...as it was the point where cynicism about the future began to set in.
But, in fact, when you look at actions rather than tone, it's hardly surprising. Nixon had managed to pull of a "divide and conquer" move by simultaneously creating detente with the U.S.S.R. and China (the latter a particularly amazing feat), while simultaneously having his surrogates portray Democrats as disloyal Commie-sympathizers. While most of us were outraged about the latter, the majority of Americans approved strongly of his overtures to the other two global powers, seeing them as major steps toward world peace and stability. The economy was going well. And, while the major talking point for McGovern was his opposition to the war in Vietnam, an apparent breakthrough in the Paris peace talks just before the election took the wind out of that particular set of sails and, while that proved illusory, the gradual reduction of U.S. troops (and, just as importantly, the end of the military draft) had reached a level where most voters had lost the fear of their son coming home in a box. Indeed, the last U.S. combat troops were withdrawn within three months of the election.
And then, of course, there was the Eagleton fiasco. Between the poor job vetting him in the first place and the vascillation in first supporting him "1,000%" and, a couple of weeks later, asking him to step down, the McGovern campaign came off looking amateurish and somewhat hypocritical. The fact that it then took McGovern far too long to pick a replacement (mainly because most previous big names who had been considered backed away, apparently convinced they'd be damaged politically from being linked to what appeared to be a sure loser) added to the sense of "wheels falling off" the campaign.
The case Democrats had against Nixon, going into the fall of 1972, lay not so much in what he was doing at the time, but what he had done in the past, and what kind of person he was. And that wasn't enough to sway voters, even though the latter concern proved to have been prophetic over the next two years.
And it's probably a mistake to compare what happened in 1972 to the victory in 1976, as that was a direct aftereffect of Watergate. For approximately two-three years, the Republican brand had been so damaged that some people were speculating they would disappear as a party. The 1974 midterms were a disaster for them, but one might say that the tide had begun to turn even by 1976. Sure, Ford lost to Carter, but the margin was razor-thin, whereas, even at the time just after the conventions, polls indicated that Carter would win in a landslide. And, of course, once the Watergate effect had worn off, Republicans won the White House and held it for the next twelve years, until Bill Clinton came along in the early '90s. Overall, from 1968 to 1992, Republicans won five out of six presidential elections, and I don't think it's far-fetched to say that, had it not been for the Watergate scandal, it would likely have been six out of six.
= new reply since forum marked as read
