1968 or 1972 DNC which was worse?

[ReaganLimbaugh]

Old timers, what do you think??? 1968 was nuclear but 1972 was a real disaster.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

^ Couldn't ask for a more effective illustration of how badly America f**ed up in '72.

Also, stop with the numbers in parentheses stuff. It doesn't improve anyone's opinions on your contributions.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The 1972 DNC had very few redeeming features, but it did have this one: my all-time favorite country singer, Tom T. Hall, who was active in Democratic politics, performed at the convention.  Late one night in the bar at his hotel, Tom started talking with a janitor.  That conversation stuck in his mind, and on his flight back to Nashville he scribbled down the lyrics for a new song on the back of an airsickness bag.  That song was "Old Dogs, Children and Watermelon Wine", which became a #1 country hit.  It's a wonderful song that I've always loved:

[Fuzzy Bear]

^ Couldn't ask for a more effective illustration of how badly America f**ed up in '72.

Also, stop with the numbers in parentheses stuff. It doesn't improve anyone's opinions on your contributions.

From the standpoint of Democratic liberals, 1972 was far from a terrible year for Democrats.

The 92nd Congress split 55 D and 45 R in the Senate.  One D was VA Independent Harry Byrd, who was a solid conservative, but caucused with Democrats.  One R was NY's James L. Buckley, who was supported by the Nixon Administration and caucused with Republicans, but was a member of NY's Conservative Party and elected on that line.  The 93rd Congress had the same independents, but was 58 D and 42 R in the caucuses.

Here are some of the shifts in the Senate:

^^Sen. Gordon Allott (R-CO) was defeated by liberal Democrat Floyd Haskell  (liberal pickup)

^^Sen. James Caleb Boggs (R-DE) was defeated by liberal Democrat Joe Biden (liberal pickup)

^^Sen. Jack Miller (R-IA) was defeated by liberal Democrat Richard C. Clark (liberal pickup)

^^Democrat Walter Huddleston defeated conservative Gov. Louie Nunn (R-KY) in an open seat (moderate Democrat pickup from a retiring anti-war Republican, John Sherman Cooper, co-sponsor of the Cooper-Church Amendment)

^^Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) was defeated by liberal Democrat William D. Hathaway (liberal pickup)

^^Republican Pete Domeneci (R-NM) defeated Democrat Jack Daniels for an open seat in NM (conservative pickup)

^^Republican Jesse Helms (R-NC) defeated moderate liberal Nick Galafanaikis (D) for an open Senate seat in NC (conservative pickup)

^^Republican Dewey Bartlett (R-OK) defeated Rep. Ed Edmondson (D-OK) for the Senate seat being vacated by Fred Harris (conservative pickup)

^^Rep. James Abouresk (D-SD) defeated Robert W. Hirsch (R) for an open Senate seat in SD (liberal pickup)

^^Democratic Sen. William Spong (D-VA) was defeated by Rep. William Scott (R) (conservative pickup)

That's six (6) new Democratic Senators, versus four (4) new GOP Senators, and those changes made the Senate more liberal. 

The House went from 252-178 to 241-192.  Some of that was due to population shifts to the Sun Belt, primarily CA, FL, and TX.  Most of the Southern Democrats that lost were conservative Democrats, and there were several LIBERAL Democrats from the South elected to the House, specifically Rep. Andrew Young (D-GA), Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX), Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-TX), and Rep. Gillies Long (D-LA).  The only seat in the South where a National Democrat lost to a Republican was in TN, where Rep. William Anderson (D) lost to Robin Beard (R). 

Democrats also did well in Governor's races.  They lost the State House in NC to moderate Republican James Housholser, but they won the Governorship in IL with Democrat Dan Walker. 

One reason for these surprisingly good results is that the Democratic Party concentrated on Congress.  They were assisted in the fact that Nixon ran his campaign as "Democrats for Nixon" in many states and did not go all in to boost GOP candidates that he thought were losers.  Nison supported conservative Southern Democrats through backchannels in many, many cases, and he did not seek to bring lots of conservative Southern Democrats into the GOP fold. 

