liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:35 PM
Original message |
Could George Wallace Have Won the Democratic Nomination in 1972? |
|
I know that Wallace competed in the Democratic Primaries in 1972 and was doing very well until he was shot.
Had he not been shot, was there a realistic chance that he could have been the nominee, not George McGovern?
And what would the rest of the party have done? I can't imagine that the liberals in the party would have tolerated a Wallace nomination. Was there speculation about what might have happened? Would McGovern or some other liberal have launched a third-party effort?
|
David in Canada
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:39 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I recall reading that civil rights leader Julian Bond was considering a bid for the presidency in 1972. If Wallace had won the nomination, most liberals would have voted for Bond and most moderates for Nixon, while conservative would have voted for Nixon.
End result: Wallace wins deep south, Bond wins DC and possibly Maryland. Possibly Michigan due to big margin in Wayne County and a Nixon-McGovern split. Nixon wins over 64% of the popular vote with Wallace's support heavily concentrated in the south.
Sound plausible?
|
KharmaTrain
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
The battle in '72 was between Wallace, McGovern & Muskie. Bond was never a factor. Muskie was the "establishment" candidate, similiar to how Mondale was in '84. He was the VP candidate in '68 and when Humphrey decided against running, Muskie was expected to win the nomination until Nixon's dirty tricksters showed up in New Hampshire...catching Muskie crying and that all but doomed his candidacy. He limped into the convention, but was still considered the real spoiler.
Wallace did surprisingly well in Michigan...and IRC, he won that primary. The deck was stacked against him as new party rules gave more delegates to eastern and midwest states and seated primarily Pro-McGovern delegates. Illinois had a nasty fight between Richard J. Daley (the first) and Jesse Jackson. Daley lost, Illinois' delegates who would have gone to Muskie went to McGovern.
Wallace, had he won the nomination, would have changed a lot of things. Surely there would have been a third party candidate, maybe McGovern or even Ted Kennedy (his name was mentioned as an alternative) that would have split the Democratic vote along the lines of the 68 election. If there would have been no third party, Wallace would have lost ala Goldwater in '64...just carrying the "solid south".
|
David in Canada
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
I know all that. Bond was never a candidate but he bandied about the possibility of running.
IF Wallace secured the nomination, he would have been more likely to run as he could not support a racist.
If that happened, Nixon would have won a bigger margin of victory than he did and Wallace would have swept the South and Bond the urban areas.
Of course a Ted Kennedy candidacy would have been possible as well.
As for Muskie, if it weren't for the crying episode, he would have likely won the nomination and had a decent chance of defeating Nixon. McGovern was WAY ahead of his time and while he would have likely been a great president, he was doomed from the start. The amount of people along not even willing to CONSIDER voting for him was at or near the electoral majority. That, plus Eagleton's manic depression confession (mental illness was a HUGE stigma then) was the final blow. McGovern needed every possible person open to him to vote for him and he just limped into the election bloodied and bruised.
Muskie would have gotten at least 47% of the vote compared to McGovern's 38%. In short, Nixon was a loser and they let perfection kill the good. There are times to choose the perfect candidate and others to get the best you can in order to take out the worst...
|
Jim Sagle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message |
Buck Laser
(566 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I don't think Wallace could have won the nomination.... |
|
The VietNam war was probably the biggest issue in '72. I don't really recall how Wallace stood on that, but he was still a champion of segregation in '72 (I think). In my mind, the '72 election was much like 2004 in that a great many thinking people knew that Nixon had led the country astray, although in retrospect he was enormously MORE competent that Bush EVER was.
Had Wallace been the nominee, he might have won a few more electoral votes than McGovern, but I suspect he might have lost the popular vote by an even larger margin than McGovern.
|
XOKCowboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
14. Segregation was big but the war was more important... |
|
The civil rights movement rode on the coattails of the anti-war and anti-Nixon feelings among all of the youth of America who'd been newly empowered by allowing 18 yr olds to vote. The war helped bring on the liberal movement and with that came civil rights.
All of this is IMHO of course. I voted for "anybody but Nixon" in '72 (I was 18) and damn sure wouldn't have voted for Wallace in any case. He was just the "good ol' boy" candidate.
|
David in Canada
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I think Wallace probably couldn't have won but as seen above, the entertained the thought nonetheless.
I think Wallace would have lost Massachusetts (McGovern won than) and won the Deep South (minus Florida) plus Idaho and possibly Utah. However, he would have won the South by a large landslide while losing everywhere else (except the cowboy) states by HUGE margins. For example, in ahead-to-head Nixon vs. Wallace matchup, Nixon EASILY could have defeated Wallace 70-30 in places like New England, Hawai'i, Minnesota, et.al.
|
MethuenProgressive
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message |
4. In '68 Wallace got 45-50 Electorial College votes |
|
running as a 3rd Party Candidate.
|
ThomWV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:49 PM
Response to Original message |
5. He Wasn't A Democrat When He Was Shot, He Was His Own 3rd Party |
|
Don't recall now what it was called but he wasn't calling himself a Democrat by that time.
|
liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
He entered the '72 Democratic primaries and swept the Southern primaries before he was shot that year.
|
1620rock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. His running mate was Curtis Leamay sp? Who was the... |
|
...Air Force's biggest advocate of nuclear weapons and their use. If I recall he stated that he wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. :scared:
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
26. LeMay. It's a French word meaning... |
David in Canada
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
It's very interesting and frightening.
IF Wallace had, by some weird freak chance WON and were assassinated, Curtis LeMay would have had HIS finger on the nuclear button.
