|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 14:08:29 GMT -5
Since no one is really answering my question in the other thread, I thought I'd give it its own thread.
In the past, a dark horse candidate was selected as a compromise to 1. keep from splitting the party and 2. because of the strong pull of the other two candidates on the delegates votes, there was no clear majority.
What are your thoughts if this were to happen during this year's Democratic Convention? What if, the DNC powers that be decide instead of allowing the super delegates to vote against the will of the people (a vote for Hillary Clinton) and tear the party in two, they decide to bring another candidate to the forefront? What are your thoughts? If you're willing to accept this compromise, who would you suggest?
I think John Edwards would be the likely choice if they decide to go this route.
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Feb 20, 2008 14:16:51 GMT -5
What would that tell the people? You have a candidate that IS going to win, sans the superdelegates, but you decided that instead of allowing the process to run it's undemocratic course, you choose a third candidate? No.
I would rather the superdelegates "crown" HRC and then deal with the backlash.
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 20, 2008 14:22:03 GMT -5
Either way, it screams that something is up, period.
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 20, 2008 14:28:28 GMT -5
I think the Superdelegates may sit this one out and let the people decide or they will bend to the will of the people because of the threat of backlash. For them to elect Hillary when Obama is the people's choice would smack of Florida in 2000 all over again. They don't want that going into the general election.
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Feb 20, 2008 14:31:46 GMT -5
As much as I like Edwards--I supported him until he got out of the race--I am not in favor of this solution. I agree with searchin. ANYTHING other than the will of the people will be detrimental to the Dems, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Prissy New Year!!! on Feb 20, 2008 14:32:13 GMT -5
Has this dark horse scenario ever happened? I have never heard of it, so I was not even aware that this is a legitimate strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 14:38:43 GMT -5
Yes.
Franklin Pierce Abraham Lincoln Rutherford B Hayes James A. Garfield Warren G. Harding
all became presidents this way.
|
|
|
Post by Prissy New Year!!! on Feb 20, 2008 14:43:12 GMT -5
Yes. Franklin Pierce Abraham Lincoln Rutherford B Hayes James A. Garfield Warren G. Harding all became presidents this way. Really? I will have to research that. I think it would be harder to get away with these days.
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 14:44:33 GMT -5
Garfield was nominated on the 36th convention ballot.
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Feb 20, 2008 14:55:55 GMT -5
I think it would be a bad idea... despite the historic precedence for it (assuming that Light got it from good sources) I don't think such a move would fit well in this modern day era of politics particularly given some lingering senstivities, fears, and concerns following General Elections in 2000
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 15:04:32 GMT -5
Dark Horse: The Surprise Election and Political Murder of President James A Garfield By Kenneth D. Ackerman is one. Feel free to google the others.
Actually the Hayes situation is more similar to what is going to happen if the super delegates select Hillary.
|
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Feb 20, 2008 15:08:03 GMT -5
With us being in an information age, I doubt that that would be a viable method. Too much information is available too quickly, and as Damie said many (especially Democrats) feel like the 2000 election was stolen. It going to be very interesting to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 20, 2008 15:09:25 GMT -5
I actually have the feeling that many of the super delegates (primarily those still in public office) may decide not to vote. I'm not sure if that's an option for them but I think it may be.
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 20, 2008 15:16:22 GMT -5
LMAO :smh:
|
|
Bigs
OOA pledge
Posts: 236
|
Post by Bigs on Feb 20, 2008 15:18:11 GMT -5
Thats also very possible. I do believe that if Barack continues his surge, and is snubbed for the nomination, the Democratic party willfinally see some "blacklash". The republicans are already syphoning a few black votes by sticking with religious ideals, and I really believe that it cause more than a few black folks to really start looking towards the right.