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

^ Couldn't ask for a more effective illustration of how badly America f**ed up in '72.

Also, stop with the numbers in parentheses stuff. It doesn't improve anyone's opinions on your contributions.

From the standpoint of Democratic liberals, 1972 was far from a terrible year for Democrats.

The 92nd Congress split 55 D and 45 R in the Senate.  One D was VA Independent Harry Byrd, who was a solid conservative, but caucused with Democrats.  One R was NY's James L. Buckley, who was supported by the Nixon Administration and caucused with Republicans, but was a member of NY's Conservative Party and elected on that line.  The 93rd Congress had the same independents, but was 58 D and 42 R in the caucuses.

Here are some of the shifts in the Senate:

^^Sen. Gordon Allott (R-CO) was defeated by liberal Democrat Floyd Haskell  (liberal pickup)

^^Sen. James Caleb Boggs (R-DE) was defeated by liberal Democrat Joe Biden (liberal pickup)

^^Sen. Jack Miller (R-IA) was defeated by liberal Democrat Richard C. Clark (liberal pickup)

^^Democrat Walter Huddleston defeated conservative Gov. Louie Nunn (R-KY) in an open seat (moderate Democrat pickup from a retiring anti-war Republican, John Sherman Cooper, co-sponsor of the Cooper-Church Amendment)

^^Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) was defeated by liberal Democrat William D. Hathaway (liberal pickup)

^^Republican Pete Domeneci (R-NM) defeated Democrat Jack Daniels for an open seat in NM (conservative pickup)

^^Republican Jesse Helms (R-NC) defeated moderate liberal Nick Galafanaikis (D) for an open Senate seat in NC (conservative pickup)

^^Republican Dewey Bartlett (R-OK) defeated Rep. Ed Edmondson (D-OK) for the Senate seat being vacated by Fred Harris (conservative pickup)

^^Rep. James Abouresk (D-SD) defeated Robert W. Hirsch (R) for an open Senate seat in SD (liberal pickup)

^^Democratic Sen. William Spong (D-VA) was defeated by Rep. William Scott (R) (conservative pickup)

That's six (6) new Democratic Senators, versus four (4) new GOP Senators, and those changes made the Senate more liberal. 

The House went from 252-178 to 241-192.  Some of that was due to population shifts to the Sun Belt, primarily CA, FL, and TX.  Most of the Southern Democrats that lost were conservative Democrats, and there were several LIBERAL Democrats from the South elected to the House, specifically Rep. Andrew Young (D-GA), Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX), Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-TX), and Rep. Gillies Long (D-LA).  The only seat in the South where a National Democrat lost to a Republican was in TN, where Rep. William Anderson (D) lost to Robin Beard (R). 

Democrats also did well in Governor's races.  They lost the State House in NC to moderate Republican James Housholser, but they won the Governorship in IL with Democrat Dan Walker. 

One reason for these surprisingly good results is that the Democratic Party concentrated on Congress.  They were assisted in the fact that Nixon ran his campaign as "Democrats for Nixon" in many states and did not go all in to boost GOP candidates that he thought were losers.  Nison supported conservative Southern Democrats through backchannels in many, many cases, and he did not seek to bring lots of conservative Southern Democrats into the GOP fold. 

Question, as a moderate Democrat, would you say I would have viewed things this way?

[Pres Mike]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

[Fuzzy Bear]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

Let's look at the actual platform:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1972-democratic-party-platform

It seems kind of mild by today's standard, but it had let to three (3) features that McGovern got hit over the head with.

One was McGovern's proposal for a Guaranteed Annual Income.  Now this isn't radical today; the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially provides this.  But it was radical back then, and a concept that was foreign to most Americans.

War and Defense were other issues.  The people were tired of war, but the wording of the platform, and McGovern's own words made it appear that McGovern's plan would be Peace At Any Price.  While many who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War were tired of waiting, the was WAS coming to an end, and McGovern's plan appeared to be a surrender, and while McGovern said he would not abandon POWs, the argument that he would got a lot of traction.  The sister argument to this was McGovern's defense cuts.  This was a feature in many "Democrats for Nixon" ads; the discussion of McGovern's proposed cuts and it's impact on national security.  (What wasn't said was the union jobs that would be lost with McGovern's defense cuts; that's the big reason why Meany and Abel and other key labor leaders did not endorse McGovern. 

