1972: Jimmy Carter vs. Richard Nixon

[E-Dawg]

If Jimmy Carter was the Democratic nominnee in 1972 how would the map have looked? Would Carter be able to win any Southern states? I would imagine he could have won Geoegia at least, and likely Arkansas. The rest of the South would have depended on how badly he would have lost, which I have no idea about. But since he was a much better candidate than McGovern, im sure he could have carried Democratic strongholds McGovern failed to such as Rhode Island and Minnesota. Nixon would still easily win overall imo.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I find myself unable to make a map for such a race because there are so many contingencies.

The only way Carter would have been the Democratic nominee in 1972 is if he beat George Wallace head to head in the South.  This was not accomplished by Terry Sanford, a Southern Governor, but Sanford did have a more liberal reputation than Carter did.

So let's say that Carter actually did this.  What then?  Carter would then have run as the Stop McGovern candidate.  The first question would be how he would do this in Northern primaries and California?  The second question would be why states, delegates, and elected officials in other non-Southern states would flock to Carter when they had HHH, Scoop Jackson, Ed Muskie, and others positioned to run (assuming that they wanted to stop McGovern).

Let's then say Carter makes it through this hurdle.  He's got the leading number of delegates of any of McGovern's opposition.  Then what?

Carter, a newcomer from a Right-to-Work state, will have to gain support from AFL-CIO delegates, big city delegations, and Northern liberals who will view him as a compromise choice that affords them the possibility of half a Democrat in the White House as opposed to Four More Years of Nixon.  So he does this.  The Jackson/HHH/Muskie/Wallace forces all see Carter as the strongest candidate versus Nixon.  Do they all jump right in?

That depends on a lot of things.  One thing it depends on is George Wallace supporters.  For Wallace to endorse Carter is to give up being President.  Would Wallace do it?  And if he did, what would he extract for that?  What would be the reaction of other liberals in the Anybody-But-McGovern coalition?  Indeed, could Wallace get his forces to go along.  Much of the South's Wallace delegations were not the Democratic Party establishment of those states (save Alabama).  Their partisanship was singular; it was for George Wallace, and George Wallace, alone. 

The other thing it would depend on was the reaction of the anti-Vietnam War movement.  By 1972, most of the Democratic Party had come to a dovish position on Vietnam, but most of the Southern delegations were still somewhat hawkish.  And that hawkishness had much to do with the military bases that were the foundation of many local Southern economies.  But the McGovern left did not want this; they supported defense cuts, and would have viewed a hawkish platform as a sellout.  The possibility of a liberal bolting of the Democratic Party would have been real.

Richard Nixon would have defeated Jimmy Carter in 1972.  He would have beaten him significantly.  The issue would have been as to whether or not Carter would have lost in a way where he added strength to the Democratic Party from 1968.  That would have required him to (A) win at least SOME Southern states, (B) hold the biggest Democratic strongholds in line, and (C) not alienate anyone with the watered down compromise positions that such a nomination would require.

Carter would have had SOME advantages:

1.  He would have likely won the endorsements of most elected officials in the South.  Local Southern politicians would be announcing that they supported carter and would campaign for him.

2.  He may well have gotten an endorsement from George Wallace, even if it was little more than Wallace stating that he would vote for Carter.

3.  The AFL-CIO would have endorsed him.  It was McGovern's anti-defense platform that threatened union jobs in defense industries that George Meany resisted.

4.  The Democratic Party was the majority party of the time.

5.  There would likely have been no "Democrats for Nixon" on the scale John Connally rounded up on behalf of Nixon.  In such a campaign as this, Nixon would not have been able to "tilt everything to the right", which was his stated strategy once the Democrats nominated the leftish McGovern.

In the end, I think Carter would have lost most of the South.  I do believe, however, that Carter would have done far better in the South than any other Democrat, and would have been competitive in a number of Southern states that he lost.

[E-Dawg]

I find myself unable to make a map for such a race because there are so many contingencies.

The only way Carter would have been the Democratic nominee in 1972 is if he beat George Wallace head to head in the South.  This was not accomplished by Terry Sanford, a Southern Governor, but Sanford did have a more liberal reputation than Carter did.

