AHC: Anyone But McGovern in '72

[Revolutionary Avocado]

George McGovern, while an excellent man in my opinion, was far too radical for his time. His candidacy for president in 1972 doomed the Democrats to a truly horrifying election loss to Richard Nixon.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to have the Democratic nominee in 1972 be someone other than George McGovern, or another candidate on the left wing of the Democratic Party. Your PoD can be no later than January 1970. Bonus points if said Democrat can beat Nixon.

 

[DTanza]

Hubert Humphrey brings his game face. Boom, anyone but McGovern.

 

[Revolutionary Avocado]

Hubert Humphrey brings his game face. Boom, anyone but McGovern.

That's what I was thinking. Perhaps Humphrey convinces Muskie and/or Scoop Jackson to drop out, promising them the VP slot and a good deal of influence? The next question is, how do you get HHH to bring his game face?

 

[Derek Jackson]

The progressive vote split by a better performancy by Shirley Chisolm, especially in winner takes all California.

Humphrey or another establishment candidate gets all those delegate votes

 

[xxmagex]

Stop the McGovern Commission after 1968 changing the Nomination Process for the Presidential selection. The process they came up diminished the power of the Machine and Professional Politicians. Humphrey and the other more establishment politicians misjudged the process and was surprised by McGovern's campaign. However, McGovern would have not fared as well in a process dominated by the Democratic Party Establishment.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Humphrey was the most likely non McGovern nominee. mMcGovern won the California primary 43 percent to Humphrey's 39 percent.A stronger Chisolm could have won it for Humphrey. I think with Humphrey wins 43 percent to Nixon's 55 percent. If we add Arthur Bremer getting arrested for shoplifting we get nNixon 48 percent Humphrey 43 percent and Wallace 7 percent

 

[Mark E.]

Ed Muskie was emerging as one of the strongest contenders by the end of 1971, so much so that he was targeted for "dirty tricks." One was a pamphlet for criticizing him for not being liberal enough, attributed to a non-existent "Americans for a Liberal Society," written by Pat Buchanan. Next was a picture where melted snowflakes made it look like Muskie was crying, not "man-enough" to be president. Add the Canuck Letter and another faulty assertion that he became a parent of an illegitimate child while a teenager, I'd say Nixon's team did a pretty thorough job to discredit him. Throw butterflies into those plans and Muskie might win the nomination.

 

[Plumber]

George McGovern won the nomination by a frog's hair. He narrowly won the California winner-take-all primary against Humphrey. Winner-take-all primaries were against McGovern's own new rules for the DNC, but he ironically and successfully shut down the Anyone But McGovern attempt to proportionally distribute the California delegation at the convention. The only primaries after McGovern-Fraser that were anywhere as close as the 1972 Democratic primaries were the Republicans in 1976 and the Democrats in 2008.

Humphrey is the most likely nominee. Humphrey won the popular vote and tried to win at the convention, so he was basically the Hillary Clinton analogue (for the closeness of the race in the primaries' popular vote) and the Ronald Reagan (for the closeness of the race at the convention). Had he been nominated, I would consider the race a coin flip. I'm surprised there aren't a lot more Humphrey '72 timelines out there. If the ticket is Humphrey/Wallace (which is very likely, see below), Nixon is in serious trouble.

Had George Wallace not been shot, he would have tried to become king of the convention, but most likely would have ended up kingmaker. He probably ends up winning the popular vote in the primaries, and Humphrey/Wallace ticket that was vaguely considered IOTL probably becomes a reality. Humphrey combining with Wallace = game over for McGovern. You could get him to win the nomination with some PODs before his shooting though; of all the candidates in 1972, he was the most powerful. What would later be known as the Reagan Democrat was back then called "the Wallace factor," and he came second crucial Wisconsin primary, which McGovern invested pretty much his whole campaign in over a year in advance. Wallace only campaigned in Wisconsin for one week, halfheartedly. Had Wallace gotten McGovern's organization, he could've potentially defeated Richard Nixon by a nice margin. A Wallace nomination was Nixon's greatest fear for this very reason. If Wallace fails to get enough of his way at the convention, he could've started another third-party campaign. IOTL he didn't because a McGovern nomination plus the Eagleton disaster made the outcome of the election inevitable, but I could see Wallace bolting if Humphrey won the nomination easy enough to ignore Wallace's input.

Muskie is a paper tiger: imagine Mitt Romney in a field of heavyweights.

Of course, you could also get John J. McKeithen.

 

[Stolengood]

the ticket is Humphrey/Wallace (which is very likely

Please tell me you're joking.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Humphrey was not going to pick Wallace, nor would a majority of the delegates vote for him. Wallace knew he would have to run on the American Independent ticket.

 

[Narnia]

I'm not all that up on this period of American politics, but McGovern is an absolutely epic name for anybody in government. Even better if he was a former MCdonald's CEO.

 

[Snowstalker]

Humphrey was not going to pick Wallace, nor would a majority of the delegates vote for him. Wallace knew he would have to run on the American Independent ticket.

Not at all. Wallace, having turned against segregation after 1968 (he even won the black vote by big margins in his later runs for Alabama Governor), ran a more conventional demagogic campaign in 1972, attracting significant support from Northern Democrats; he won the state of Michigan, and even a plurality of the city of Boston in the Massachusetts primary. Had he not been shot, I think he would have been the nominee.

If he wins the nomination, he sweeps the South and puts the Midwest in play at the expense of some Northeastern support (though he still probably wins MA and RI at least). We may find it hard to believe today, but Wallace's runs in 1972 (where I suspect Nixon still narrowly wins) and 1976 (where he would slaughter Ford) had incredibly broad appeal.

 

[Plumber]

Please tell me you're joking.

Humphrey played with the idea at the OTL convention, but didn't take it as seriously. With a Wallace who isn't crippled, and who has done a lot better in the primaries, I think it's a likely thing. Remember, Hubert Humphrey has wanted to be President for as long as Richard Nixon, and he was already seen as part of a bygone era in 1972. By this point, HHH would do pretty much anything to become POTUS (which is one of the reasons why Hunter S. Thompson hated him).

Snowstalker: I'm not sure if the math is there for Wallace to win the nomination outright with a POD of not getting crippled by Bremer. Humphrey and McGovern would both unite against him as the nominee, but Humphrey would probably end up offering him the VPship.

Here are two quick maps of a Humphrey/Wallace matchup with Nixon. On the left, Humphrey carries every state he did in 1968, and every state Carter did in 1976. On the right, Nixon carries every state he did in 1968 (except in the South), and every state Ford did in 1976.

Maine (left) and Michigan (right) probably wouldn't go to Humphrey or Nixon respectively, because there were home state factors at play. I was also very generous in giving Missouri ("Southern, but not in the South") to Nixon on the right, because without that and Michigan, he loses 279-259.