Humphrey won the popular vote in 1972. McGovern was the Democratic nominee.

[NJSecularist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_1972

Total primaries popular vote:



* Hubert Humphrey - 4,121,372 (25.77%)
* George McGovern - 4,053,451 (25.34%)
* George Wallace - 3,755,424 (23.48%)
* Edmund Muskie - 1,840,217 (11.51%)
* Eugene McCarthy - 553,990 (3.46%)
* Henry M. Jackson - 505,198 (3.16%)
* Shirley Chisholm - 430,703 (2.69%)
* Terry Sanford - 331,415 (2.07%)
* John Lindsay - 196,406 (1.23%)
* Samuel Yorty - 79,446 (0.50%)
* Wilbur Mills - 37,401 (0.23%)
* Walter E. Fauntroy - 21,217 (0.13%)
* Unpledged - 19,533 (0.12%)
* Ted Kennedy - 16,693 (0.10%)
* Vance Hartke - 11,798 (0.07%)
* Patsy Mink - 8,286 (0.05%)
* None - 6,269 (0.04%)

Hillary wining the nomination would not be unprecedented. A similar thing happened in 1972. Humphrey won the popular vote yet McGovern won the nomination. However, Hillary still has a chance to surpass Obama in the popular vote, so this point would be moot.

See here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/chooseyourown.html.

With great performances in Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico and keeping her margins down in North Carolina, she can conceivably win the popular vote, especially if the Florida delegates are seated (as they should).

I'm sure I'll hear the common excuse from the Obamites: "the party will be split for a generation if Obama doesn't win the nomination". That would be hyperbole. In 1972, Humphrey won the popular vote, McGovern won the nomination, and Nixon whooped McGovern in the general. However, 4 years later Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election against Gerald Ford. In Obama-math, perhaps 4 years equals a generation, but not in the real world. It s worth nothing that this year the Democrats are in an infinitely better political climate than there was in 1972, due to an unpopular incumbent combined with a superior fundraising advantage over the Republicans, something which McGovern did not have over Nixon. The Democrats may actually win the election this year, unlike in 1972, especially if we nominate a superior general election candidate in Hillary Clinton.

After Hillary's decisive win over Obama in Pennsylvania, her case keeps getting better to win the nomination. She is winning the more important states and the swing states we need in the general election. Giving Hillary the nomination would certainly not be unprecedented, and the doomsday scenario simply does not apply here, no matter what the Obamites tell us.

[Milo_Bloom]

1. Clinton has already lost.

She cannot win the popular vote, number of states OR pledged delegates.

[NJSecularist]

Yes she can win the popular vote, especially if the Florida delegates are seated.

[Faygo Kid]

20. Yeah, and especially if Wisconsin, Maryland, Virginia are left out. They don't count.

They're not "really" America, after all.

And don't forget to count Michigan for Hillary. Hell, count the undecideds there for her, too. Because they really meant Hillary, right? Just too shy to say so.

She's a thirsty lady. She wants 'em all.

[NJSecularist]

27. Hillary will win Maryland. Neither candidate will win Virginia.

[wileedog]

45. Whoa whoa whoa

Hillary Clinton lost Maryland to Obama by 23 fucking points.

Are you - Mr Electability - Seriously going to tell me that Obama can't win PA because he lost it by 9 but she will carry Maryland after losing it in a total destruction?

Or will you finally admit that Primary's have nothing to do with the GE?

[NJSecularist]

46. Kerry won Maryland by 10+ points.

It's a safe Democratic state.

[wileedog]

49. PA has been democratic the past 20 years

So what?

[NJSecularist]

52. PA has went blue by the slightest of margins the last 8 years.

While Maryland has been comfortably blue the last 8 years.

[wileedog]

55. Again, so what?

Obama was a mere 9 points behind Clinton.

She was a massive 23 behind him in Maryland.

Kerry won by 10 in MA, by 2 in PA.