When you read the 1972 platform, you have to keep telling yourself:  This is 1972.  This is 1972.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

Let's look at the actual platform:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1972-democratic-party-platform

It seems kind of mild by today's standard, but it had let to three (3) features that McGovern got hit over the head with.

One was McGovern's proposal for a Guaranteed Annual Income.  Now this isn't radical today; the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially provides this.  But it was radical back then, and a concept that was foreign to most Americans.

War and Defense were other issues.  The people were tired of war, but the wording of the platform, and McGovern's own words made it appear that McGovern's plan would be Peace At Any Price.  While many who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War were tired of waiting, the was WAS coming to an end, and McGovern's plan appeared to be a surrender, and while McGovern said he would not abandon POWs, the argument that he would got a lot of traction.  The sister argument to this was McGovern's defense cuts.  This was a feature in many "Democrats for Nixon" ads; the discussion of McGovern's proposed cuts and it's impact on national security.  (What wasn't said was the union jobs that would be lost with McGovern's defense cuts; that's the big reason why Meany and Abel and other key labor leaders did not endorse McGovern. 

When you read the 1972 platform, you have to keep telling yourself:  This is 1972.  This is 1972.

Most of Nixon's ads in New York in 1972 were as "Democrats for Nixon".  This ad was pretty devastating; it spoke to lots of folks that were Democrats and union workers, but who also fought in WWII and Korea.

[Pres Mike]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

Let's look at the actual platform:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1972-democratic-party-platform

It seems kind of mild by today's standard, but it had let to three (3) features that McGovern got hit over the head with.

One was McGovern's proposal for a Guaranteed Annual Income.  Now this isn't radical today; the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially provides this.  But it was radical back then, and a concept that was foreign to most Americans.

War and Defense were other issues.  The people were tired of war, but the wording of the platform, and McGovern's own words made it appear that McGovern's plan would be Peace At Any Price.  While many who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War were tired of waiting, the was WAS coming to an end, and McGovern's plan appeared to be a surrender, and while McGovern said he would not abandon POWs, the argument that he would got a lot of traction.  The sister argument to this was McGovern's defense cuts.  This was a feature in many "Democrats for Nixon" ads; the discussion of McGovern's proposed cuts and it's impact on national security.  (What wasn't said was the union jobs that would be lost with McGovern's defense cuts; that's the big reason why Meany and Abel and other key labor leaders did not endorse McGovern. 

When you read the 1972 platform, you have to keep telling yourself:  This is 1972.  This is 1972.

Most of Nixon's ads in New York in 1972 were as "Democrats for Nixon".  This ad was pretty devastating; it spoke to lots of folks that were Democrats and union workers, but who also fought in WWII and Korea.

"Negotiatefor peace, from strength" is a very powerful message. Americans want peace, but the strength to protect ourselves if needed. Its why Reagan was so successful.

Didn't McGovern promise to pardon all draft dodgers? I know Carter eventually did but I can imagine that would have been very unpopular while the war was still ongoing.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats didn't do worse in the House or the governorships in 1972 than 1968. A lot of McGovern's problems were Eagleton. First his cowardly anonymous "abortion, amnesty, and acid" line. Then it coming out that he had shock therapy after being chosen as the VP nominee, and then finally needing to be replaced.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

Let's look at the actual platform:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1972-democratic-party-platform

It seems kind of mild by today's standard, but it had let to three (3) features that McGovern got hit over the head with.

One was McGovern's proposal for a Guaranteed Annual Income.  Now this isn't radical today; the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially provides this.  But it was radical back then, and a concept that was foreign to most Americans.

