This Ain't 1972

[demwing]

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 07:19 PM - Edit history (2)

I just read a post here on DU where a kindly soul warned us all that Bernie Sanders was our modern George McGovern, having absolutely zero chances of winning an election.

Though I'm sure that the warning was given out of the goodness of his/her heart I started counting all the ways that this election was like that election.

What a task! I had to stop when I got to Zero!

I just don't see how 2016 compares to 1972...we've lived through a generation of profound changes since that year. As Bill Nye the Science Guy used to say: "Consider the following..."

• In 1972, a black man had no chance of running for the Presidency, let alone winning it twice.
  
  
• In 1972, a woman had no chance of getting the Democratic party nomination, let alone being the front runner.
  
  
• In 1972, being in favor of gay marriage was a career killer.
  
  
• In 1972, banks were regulated and couldn't destroy the economy.
  
  
• In 1972, we had not already lived through 20-30 years of trickle down economics.
  
  
• In 1972, there was no Citizens United to act as a lightning rod.
  
  
• In 1972, there wasn't a clown car full of insane Republicans running against us (and each other).
  
  
• In 1972, there was no Internet to organize the troops.
  
  
• In 1972, these thing's didn't all come together to create a perfect storm for populist reform.
  
  
• Most importantly, in 1972 we didn't have Bernie Sanders to kick some corporate ass!

So hey all you worry warriors? While we appreciate your sincere concerns, we really don't share them.
This ain't 1972. Bernie Sanders isn't repeating history. He's making history.

[randys1]

1. I read that the other day too, silly it was.

Bernie can win, but it will take more than people on DU talking about it.

It will take massive amounts of DONATIONS and willingness to work on the campaign.

My hope is all the overtly proud supporters of Bernie HERE will make many donations and work on the campaign.

I would like to see an accounting of that, actually.

Maybe not the donating part but who has signed up on his website to volunteer to help?

I have

[roguevalley]

11. correct me if I'm wrong but in 1972 a woman couldn't enroll in Yale.

Last edited Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:32 PM - Edit history (1)

1972, I remember you well. It was a hell decade, that one.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. That was the year "The Godfather" came out....

A lot of people thought it was about Nixon.

Especially with those jowls.

[merrily]

34. FWIW, the jowls were Brando's own idea.

Don't remember who, but I heard some show biz type say that on TV within the past year or two.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. He did a great job on that role. Especially when you consider his other big role that year....

[merrily]

37. I never saw that. Every actor I've heard speak of him says he was a genius actor, though.

Odd IRL, apparently.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. I don't think it's ever been on cable.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Actually, Yale admitted its first women undergraduates in 1969

Women had been admitted to several of its other schools (Graduate, Medical, Art and Architecture, Drama, etc.) for a long time.

[k8conant]

76. You're wrong...

1969
Yale College admits women for the first time. Women have attended other schools at Yale since 1869, when the first women enrolled in the School of the Fine Arts. Alumna Maya Lin’s The Women’s Table (1993), located in front of Sterling Memorial Library, commemorates the women of Yale. Women arriving on Old Campus in 1969.

http://www2.yale.edu/timeline/1969/index.html

In any case, I remember those years well.

In 1972, I was one year out of college and voted for George McGovern. (I had campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 but couldn't vote yet--I was only 19).

1972 was also when Eagleton got kicked out as VP nominee because of a history of depression and EST and was replaced by Sargent Shriver.

[Volaris]

15. I also did, but don't think I got a response.. what's the possibility I missed something?

[rbnyc]

28. Yes!

Time, talent, treasure. We need sustained giving of all three. We need to hold ourselves accountable and inspire and empower others.

[Jenny_92808]

73. I agree

that is why I give to Bernie and hope others do the same.

[wendylaroux]

2. Whoa!! very good!

[LiberalEsto]

3. On June 17, 1972, Nixon's henchmen were burglarizing Democratic HQ in Watergate building

Thank heaven he's not around either.

[jeff47]

4. You're missing one important change

In 1972, Dixiecrats were a significant part of the Democratic party. They're dead now.

[onecaliberal]

5. Damn straight!

[Doctor_J]

6. We also won't be running against an incumbent

Our opponent next year will be either another Bush, or a certifiable nut case. Good time to be aggressive.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Huge K&R!

The Zeitgeist is our friend today.

