comparison doesn't work, Nixon'r shoes are to big for trump, and I didn't like Nixon.

[wisteria]

86. Thank you, I have been trying to give people a history lesson

On this for a while

[Jirel]

87. Lordy.

Argument: A candidate from 48 years ago who can kind of be compared to a current candidate didn't win. OMG, the 2020 candidate can't win.

Bernie sits wrong with YOU. Not with "people." Speak for yourself. So far the numbers say that the electorate seems to be liking Bernie just fine.

[wisteria]

88. 10000+

[Sloumeau]

90. Thank you for posting this.

I have studied the 1968 Presidential primaries and general election as well as the 1972 Presidential primaries and general election. The similarity between those two elections and the 2016 and 2020 election it has gone so far are striking.

In 1968 and 2016, the Democrats won a close election. Then, after 1968, McGovern headed a commission to change primary and try to give more power to the people. In the same vein, Sanders supporters at Unity Reform Commission...

[link:https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/URC_Report_FINAL.pdf|]

...after 2016 tried to change the primary rules to give more power to the people.


Then, in 1972, George McGovern, who head the reform commission, ran a campaign that was anti-Vietnam War, a campaign that appealed a great deal to the young and college students but had little appeal to older voters--whether they were Democrats, Independents, or Republicans.

In 2019 and 2020, Bernie Sanders, the man who was supported by the Democrats who pushed for the Unity Reform Commission, ran a campaign that has appealed the most to the young and college students, perhaps in part because of his promise of Free College.

In both 1972 and the past year, the McGovern and Sanders candidates were wildly popular with the young, but were quite unpopular with the oldest Democratic Voters. People so rejected McGovern's position that large swaths of older Democrats actually voted for Nixon in 1968. Now, let's look at what happened in Iowa in 2020. The caucus numbers were about the same as 2016, yet there was about a 33% increase in young voters from 2016 to 2020. In order for overall total numbers from 2016 and 2020 to be about the same, that means that older voters had to stay home. This is one of the reasons why Sanders did so well in Iowa and folks like Biden, who was strongest with older Americans, did so poorly.

If Sanders becomes the nominee, and if he is very popular with the young, but not popular with older Democrats, we might very well see a repeat of what happened in 1972. Older voters might not vote for Trump, they might just stay home or vote for someone else. In 1972, It wasn't just a lot of Democrats that voted for Nixon. A lot of Independents voted for him too, and of course, Republicans voted for him en masse. Democratic Nominees who capture the youth vote, but not the older vote, do not have a good track record in our party. I know a whole lot of older Democrats who really do not want to have to vote for Bernie Sanders.

[Gothmog]

91. "I think he would not just lose but would lose badly -- and I don't think the country can afford that

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Alliepoo]

95. Yep!!!! What Stuart G said.

[warmfeet]

96. One of the saddest things I have ever seen. DU already sucked into the disinformation campaign.

Dogpile on McGovern, dogpile on Bernie.

Bernie is a sure looser. The OP says this, it must be true.

No wonder we are loosing elections to the despicable, asshole, repugs.

Look, this is exactly what they want. They are sowing discord. It is working already.

I support Elizabeth Warren. I am not a fucking Bernie Bro, whatever the hell that is.

I WILL FUCKING VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. I WILL VOTE FOR A DRIED UP DOG TURD OVER TRUMP.

We will not survive another 4 years of the current asshole. Vote accordingly, and stop this ridiculous infighting.

Support the nominee, that is my advice. What the hell is going on here?

[Progressive2020]

127. Damn Right

And well said. We must all get behind the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be. Enough of this circular firing squad. The Repubs must love that we are at each others throats. I pledge, right here, right now, to vote for whoever gets the Democratic nomination. Regardless of who it is- Bernie, Bloomberg, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren- WHOEVER WINS THE NOMINATION, I WILL VOTE FOR THEM. I challenge every DUer to make the same pledge- to vote for whoever wins the nomination. We must stop Trump at all costs.

