Why did DNC ignore McGovern national numbers in 1972? McGovern numbers sucked like Sanders

[uponit7771]

... Swing State numbers against Trump not being outside Margin Of Error.

Why didn't DNC seniors step in and say McGovern's GE numbers were horrible and stop the slaughter before it began?

Could the same be happening with Sanders?

Thx in advance

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/nbc-news-wsj-poll-sanders-opens-double-digit-national-lead-n1138191

But many of these margins get smaller when the race is narrowed to voters from 11 battleground states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Bloomberg's lead decreases to 2 points, (48 percent to 46 percent); Sanders (49 percent to 48 percent) and Klobuchar (48 percent to 47 percent) to 1 point; and Buttigieg is tied with Trump (47 percent to 47 percent).

Only Biden maintains his same lead, 52 percent to 44 percent.

[uponit7771]

1. Kick for Notice

[jaysunb]

2. They tried, but we were young and actually

believed we were great enough in numbers to have a revolution, but the middle of America wasn't having it.

Didn't happen then. Won't happen now.

[uponit7771]

3. Ah, so the new voters didn't show up? Sounds like what is happening now with Sanders

[Old Terp]

4. Ditto, but Greenbelt and Takoma Park did go for McGovern

[uponit7771]

6. Thx, What are the significance of those cities? Tried to google it

[Old Terp]

12. Both were very liberal small cities. Maryland went for Nixon

The surrounding areas outside these small cities also went for Nixon. Maryland usually is and was a blue state.

[uponit7771]

40. wow, why wouldn't ... I'm not understanding how they ignored McGoverns unpopularity unless

... some shock event happened at the time?!

[bucolic_frolic]

5. I think they had different rules in 1972

as far as superdelegates, and the anti-war mood in the country just swamped anything and everything.

I think we are victims now because they have so front-loaded the primaries there is little time for process and deliberation over several months. Everything is at warp speed including the debates, and the questions. I think it leads to quick decisions that are not as well contemplated. But it's a different world, much fast communications obviously.

[uponit7771]

7. So there was no way for the party bosses to stop McGovern winning the primary? That stinks ...

... I hope the rules are different now.

[Voltaire2]

8. Mondale?

[uponit7771]

9. My voting goes back to Clinton and my mom came and got me out of football practice. What do you

... mean by Mondale?

thx in advance

[Voltaire2]

13. Why don't we discuss how Mondale suffered the worst electoral defeat of any Democratic candidate?

"In the election, Mondale was defeated in a landslide, winning only the District of Columbia and his home state of Minnesota, and even there his margin of victory was fewer than 3,800 votes,[35] securing only 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. The result was the worst electoral college defeat for any Democratic Party candidate in history, and the worst for any major-party candidate since Alf Landon's loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936."

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


Why do we ignore when centrist/moderate candidates got slaughtered?

[uponit7771]

14. I'm asking about the objective data before the election, was there any objective data before the

... election between Mondale and RayGun that said Mondale would get Mud Stomped?

thx in advance

[Voltaire2]

16. of course there was

Just as much 'objective data' as McGovern.

[uponit7771]

19. Well there it is then, why did party bosses allow someone who would get mud stomped to become

... the leading candidate?!

Makes no sense

[Voltaire2]

23. We don't have 'party bosses' who can just do what they want.

We have primaries where the voters decide.

[uponit7771]

26. We have super delegates to stop the Red Don's now IINM. What is the need for super delegates if they

... they're going to let people vote in someone who is going to lose by large numbers in the GE and we can tell they're going to lose by their polling before the GE ?!!?

[msongs]

17. umm clinton 8 years, obama 8 years, jfk...well that was a fluke nt

[Voltaire2]

20. Ummm Nixon 8 years, or rather 6 years as he had to resign

So again, why only McGovern? His defeat wasn't even the worst. And as you rightly point out, an incumbent with a decent economy is generally going to get re-elected.

[Old Terp]

22. Think that's wron

McGovern lost 49 states. I think Mondale lost 45.