[ReallyIAmAnOptimist]

8. Heck, IMO Bernie is MORE electable in the general election than HRC...

...his values and objectives for America appeal to Americans across the political spectrum.

[dreamnightwind]

49. I definitely agree with that - n/t

[heaven05]

9. saying a lot

[Unknown Beatle]

10. 1972 I was eighteen.

First time I voted. I'll never forget the empty feeling I had when McGovern lost to Nixon.

[Thespian2]

12. Right On, Brother!!!

Huge K & R

[Fuddnik]

13. Fuckin' A Bubba!

Bernie's got my manpower and money, all the way!

[barbtries]

14. excellent post!

it just is not 1972. or 1988. or 2000. probably more like 2000 than the others which is a source of fear for me since a bush is running. they will try to steal it again. we just cannot let them.

[rurallib]

16. Presidential incumbency carries a lot of weight in an election

love him or hate him, Nixon was an incumbent which brings a lot of votes with it.

No incumbent this year. Actually I am guessing Bush is the only name that more than 50% of even Republicans recognize.

[captainarizona]

17. how about walter mondale 1984

It will be difficult enough for hillary to get elected even without commercials showing bernie sanders morphing into che guevara. Think with your head not your heart. I know bernie can't get the nomination the minority voters are for hillary ;but you could damages her chances in the general election. I know the other sides argument is it does not matter hillary has a growing democratic base and the republiscum base is dying off. I hope you are right.

[merrily]

38. This is the populist reform group, not the Hillary Room.

Please delete your post. This is a request from a group host.

However, I do have to say something in Hillary's favor. She does seem to motivate those who don't post very often to speak up for her.



Member since: Fri Mar 20, 2015, 06:52 PM
Number of posts: 111

Come to think of it, I made a similar comment to AZ Progressive within the last few hours.

[AndreaCG]

52. Well I was going to post some differences too

Like the Koch brothers weren't kicking in 900 million to the Republican Party and the NYT and WaPo employed honest to god impartial JOURNALISTS back then, but since apparently you can tolerate no dissenting opinions in what is NOT the Bernie Sanders thread I'll leave it at that.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. You mean they didn't try to claim it's like Dukakis?

[Cracklin Charlie]

20. Silly season starts earlier every election cycle. n/t

[merrily]

39. Yup. People started asking me to say I would vote for Hillary almost a year ago.

That's worse than silly. It's McCarthyesque.

[SmittynMo]

21. I have been quite impressed

by some recent postings about Bernie. Add this one to that list.

[demwing]

29. That's a very nice comment

thanks for the props.

[dflprincess]

22. This is the one thing that worries me about the difference between now and 1972

In 1972 we didn't have "superdelegates". They were created to avoid nominating "another McGovern". And don't think for a second that the Third Way types running the party these days wouldn't be dumb enough to overrule the primary and caucus selected delegates to get their candidate the nomination by getting "superdelegates" to go along with them - especially if the delegate count is at all close. I'm sure they'll be thinking "What else they gonna do - vote Republican?"

[jeff47]

30. Then we'll repeat the election from 4 years previous.

"Line up behind Humphrey" didn't work too well.

[dflprincess]

33. And poor old Hubert was a better choice in '68

than Clinton would be in 2016.

[merrily]

45. "Democrats are not worried about the left. The left has nowhere else to go."

[eridani]

24. 1972 was when average family income peaked; also the value of the minimum wage

No one had a clue that it would be all downhill from there.

[immoderate]

32. Well struck!

--imm

[merrily]

46. After World War II and the Korean War, the war tax continued.

tTaxes on the uppermost incomes were very high. In addition, we had, during World War II, knocked out our biggest competitors. We built the national highway system that FDR had envisioned, under the national defense budget. That created a lot of jobs and money to spend. Turning manufacturing to the war efforts had resulted in pent up demand, including for cars to ride those new highways. Unions were strong, so wages were going up.

And Eisenhower/Nixon got the credit for an era known alternatively as "peace and prosperity" and "guns and butter."

[k8conant]

77. I believe that 1974 was my top year...

when I earned about $14,000 and my husband was also working. We had money to spare.

[Enthusiast]

25. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch! Great post!

[merrily]

26. The generation that fought WWII isn't watching its offspring burn their draft cards and

"tuning in, turning on and dropping out."

Besides, there were at least fifteen reasons George McGovern lost that election and they weren't all "he's liberal."