Do the math, there is no difference here.

You know why?

PRIMARIES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GE.

And yet you still try to project this bullshit into his inability to be elected.

There is a total difference between running against another Democrat vs. running against a senile old man who is proposing the same policies that have destroyed the nation for the past 7 years.

[karynnj]

63. The same could be said of NY, CA, and MA - which the HRC people ignore

[Milo_Bloom]

65. There aren't enough votes left...

Even if you include Florida.

She lost the states, the delegate count AND the popular vote.

It's over.

[anonymous171]

2. Her case was never good in the first place.

I see, they scared you with the Dukakis-McGovern bullshit and you swallowed it. They say that everytime an actual democrat is close to getting the nomination. Not this time.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Ok, whatever you say, NJS - Mr. Flip-Flopper.

You were for Obama a few weeks ago, and now you're a Clinton supporter? That's like a snake asking a mongoose to support him!

Hawkeye-X

[cali]

4. not going to happen, hillydroid. but hey,

keep hope alive!

:rofl:

she's toast, hillot.

[lojasmo]

5. Who had the most pledged delegates?

This isn't a contest for the popular vote, dufus.

[lojasmo]

11. McGovern won the most states, and had the most pledged delegates.

You suck at analogies.

[cali]

15. bwahahaha. grab a clue, fgenius

:rofl:

[lojasmo]

23. What, now?

[Jed Dilligan]

31. You should back off with the smear names.

They don't help our side.

[ruggerson]

56. So you liked NJS a few days ago

but now you call him/her childish names, simply because of supporting a different candidate than you?

What's wrong with this picture?

[depakid]

6. There weren't so many caucuses in 1972

In 2008, it's hard for anyone to say they won the popular vote.

Here's something I forgot about: George Wallace - 3,755,424 (23.48%)

:puke:

[iamjoy]

7. Yeah, And How'd That Work for Us?

That worked so well for us then, didn't it?

If you think we got our asses handed to us in 1972, that's nothing like what will happen if Obama has more votes and Clinton becomes our nominee. I have to wonder if a lot of African American voters wouldn't feel cheated and be just ticked off enough to stay home on November 4

[NJSecularist]

12. Hillary is more electable than Obama. We will lose the election if Obama is our nominee.

As I said, we are in a much more favorable political climate this year than in 1972. But even then, with Obama's No Florida and No Ohio strategy, we will have a hard time winning the election with him at the top of our ticket.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. I don't know what kind of craziness causes anyone to make asinine statements like that.

"Hillary is more electable than Obama." BASED ON WHAT?

First off, she went into this thing with half the country hating her. Now, she's pissed off most of OUR party as well. She'd be a fucking DISASTER as the nominee.

[NJSecularist]

24. She's a better general election candidate.

She'll win Ohio, Arkansas, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. She may also win Florida. That is better than any combination of states Obama can put together.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. You can spin things however you want- the polls consistently say, he's the stronger candidate.

You have absolutely no basis to say that Hillary will perform better in ANY of those places than Obama in the General, except maybe Arkansas. Primary Performance doesn't mean diddly shit towards GE performance.

All we can take away from the Primary numbers towards the general is that a lot more people seem interested in voting for OUR party than the other guys.

[NJSecularist]

34. National polls flunctuate.

Hillary is a much better candidate in individual states such as Ohio, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. She may even win Florida.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. You can repeat that as much as you like, it won't make it factual.

Those "fluctuating" polls have consistently shown Obama to be the stronger candidate.

[BootinUp]

32. You have a problem dealing with others, you know living people

with their own outlook on life and their own opinions.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Because I challenge people when they float axiomatic baloney like "Hillary is more electable"?

It's bullshit, and it has nothing to back it up.