[Voltaire2]

25. I guess wikipedia did too.

In the election, Mondale was defeated in a landslide, winning only the District of Columbia and his home state of Minnesota, and even there his margin of victory was fewer than 3,800 votes,[35] securing only 13 electoral votes to Reagan's 525. The result was the worst electoral college defeat for any Democratic Party candidate in history, and the worst for any major-party candidate since Alf Landon's loss to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

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


Let me repeat: "The result was the worst electoral college defeat for any Democratic Party candidate in history".

[uponit7771]

27. Mondale's polling sucked before the GE and then after D Convention. Why did they allow this...

.. they could've done something

[Old Terp]

35. You don't consider Mondale a liberal or DC a state equivalent?

Enough, I'm taking the dog out to poop. Which I will clean up because it's the decent thing to do.

[Voltaire2]

45. Mondale 'rescued' the party from the disaster of Jesse Jackson's left wing insurgency candidacy.

And DC is not a state. A technicality, but also beside the point: Mondale got fewer electoral votes than McGovern. The way the electoral college works, all the votes from all the electors are totaled for each candidate, the winner is the candidate with the majority of votes. It isn't the number of states that matter, it is the number of electors from each state.

[jimfields33]

53. We did keep the house Democratic though which is pretty amazing. I think we kept the senate too, bu

[PAMod]

48. What are you going on about? Mondale was a dyed in the wool liberal

Carter, a centrist, chose Mondale as his running mate to placate the liberals.

[Voltaire2]

49. On the left: Jessie Jackson.

In the middle: Walter Mondale.

[PAMod]

51. Walter Mondale was a liberal. LIBERAL

We didn't choose Mondale because he was to the right of Rev. Jackson.

[Sloumeau]

10. Biden has the best chance of beating Trump.

However, a lot of Democrats are focusing on the big promises of Senator Bernie Sanders--promises that I highly doubt he will ever get through Congress.

[uponit7771]

18. +1, Sanders says he'll create 20 million jobs and the uninformed believe him

[Wellstone ruled]

11. First,it was a wholly different National feeling at that time.

The Nixon Story had not taken off. And Nixon's Treason with North Vietnam had not been unearthed,yes there were stories about him pulling a Treason Stunt on Johnson,but they were not getting any traction.

And Georgie had the Young College Crowd much like Sanders has today. And once again,the National Media was played by the Nixon Camp. And George came off as Milk-toast Guy from the Midwest .

[uponit7771]

15. These things are socialized but what's NOT socialized is McGovern numbers STANK way before

... the GE and into the GE.

Stank bad nationally, they didn't need any of that to tell McGovern was going to get stomped.


Now we can see at best Sanders numbers are luke warm in swing states against Trump save one or two, why should we repeat the same thing different day?

thx in advance

[Wellstone ruled]

21. Once he was Nominated,

the smell was getting greater by the day. And that smell was,we were backing a dead horse and that body was rotting away by the day.

[uponit7771]

24. WOW !!! The DNC has to step in somehow. Where their no supper delegates back then? thx in advance

[Wellstone ruled]

54. Dems at the time wanted some one

who would clean up Vietnam and further the Kennedy Legacy. McGovern said all the right words and as we know,platitudes might win the day,but never win the year.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

60. I agree with Historian Stephen Ambrose

In his introduction to "The Wild Blue" he talks about his extensive conversations with McGovern, and points out that he did not use his excellent war record to good advantage.

[Kurt V.]

28. by repeating this over and over isn't going to make it come true. good grief.

will we seen soon enough.

[uponit7771]

30. Repeating what? Sanders 3 month swing state numbers suck against Trump? they do! At best

... they're luke warm which means he loses against the incumbent.

We can tell this now just like we can tell this about McGovern in 72 ... we can already "see" soon enough.

Why ignore the reality?

tia

[Kurt V.]

31. Today's electorate is nothing like 1972 so the comparison is not only moot

Its beyond ridiculous.

[uponit7771]

32. I agree, we're way more narrowed into swing states and that's where Sanders numbers are at

... best luke warm.

There's no getting around that reality, we can tell now that Sanders is going to get mud stomped because unlike Warren he has no upside one on one with Trump

[Kurt V.]