Also, Bubba did not win in 1992 because he was a centrist.

On political myth after another, all with the effect of taking the party to the right.

[rbnyc]

27. Funny thing about these McGovern warnings...

...is that they often note that McGovern was such a great inspirational candidate with such great positions, he was so ideal and he lost to someone so terrible. And I think, are you trying to tell me that the winning strategy is to not have an excellent, inspirational candidate with the right positions? Is that the rationale for supporting Hillary?

[jeff47]

31. Yes, that is the rationale

At least, for many people on DU.

There's a few camps, with two big ones.

One of the big ones actually believes in Clinton.
The larger one doesn't care what the policies are - the only important thing is defeating the Republican. Even if the Democrat had identical policies.

[merrily]

40. Also, she is obviously (to me, anyway) the choice of the Party and some

follow the Party line, literally.

Finally, no one pays anyone to post for the "left of the left" or for Bernie.

[merrily]

36. I don't know if he himself was inspirational.

I like his politics and his all too short-lived efforts to make the workings of the DNC more democratic. But, from what I see on TV, he was not personally forceful or dynamic or charismatic. I've seen only snippets and none of his debates, but he came to me across like a nice, mild mannered individual, kind of nondescript.

[merrily]

42. Did anyone mention the war, Eagleton, a Democratic Congress and these other things?

Last edited Fri Jun 19, 2015, 06:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Overview :

Let's start with this. By 1972, in addition to serving in Congress, Nixon was a World War II veteran (as was McGovern) with 8 years as Vice President during one of the best economies for most voters that this country has ever known to this day, and 4 years as a war time incumbent President/Commander in Chief.

The Democratic Party was well into losing the "Solid South" because a Democratic President (Truman) had integrated the military via an Executive Order, the next Democratic President (JFK) had used the ICC to integrate interstate travel and the next Democratic President (LBJ) had gotten the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act passed.

A lot of opposition to McGovern came from within his own Party:

The Democratic Party's nomination was eventually won by Senator George McGovern of South Dakota, who ran an anti-war campaign against incumbent Republican President Richard Nixon, but was handicapped by his outsider status, limited support from his own party,* the perception of many voters that he was a left-wing extremist and the scandal that resulted from the firing of vice-presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton.

Emphasizing a good economy and his successes in foreign affairs, such as coming near to ending American involvement in the Vietnam War and establishing relations with China, Nixon decisively defeated McGovern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972

"It's the economy, Stupid."

I don't know why there was such dissent within the Party, but a field of 20 for the Democratic nomination may have had something to do with that.

Those of you who read "left wing extremist and said, "aha," slow your roll. That perception had a lot to do with wedge issues, which the center right perpetuated, and the rest to do with getting out of Vietnam faster than Nixon was managing. Both ran on getting out of Vietnam. I don't think McGovern lost the election because of the timing of the withdrawal, do you?

1. The undefeatable wartime incumbent advantage

The incumbent advantage cannot be dismissed. However, Nixon was not, in 1972 "merely" an incumbent President. He was a wartime incumbent President/Commander in Chief. US voters have never voted a war time incumbent Commander in Chief out of office. NEVER.

2. Voters did not see Nixon as a conservative.

How many posts have you seen at DU claiming that Nixon and Eisenhower were more liberal than today's Democrats? (I disagree almost every time I see one, but I sure have seen a lot.)

In 1968, Nixon had run on knowing how to get the US out of Vietnam with honor or some such. In 1972, he ran on almost having ended the Vietnam War. So, McGovern, an anti-war candidate, was not running so very differently from Nixon.

It's a lot easier for any President to look good to voters with a traditional Democratic Congress, which is what Nixon had had during his first term. Moreover, since FDR and Truman had held the Oval Office for an unprecedented 20 years, mostly due to the New Deal(s) and the Fair Deal.

Republican Presidents and Presidential hopefuls got the message: if you want to be elected and re-elected, be more like FDR, at least during your first term. As a result of those two factors, during the first Nixon administration, a lot of pro-environment, pro-labor, etc. legislation has passed by the Democratic legislature and signed by Nixon, for which the Nixon administration got much of the credit.**

On the foreign policy front, there had been Nixon's landmark trip to "Red" China, widely publicized and widely lauded. At that time, if TV networks were enamored of something, all American homes with TV were saturated with it--no internet, and a very limited number of TV channels other than the three networks. If anything would have been considered far left at that time, it would have been Nixon's trip to "Red" China.

