(2 of 4)
At bottom, the McGovern question turned on two radically different perceptions of the nation's mood. Perception One: The U.S., while desiring some change—tax relief, an end to the war —remains too determinedly centrist to elect a candidate who talks of tampering fundamentally with the nation's economic structure and defense policies. The center, Political Analysts Richard Scammon and Ben J. Wallenberg wrote in 1970, is "where viclory lies. The greal majority of the voters of America are unyoung, unpoor and unblack. They are middleaged, middle-class and middle-minded." This is the America that former Nixon Campaign Worker Kevin Phillips adumbrated in his thesis about "The Emerging Republican Majority," and it is the America Richard Nixon plays to.
Perception Two: Scammon-Wattenberg has become somewhat beside the point; as the outpouring of voles for George Wallace and McGovern proved through the spring, Americans are in a mood of restless malaise, fed up with the war, with "big government" and "big business," with institutions that do not seem to work. Such a foul public temper is dangerous for any incumbent. In this climate, the reasoning goes, McGovern is eminently electable; Ihe conventional political wisdom does nol hold any longer.
Desptle his high delegate count, McGovern's performance to date is not entirely persuasive proof that his is the future's voice. Hubert Humphrey still leads McGovern in total popular votes cast during Ihe primaries—4,051,340 to 3,950,394. McGovern lost in New Hampshire, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and Michigan. Until last week, he had won preference ballots in Nebraska, Massachusetls, Wisconsin, Oregon and Rhode Island. The most important of these states, Wisconsin, gave McGovern only 29.5%, while Wallace gol 22% and Humphrey 20.7%. McGovern simply seemed a startling viclor because he had started so far back in Ihe pack.
Nor were the results in California quite as spectacular as the winner-take-all provision made them seem. A week before the primary, Mervin Field's California poll showed McGovern ahead by an astonishing 20%. The poll itself became an issue in the race, perhaps breeding overconfidence in the McGovern ranks, perhaps discouraging Humphrey workers. As it turned out, McGovern won by only 5%—44% to Humphrey's 39%. While the vote reflected a broadening McGovern constituency (see box), he had outspent Humphrey by $2 million to $500,000. Humphrey's advance work was atrocious and his press relations opaque.
The White House quickly greeted the prospect of a McGovern nomination with impolite relish. John Mitchell, who resigned as Attorney General to manage the President's campaign, remarked wryly: "Contrary to some published reports, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President is not engaged in selecting the Democratic candidate." McGovern is most vulnerable, the White House men believe, on his proposal to cut annual defense spending by $32 billion, on his income-redistribution plan and his sometime endorsement of the $6,500 income guarantee for a family of four, as proposed by the National Welfare Rights Organization and other groups.