1972 Democratic primaries (percentages)

[Ebowed]

This may be old news but PBS has a page giving percentages from some (?) of the 1972 Democratic primaries.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/maps/map_1972results.html

Several states are missing, but it ends with a "totals" table as if the states shown were the only ones with primaries.

[dazzleman]

The interesting this about those figures is how well George Wallace did in certain states.

What a messed-up year for the Democrats.  Wallace won an absolute majority in the Michigan primary because voters there were so upset about a federal court ruling (later overturned by the Supreme Court in 1974) that would have required busing between Detroit and its suburbs.

I'm not sure the primary system was totally entrenched back then, and it's possible that many states didn't hold primaries in 1972.

[AuH2O]

Keep in mind Wallace was shot right after the MI primary. He had a chance at the nomination.

[Ebowed]

From the looks of the totals table Humphrey should have recieved the nomination, not McGovern.

[Erc]

But, of course, the delegate count may have come out differently with such a slim margin.  And there are caucuses, etc.

Here's a map with all the states [primaries and caucuses--no results though]



McGovern picked up a lot of momentum in the West.

Jan 24: Iowa [Muskie win, McGovern does well in first race where Iowa got the spotlight]
March 7: New Hampshire [Muskie still ahead]
March 14: Florida [Wallace win]
March 21: Illinois [Muskie win]
April 4: Wisconsin [McGovern wins tight race over Humphrey and Wallace]
April 25: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania [Humphrey wins latter]
May 2: DC (Democrats), Indiana, Ohio
May 4: Tennessee
May 6: North Carolina
May 9: Nebraska, West Virginia
May 16: Maryland, Michigan [Wallace takes both]
May 23: Oregon, Rhode Island
June 6: California, New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota [McGovern over Humphrey in California]

[PBrunsel]

Keep in mind Wallace was shot right after the MI primary. He had a chance at the nomination.

And he could have cracked Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Keep in mind Wallace was shot right after the MI primary. He had a chance at the nomination.

And he could have cracked Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

He'd have gotten creamed in the north.

[PBrunsel]

Keep in mind Wallace was shot right after the MI primary. He had a chance at the nomination.

And he could have cracked Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

He'd have gotten creamed in the north.

He had great appeal to blu collar workers (see his victory in Michigan) and he could have polled well in the Midwest. I do aggree he would have been trampled in the East and probabaly the Pacific.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He had great appeal to blu collar workers (see his victory in Michigan) and he could have polled well in the Midwest. I do aggree he would have been trampled in the East and probabaly the Pacific.

He'd have done terrible. He'd have lost DC.

[PBrunsel]

He had great appeal to blu collar workers (see his victory in Michigan) and he could have polled well in the Midwest. I do aggree he would have been trampled in the East and probabaly the Pacific.

He'd have done terrible. He'd have lost DC.

I agree that ethnic minorites would not vote for him, and D.C. probably would have voted for Nixon. Wallace would not have won, but he would have done much better than McGovern.

[A18]

Hilarious! Can you imagine DC being >80% Rep!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I agree that ethnic minorites would not vote for him, and D.C. probably would have voted for Nixon. Wallace would not have won, but he would have done much better than McGovern.

Any Democrat who loses DC does more harm than good to the Democratic party.

[PBrunsel]

I agree that ethnic minorites would not vote for him, and D.C. probably would have voted for Nixon. Wallace would not have won, but he would have done much better than McGovern.

Any Democrat who loses DC does more harm than good to the Democratic party.

I know the long term effects would have been disasterous, but on election Day 1972 Wallace would win more than 1 state.

Any Way the Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party probabaly would have ran an Independent Campaign for the Presidency.

[The Dowager Mod]

Shirley Chisolm did pretty well.

[PBrunsel]

Shirley Chisolm did pretty well.

McCarthy's Campaign was sunk by her.

[TomC]

From the looks of the totals table Humphrey should have recieved the nomination, not McGovern.

25.8% does not make a nominee.

[Rob]

Wallace vs. Nixon:



Nixon narrowly wins, 283-255. This election would be vital, because the parties would be reversed. The South would become ultra-Democratic again, and blue collar workers in the North would vote heavily Democratic as well. DC and Hawaii would become GOP strongholds, as minorities vote Republican.  Wallace would also have done well in the Mountain West. If Wallace had been the nominee, the Democrats would have become the majority party again.

This could easily become an alternate timeline.

[Ebowed]

From the looks of the totals table Humphrey should have recieved the nomination, not McGovern.

25.8% does not make a nominee.

Neither does 25.3%

[Ebowed]

Wallace vs. Nixon:



Nixon narrowly wins, 283-255. This election would be vital, because the parties would be reversed. The South would become ultra-Democratic again, and blue collar workers in the North would vote heavily Democratic as well. DC and Hawaii would become GOP strongholds, as minorities vote Republican.  Wallace would also have done well in the Mountain West. If Wallace had been the nominee, the Democrats would have become the majority party again.

This could easily become an alternate timeline.

I agree with the map, but I'd add Delaware to Wallace's wins.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This could easily become an alternate timeline.

I'll add it to my "to do" list

[Rob]

This could easily become an alternate timeline.

I'll add it to my "to do" list

Sounds cool .

[bgwah]

Washington...ignored as usual.

[TomC]

From the looks of the totals table Humphrey should have recieved the nomination, not McGovern.

25.8% does not make a nominee.

Neither does 25.3%

True, but I didn't begin a post "From the looks of the table...should have received..."

[True Democrat]

Wallace vs. Nixon:



Nixon narrowly wins, 283-255. This election would be vital, because the parties would be reversed. The South would become ultra-Democratic again, and blue collar workers in the North would vote heavily Democratic as well. DC and Hawaii would become GOP strongholds, as minorities vote Republican.  Wallace would also have done well in the Mountain West. If Wallace had been the nominee, the Democrats would have become the majority party again.

This could easily become an alternate timeline.

I agree with the map, but I'd add Delaware to Wallace's wins.

Nixon would still have won New York by ten or more points.  As for Massachusetts, it would have been fairly close, but I think Nixon by about 2 points.   Finally, Nixon would have increased his percentage in Rhode Island to maybe 8 points.

[AuH2O]

I think if Wallace was nominated, two things would have happened:

1) he would have moved towards the center

2) a liberal 3rd party candidate would have emerged to win DC and maybe a few Northeastern states.