War and Defense were other issues.  The people were tired of war, but the wording of the platform, and McGovern's own words made it appear that McGovern's plan would be Peace At Any Price.  While many who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War were tired of waiting, the was WAS coming to an end, and McGovern's plan appeared to be a surrender, and while McGovern said he would not abandon POWs, the argument that he would got a lot of traction.  The sister argument to this was McGovern's defense cuts.  This was a feature in many "Democrats for Nixon" ads; the discussion of McGovern's proposed cuts and it's impact on national security.  (What wasn't said was the union jobs that would be lost with McGovern's defense cuts; that's the big reason why Meany and Abel and other key labor leaders did not endorse McGovern. 

When you read the 1972 platform, you have to keep telling yourself:  This is 1972.  This is 1972.

Most of Nixon's ads in New York in 1972 were as "Democrats for Nixon".  This ad was pretty devastating; it spoke to lots of folks that were Democrats and union workers, but who also fought in WWII and Korea.

"Negotiatefor peace, from strength" is a very powerful message. Americans want peace, but the strength to protect ourselves if needed. Its why Reagan was so successful.

Didn't McGovern promise to pardon all draft dodgers? I know Carter eventually did but I can imagine that would have been very unpopular while the war was still ongoing.

Yes, that too.

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

[DaleCooper]

Nobody who didn't go to Vietnam himself should be calling any draft dodger a coward.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

Wow! I didn't know that you had such a low opinion of Donald Trump.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It doesn't matter Nixon was a Southerner but a practical R before Watergate. These Rs now wants to give giant tax cuts to oil Corporation in an age of income inequality. Back then people lived in the projects now we have sober livings that people are paying into for low income.

I heard Daines if the Rs won the Trifecta is promising bigger tax cuts to oil Corporation next yr. I never liked Daines he is an arm of the Rs Maga party

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Nobody who didn't go to Vietnam himself should be calling any draft dodger a coward.

Yes. The cowards are draft dodgers who started wars and jacked up the 'defense' budget themselves when they got into office. AKA GWB, Trump and Reagan (sorry - acting in DOD public service announcements doesn't count.)

If someone declines to participate in an immoral war and fights to keep others from doing so and potentially dying as well, they are heroes.

[Badger]

1972 was a disaster when it happened due to the cosmetics of the convention.  Minorities, young kids, and Wokesters of the day displacing the Democratic polls, displaced delegations (due to the new McGovern-Fraser Commission rules), all looked terrible to Mr. and Mrs. America in 1972.  The demonstrators saying "Stop Bombing the Dikes!" were upsetting to ordinary citizens.  I remember my Republican neighbor talking to my Republican stepdad in 1972 saying, "This is WAR!  If bombing the dikes will hurt the enemy, then bomb the dikes!".  There was an excellent chance that viewers of that scene was a middle-aged man who was a combat veteran during WWII or in Korea who had, indeed, heard a shot fired in anger.

The best way to describe it was Wokeness before its time.  Young hippie types, black men in dashikis, college student types were present not just in the hall, but on podiums.  Democrats, including many who would, for the first time, vote Republican in November (for Nixon) watched George Meany and I. W. Abel (President of the Steelworkers Union) refuse to endorse McGovern.  They got to see the elected Chicago delegation, led by Mayor Richard J. Daley, unseated in favor of a delegation led by Jesse Jackson and Alderman William Singer.  (Local Chicago TV saw Chicago Democratic Alderman Vito Marzullo calling McGovern a "no good son-of-a-bitch" and vowing to campaign for Nixon's re-election".  One station got a shot of George Meany commenting on the situation:  "They've got six (6) open (gays) out there and only three (3) labor people.  Representative, huh?"

Oddly enough, one of the more rational moments was the speech made by George Wallace before the convention.  Wallace made no bones about his disagreements with the platform; he specifically called for "more defense" and "less welfare", which went directly to McGovern's two (2) main policy positions (defense cuts and a guaranteed national income), but he was not inflammatory.  Wallace made it clear that he was a Democrat, and he wanted to help the Democratic Party becomes the party of the average working person as it once was.  Wallace did not endorse McGovern, but, at his direction, the Alabama delegation, while its leader emphasized their disagreements with the platform, pointed out that if Wallace had been the nominee, he would have wanted the convention to ratify his choice for VP, and, in that spirit, the entire Alabama delegation voted for Eagleton for the VP slot.  There was not hostility toward Wallace (although the NY and NJ delegations did not stand and applaud as he was carried to the podium), but his speech was respectfully listened to, if only because people were glad Wallace wasn't making it tougher for his own purposes.  They were more helpful than the lunatic delegates who voted for Mao Zedong. (Yes, they really did!)