:scared:
|
charlyvi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
12. Damn, liberalpragmatist, you know your Wallace! |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-25-06 09:25 PM by charlyvi
I googled to see if you are right, and you are. I LIVE in Alabama and thought Wallace always ran nationally on third party tickets. Kudos!
On Edit: I prefer to think you're that smart, rather than I'm that stupid!
|
liberalpragmatist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
I had just read something on Wallace, which is why I asked. Not something I knew by heart.
|
David in Canada
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
25. Wallace was shot in 1972 |
|
Wallace was shot in 1972 just before the Maryland primary by Arthur Bremer while campaigning. He was shot in the abdomen in a parking lot.
Wallace ran for President in 1968 as the nominee of the American Independent Party. The American Independent Party is STILL a ballot-qualified party in California and is an official affiliate of the Constitution Party. It is still far-right wingnut to this day. It stays ballot-qualified there because many independents tick off the box inadvertently thinking they're registering as "independent".
In 1972, the AIP nominated right-wing nutjob John G. Schmitz, a hitherto Congressman from California defeated in his primary for renomination on the GOP ticket. Schmitz actually got 9% of the vote in Idaho. He was also the anti-gay, anti-divorce crusader who cheated on his wife with a mistress and fathered a child out of wedlock. He is probably best-known as the father of disgraced former teacher Mary Kay LeTourneau. He was SO far-right he was EXPELLED from the John Birch Society!
Interesting, eh?
|
ayeshahaqqiqa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 06:56 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I don't think he would have won the nomination |
|
because of the stance of the party on Civil Rights. Wallace was viewed by Northerners like me as someone dangerous and ignorant and hateful.
|
nealmhughes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 07:17 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Wallace was a brilliant politician who was a "secret" progressive. |
|
When he lost his first gubernatorial campaign, he supposedly vowed to "never be outniggered again." And so came the stand on the steps of the auditorium at UA in Tuscaloosa in 1963 to block the entry of a lone brave black girl. Katzenbaum read him the riot act, he made a little speech and then went back to Montgomery and she registered.
By the time of his run in 72, he wasn't an overt racist in rhetoric any longer. He used "code" such as "states rights," and "anti-bussing" rather than the "precious little white girl sitting alongside a big buck" he had so famously employed earlier.
After his wounding, his health and personal life in tatters, his reputation being mainly all he had left and wishing to heal that, he faced reality and made the altar call. He denounced racism and publicly apologized for his past. His main caretakers were African-Americans and he found that they were the people who cared for him as a man and not a famous politico and were willing to take the first step.
During his many terms, he championed the "common man" over "pointy headed intellectuals" and big business and gave millions upon millions to the state for education, especially higher ed and community colleges. Alabama's cup of comm. colleges now runneth over.
One could make a career studying GCW. By the way, his law school roommate was Fed. Judge Frank Johnson, an Eisenhower appointee who was his constant bane during the civil rights era.
He is probably as least as complicated as Jackson, Nixon and LBJ in trying to fathom.
|
XOKCowboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
15. He did come around AFTER he was shot... |
|
He finally renounced racism and he did have a populist bent but the taint of his past always haunted him.
|
nealmhughes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. Amen. Too little too late. His repentence is not how he's remembered. |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-25-06 10:49 PM by nealmhughes
Nor his contributions to education in the state.
His brand of politics, unfortunately is still alive and well not merely in the South, but in the Republican Party as a whole.
A politics of fear and denigration.
Had he only used his skills for a unified South rather than the "easy way" out of race baiting! Had the South only kept the populism exemplified by FDR and the unity of the nation going during the Second World War instead of the Bourbons hanging on by tooth and nail the tricks they had learnt after "Redemption"...
|
XOKCowboy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
I see a lot of similarities in their style. They both knew how to motivate the people and did good things FOR the people. Poor ol' George was just born in a little different age and hitched his wagon to segregation and never shed the image.
|
BlooInBloo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
21. I'm not divine. He can rot in hell. |
David in Canada
(464 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
|
I think that Wallace possibly NEVER was a racist to begin with but rather, cynically espoused it to get in office and get the other parts of his agenda implemented. Of course, one can never tell what a person is deep down.
Only correction (sorry, i'm a bit of a pedant) is it's not "Katzenbaum" but rather Katzenbach. Nicholas de B. Katzenbach was, IIRC, the Soliticor General of the United States at that point in time. He was elevated to Attorney General when Robert F. Kennedy resigned in 1964 to run for the US Senate from New York.
|
Warren Stupidity
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 07:21 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He had no chance at all of winning the nomination. He might have been able to swing the nomination to one candidate or another had the contest been close.
|
EST
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Anyone who was old enough to vote in '72 was certainly |
|
Edited on Sat Nov-25-06 10:13 PM by EST
likely to remember the Wallace who stood in the schoolhouse door. I was living in W.Va. during that period and, although only minimally politically conscious, was well aware of Wallace and his candidacy as a cruel, grotesque joke.
answer: nope
|
Mme. Defarge
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 10:25 PM
Response to Original message |
WinkyDink
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Nov-25-06 11:36 PM
Response to Original message |
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
28. There's nicer ways of pointing out that McGovern hardly benefited from Wallace exiting the race |
|
On the other hand, that's hardly the rudest thing said on DU lately.
|
951-Riverside
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Nov-26-06 12:19 AM
Response to Original message |
22. I hope that old left-wing racist is suffering in hell. |
|
...too bad science says otherwise :/
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 05:53 AM
Response to Original message |