42. i take your word for that, as i haven't checked the polling there. regardless we have a terrified

Electorate that is going to vote accordingly when the rubber meets the road.

[uponit7771]

44. Like Hitler the rest of the country isn't going to be terrified until they see the bodies ....

... proverbially speaking.

We can't count on them to vote against X like politico on the left would, we can see the swing state numbers and Biden is whoopin but.

We're being warned now

[bluewater]

33. um, you're basing an awful lot on ONE poll here.

RCP Polls results for those battle ground states show several Democratic candidates all doing well head to head versus Trump.

And their results show MULTIPLE polls, not just one.

What exactly are you basing your claims on?

Could you provide some links so people can see the data for themselves?

[uponit7771]

36. This is false, the 3 month polling reflects the NBC polling on the other candidates vs Biden. That's

... reality.

Look up [swing state] Trump vs [dem candidate] for proof.

There's no getting around the data, Sanders is within MOE save one swing state and Biden best him there.

RIGHT NOW !!!

We can tell Sanders is going to mud stomped

[bluewater]

37. How about you give us the links to your data? You have more than this NBC/WSJ poll, right?

Please, just provide us the links to that so we can see it for ourselves.

You have more than just an NBC/WSJ poll, right?

[uponit7771]

39. I did, its in the OP ... Biden is the only candidate that polls outside of the MOE

[bluewater]

41. So you just have the ONE NbC/WSJ Poll?

Man, talk about putting all your eggs in one basket.

You are basing everything on that one poll.

Again, if you have links to other polls that back up your claims, please, share them

RCP Polls shows ALL the Dems doing well against Trump in the battle ground states.

[uponit7771]

43. No, RCP swing state polling has him doing worse in the big 4

[bluewater]

46. Now it's only 4 states? Before you were talking 11 states from that NBC/WSJ poll.

Again, it would be nice if you provided people links to support your claims.



But sure, name the "big 4" and we can look at the results and provide people with links.

[Progressive dog]

34. So, they think that Bernie is more likely to lose

just because some states have too few "progressives?" That awful establishment might win in the end. I hope we don't have to see the Democratic bloodbath if we have a nominee who doesn't like the party he's trying to represent.

[uponit7771]

38. Right, I was just informed Mondale's number's sucked too and party bosses didn't step in

... and look at the polling which would tell them he would've been mud stomped.

[Gothmog]

47. If sanders is the nominee, trump will win 45+ states and Kevin McCarthy will be Speaker

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

56. +1, the data shoes this right now ... And there's no upside appeal to Sanders

[RandySF]

50. "All of my friends voted for McGovern"

[dem4decades]

52. They painted McGovern as a virtual Communist and he was a WWII hero. Good luck to a self described

socialist

[uponit7771]

57. Just wow!!! This and his poll numbers vs Nixon sucked before the convention

[CanonRay]

55. Nixon's approval ratings were over 60% during the 1972 election

peaking at 68% before inauguration day. Trump's are in the low to mid 40s. Huge difference.

[uponit7771]

58. National polling means nothing any longer. Since there has not been a democratically elected...

.... Republican president in the last 20 years national numbers don't mean anything any longer the hyper focus is on the swing stage and getting them to move outside margin of error for any given candidate

right now the only one that spreads outside the margin of error is biting from most of the swing States

[Algernon Moncrieff]

59. 72 was complicated

The US was flying high; astronauts were landing on the moon, and the economy was roaring. But the war in 'Nam was stubbornly not ending, and the Son Tay raid failed to free the POWs.Ted Kennedy was going to be the guy in '72, but that got screwed up by Chappaquiddick. McGovern was a WWII Vet (he flew B-24s) but was also staunchly opposed to 'Nam. His Veep pick, Eagleton, turned out to be a disaster. Muskie, who might have had a better chance, had been a huge dirty trick victim.

I'd point this out - McGovern seemed like a more likely President than the young Georgia Governor that runs in '76.

[Gothmog]

61. James Clyburn thinks that sanders is like McGovern

Link to tweet