By Doug Gibson
Last summer, I finally got around to reading "The Making of the President 1972," a classic on-the-scene insider account of a presidential race by Theodore H. White, who won a Pulitzer Prize. It details Richard's Nixon's successful re-election against George McGovern.
My intent in reading it was to probe for any similarities between Joe Biden, who last summder was the Democratic Party presidential front-runner, and the late Senator Ed Muskie of Maine, who was the presumed Democratic presidential front-runner before his candidacy cratered in mid-early 1972. Also I wondered if Bernie Sanders, Vermont's socialist U.S. senator, bore any resemblance to the leftist candidate, the late Senator George McGovern, of South Dakota, who was Nixon's hapless Democratic nominee, easily defeated 48 years ago.
Let's say that Biden finishes fourth or fifth in New Hampshire's primary tonight. If that occurs he will be pretty well done. Biden has also ran two miserable previous presidential campaigns. He was a top-tier candidate initially in 1988, but dropped out soon after being caught plagiarizing. In 2008 he ran a weak campaign but after it ended he was fortunate enough to be picked as Senator Barack Obama's running mate. He served as VP for eight years.
Muskie didn't announce his bid in 1972 until January, although everyone knew he was running. He actually won New Hampshire's primary, although he was damaged politically by appearing to cry while criticizing a New Hampshire publisher for alleged media attacks against his wife. He also won four more primaries but eventually withdrew in April after his campaign momentum had stilled.
McGovern's leftist politics for that time, particularly his consistent stand against the Vietnam War, fit well with a Democratic Party moving to the left, fueled by younger Americans, who eagerly supported the Wisconsin senator. Muskie's establishment credentials made him less appealing.
Sanders has been around for a while. He's not the new breath of fresh air that McGovern was in 1972. But he is also fueled by young voters, as well as older white liberals, who have turned progressive in the past generation, seeking socialist solutions to issues such as health care and student funding for universities and colleges. The leftist tilt of the Democratic Party works for Sanders, who embraces it loudly and without apologies.
McGovern outlasted his opposition through attrition, over months. If, as expected, Sanders wins New Hampshire, establishment Democrats will try to wear him down over the months before the nomination, with a series of potential foes. It's looking as if Biden may not be one of the last survivors of the "Anyone-but-Sanders" brigade. How ironic it will be to the proudly progressive Democrats of 2020 if a plutocrat, Michael Bloomberg, is the candidate who triumphs over Sanders. Personally, I think Sanders will relish that fight.
Nixon won in a landslide against McGovern. The South Dakota senator's campaign peaked with his nomination. After that, the McGovern campaign suffered from organization chaos, a lot of sloppiness and a reluctance to have a designated leader running the campaign. A vice presidential pick from McGovern was botched, forcing a replacement. The press also toughened its coverage of McGovern as November drew nearer. In voters' opinions, President Nixon appeared a safer, more stable choice. Interestingly, despite his landslide win, Nixon did not have coattails. In fact, an under-30-year-old pol named Joe Biden surprised by winning a U.S. Senate in Vermont over Republican incumbent Caleb Boggs.
Some Republicans today, looking at the wobbly Democratic field in 2020, fantasize that Trump can win a landslide this year. That's unlikely. Polls still jump around, although I suspect a lot of voters are not telling pollsters they will vote for Trump. Support for the constantly-hated-by-the-elite (and their minions) current president can be a private sentiment.
If however, the president faced a Sanders whose support cratered among the middle class and working class voters he needs, it's not impossible for the president to win re-election with 350 electoral votes or more. James Carville, an establishment Democrat who guided Bill Clinton to the presidency, in essence, warned his party recently that it cannot win if it prefers pushing politically correct, far-left policies such as socialized medicine, not having a border, and nominating candidates as far to the left as Sanders.
However, even if Trump were to win with a huge electoral vote majority, it's still more probable that he would lose the popular vote to a Democrat. There would be no Nixon-like popular vote landslide. The reason is simple. Democrats control a five million to six million plurality of voters in two states -- California and New York. Republicans cede that huge tally in the popular vote immediately. This is a key reason Democrats are pushing for a change from the electoral college determining the president to the popular vote.
"The Making of the President 1972" is a fun read, manna for political junkies, especially those who love history as well. Although it's fun to draw comparisons between insurgent candidates such as McGovern and Sanders and establishment candiates like Muskie and Biden, there's still a several-generation gap between the two eras. It just can't honestly be used as a predictor for 2020. Cultural trends, media changes, and technological advances have made today's average voter a far different individual than the 1972 voter. Campaigning, also has changed with the times.
Nevertheless, if Trump wins, even easily, this November, perhaps disappointed Democrats will grab copies of Theodore H. White's classic book, and start saying, "Nixon might have won big over a progressive candidate. But facing impeachment, he resigned less than two years later."
No doubt if the party retains the House of Representatives, Democrats will energetically seek to turn Trump's second term into Nixon's second term.