1968 was chaotic, but America saw the Democrats stand up the to the whack jobs and not cave.  1972 was a bit of the kids taking over the school and running it.  Little of what people saw in the 1972 convention would be off-putting today, but at the time, it caused the Democratic Party to look like it sold out to Hippie and Feminist Kooks.  And there was no structure to the convention.  I watched and listened to George McGovern entreating people to "Come Home, America!" at 2 AM, the time slot running over because the convention managers could not manage the time well.  To be sure, not all of McGovern's problems stemmed from the convention.  When your first choice for VP is later revealed as a mental case that concealed a history of psychiatric hospitalization, that never looks good.  But the 1972 Democratic National Convention made the Democrats look like something other than a serious party.  I watched almost all of it at age 15, and all I could think of at any number of points was how some of the stuff going on there would make the adults I knew that voted cringe.

This is why I love this website. I learn so much from random posts. I am a history teacher who taught classes on the 1960s. 1968 always interested me. Yet you taught me so much about the 1972 DNC!

What exactly was in the 1972 platform that was so radical?

Let's look at the actual platform:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1972-democratic-party-platform

It seems kind of mild by today's standard, but it had let to three (3) features that McGovern got hit over the head with.

One was McGovern's proposal for a Guaranteed Annual Income.  Now this isn't radical today; the Earned Income Tax Credit essentially provides this.  But it was radical back then, and a concept that was foreign to most Americans.

War and Defense were other issues.  The people were tired of war, but the wording of the platform, and McGovern's own words made it appear that McGovern's plan would be Peace At Any Price.  While many who voted for Nixon in 1968 because he had a "Secret Plan" to end the Vietnam War were tired of waiting, the was WAS coming to an end, and McGovern's plan appeared to be a surrender, and while McGovern said he would not abandon POWs, the argument that he would got a lot of traction.  The sister argument to this was McGovern's defense cuts.  This was a feature in many "Democrats for Nixon" ads; the discussion of McGovern's proposed cuts and it's impact on national security.  (What wasn't said was the union jobs that would be lost with McGovern's defense cuts; that's the big reason why Meany and Abel and other key labor leaders did not endorse McGovern. 

When you read the 1972 platform, you have to keep telling yourself:  This is 1972.  This is 1972.

Most of Nixon's ads in New York in 1972 were as "Democrats for Nixon".  This ad was pretty devastating; it spoke to lots of folks that were Democrats and union workers, but who also fought in WWII and Korea.

"Negotiatefor peace, from strength" is a very powerful message. Americans want peace, but the strength to protect ourselves if needed. Its why Reagan was so successful.

Didn't McGovern promise to pardon all draft dodgers? I know Carter eventually did but I can imagine that would have been very unpopular while the war was still ongoing.

Yes, that too.

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

Did you enlist? Did these two men you met have a big c for coward and Blaze another forehead? Did you ever read about biblical injunctions against war, or did your trumpet preacher tell you it's okay as long as it's worse against non-white people?

How presumptuous and obnoxious. This is an OK Boomer and STFU post even by your standards

[DaleCooper]

Nobody who didn't go to Vietnam himself should be calling any draft dodger a coward.

Yes. The cowards are draft dodgers who started wars and jacked up the 'defense' budget themselves when they got into office. AKA GWB, Trump and Reagan (sorry - acting in DOD public service announcements doesn't count.)

If someone declines to participate in an immoral war and fights to keep others from doing so and potentially dying as well, they are heroes.