So let's say that Carter actually did this.  What then?  Carter would then have run as the Stop McGovern candidate.  The first question would be how he would do this in Northern primaries and California?  The second question would be why states, delegates, and elected officials in other non-Southern states would flock to Carter when they had HHH, Scoop Jackson, Ed Muskie, and others positioned to run (assuming that they wanted to stop McGovern).

Let's then say Carter makes it through this hurdle.  He's got the leading number of delegates of any of McGovern's opposition.  Then what?

Carter, a newcomer from a Right-to-Work state, will have to gain support from AFL-CIO delegates, big city delegations, and Northern liberals who will view him as a compromise choice that affords them the possibility of half a Democrat in the White House as opposed to Four More Years of Nixon.  So he does this.  The Jackson/HHH/Muskie/Wallace forces all see Carter as the strongest candidate versus Nixon.  Do they all jump right in?

That depends on a lot of things.  One thing it depends on is George Wallace supporters.  For Wallace to endorse Carter is to give up being President.  Would Wallace do it?  And if he did, what would he extract for that?  What would be the reaction of other liberals in the Anybody-But-McGovern coalition?  Indeed, could Wallace get his forces to go along.  Much of the South's Wallace delegations were not the Democratic Party establishment of those states (save Alabama).  Their partisanship was singular; it was for George Wallace, and George Wallace, alone. 

The other thing it would depend on was the reaction of the anti-Vietnam War movement.  By 1972, most of the Democratic Party had come to a dovish position on Vietnam, but most of the Southern delegations were still somewhat hawkish.  And that hawkishness had much to do with the military bases that were the foundation of many local Southern economies.  But the McGovern left did not want this; they supported defense cuts, and would have viewed a hawkish platform as a sellout.  The possibility of a liberal bolting of the Democratic Party would have been real.

Richard Nixon would have defeated Jimmy Carter in 1972.  He would have beaten him significantly.  The issue would have been as to whether or not Carter would have lost in a way where he added strength to the Democratic Party from 1968.  That would have required him to (A) win at least SOME Southern states, (B) hold the biggest Democratic strongholds in line, and (C) not alienate anyone with the watered down compromise positions that such a nomination would require.

Carter would have had SOME advantages:

1.  He would have likely won the endorsements of most elected officials in the South.  Local Southern politicians would be announcing that they supported carter and would campaign for him.

2.  He may well have gotten an endorsement from George Wallace, even if it was little more than Wallace stating that he would vote for Carter.

3.  The AFL-CIO would have endorsed him.  It was McGovern's anti-defense platform that threatened union jobs in defense industries that George Meany resisted.

4.  The Democratic Party was the majority party of the time.

5.  There would likely have been no "Democrats for Nixon" on the scale John Connally rounded up on behalf of Nixon.  In such a campaign as this, Nixon would not have been able to "tilt everything to the right", which was his stated strategy once the Democrats nominated the leftish McGovern.

In the end, I think Carter would have lost most of the South.  I do believe, however, that Carter would have done far better in the South than any other Democrat, and would have been competitive in a number of Southern states that he lost.

Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful analysis, but I confused about the map. Why is Carter winning the upper midwest, Washington, and New York but at the same time losing almost all of the south? The South was still strongly Democratic at the time, and Carter was a politician from the region who could actually appeal to their interests, as shown through his strength there in 1976 and 1980. He didn't have the problems down there that Johnson or Humphrey had. What here causes almost all the southern states hold for Nixon solidly against a Southern Democrat who was well suited for the region? Shouldn't the South be Carter's strongest region as it was in 76 and 80?

[morgankingsley]

Carter wins GA, AR, LA, TN, AL, MS, SC, MN, WI, MA, RI, HI, NY, WV, and DC

[Fuzzy Bear]

I find myself unable to make a map for such a race because there are so many contingencies.

The only way Carter would have been the Democratic nominee in 1972 is if he beat George Wallace head to head in the South.  This was not accomplished by Terry Sanford, a Southern Governor, but Sanford did have a more liberal reputation than Carter did.

So let's say that Carter actually did this.  What then?  Carter would then have run as the Stop McGovern candidate.  The first question would be how he would do this in Northern primaries and California?  The second question would be why states, delegates, and elected officials in other non-Southern states would flock to Carter when they had HHH, Scoop Jackson, Ed Muskie, and others positioned to run (assuming that they wanted to stop McGovern).

Let's then say Carter makes it through this hurdle.  He's got the leading number of delegates of any of McGovern's opposition.  Then what?