3. Short of Democrats running God himself, Nixon was going to win in 1972, whether his opponent was as right as Mussolini, or as left as Marx or anyone in between; and Democratic politicians knew it.

In 1972, Richard Nixon appeared unbeatable. When McGovern won the Democratic nomination for President, virtually all of the high-profile Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Muskie,[9] and Birch Bayh, turned down offers to run on the ticket. McGovern had been convinced that Kennedy would join the ticket. Kennedy ended up refusing.

McGovern campaign manager Gary Hart suggested Boston Mayor Kevin White. McGovern called White, and received "an emphatic yes", but the leader of the Massachusetts delegation, Ken Galbraith, said the Massachusetts delegation would walk-out if the announcement was made to the Convention that McGovern had chosen White as his vice-presidential candidate, as White had backed Muskie during the Massachusetts primary (yet, Massachusetts ended up being the only state that McGovern would carry in Electoral College votes on November 7, Election Day).

McGovern then asked Senator Gaylord Nelson to be his running mate. Nelson declined but suggested Tom Eagleton, whom McGovern ultimately chose, with only a minimal background check.

id.

In other words, in the minds of Democrats in the know, the 1972 election was baked before McGovern ever started to run! Given that 1985 was not that long after 1972, with DLC founders being party insiders who knew about this very well. Oh, what a patently dishonest web they wove when they claimed McGovern lost because he was too liberal and therefore the Party had to go right to elect Democratic Presidents.

4. Republicans were revving up culture wars, much as they and center right Democrats do today.

Upthread, I posted about WW II veterans in shock, as they watched their children burning draft cards and dropping acid. This morning, I found this.

On April 25, George McGovern won the Massachusetts primary. Two days later, journalist Robert Novak claimed in a column that a Democratic senator whom he did not name said of McGovern: "The people don't know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot. Once middle America – Catholic middle America, in particular – finds this out, he's dead." The label stuck and McGovern became known as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid." It became Humphrey's battle cry to stop McGovern — especially in the Nebraska primary.

id.

I don't know if McGovern was or was not for any of those things. However, I do know that rumors of those things would suffice, especially abortion Roe v. Wade was not decided until 1973. Indeed, until 1965, a doctor could be prosecuted criminally for advising a married couple about contraception. Griswold v. Connecticut.

However, reproductive choice and legalization of pot were not the issues that center right Democrats abandoned. To the contrary, they emphasized that kind of issue.


5. "The Eagleton debacle"

As indicated above, McGovern's pick for Vice President, the first one that stuck, anyway, was Senator Thomas Eagleton. Shortly after that, it came out:

Between 1960 and 1966, Eagleton checked himself into the hospital three times for physical and nervous exhaustion, receiving electroconvulsive therapy twice.[4] He was also known to have suffered from depression.

The hospitalizations, which were not widely publicized, had little effect on his political aspirations, although the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was to note, in 1972, immediately after his vice presidential nomination: "He had been troubled with gastric disturbances, which led to occasional hospitalizations. The stomach troubles have contributed to rumors that he had a drinking problem."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Eagleton

Also

Eagleton made no mention of his earlier hospitalizations, and in fact decided with his wife to keep them secret from McGovern while he was flying to his first meeting with the Presidential nominee.

id.

At that time, no one wanted a man with a background of mental hospitalization and rumors of alcoholism a heartbeat away from the Presidency, especially during war time. While Eagleton eventually left the ticket, this choice, for that time, was comparable to McCain's choosing Palin. People questioned McGovern's competence and judgment.

McGovern later approached six different prominent Democrats to run as his vice-president: Ted Kennedy, Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, Abraham Ribicoff, Larry O'Brien and Reubin Askew. All six declined. Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law to John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy, former Ambassador to France and former Director of the Peace Corps, later accepted.[28] He was officially nominated by a special session of the Democratic National Committee. By this time, McGovern's poll ratings had plunged from 41 to 24 percent.

No doubt, there were other factors that insiders knew, but never made it into wikipedia. However, the above sampling will suffice for now.


* An example of limited support from his own Party for nominee McGovern was Democrats for Nixon.

