The day was cold and rainy in New Hampshire, and the night was no different. They had driven in to Salisbury Center from a nearby apple farm because they decided they should vote.

"Can we vote?" one asked as they walked in to find only a middle-aged woman sitting at a table.

"We want to vote for George McGovern," another added, as the woman tried to make sense of what had just walked in to disturb the sleepiness of her polling place.

"Well, I don't know. Are you registered?" she inquired.

After learning that I was the only one in the group registered to vote, but not there, she explained that only those pre-registered were supposed to cast ballots.

"But I hate to turn you away," she continued. "With the weather the way it is, we didn't get much of a turnout. In fact, if you voted they'd probably wonder how McGovern got so many in this little Republican town."

Finally, with the clock ticking closer to 9 p.m., she agreed that George McGovern needed all the votes he could get because President Nixon was abusing power and was a liar.

"Go ahead, just sign your names here," she said.

Puzzled, I said, "what about me? I already voted once — by absentee ballot. You think George could use two votes from one person?"

She agreed that he could and pointed to the book of signatures where the others were lined up. "Hurry up, now, it's five to nine. The machine custodian will be here any minute."

"Thanks," and I moved to the end of the line.

———

As you know, those extra votes weren't enough to help McGovern in New Hampshire or nationwide. Nixon carried every state but Massachusetts, getting about 60 percent of the vote.

Before the election, many people said McGovern was too liberal. After the vote, the experts said too many voters agreed that he was too liberal and didn't want to go there.

Now, 31 years later, we hear many politicos raising the specter of the "McGovern principle" as the nine Democratic presidential contenders vie for the chance to oust President Bush next year.

Many Democrats from the right of the aisle, including a few candidates, are cautioning that the party could face a landslide loss like in 1972 — and for the same reason — if hopefuls such as Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich get to carry the banner into the election.

McGovern was an anti-war candidate; he had been opposed to the Vietnam war for years. But the U.S. was beginning to wind the war down anyway by 1972, so ending the war was not what made McGovern so "liberal."

Try the phrase "redistribution of income." That's what scared people. McGovern said the government would begin by giving $1,000 to everybody but the rich. The conservatives called it socialism and communism, and even middle-class Americans were afraid their hard-earned money would be taken away and given to the poor.

Of course, it's different today. Now we have a Republican president sending checks to Americans: $600 to families two years ago and this summer $400 to families with children. What if during the 2000 presidential campaign Bush had promised, if elected, to send American families $1,000 each?

I don't hear anybody calling Bush a communist. But that's probably because he's not taking from the rich. He wants to take less from the wealthy and go more into debt for the pay-outs.

Candidates such as Dean and Kucinich are being tied to the "McGovern principle" not only because they opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq. No, it's the more-radical ideas such as universal health care, respect for the environment and, yes, making the rich pay to help the poor. But you won't hear any talk about a "redistribution of income." That does scare people.

This time around, however, the "McGovern principle" may work in reverse.

Many people are fed up with the dishonesty and militarism in the Bush administration. They may not want an election between tweedle-dum and another tweedle-dee; another close vote that would have to be decided in the courts.

People may want a definitive alternative to President Bush's "dispassionate" conservatism. I know I would vote twice if possible for a "kinder, gentler" nation that helps people and the environment when they need it, and leaves them alone when they don't.

Cary Brunswick is managing editor of The Daily Star. He can be reached at (607) 441-7217 or cary@thedailystar.com.