Why didn't Hubert Humphrey win the 1972 Democrat Nomination

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Your thoughts.....

[Benjamin Frank]

George McGovern had less support than Hubert Humphrey but his support was very intense so McGovern was able to clean up in all the caucus states of which there were a lot in 1972. It all came down to strategy. If it was 'one person one vote' I don't think there is any question that Humphrey would have won.

Of course, there were other 'establishment' Democrats who also had a lot of support initially like Edmond Muskie which likely split the vote and also helped McGovern.

[Alben Barkley]

I’ve always found it extremely ironic that Humphrey lost in the “reformed” primary system that was supposedly changed to make things more fair after his own nomination in 1968, despite the fact that he won the popular vote and McGovern (who led the “reform” effort) was nominated against the will of the people by manipulating his own primary system.

[Podgy the Bear]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

[TDAS04]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.  

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor.  

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

I don’t think so. Mississippi barely went for Southerner Carter four years later.

Humphrey probably would have carried a handful of states elsewhere, though.

[Mr. Smith]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

The Pacific Coast, Montana, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island.

Yeah Humphrey could've made it close, especially if he gets the truth of Watergate out there. Didn't work for McGovern 'cuz he was seen as deranged, but Humphrey...maybe.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There are several reasons Humphrey did not win:

One is that he did not have support in the South.  The Southern delegations was part of the HHH coalition at the 1968 DNC, but he didn't pick John Connally (or some other Southerner) as his running mate.  In 1972 the rules were different.  More delegates were chosen in primaries.  The winner in Southern primaries and caucuses was (for the overwhelming part) George Wallace.  The non-Wallace choice of the Southerners was Scoop Jackson, who was the guy who never gave up; he opposed McGovern to the end.

One cannot overstate how overwhelming a favorite Ed Muskie was leading up to 1972.  It was believed that he couldn't lose, but he proved to be a terrible candidate.  He was the clear "Establishment" choice early on, however; he had the endorsements of more Democratic Governors than any other candidate.  Then he stumbled out of the box and McGovern utilized the rules to gain an advantage that couldn't be overcome.  (McGovern and Don Fraser WROTE those rules, for Heaven's sake!)  The new McGovern-Fraser rules precluded the kind of deal-making that was possible in 1968.  HHH was never in position to really challenge.  And he lost California AND his challenge to its "winner-take-all" rules.

[darklordoftech]

Who won the black vote in the 1972 Democratic primaries?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

A Humphrey-Wallace ticket?! How is that possible? Surely Humphrey would have never of agreed to such an idea?

[President Johnson]

Wasn't he seen as a Yesterday's man in 1972 that already lost an election before? So not the best circumstances when several more candidates are available.

[Podgy the Bear]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

A Humphrey-Wallace ticket?! How is that possible? Surely Humphrey would have never of agreed to such an idea?

There was a "Stop McGovern" going into the Democratic convention that year.  Humphrey met with several other candidates, including George Wallace, shortly before that.  Humphrey announced that if nominated, he would choose a running mate that would accept the party platform--and this included Wallace. 

A Humphrey-Wallace ticket would have been unlikely.  But the 1972 Wallace (especially after his recent shooting) was a very popular figure--definitely not anathema to the party establishment at that time.  He had a prime time spot to speak at the convention.   

And even more unlikely would be for Humphrey (or any other Democrat) to win that year.   But a Humphrey-Wallace ticket would have a chance to pick up some Southern and Midwestern states, something that McGovern didn't even come close to doing.

[darklordoftech]

Wasn't he seen as a Yesterday's man in 1972 that already lost an election before? So not the best circumstances when several more candidates are available.

After the Canuck Letter ended the Muskie campaign, Humphrey was seen as the only one who could stop McGovern.

[Sir Mohamed]

I would say because Humphey was never that loved by the party base at the time. He was a comprimise candidate in 1968 already that got nominated under the impression of a tumultuous convention and later went on to lose against Nixon, albeit narrowly. McGovern represented something new and was more liberal. Southern Dems already lost a lot of their influence since the last election or ouright backed Nixon.

[dead0man]

it's pretty crazy that 50 short years ago there were nationally recognized Democrats that weren't completely horrible.  Imagine!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

I'd like to see the source of the assertion that Wallace and Humphrey actually spoke about Wallace being on the ticket as VP. 