Polling cited by Connally indicated that as many as 20 million Democrats would cross over to vote for Nixon and invited "all those millions of Democrats who realize that in this Presidential election President Nixon is simply the better choice."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrats_for_Nixon

You can bet those cross overs were not liberals. That election also had extraordinarly low turnout.

**Major Legislation January 1969-January 1971

December 30, 1969: Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, Pub.L. 91–173
1969: Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91–172
January 1, 1970: National Environmental Policy Act, Pub.L. 91–190
April 3, 1970: Environmental Quality Improvement Act, Pub.L. 91–224
May 21, 1970: Airport and Airway Development Act, Pub.L. 91–258, title I
August 12, 1970: Postal Reorganization Act (United States Postal Service), Pub.L. 91–375
August 15, 1970: Economic Stabilization Act
September 22, 1970: District of Columbia Delegate Act, Pub.L. 91–405
October 15, 1970: Organized Crime Control Act, Pub.L. 91–452 (including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO&quot December 30, 1969: Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, Pub.L. 91–173
1969: Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub.L. 91–172
January 1, 1970: National Environmental Policy Act, Pub.L. 91–190
April 3, 1970: Environmental Quality Improvement Act, Pub.L. 91–224
May 21, 1970: Airport and Airway Development Act, Pub.L. 91–258, title I
August 12, 1970: Postal Reorganization Act (United States Postal Service), Pub.L. 91–375
August 15, 1970: Economic Stabilization Act
September
1970: Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91–453
October 26, 1970: Bank Secrecy Act, Pub.L. 91–508
October 27, 1970: Controlled Substances Act, Pub.L. 91–513
1970: Rail Passenger Service Act (Amtrak), Pub.L. 91–518
December 24, 1970: Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91–572
December 24, 1970: Plant Variety Protection Act, Pub.L. 91–577
December 29, 1970: Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), Pub.L. 91–596
December 31, 1970: Clean Air Act Extension, Pub.L. 91–604
December 31, 1970: Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970, Pub.L. 91–609, including title VII, National Urban Policy and New Community Development Act of 1970
January 12, 1971: Foreign Military Sales Act of 1971, Pub.L. 91–672
1971: Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, Pub.L. 91–695

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_United_States_Congress

Major Legislation January 1971 to October 1972

Passing legislation on revenue-sharing was a key event of the congress. President Richard Nixon had it listed on his list of top policies to cover for the year. Nixon signed the bill into law at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The law gained support from many state and local officials including: San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto whose city received $27 million in revenue-sharing money in the first year. Alito said that many projects that would not have been possible could now be done, "That will effectively enable us to meet those programs which up to now because of very tough budgeting we've had to trench."[

December 18, 1971: Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub.L. 92–203, 85 Stat. 688
December 23, 1971: National Cancer Act, Pub.L. 92–218, 85 Stat. 778
February 7, 1972: Federal Election Campaign Act, Pub.L. 92–225, 86 Stat. 3
March 24, 1972: Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Pub.L. 92–261, 86 Stat. 103
June 23, 1972: Title IX Amendment of the Higher Education Act, Pub.L. 92–318, 86 Stat. 235
October 6, 1972: Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub.L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770
October 18, 1972: Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972, Pub.L. 92–500, 86 Stat. 816
October 21, 1972: Marine Mammal Protection Act, Pub.L. 92–522, 86 Stat. 1027
October 27, 1972: Consumer Product Safety Act, Pub.L. 92–573, 86 Stat. 1207
October 27, 1972: Noise Control Act, Pub.L. 92–574, 86 Stat. 1234
October 27, 1972: Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub.L. 92–583, 86 Stat. 1280

Approved Constitutional amendments
See also: List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

March 23, 1971: Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified July 1, 1971)
March 22, 1972: District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment (unratified; ratification period expired in 1979 or 1982)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/92nd_United_States_Congress

[demwing]

43. So as Nixon had a perfect storm in 1972

Progressives have the opportunity for our own perfect storm of reform in 2016.

Thanks for the excellent post, merrily!

[merrily]

44. You're welcome.

It's so long that I did not think anyone would actually read it.

That's the trouble with the meme machine. A meme takes 30 seconds to post; disproving it takes a lot of research and drafting. It's one reason I find posting with rightists tedious.

Shortcut: anyone who attributes a Presidential election win or loss to a single fact is not into political analysis.


.

[kentuck]

47. kick

[madokie]

48. Recommend

[dreamnightwind]

50. Yes things are very different now

and the country is ripe for an authentic populist.