Two of the Vietnam vets I know (one conservative Trump-voter, one Democrat) have told me that if they could do it all over again they'd just go to Canada. I've never encountered a Vietnam veteran who has any kind of pride over getting drafted and sent to Vietnam.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

Wow! I didn't know that you had such a low opinion of Donald Trump.

Trump was not a Draft Evader; he was rated 4F.  That was a fact of Vietnam, and of our military now; people are classified 4F with medical issues that would be overlooked if the conflict were, say, WWII.

People played all sorts of games to avoid the draft.  Bill Clinton was the slickest of all; he reneged on a commitment to enlist, but did it in a way where he was considering (as a young adult) how his actions would have affected a later career.

People stayed in college and got degrees they would not ordinarily have.  Most of the college faculty today were educated by such people, who received academic deferments from service in Vietnam through college.

[Fuzzy Bear]

^ Couldn't ask for a more effective illustration of how badly America f**ed up in '72.

Also, stop with the numbers in parentheses stuff. It doesn't improve anyone's opinions on your contributions.

From the standpoint of Democratic liberals, 1972 was far from a terrible year for Democrats.

The 92nd Congress split 55 D and 45 R in the Senate.  One D was VA Independent Harry Byrd, who was a solid conservative, but caucused with Democrats.  One R was NY's James L. Buckley, who was supported by the Nixon Administration and caucused with Republicans, but was a member of NY's Conservative Party and elected on that line.  The 93rd Congress had the same independents, but was 58 D and 42 R in the caucuses.

Here are some of the shifts in the Senate:

^^Sen. Gordon Allott (R-CO) was defeated by liberal Democrat Floyd Haskell  (liberal pickup)

^^Sen. James Caleb Boggs (R-DE) was defeated by liberal Democrat Joe Biden (liberal pickup)

^^Sen. Jack Miller (R-IA) was defeated by liberal Democrat Richard C. Clark (liberal pickup)

^^Democrat Walter Huddleston defeated conservative Gov. Louie Nunn (R-KY) in an open seat (moderate Democrat pickup from a retiring anti-war Republican, John Sherman Cooper, co-sponsor of the Cooper-Church Amendment)

^^Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) was defeated by liberal Democrat William D. Hathaway (liberal pickup)

^^Republican Pete Domeneci (R-NM) defeated Democrat Jack Daniels for an open seat in NM (conservative pickup)

^^Republican Jesse Helms (R-NC) defeated moderate liberal Nick Galafanaikis (D) for an open Senate seat in NC (conservative pickup)

^^Republican Dewey Bartlett (R-OK) defeated Rep. Ed Edmondson (D-OK) for the Senate seat being vacated by Fred Harris (conservative pickup)

^^Rep. James Abouresk (D-SD) defeated Robert W. Hirsch (R) for an open Senate seat in SD (liberal pickup)

^^Democratic Sen. William Spong (D-VA) was defeated by Rep. William Scott (R) (conservative pickup)

That's six (6) new Democratic Senators, versus four (4) new GOP Senators, and those changes made the Senate more liberal. 

The House went from 252-178 to 241-192.  Some of that was due to population shifts to the Sun Belt, primarily CA, FL, and TX.  Most of the Southern Democrats that lost were conservative Democrats, and there were several LIBERAL Democrats from the South elected to the House, specifically Rep. Andrew Young (D-GA), Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX), Rep. Charlie Wilson (D-TX), and Rep. Gillies Long (D-LA).  The only seat in the South where a National Democrat lost to a Republican was in TN, where Rep. William Anderson (D) lost to Robin Beard (R). 

Democrats also did well in Governor's races.  They lost the State House in NC to moderate Republican James Housholser, but they won the Governorship in IL with Democrat Dan Walker. 

One reason for these surprisingly good results is that the Democratic Party concentrated on Congress.  They were assisted in the fact that Nixon ran his campaign as "Democrats for Nixon" in many states and did not go all in to boost GOP candidates that he thought were losers.  Nison supported conservative Southern Democrats through backchannels in many, many cases, and he did not seek to bring lots of conservative Southern Democrats into the GOP fold. 

Question, as a moderate Democrat, would you say I would have viewed things this way?

