2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLessons from 1968: Bernie Sanders needs to put snide aside
(snip)
Sanders criticism of Hillary Clinton constant and repetitious has become increasingly bitter. That may be productive now, but those words do not disappear when the convention makes a choice and it is not him. They become weapons for the political enemy. In the mouth of Trump, particularly, they would become bludgeon and meat ax. Sanders should calm down, save the vitriol and think of the consequences of not doing so.
I would tell him to tame his rhetoric, put snide aside and, most of all, prepare himself to endorse Clinton immediately at the convention and to do it without equivocation, with more enthusiasm than he may now think possible. My advice grows from my experience nearly half a century ago, in 1968. It was a difficult year for the country and particularly for candidates for national office. The Democratic convention was mean-spirited inside and brutally chaotic outside.
Challenged primarily on his Vietnam policies by Sens. Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson had announced he would not run again. After a bit, his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, announced that he would run, although he waited until it was too late to enter any primaries, avoiding the chance of a loss. After Kennedy was assassinated, Sen. George McGovern took up his anti-Vietnam crusade, and he and McCarthy like Bernie Sanders today aroused huge, enthusiastic crowds, including many young people.
McCarthy patronized Humphrey as weak, sometimes ridiculed him, made him damaged goods for the general election. But Humphrey ultimately accumulated a huge lead in delegate votes.
(snip)
Once Humphrey was nominated despite their policy differences, McGovern immediately announced his support for Humphrey. McCarthy was silent. Almost immediately after the convention, McCarthy took off for a vacation in Europe. When he returned several weeks later, he remained mute and elusive. When he did finally speak, just a week before Election Day, he said only that he would vote for Humphrey. Nothing more. Ultimately, Humphrey lost the election by less than a percentage point. States where McCarthy was immensely popular might have been won with his support and would have provided the electoral votes needed for election.
(snip)
Why does this matter almost 50 years later? It matters because Sanders must soon decide whether to be a McCarthy or a McGovern. Toning down his rhetoric now would be a good step in the right direction.
http://www.startribune.com/lessons-from-1968-bernie-sanders-needs-to-put-snide-aside/380193361/
NBachers
(17,108 posts)demented administration. We're still paying the price.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Hillary is a weak candidate and can only win if Bernie goes all out and endorses her.
That's what Bernie has been saying all along. Good the see the H camp finally listening.
So what H has to do is convince Bernie that H will not embarrass Bernie. That's gonna be a hard sell.
question everything
(47,476 posts)on everything. So, yes, if Sanders supporters will stay home, Trump will have enough to win.
But what it comes down to is really: would you, personally, have a "weak" candidate wins, or would your rather have Trump?
Remember, it is expected that there will be at least two, perhaps three vacancies on the Supreme Court. (Actually, perhaps four, we still have Scalia's cold chair).
And now take a look at Trump's "list" of judges that he released some weeks ago. And then think again.
The 1968 stay home cost us a generation, until Clinton in 1992 (though I suspect on these pages some regret these elections, too).
If we will lose in 2016, it will take another generation. We don't have many young leaders who are climbing the ladder. Sanders is 74, Clinton is 68, Warren is 66. And now look at the Republican "clowns" - many in their 40s and 50s. Where are ours? Name that are known?
I am an old baby boomer, probably will not see, or care, when the next Democratic president get elected - if we lose in 2016.
What about you?
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Not mine.
Besides, how did GWB win? He didn't. It was stolen.
If we nominate Bernie, we will win. That's why I support Bernie.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I would do so again and will probably vote 3rd party this time. McCarthy's endorsement of Humphrey had no effect on my vote.
JustinL
(722 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,475 posts)Nixon got 43.4%, Humphrey got 42.7%, and George Wallace got 13.5%.
McCarthy would have lost by far more.
JustinL
(722 posts)question everything
(47,476 posts)As Johnson's V.P. he was not going to run. By then, RFK and McCarthy were in full swing and by the time Humphrey announced his candidacy, in late April, it was too late.