There was certainly talk of the Democrats making accommodations to Wallace.  Wallace met with DNC Chair Robert Strauss in 1973 and they came to an agreement that he would be treated like everyone else as a Democratic Governor.  One of the concessions Wallace got out of this was the placement of his man, Mickey Griffin, on the DNC's executive committee.  But VP?  I remember a number of contenders for 1976 being asked if they'd take Wallace as a VP.  They all said "no" to the interviewer.  I highly doubt that Wallace would have been chosen by HHH under any circumstances.  Wallace did, however, effectively rejoin the Democratic Primary, and, while in office, endorsed the Democrats' National Ticket after that.

[Podgy the Bear]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

I'd like to see the source of the assertion that Wallace and Humphrey actually spoke about Wallace being on the ticket as VP. 

This comes from Stephan Lesher's very well written Wallace biography (titled American Populist).  Lesher knew Wallace well and had several conservations with him and others in writing the book.  One was about the 1972 Democratic nomination--Wallace claimed that his and Humphrey's operatives discussed an alliance and a Humphrey-Wallace ticket.  And after it became obvious that it wouldn't work, Wallace and Humphrey had a discussion afterward.

Again, this would have been a highly unlikely collaboration, but it demonstrates the point that Wallace remained a significant force on the national scene, and his stock rose in early 1972 after the Merhige decision regarding school busing within city-county systems.  I was only 8 years old when he was shot, and even though I didn't know his politics, I was aware this was major news throughout the country.  The following Friday, Mass in our parochial Catholic school in Nashville was offered for Wallace.

Lesher's book about Wallace is very objective and is well worth reading.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Winning the California primary would have made a big difference in Humphrey's favor.   

And there was clear discussions about a Humphrey-Wallace ticket, which in that time made practical sense.  Both the Humphrey and Wallace campaigns confirmed the discussions.  Wallace was shown to be a clear vote getter in the Democratic primaries that year, and the fact that he had just been shot a few weeks before generated substantial sympathy in his favor. 

If the above events happened, Humphrey would have probably taken the nomination away from McGovern.  But highly unlikely that he would have beaten Nixon--probably getting MN and WI and maybe MI, AL, and MS.

I'd like to see the source of the assertion that Wallace and Humphrey actually spoke about Wallace being on the ticket as VP. 

This comes from Stephan Lesher's very well written Wallace biography (titled American Populist).  Lesher knew Wallace well and had several conservations with him and others in writing the book.  One was about the 1972 Democratic nomination--Wallace claimed that his and Humphrey's operatives discussed an alliance and a Humphrey-Wallace ticket.  And after it became obvious that it wouldn't work, Wallace and Humphrey had a discussion afterward.

Again, this would have been a highly unlikely collaboration, but it demonstrates the point that Wallace remained a significant force on the national scene, and his stock rose in early 1972 after the Merhige decision regarding school busing within city-county systems.  I was only 8 years old when he was shot, and even though I didn't know his politics, I was aware this was major news throughout the country.  The following Friday, Mass in our parochial Catholic school in Nashville was offered for Wallace.

Lesher's book about Wallace is very objective and is well worth reading.

I'm going to order it.  I read in another book (can't remember which) where McGovern sought to get Wallace's endorsement, but he did not endorse McGovern (although he did not endorse Nixon, either).  Wallace hated Nixon, and knew that Nixon was out to get him. but he didn't even agree to show the media how he voted on Election Day (although he probably voted for McGovern in the privacy of the voting booth).  As to an endorsement, he said to McGovern, "Well, George, I wish you all the best, but if I were to do that, my people wouldn't accept it, and if you took it, your people wouldn't accept it."  McGovern pretty much admitted that Wallace was right on that.

McGovern wanted to tap into the strain of populism that drove Wallace's 1972 campaign.  McGovern wanted to reach the Wallace supporters with an appeal to a common sense of "alienation".  This was somewhat naive of McGovern; the "alienation" many of Wallace's working-class supporters felt was alienation from their government as well as from big business, and for more than just the race issue.  McGovern was a person who advocated big-government solutions, perhaps the biggest big-government solutions presented to the American populace to date.  Had McGovern dialed back his big-government statism a bit he might have been onto something, but this appeal was an example of how McGovern grossly misjudged the electorate.  He likely would have lost no matter what, but he didn't have to lose 49 states.