I don't have any problem with "living people", but when they clomp around saying shit like

"The Earth is Flat- and 6,000 years old",

or "80's Hair Metal is the pinnacle of human musical achievement"...

or "Hillary is more electable"

...as if those were little, unchallengeable nuggets of pure gospel truth, my opinion and outlook is that maybe they should consult a mental health professional.

[BootinUp]

44. lol nt

[earthlover]

43. Hillary is not more electable. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Hillary to win the GE

Why?

1) The only way she can now get the nomination is for the super delegates to decide to ignore the victor of the primaries. Her nomination would split the party. The masses of new voters, especially young voters and independents, would smell a rat and be pissed off no end! The AA vote would go back into hybernation....if not worse.

2) Hillary has 50%+ negative ratings....you can't win with those numbers

3) Hillary is not trusted as being truthful.

4) Hillary has lots of baggage. Some hillary cultists actually think that having baggage is good!

5) Hillary would have to reinvent her campaign. Experience does not work against McCain. The racist vote that Hillary has gone orgasmic over will likely vote Republican. The voters so dumb as to be influenced by the Repuke-like fear-mongering that Hillary has resorted to will likely vote for a Republican...why vote for Hillary who acts like a SOB Republican, when you can get the real thing?

So what is left of her message? Will she go back to ....I know!....I am in it to win? Talk about the stupidest, least imaginative campaign announcement in the history of democracy on our planet.

6) She can't attack McCain's foreign policy. She can't attack McCain on Iraq. She can't attack McCain on Iran (hell, she is more Repuke than even bomb-bomb-bomb McCain who didn't get a heart-throb and adrenaline rush about talking about obliterating Iranian women and children (so much for Hillary's talk about It Takes A Village....).

Bottom line is Hillary has made election in november impossible! How on earth can she win with all of the above factors working against her...and more?

Someone has to sit down with a good cup of coffee and talk some sense into Hillary.

[depakid]

13. Which is why we have the superdelegates

to be sure we don't get blown out again with a weak candidate who's put together a similar coalition to McGovern's.

[friedgreentomatoes]

25. if they are ticked off...

and stay home, would you consider it racism?

[iamjoy]

60. Righteous Anger

and entirely justifiable.

If the African Americans feel cheated by an election process in which the candidate they favor who had more votes is denied his spot...

Now this is not to say all African Americans prefer Obama, or that all African Americans would stay home. But it doesn't have to be all.

[yellerpup]

8. Ahem.

McGovern (although he is brilliant and a very cool guy) got his ass handed to him in that election.

[Straight Shooter]

38. He was also the darling of the anti-war faction and the far left liberals.

I remember my father and oldest brother debating the merits of the candidates in that election. My brother was solidly pro McGovern, my father wanted Humphrey as the nominee.

I'm reading more and more comparisons of Obama to McGovern in other media outlets. There seems to be a concerted effort going on to paint Obama as extremely liberal, which he is anything but that. I think the comparison is an attempt to define him as a preordained loser.

[TheDoorbellRang]

9. Looks like there was a three way race that year

Not much difference in totals between the top three runners. I bet the party was really in sad shape that year with a three way race -- not good for the party. Now if Hillary would just go away now so we don't do a repeat of '72, maybe we can win this thing in the fall.

[GarbagemanLB]

10. THE POPULAR VOTE IS A BULLSHIT METRIC in a system with caucuses. How hard is that to understand?

[earthlover]

51. Hillary Herd members would like you to forget that INconvenient Truth....

It's almost a DUH-Statement! Of course, the caucuses do not have as many votes as if the states had a primary! The sun also comes up in the East. And it sets in the West. The South lost the Civil War. Summer is hotter than Winter. Alaska is to the North of Florida. And caucuses do not get as many votes as primaries, so a candidate who wins, say 60% of a state with caucuses does not get the same votes in numbers as someone who loses a primary!!!!

If you are too dumb to understand this, you are probably already a Hillary Herd member.

[Nitrogenica]

14. Her right wing-esque smears have lost my support.

I'll hold my nose and give the disgusting woman my vote, only based on ideology.