Probably, yes.  You would have probably voted for McGovern in the and, only because Nixon was such a partisan figure.  Or you might have just left the Presidential ticket blank and voted straight Democratic otherwise. 

[Landslide Lyndon]

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

Wow! I didn't know that you had such a low opinion of Donald Trump.

Trump was not a Draft Evader; he was rated 4F.  That was a fact of Vietnam, and of our military now; people are classified 4F with medical issues that would be overlooked if the conflict were, say, WWII.

Be careful or you might need to move these goalposts to Mars.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Most of the Draft Evaders were cowards.  I have more respect for Joan Baez's husband and Muhammed Ali who faced jail than I do for cowards who fled to Canada or Sweden.  I met two (2) such individuals in real life after Carter pardoned them, and they were cowards, sad to say; the military has always had exemptions and non-combat roles for REAL conscientious objectors.  These were my impressions when I was a liberal Democrat; I didn't take them on last week.

Wow! I didn't know that you had such a low opinion of Donald Trump.

Trump was not a Draft Evader; he was rated 4F.  That was a fact of Vietnam, and of our military now; people are classified 4F with medical issues that would be overlooked if the conflict were, say, WWII.

Be careful or you might need to move these goalposts to Mars.

You weren't alive back then.  I was not old enough to be drafted (I was 16 when the war ended), but I was old enough to have an old-fashioned draft card, prior to the ending of selective service registration (which has since been restored).

"Draft Dodgers" were those whose numbers were up and refused to go.  The term was used for people who illegally evaded the draft, period, and refused to be inducted.  Most of these people fled to exile in Canada or Sweden.

Clinton's evasion of military service was borderline illegal, but he avoided being charged.  It was something not everyone was equipped to do, and it was something he did, step by step, while thinking how it would impact a future career.  But he was not a Draft Dodger in the sense of 1972.  Nor were the War Wimps (Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich) who had marriage and student deferments in that category. 

In 1971, draftees were no longer sent to Vietnam unless they volunteered.  On January 27, 1973, the Nixon Administration ended the draft.

There were conscientious objectors whose views I respected.  The Berrigan Brothers.  Quakers.  Even Muhammed Ali, who was willing to go to jail for his belief.  But lots of kids that ran to Canada were plain cowards.  I supported the pardon of Draft Evaders, then and now, but my respect is for people that faced the issue honestly.  My goalposts haven't moved since the 1970s.

[Landslide Lyndon]

.

Ok boomer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The period between 1968 and 1972 represented a transition period for the Democratic Party, due to the new rules adopted in between the conventions that were formulated by the McGovern-Fraser Commission.

1968 was a convention where the nominee (HHH) was nominated despite not entering a single primary.  Governors ran as "Favorite Sons" in order to control their delegations, and there were no rules against entire delegations being required to adhere to unit rules.  HHH was nominated by a coalition of delegates controlled by big-city organizations (led by Mayor Daley), organized labor (led by George Meany), and non-Wallaceite Southern delegates (controlled mainly by John Connally).  The goal was not so much to nominate HHH (although he was the candidate of labor and LBJ) as it was to ensure that the Democratic platform did not repudiate LBJ's war policies in any way.  In that respect, they succeeded.

Where they did not succeed was in gaining party unity.  1968 was the last convention where Southern Conservative Democrats played a major role in picking the Presidential nominee.  In The Vital South, Earl and Merle Black depict this process well.  John Connally controlled over 500 delegates, and Southern support made HHH the nominee; without it, the convention could have gone on for multiple ballots.  Southern delegates wanted a Southerner as VP, and Connally certainly wanted the #2 spot for himself.  But in a meeting between the groups, HHH took charge and announced that he had made his choice.  "He's not a Southerner, but he's someone you're going to like," is how HHH described Ed Muskie.  The Southerners felt jilted, and not wrongly so; there were a number of Southern Democrats who could have been placed on the ticket credibly, including Connally, and Gov. Dan Moore (D-NC) who won his state's primary, as well as some others (Sen. George Smathers of FL, Sen. William Spong of VA, to name two).  This snub sent the message to conservative Southerners (according to Earl and Merle Black) that their influence in selecting Democratic Presidential nominees was negligible, and at a time where Southern Republicans, led by Strom Thurmond, clinched the nomination for Richard Nixon to boot.