[waterwatcher123]

102. Different Time and Circumstances

Nixon was vice president, ran and lost the presidency to John F. Kennedy and defeated Hubert H. Humphrey for the presidency when Lyndon Johnson opted out. Nixon, who also hailed from California, was well equipped to fend off McGovern for his second term in office. He also promised to end a very bloody and unpopular war. The comparison to the current situation is a stretch. Without the involvement of Russia and WikiLeaks, Trump would have been a footnote in history too.

[BlueWI]

106. Holy oxymoron, Batman!

With all due respect, you don't have a clue? Ok then.

Bernie's a "looser" - got it! I didn't know this!!

[Laelth]

114. Sorry. Bernie may not be our best candidate ...

... but I remain convinced that Daffy Duck could beat Donald Trump in 2020 (and the polls agree with me on this). Daffy knows what the American people know, and it's a message that the American people are prepared to deliver to the Great Pumpkin later this year:



-Laelth

[ananda]

123. Bernie is nothing like McGovern.

He is very popular and he speaks to
people-first issues.

This is what the majority of people in
America want.

We are all sick and tired of corporate crap.

[TexasBushwhacker]

125. We didn't find out just how bad Nixon was

until after he was re-elected. We knew that McGovern's headquarters had been broken into, but few thought Nixon personally had anything to do with it. I'm not a Bernie supporter this time around, but there's really no comparison.

[Autumn]

126. Yes because almost a half century ago is so very relevant, today.

I think Bernie can win.

[dawg day]

129. Frankly, though, maybe America deserves it

Choosing a crook like Nixon over a good honorable smart liberal man like McGovern-- we deserved what we got.

And if America chooses Trump over anyone else in the world, we deserve it too.

Then again, i heard a terrible statistic from Ezra Klein that I hope I got wrong... that because of the distortion of the racist Electoral College rules, the GOP would win 60% of close-ish elections where they get fewer votes.

Well, actually, so far, it's 100% of those elections-- Bush and Trump.

He said it's possible Trump could lose by 5 million votes and still win the EC.

That makes me sick.

[Fiendish Thingy]

136. You have no evidence to support this hypothesis

Currently Sanders is beating Trump nationally by 9-10 points- did McGovern ever have those kind of numbers?

Are you suggesting that Sanders could win the national popular vote by 10%, and still lose 49 states in the EC?

Not going to happen.

[Zolorp]

139. I campaigned for McGovern as a 9 year old kid.

Ayup.

[krissey]

143. You are right.

[OliverQ]

148. Even Kornacki said last night comparing this to the McGovern election is stupid.

Nobody gets 49 state landslides anymore and there is no evidence Trump will ever get that against Bernie.

[maximusveritas]

170. The point isn't about how many states he'll lose, but that he will fail to energize the base

enough to overcome the amount of people he'd lose in the middle.

[OliverQ]

171. The only person who has energized the base at all is Bernie.

He's winning every Demographic except 65+. He draws crowds of tens of thousands. He's got the largest ground game of any candidate in the race.

You seriously think Bloomberg or Biden are going to energize people?

[maximusveritas]

172. You're missing the point again. If you're going to run on the far left, you have to do more

to energize the base because you are going to turn off so many in the middle, which makes up more people.
That was where McGovern and others like him have failed.
Biden doesn't have to energize people. He just needs to build a coalition who will vote against Trump by running as the reasonable moderate statesman who will restore dignity to the office.

[OliverQ]

173. Bernie is beating Trump with independents by 18 points.

How is he turning off the middle? Republicans are not the middle.

[maximusveritas]

175. Independents are not the middle either

Those polls are including young people and nonvoters who as we saw with McGovern, cannot be trusted to actually vote.
This should be common sense, but there was a recent Yale/Berkeley study which found:

We found that nominating Sanders would drive many Americans who would otherwise vote for a moderate Democrat to vote for Trump, especially otherwise Trump-skeptical Republicans.

[Nitram]

149. I voted for McGovern and I'm glad I did.

Vote for Nixon in '72, don't pull your Dick out in the middle of a screw.

[ProfessorPlum]

151. OK Boomer

[democratisphere]

154. What is being sold, most voters do not want.

Second, there is absolutely no way to pay for it. We have debt and deficits like no other country on Earth and likely in the Universe.