[Faygo Kid]

16. Wow, that's really weird. I don't remember voting Humphrey in 1972. For good reason.

I cast my first presidential vote for McGovern. Probably still my best.

Are you going for a DUzy with this post? This one is weird. 1972, Humphrey wins the overall popular vote, and somehow that translates to Hillary should get the nomination?

Are you nuts, or just really sore from overreaching?

[NJSecularist]

18. My point is that the nomination has been given to somebody who has lost the popular vote before. n/t

[GarbagemanLB]

21. I'm sure the Democratic leadership and the SDs are just *dying* to go through that again!

[NJSecularist]

29. It's better than giving to the nomination to somebody who has more pledged delegates

who is putting together a coalition similar to McGovern. Odd. The similarities are stunning.

[Faygo Kid]

35. Yeah, McGovern was a class act.

The similarities are indeed stunning. The result not the same.

You're everywhere tonight, aren't you?

[NJSecularist]

36. He was a class act who lost 49 states.

Do we want another class act who loses 49 states?

[Faygo Kid]

39. Apparently you don't want another "class act," so support Hillary.

In which case, you are eminently right on. Thanks for calling Barack a "class act," though. Wish I could return the favor for your candidate.

Can't.

[earthlover]

53. Hillary is losing the popular vote, total states, pledged delegates....

has any convention in history given the nomination who did not get the most votes, did not win in the most states and also did not get the most pledged delegates?

Has anyone lost every measure and been rewarded the nomination?

That is what Hillary is asking us to do.

It doesn't take Einstein to figure out Hillary is a bad bet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Well, Clinton is a lot like Humpty-Dumpty who also supported a rotten war.

And, the right wing of the Democratic Party has been using McGovern's defeat to pander to the right ever since.

[gsaguyCLW54]

22. Why are you such a racist? How dare you suggest he shouldnt get the nomination

[anonymous171]

26. Pledged Delegates.

[cliffordu]

28. YEP - absolutely correct. That really turned out well, too.....

specious specious specious specious specious


FAIL

[roseBudd]

30. Too bad multiple party insiders said taking it from the black man to give to the priveliged white

women would be political suicide with the most loyal Democratic voting demographic.

It would also be morally repugnant. That you are oblivious just shows that bias clouds your judgement.

Losing like McGovern in '08 means goodbye Roe V. Wade.

[madrchsod]

40. well ....that was uninteresting

[Buzz Clik]

41. Won't she have to be ahead in some aspect to even have an argument?

Currently, she's:

• behind in elected delegates
  
• behind in total delegates
  
• behind in states won
  
• behind in popular vote

Winning after coming in second in every aspect of the nomination process (and delegates are the only ones that actually count)would be unprecedented.

If you don't like the delegate system, change it for Hillary's bid in 2012. Good luck with that.

[chknltl]

47. Hillary's decisive win in PA?

She spent everthing in her war chest to ALMOST get her to what everyone was saying was her firewall double digit lead in a state that had her up 30 points a few weeks back. No spin vs your spin.

"...her case keeps getting better to win the nomination." What % of the delegates did she need before PA and what % after PA? No spin vs your spin.

edited to add some basic math:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5639954

[NJSecularist]

54. Hillary won by 10 points despite being outspent 3:1 by the MSM annointed frontrunner.

It was a decisive win for Hillary.

[scheming daemons]

57. He wasn't "MSM annointed" you moran... he's the frontrunner because he HAS MORE DELEGATES

[Obamanaut]

59. I thought it was that Hillary won by ONLY 10 points, after having

a 20 pt lead just a short time before. Well, actually, less than 10 points but why pick nits (aka nitpick).