These developments were bad for the Democrats, given the makeup of the party at the time.  The McGovern-Fraser commission rules would make the situation worse, at least at the time:

From Wikipedia:

The Commission was mainly concerned with developing rules that would govern the 1972 Democratic convention. The Commission report was written in less than nine months and was divided into two parts, one that recommended 18 guidelines for state parties and another recommending steps deemed desirable for state parties to take. The report attempted to bring uniformity to the delegate selection process and to give greater influence to those in the past that had a marginal voice, mainly women, blacks and young people (defined as those under 30).

Some of the guidelines are as follows:

The first guideline ordered state parties to "adopt explicit written Party rules governing delegate selection. It was followed by eight "procedural rules and safeguards" which the commission demanded be applied in the delegate selection process. Specifically, the states were henceforth to forbid proxy voting; forbid the use of the unit rule and related practices such as instructing delegations; require a quorum of not less than 40 percent at all party committee meetings; remove all mandatory assessments of delegates and limit mandatory participation fees to no more than $10; ensure that party meetings in non rural areas were held on uniform dates, at uniform times and in places of easy access; ensure adequate public notice of all party meetings concerned with delegate selection.[7]

Other guidelines included that:

State organizations select no more than 10 percent of the delegation by state committee[7]

State organizations prohibit the ex officio designation of delegates to the National convention[7]

State organizations designate the procedures by which slates are prepared and challenged[7]

State delegate apportionment within states was to be based on a formula giving equal weight to total population and to the Democratic vote in the previous Presidential election[7]

State organizations to overcome the effects of past discrimination by affirmative steps to encourage representation on the National Convention delegation of minority groups, young people and women in reasonable relationship to their presence in the population of the State[7]

Petition requirements for delegate candidates be eliminated[8]

Elimination of restrictions on voter registration such as literacy tests and lengthy residency requirements[8]

Called for a uniform standard formula for delegate selection across the States[8]

The morally defensible part of the McGovern-Fraser reforms were that they sought to make the Democratic Party's nominating process more legitimately Democratic.  Never again could a candidate be nominated without running in a primary.  Unit rules were eliminated (that was a big one).  Affirmative action for selection of delegates by race and gender was instituted (and this was reasonable, given the makeup of the Democratic Party at that moment in terms of who supported it vs. who ran it). 

The problem with all of that is that it ensured that the activist class would dominate candidate candidate selection.  This was the unintended consequence that caused the Democratic Party to nominate unelectable candidates for so long.  While the Democratic Party was the more liberal party in 1972, it was still a party where the vast majority were either moderate or conservative; a candidate such as McGovern in 1972 (or even Mondale in 1984) could never hope to mobilize the entire party. 

The reforms put the Democratic Party in the position of being unable to be an effective "Big Tent".  Because the Presidential nomination fell into control (progressively) of the activist class (which were, usually, the most liberal), it could not marshal majority support for their national ticket.  From 1964 to 2008, no Democrat from outside the South was elected President.  From 1972 to 2004, no Democrat from outside the South carried a single Southern state.  (The closest was Kerry in FL in 2004; a 5 point loss).  The exceptions were in 1976 (when a Southern candidate was needed to stop George Wallace) and in 1992 (when, in Clinton, they found a candidate who was a Southern liberal, and even Clinton needed Perot's help to win). 

Much of these arguments are passe' now.  The country has become far more liberal; we are more of a Center-Left country than a Center-Right country.  But the choice the Democrats were faced with in 1972 was one of whether or not they wanted to accommodate a mixture of conservative and liberal issue positions in order to gain a majority and elect Presidents, or to be as liberal as they wanted to be and be a permanent Presidential minority.  The McGovern-Fraser Commission pretty much committed the party to the latter choice for a number of decades afterward.  It's up to the reader to decide if this was for the best.