O'Donnell on McLaughlin group running his mouth again..

The McLaughlin Group | 11-07-2004 | The McLaughlin Group

[GOPcapitalist]

In none of your posts from the time you brought up the issue in #138, through #155 did you make a single citation or reference. I see that you responded in #157 to my request in #156. Thank you.

First, you did not ask for one until 156. Second, you are quite welcome.

Then so specify.

If you desire specification then I ask that you do the same for your own references, which you did not. The term "border state" refers specifically to three southern states during the civil war (sometimes 4 if you include delaware, though it never really made a serious push to secession) plus the portion of another southern state that was split away from it midway through the war (west virginia). They are nevertheless southern states, just as the "cotton states" - a geographic term for the lower south - are also southern states.

[capitan_refugio]

I specifically quoted from two Time Articles, dated April 17 and May 29, which encompasses Wallace's 1972 peak.

Let me again point out a paragraph from the May 29 article:

"Wallace's political future is unpredictable. Last week was certainly the crest of his ill-planned but impressive drive through the primaries. All through the spring, in fact, Wallace has had the air of a man astonished by his own successes; with his ramshackle organization, one basic, evangelical speech and paper buckets to take up the collection, his victories have left him wondering whether he should not have attempted more. There were no primary states left in which he had arranged extensive campaigns even before the shooting -- although last week from his hospital room he ordered his men to go ahead with more rallies and TV ads in Rhode Island, Oregon and New Mexico. In California [note: a winner-take-all, primary of over 250 delegates], local groups have organized a write-in campaign. Where public appearances are called for, Wallace's men are setting up a kind of speaker's bureau of stand-ins. Among the volunteers: former California Superintendent of Public Instruction Max Rafferty, now a dean at Alabama's Troy State University, and Georgia's Lieut. Governor Lester Maddox."

Wallace was running a sectional campaign, much like had in the 1968 Presidential election on the AIP ticket. He had no money, no national organization, and nowhere to go.

The bottom line is that Nixon was glad to see Wallace running in the Democratic primaries. Wallace and won several southern states (46 EVs) in the 1968 election and nearly cost Nixon the election in the Electoral College.

Nixon, had already done well in the south in 1960, picking up the states of FL, KY, OK, TN, and VA (while Harry Byrd took AL and MS). Nixon added MO, NC, and SC in 1968, at the expense of the Democrats; while Wallace carried Byrd's AL and MS, plus ARK, GA, and LA. The Republican "South and West" strategy was already in place well before Wallace was a factor.

[GOPcapitalist]

There were no primary states left in which he had arranged extensive campaigns even before the shooting

An interesting, although potentially unreliable assessment from a biased source. Needless to say, Wallace's 1972 campaign was noted for its unusually rapid ability to rack up support on very short notice. That's what made his blow outs in Maryland and Michigan all the more shocking. In hindsight there are always plenty of pundits around to blame it on bussing or whatever the issue of the day may have been, but give the man credit - what he pulled out in Michigan (and also what he drew in Wisconsin, finishing second) was nothing short of stunning.

Wallace was running a sectional campaign, much like had in the 1968 Presidential election on the AIP ticket. He had no money, no national organization, and nowhere to go.

Doesn't sound like he had much today, does it? But remember - this was 32 years ago. Money was nowhere nearly as prominent back then as it is today where you can't win an open congressional race without raising a million dollars. Presidential contests were not decided 6 months before the national convention. Messages also resonated a lot more back then because, quite simply, a few candidates came along from time to time who could and would talk straight about where they stood rather than running off to the nearest focus group or poll. Wallace, regardless of what anyone thinks of his positions, happened to be one of those types of politicians. And due to all that he caught everybody in the democrat establishment, the political punditry, and the news media off guard. Nobody expected him to get anything even remotely near what he did yet it happened. It happened and the media was at a loss for words. After all, how could a regional candidate without big money and with a message that bucked the increasingly liberal disposition of the Democrat party become the frontrunner in the delegate battle? It wasn't supposed to happen but on May 16, 1972 it did.

The bottom line is that Nixon was glad to see Wallace running in the Democratic primaries.

I'm sure he was, I'm thankful that Nixon clobbered that kook McGovern, and I think John Mitchell had it exactly right when he identified McGovern for what he was. That said, it is interesting to ponder what would have happened had Wallace not been shot. Momentum does strange things in presidential primaries and on May 16th Wallace had it.