I don't think that the greatest danger to the Democratic Party is the GOP

[MADem]

99. He lost 49 states "because of Eagleton?"

No, he didn't. That's not even close to accurate. He got past Eagleton with precision--he cut that guy loose in a HURRY and called in the substitute, Sergent Shriver, Maria's daddy, whose connection to the Kennedy family was well known and provided a certain amount of value added. This value added was desperately needed because McGovern was a crap candidate--he asked every main line Dem in town to be his VP before he hastily settled on Eagleton, and they all--Kennedy, Muskie, a host of others--REFUSED. They knew a leaky, sinking ship when they saw it.

If you want to "blame" a person for McGovern's defeat (besides McGovern, of course--his campaign was poorly run and he was a craptastic candidate, poor man) you could start with Robert Novak and his blind article about amnesty (from Vietnam draft dodging--still a big deal back then), abortion and acid. It was very "catchy" and served to make people fearful of that "counter-culture hippie guy" who was actually a middle aged veteran.

He lost because he was a poor candidate. And, as usual, the "youth vote" that made so much noise on his behalf didn't show up to vote.

He might have done better had he even mentioned his rather heroic performance in the Army Air Corps during WW2, but many voters were unaware that he had any military background at all--he refused to use it as a "Been There, Done That" justification for his views, and that was a strategic error on his part.


Even at that, though, he didn't have a prayer--he was just not a good pick. And, in reference to more recent brouhahas with regard to super delegates, McGovern is the BIG reason we have a super delegate system, which (to add more 'strange bedfellows' to the mix) was designed, in part, by Sanders staffer Tad Devine.

A glance at the electoral map will remind people just how horrible that result was. That was not just a defeat, it was a brutal ROUT. It was humiliating.