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 20, 2008 15:37:48 GMT -5
Bigs you have a point. Quiet as its kept Bush got in office because a lot of Black congregations told their congregants to vote for him because he was a Christian who was against abortion and gay marriage. That was the stupidest thing I'd heard. He was against those but for lying, stealing and cheating. A Christian man would have stood up and said what happened in Florida was wrong even if it caused him to lose because it was the right thing to do. A Christian man doesn't take people to war to die on info he knows is false. Any black(white, yellow, brown,etc) person who goes right on 2 issues such as gay marriage and abortion should be barred from voting forever because their are imbeciles.
|
|
|
Post by water on Feb 20, 2008 16:14:51 GMT -5
A lying christian is still a christian a cheating christian is still a christian a stealing christian is still a christian a gay christian is still a christian a killer christian is still a christian
and if they dont repent they will go straight to HELL with all the rest of the christians who continued in a life of unrepented sin like its cool its NOT its HOT
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 20, 2008 21:31:50 GMT -5
check you theology H2O that is all. ;D
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Feb 20, 2008 22:25:56 GMT -5
Quiet as its kept Bush got in office because a lot of Black congregations told their congregants to vote for him because he was a Christian who was against abortion and gay marriage. That was the stupidest thing I'd heard. It's kept quiet WHERE? It was LOUD AND CLEAR around here. My friend's pastor was one of those people telling the congregation to vote for Bush. And I know DOZENS of Black people who fell for it hook, line and sinker. Most of them feel like fools now, but I was looking at them like they were fools BACK THEN.
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 21, 2008 8:28:47 GMT -5
<-----Voted for Bush for this exact same reason..
<-----Doesnt take the blame for Bush being elected
<-----Thanks God for the Electorial College and the Fact that his vote doesn't matter anyway
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 21, 2008 9:50:22 GMT -5
Z I hear you. I said quiet as kept because people want to sweep it under the rug because they were had. If you listen now you would swear no one voted for dude because everyone is criticizing him.
We need to be free thinkers folks. LOL
|
|
|
Post by Lighthouse on Feb 21, 2008 9:52:19 GMT -5
<-----Voted for Bush for this exact same reason.. <-----Doesnt take the blame for Bush being elected <-----Thanks God for the Electorial College and the Fact that his vote doesn't matter anyway Today's nominee for Imbecile Quote of the Day is................Nupey. No worries Nupey, I'm almost positive someone will give you a run for your money.
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 21, 2008 9:55:21 GMT -5
::DEAD::
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Feb 21, 2008 10:51:46 GMT -5
Make that the Imbecile Quote for 2008!
I doubt that seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Champs Elysees on Feb 21, 2008 10:52:52 GMT -5
Since the topic took this turn . . .
Were the idiots who voted for Bush because of gay marriage and abortion directly affected by the groundbreaking legislation that he pushed aginst these issues?
I mean, really, if you are not gay and practice sexual conrtol/responsibility and are not raped, how do those issues affect you?
I could not figure out how people could look at the political, social and economic climate and believe that everything that was going on was not as important as two guys kissing!
After the 2004 electoral farce, I lost faith in politics (and the American electorate) until Obama delcared his presidency and even then, I did not think he had a chance til Iowa.
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Feb 21, 2008 10:55:07 GMT -5
LOL @ Z and Lady L!
True, true!
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 21, 2008 11:01:42 GMT -5
Preach Lady L!!!!
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Feb 21, 2008 11:09:06 GMT -5
Were the idiots who voted for Bush because of gay marriage and abortion directly affected by the groundbreaking legislation that he pushed aginst these issues?
I mean, really, if you are not gay and practice sexual conrtol/responsibility and are not raped, how do those issues affect you?
I could not figure out how people could look at the political, social and economic climate and believe that everything that was going on was not as important as two guys kissing!
I have actually asked people this. "How does two men or women getting married affect you?" I have NEVER gotten a sensible, common-sense answer. The bottom line: it DOESN'T. But this jacked-up economy and other issues DOES affect me and everybody else. Like this woman at my job always says: "People are easily led".
|
|
|
Post by Search1906 on Feb 21, 2008 11:11:59 GMT -5
If you notice the media plays too much of a role in who gets the nomination. I really think Edwards lack of coverage hurt him in pursuing the nomination. I am not saying that he would have been the nominee but I will say the media has to provide equal coverage which they don't and people are led easily like you stated.
|
|
|
Post by Nupey on Feb 21, 2008 11:19:52 GMT -5
Actually the Economy isn't really affecting me at all. Sure gas prices are higher, but other than that, I'm chilling. I feel those are the issues (Gay marriage) that I'm MOST concerned with. If I'm fine financially then I'm not worried about YOUR "economic" issues, I'm more interested in other things.
You never hear Bill Gates crying about the Economy.
You wont hear me crying about it as well.
|
|