[chknltl]

61. NOPITY, You ARE spouting spin

She missed the double digit mark, she won by 9.2 points. Do you need a link from the official PA Gov returns page to confirm this? Do you recall when bush stole the last election against Kerry, how he somehow BARELY eked out that win and how the next day cheney came out claiming a mandate from We The People? Do you recall your disgust at that blatant lie? Mandate my ass! So understand my disgust at your words, it was NOT a decisive victory it was instead far far less than one. It was far far less than what she needed this late in the race. That 9.2% is not even close to what she needed. It will be even harder now, not easier for her to catch Obama before Denver.

You brag about her being outspent by Obama, The reality is he OUT EARNED her by that three to one margin, she was forced to spend everything in her war-chest and then some in order to ALMOST get that double digit win that the MSM said she needed! She was ahead by thirty points in PA just a few weeks ago so why couldn't she seal the deal against Senator Obama? Sounds to me like she is NOT the strong candidate you would have us believe she is! So if he is out-earning her by a three to one margin WHY are you not telling it like it is? You spout SPIN!

Are you comfortable with spouting the EXACT SAME SPIN that Tucker Carlson, Chris Mathews, Pat Buchanan, and Joe Scarborough are spouting regarding your candidate? Why are YOU not getting it???
The repukes want Senator McCain to run against Senator Clinton. They KNOW that they can't beat Senator Obama!

OK, so maybe I can't change your mind on who to support but I beg you to stop spouting right-wing spin. Can you do that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. Want to look at that?

"I'm sure I'll hear the common excuse from the Obamites: "the party will be split for a generation if Obama doesn't win the nomination". That would be hyperbole. In 1972, Humphrey won the popular vote, McGovern won the nomination, and Nixon whooped McGovern in the general. However, 4 years later Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election against Gerald Ford."

As a result of that election the delegate rules were changed to create the supers, to prevent any further running away with the nomination by populists. Then, a few years later, the DLC was created, with the same objective - to created a power structure in the party that would isolate the leadership from the ranks - CREATIING A SPLIT IN THE PARTY FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.

With luck, this will be the last gasp of the DLC.

[terrell9584]

50. She can honestly overcome the popular deficit without FL

If she can win by at least 5 in Indiana and hold NC into the single digits, because just looking at past presidential primaries from KY and WV, given the margin that she will have, I mean, just looking at polls, Obama shouldn't even try and campaign in those states, she could net 400-500k votes if a lot of people show up. It sounds wierd on it's face, but these states usually don't matter, and they can still together combine for 350k margins for Gore and Kerry when by that point, they weren't running against anyone.

[dorktv]

58. Yes but McCain is (thank you Jesus and God and Budda and Xenu and...)

no Nixon.

[onenote]

62. and the abuse of history continues unabated

Yes, the numbers shown (taken from wikipedia and unverified) indicate that HHH got .43 percent (less than one half of one-percent) more popular votes than McGovern. But as is always the case in these selective uses of history, there's more to the story.

McGovern won 22 state wide primaries/caucuses. HHH won five. Sort of makes the comparison between 1972 and 2008 ridiculous eh. And here's a further distinction. In 1972, the party had a winner take all system, not the proportional system in place today. So McGovern, for example, captured all of California's delegates by winning the state by 5 percent. If the same system that is used by the party today had been in place, it is far from certain tha McGovern would've captured the nomination. HHH certainly would've had far more delegates and a much stronger claim on the nomination than he did under those rules.

So, yes, there is precedent for a candidate to get the nomination when they have a miniscule number of popular votes less than another candidate, but that precedent also assumes that the number two in popular votes (a) won four times as many primaries as the number one in popular votes and (b) got winner take all credit for them.

I'm going to go enjoy an apple. Y'all have a nice orange.

[Beregond2]

64. I don't know

why anyone responds to these things. Anyone still clinging to the fantasy of Hillary getting the nom is beyond reach. All the facts and arguements in the world won't reach them.

[Life Long Dem]

66. if the Florida delegates are seated. If this if that.

And all Obama has to do is sit back and take the nomination.