Carter, a newcomer from a Right-to-Work state, will have to gain support from AFL-CIO delegates, big city delegations, and Northern liberals who will view him as a compromise choice that affords them the possibility of half a Democrat in the White House as opposed to Four More Years of Nixon.  So he does this.  The Jackson/HHH/Muskie/Wallace forces all see Carter as the strongest candidate versus Nixon.  Do they all jump right in?

That depends on a lot of things.  One thing it depends on is George Wallace supporters.  For Wallace to endorse Carter is to give up being President.  Would Wallace do it?  And if he did, what would he extract for that?  What would be the reaction of other liberals in the Anybody-But-McGovern coalition?  Indeed, could Wallace get his forces to go along.  Much of the South's Wallace delegations were not the Democratic Party establishment of those states (save Alabama).  Their partisanship was singular; it was for George Wallace, and George Wallace, alone. 

The other thing it would depend on was the reaction of the anti-Vietnam War movement.  By 1972, most of the Democratic Party had come to a dovish position on Vietnam, but most of the Southern delegations were still somewhat hawkish.  And that hawkishness had much to do with the military bases that were the foundation of many local Southern economies.  But the McGovern left did not want this; they supported defense cuts, and would have viewed a hawkish platform as a sellout.  The possibility of a liberal bolting of the Democratic Party would have been real.

Richard Nixon would have defeated Jimmy Carter in 1972.  He would have beaten him significantly.  The issue would have been as to whether or not Carter would have lost in a way where he added strength to the Democratic Party from 1968.  That would have required him to (A) win at least SOME Southern states, (B) hold the biggest Democratic strongholds in line, and (C) not alienate anyone with the watered down compromise positions that such a nomination would require.

Carter would have had SOME advantages:

1.  He would have likely won the endorsements of most elected officials in the South.  Local Southern politicians would be announcing that they supported carter and would campaign for him.

2.  He may well have gotten an endorsement from George Wallace, even if it was little more than Wallace stating that he would vote for Carter.

3.  The AFL-CIO would have endorsed him.  It was McGovern's anti-defense platform that threatened union jobs in defense industries that George Meany resisted.

4.  The Democratic Party was the majority party of the time.

5.  There would likely have been no "Democrats for Nixon" on the scale John Connally rounded up on behalf of Nixon.  In such a campaign as this, Nixon would not have been able to "tilt everything to the right", which was his stated strategy once the Democrats nominated the leftish McGovern.

In the end, I think Carter would have lost most of the South.  I do believe, however, that Carter would have done far better in the South than any other Democrat, and would have been competitive in a number of Southern states that he lost.

Most of the states I picked for Carter to carry were McGovern's BEST states.  Most of them were states were states where (A) Nixon won with less than 60% of the vote in 1972 and (B) there were significant amounts of union members.  Carter was also seen as anti-busing and that would have helped him win not only in MI, but in MD.  (Busing Court Actions drove the political agenda in MI, MD, NC, and some other states, very much to McGovern's detriment.) 

WV would have gone for Carter; it was a unionized border state whose major unions supported Democrats.

I don't believe that the South would have gone for Carter.  I do think Carter would have been competitive in the South.  Consider these two (2) party splits;

AL:   74-26
AR:   69-31
FL:   72-28
GA:  75-25
LA:   69-31
MS:  79-21
NC:  71-29
SC:  72-28
TN:  69:31
TX:  67-33
VA:  72-28

Carter would have done BETTER in the South.  He would have gotten SOME of the 1968 Wallace vote.  (Indeed, McGovern did better than Humphrey in SOME Southern states, so he did get a few Wallace votes.)  He would have been competitive in all of these Southern states and would have been well into the mid-40s in all of them.  But he would only have carried GA and AR, IMO (and I'm not that certain of AR).  Nixon was an incumbent President whose policies had been popular in the South, and who was seen as ending a long war in an honorable fashion.  The 1972 Carter would not have had the liberal disadvantages McGovern had, but he would have been seen as a lightweight, and his nomination would have pleased no one. 

Indeed, Carter's Presidency pleased no one, and it is instructive as to what can be expected when an American political party nominates a Presidential candidate who is truly in the middle, while the bulk of the party is on one side of the spectrum or the other.  No matter what Carter did as President, he could never please liberals.  I don't see how Carter could have managed to scrounge up real enthusiasm for his candidacy in 1972, based on how Democrats came to view him after he did win the Presidency.