[IronLionZion]

156. Some of our moderate candidates were not yet born when this happened

like Mayor Pete or Tulski Gabbard. Amy Klobuchar was 12 when this went down.

Some of our most experienced candidates are the most leftist.

[Stuart G]

159. Bernie presents himself as an "outsider" different than others. Like McGovern.

....If Bernie is the nominee, he will have to defend the "socialism" that is his history. Bernie may deny that or may try to educate the electorate on what "socialism" is. When Bernie starts defending this, he will get into a discussion that will fail. The reason I wrote this is because Bernie feels like McGovern felt in spring of 72. A so called outsider, who can change the show.
....Bernie presents himself in a way that McGovern did. A person with the "answers." I don't believe he will win, but that is my opinion. I was wrong to use the word, "clueless." Hard to describe what that feeling is other than to say McGovern/Bernie are outsiders going to change the system. Both have/had good ideas and a history of trying to change the system. Both have nation wide recognition and visibility. Both were/and are widely supported. It is February and a lot can happen in 8 and half months. If Bernie is our nominee, I will vote for him and support him as best I can. Hopefully, no matter who is the nominee, Trump will lose and the Democrat will be the next President of the United States.

[jimlup]

162. This is not 1972

Don't believe the pundits

[Rilgin]

164. You are very convincing that Bernie will not get 100% of the Vote

Until reading this thread and all the responses, I thought the Republican Party, Fox News, Talk Radio and all the republican base would just step aside and not contest this election at all if Bernie was the candidate.

Since Bernie's middle name is McGovern and 2020 is exactly the same as 1972, what candidate should we put up which would not get attacked and have a contested election? The last few elected democratic presidents have not been the establishment choice when first running except Bill Clinton and in that election there was a huge bloc who voted for Perot. Carter and Obama were both outsiders and considered risky.

As has been pointed out in this thread, there are a multitude of differences between McGovern and Bernie, 1972 and 2020, and Trump and Nixon. The parallels you cite are simply they are both leftists and appeal to the left side of the electorate who want major changes. This is true. It is somewhat parallel but it does not mean history will repeat in that way. The issues being run on are different and the country is different. Wealth Disparity, Climate Change, Costs of Health Care, Upward Mobility, Education Costs and Partisanship divisions in this country are felt by all other than the truly rich. This is different than the Vietnam War which had mixed support in the electorate and the economy was broader, we actually had a middle class. The differences between Bernie and McGovern, 1972 and 2020, and Trump and Nixon dwarf the single point of singularity

Bernie like any candidate and all us Democrats will have to fight the Republicans and Trump for this election. Does Bernie have warts. Sure, like every candidate we have running. He also has considerable strengths as a candidate including name recognition and popularity and we have an engaged electorate demanding change. Trump's net favorable are in the toilet. This gives us a good starting place in the election. But it does not mean we just win. We have to fight for it but every candidate will have to fight for it.

[Gothmog]

165. Sanders would kill down ballot candidates

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

166. Trump is salivating at the prospect of running against Sanders

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

168. If the Russians want to re-elect Trump makes perfect sense they want Sanders

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

169. James Clyburn thinks that sanders is like McGovern

Link to tweet

[dumptrump1]

176. if mcgovern is bernie then biden is mondale

Former VP running against a washed out television star after 4 years of not being VP and losing all but one state and dc. In fact Mondale has a lot more in common with Biden than McGovern does with Bernie.

[totodeinhere]

177. You admit that you were wrong about George McGovern.

So how can you be so sure you are right about Bernie Sanders this time? I know the polls can fluctuate but current polls show Bernie quite competitive with Trump. And yes. McGovern lost big but that was party due to the Eagleton debacle. However, I am confident that Bernie's VP choice will be stellar.

[juxtaposed]

180. you have absolutely no respect. admit it.

[Stuart G]

189. Trump just said, "Bernie is the easiest to beat." [posted by highplainsdem) hit link below:

Posted in this forum, at 8:55pm Eastern Time. Donald Trump said this today, a short time ago

That is what Trump believes. Original post is from ...The Hill


https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287597502

[MineralMan]

193. Exactly!