[Scuba]

51. K&R

[azmom]

53. k&R

[hifiguy]

54. So much truth.

Silly, aren't they?

[peacebird]

55. K&R!

[Dont call me Shirley]

56. K & R x 1,000,000

[passiveporcupine]

57. I was going to say "you are so right"

Bernie Sanders isn't repeating history. He's making history.

But then I saw it worded better upthread...so I'll repeat that. Damn Straight!

[rhett o rick]

58. k & r. Thanks for posting. nm

[merrily]

59. A DUer whose posts I cannot find right now pointed out to me that Rove used both

dirty tricks and early computer technology to help Nixon win. I googled to find those posts but only found these at DU2.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x860460

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x20781

[sabrina 1]

60. Great post, we could add a few more things to that list, but I think you made the point with this

OP.

[Gothmog]

61. Sanders campaign reminds me of McGovern

[demwing]

62. So support Hillary

If Sanders' message doesn't resonate with you, then support the candidate with the message that does.

You're a smart Gothmog. You'll figure this stuff out eventually.

[Gothmog]

63. According to that online quiz/test, Sanders is closer to my views than Hillary

Unfortuantely, no one has provided to me an explanation as to how Sanders is viable in the general election. I fear that you will find others who will not be supporting Sanders until they see an explanation as to how Sanders is viable in a general election contest where he will be outspent by a large margin.

[demwing]

64. Right, and that explains why you're comparing Bernie to McGovern

it's because you support him, and are working to see him succeed.

It's all so clear now...

[Gothmog]

65. I worked on and remember the McGovern campaign

How is this ad from McGovern any different from the campaign that Sanders is running against everyone who is accepting super pac money? http://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9323459/mcgovern-sanders

[demwing]

66. Are you saying that these are the reasons McGovern lost?

Because they are not, and so your comparison to Bernie is suspect at best (complete bullshit at worst).

[Gothmog]

67. The reasons that McGovern lost are not on the poster

The reason that McGovern lost are the same factors facing Sanders such as (a) not being in the mainstream, (b) not being well financed, (c) having a message that is easy to attack in negative ads and (d) facing a candidate with more resources. McGovern had a great deal of passion from the anti-war people who were worried about Vietnam. That passion reminds me of the passion of the passion of the Sanders supporters on the issue of income inequality.

Passion by itself is not sufficient. McGovern was the candidate that Nixon selected to run against and Howdy Gowdy and company are trying the same trick in this election. McGovern was to the left of the country according to the polling and so it was easy for Nixon to brand him as a lefty who was not in the mainstream. Sanders is a proud socialist but that term polls poorly and it is not hard to make that term radioactive with enough negative ads. McGovern ran as an outsider and so is Sanders. That campaign does not work so well in the 1972 general election and I am not comfortable with that campaign given the stakes in this race.

[demwing]

68. Nixon won

Because he was an incumbant President who oversaw a growing economy and a shrinking war. Plus, McGovern was a poor campaigner and made a mess out of his VP selection.

Bernie has none of those challenges, but your sincere concern will be noted and afforded all the attention it deserves...

[Gothmog]

69. Really?

McGovern was underfunded compared to Nixon and now under Citizens United, the GOP will have an even large funding advantage over Sanders. If anything, Sanders is in a significantly worse situation compared to McGovern

Have fun supporting Sanders.

[merrily]

71. We do. It's loads of fun. Sleep well supporting Hillary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777603

[merrily]

70. +1

[Jenny_92808]

74. +1

[chervilant]

72. No worries here.

I am watching the wellspring of support for Senator Sanders from millennials and a significant percentage of our young adults, the ones who use social media and the internet for their news and information. Every time I turn on my computer, I read about another group or celebrity endorsing Senator Sanders. Now, isn't that amazing given how little exposure the M$M has given his campaign?!?

And, let's just contemplate that fact: Bernie is getting no money from the corporate megalomaniacs. Wow! He's done so much with so little?!? Reminds me of that scene in Erin Brockovich when Ed Masry responds to the wet-behind-the-ears PG&E attorney's condescending assertion that PG&E "is a $28 billion corporation."

It is to laugh.

Go BERNIE!!!

[LiberalElite]

75. People are still, just about daily,

commenting on the NYT and probably elsewhere that Sanders = McGovern.