[bagelman]

[Fuzzy Bear]

South Carolina MIGHT have gone for Carter in 1972, but I don't think so.  South Carolina was/is a highly militarized state, and Strom Thurmond was the man who MADE Nixon; it was Thurmond's support that put Nixon over the top at the RNC in 1968, and it was Thurmond's support that enabled Nixon to overtake Wallace in South Carolina in the GE in 1968.

Alabama would have gone for Carter if George Wallace was fully on board with the Democrats.  I do not believe that he would have been.  Wallace still wanted to be President, and to actively boost Carter would have undermined his base in the South. 

Louisiana may have gone for Carter if Carter could have won the support of the Cajun Catholic vote, which MIGHT have happened.  (It was the Cajun vote that made Louisiana, and not Arkansas, Michael Dukakis's BEST state, and it was the Cajun vote that gave Bill Clinton a 51% majority in 1996.)

Tennessee was the top Republican success story in 1972.  Tennessee elected five (5) GOP Congressmen, a GOP Governor, and had a majority in one House of the Legislature. 

In figuring this race out, one has to consider who each candidate would have chosen as a running mate. 

If I had been advising Carter at that time, I would have encouraged him to choose another Southerner.  Unfortunately, there were few viable choices in 1972.  Wallace, of course, would not have been accepted.  Out of 22 Southern Senate seats, five (5) seats were Republican, two (2) seats were from Georgia, the same state as Carter's home state, four (4) were simply too conservative (Eastland of MS, Stennis of MS, Allen of AL, and Byrd of VA, who was an Independent that caucused with Democrats), and five (5) were just too old (Sparkman, age 73, of AL, Jordan, age 76, of NC, Ervin, age 76, of NC, Ellender, age 80, who died in mid-campaign, of LA, McClellan, age 76, of AR.

This would have left six (6) possible Senate picks. 

1.  Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), the most anti-war of the group.
2.  Sen. William P. Spong (D-VA), who was moderate, and up for re-election.
3.  Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), who was chairman of the DSCC that year.
4.  Sen. Lawton Chiles (D-FL), a first-termer whose image as a moderate was being defined.
5.  Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX), a first term Senator with a moderate image.

The sixth possibility, Sen. Russell Long (D-LA).  Long was the powerful Chair of the Senate Finance Committee.  He was also someone whose recent problems with alcohol had caused him to lose his position as Senate Majority Whip. 

It is possible that Carter could have chosen a Southern Governor.  That was not likely, as most of them had no more experience in high office than he did.  The leading candidate amongst the Governors, Reuben Askew, didn't like Carter personally.  Gov. John West of SC hadn't been in office any longer than Carter, and Gov. Robert Scott of NC was leaving office without popularity.  Gov. Preston Smith of TX was leaving office under major scandal. 

It is far more likely that Carter would have chosen a liberal.  Which liberal would have helped him, though?  In the summer of 1972, New York had only ONE (1) statewide Democratic officeholder (Comptroller Arthur Levitt).  Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky had two GOP Senators each.  Now he could have picked Mondale back then, but Minnesota was already a fairly Democratic state.  This would have left a couple of obvious candidates, all, however, with limited experience.

1.  Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA, 4 years experience)
2.  Sen. John Tunney (D-CA, 2 years experience)
3.  Sen. Adlai E. Stevenson, III (D-IL, 2 years experience)

My gut says that Carter would have picked Tunney.  If he had gone with a Southerner, he'd have likely picked Spong.

What about Nixon?  Nixon wanted to dump Agnew as his running mate and replace him with Texan John Connally.  A Carter candidacy would have been a reason to make that switch.  Carter's 1972 nomination would have been a threat to Nixon's efforts to move the base of the GOP to the South.  Texas was the LARGEST Southern state, and while it had already gone Republican several times during the 20th century, Carter could potentially have carried Texas against Nixon.

A Carter-Tunney ticket would have been a campaign that would have attempted to make California a battleground.  Nixon was a Californian who had a base in California politics that never went away.  A Carter-Tunney ticket would have pushed the Democrats forward in California.  Carter MIGHT have won California with Tunney as his running mate, but it's not likely that he would have, IMO.