Oh no, too much Democracy. Oh no, Hillary may take this to the convention like T.Kennedy did in 80.

Oh no, the party cannot survive its own process.

Kick! Scream! Seriously, should I send the waaamulances to individual Obama supporters, or straight to his headquarters.

:eyes:

Hillary simply must take down the party - despite agreeing to the rules. She's a fucking lieberman.

if Kennedy had dropped out a few months earlier?

:shrug:

Carter had seriously fucked up and people were hoping he'd pull an LBJ and not run again. It didn't work.

However the convention battle did hurt us in down ticket races as well.

Carter ultimately lost by a large enough margin that he would've lost without Ted. But if he had done better at the debate and Anderson hadn't run it would've been a much closer election and Ted might've made the difference.

Reagan was a pretty boy actor(not that good) who didn't have the where with all in his head to be president but, look how he was/is worshipped/emulated!

loses the general election.

So I don't think that's strictly true.

I also think that John Anderson drained votes from Carter in 1980.

That was the last true brokered convention (when no running candidate went to the convention with enough votes). FDR won the nomination and 4 GE's.

Half the states didn't even have Primaries or Caucuses.

Barely any.

Try again.

and we'll all be calling the "waaaaaaambulance" if that happens.

from Iran cost him the election. Gas lines didn't help.

But Kennedy challenging Carter all the way to the convetion, seeking even to release pledged delegates from their pledges, did not cost Carter the nomination.

so ..let us be wiser this time.

Last true brokered convention was 1932. FDR won and went on to win the GE 4 times. Not a bad record.

People can still vote for Hillary even if she opts to quit. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee consistently get 25% of the vote against McCain. It would just help to sew up the wounds faster.

for someone who wasn't on the ballet. :evilgrin:

"Undecided" could be Lee Mercer for all we know.

So everyone can calm down. We will have a nominee after the second week in June at the latest. If Hillary keeps throwing tantrums proclaiming herself Abe Lincoln, MLK and Jesus all rolled up into one pant suit we'll have it sooner.

I respect your posts but I disagree. I think this woman is so power hungry that she won't let it go. Even if Obama gets ALL of the remaining SDs, she'll be saying "but they can change their minds!!"

however she'll be crucified by the media, her colleagues, and be denounced by her own party on the convention stage which her and Bill will be banned from.

What!! Do you think we're stupid?!!

Oh no, indeed.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Will she sue the party in court, and drag this into the Fall?

Democracy also demands rules, and Florida and Michigan didn't follow them.

because he was following the rules is pure arrogance on the Clinton's camp part.

This isn't the Soviet Union.

Bill Clinton's reckless behavior gave Congress and bush to the republicans. Not much has changed with the Clinton's it seems, they only care for themselves

Obama "wasn't on the ballot" merely because he chose not to be on the ballot. He walked off the field. It was an action entirely of his own doing. It wasn't something done to him or despite him.

except hillary. why don't the rules apply to her?

He removed his name in good faith, as did other candidates. It's been done in past elections too. Pretty much SOP.
The whole thing was triggered by that state BREAKING THE RULES.

The whole thing boggles my mind: The *STATE* party appartus/legislature BREAKS THE RULES, while KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES, thus DISENFRANCHISING their entire electorate,... and then fucking OBAMA gets blamed for it???? In what galaxy?

fuck that. sideways.

so she's trying to cheat to take the nomination. This is about corruption. A Clinton specialty.

Hillary's shallow pandering, lies and desperation becomes evident to even the stupidest of MSM talking heads....like Andrea Mitchell...


I want her in until, at the bitter end, she slobbers and whimpers like a baby when she checks out of the campaign.

I want her in until she drives any political future she or her stupid racist shitbag of a husband right into the ground. I want her off the public stage forever.

So. We agree completely.



Tuzla, Sexism, Colombia.

It's been a season of pathetic flamebait.

But Carter was a sure loser that year anyway... As for Obama he will rise or fall on his own accord...

and this is a troll talking point.

He is most often referred to as Ted Kennedy.

you pretty much built your own argument against you and that horrible woman you support.

c'mon

sand.

Carter was almost certainly going to lose. There is little doubt about that. But it is possible that without Kennedy's kneecapping that he wins a handful of states and maybe we save a Senate seat or two. A lot of the losses in the Senate were 3 percent or less.

And if that happens, maybe Reagan doesn't sweep in with the biggest mandate since Roosevelt.

...if it ever wakes up, that is. Come on, damn horse.

I would say that is stretching it just a bit too far.

I'll add that, maybe like me, other people are frustrated not so much by her continuing to campaign as by the fact that Hillary and Bill seem to be encouraging divisiveness within the party at a time that's ripe for opportunities to come together.

I know about Ted Kennedy.

I've watched his career for over 40 years.

Senator Clinton is NO Ted Kennedy......

Really shitty timing, wouldn't you say? :puke:

But completely in character.

My point of using that as an example was to show that the party has been here before, we have a process, much as some may fear it.

Please don't twist my words to try to shame me. I in no way criticized Ted Kennedy.

These people have a very short attention span. Makes me wonder how many of them will show up at the polls in November.

It disgusts me that you're excited about that.

Neither The Clintons or the DLC would exist if the Bush Crime Family hadn't taken over the White House in 1980.

no one's mind is being changed by anything you (or for that matter I) say anymore, so instead I'm just gonna post a picture of my kitty:)

Oh yeah, the Democrats got creamed by a confused old white guy who got a free ride from the press. Sound familiar?

Unless you want a repeat of that, I would advise against Hillary screwing the Democratic Party.

Carter easily had enough delegates to get the nomination and very few party elders really supported the idea of denying an incumbent president the nomination - particularly during the hostage crisis. Kennedy's attempt to take his 11 or 12 primary victories to the Convention and try to get the clear will of the voters overturned was quixotic at best.

He didn't cost Carter the election, but he certainly didn't help Carter. And hurting Carter hurt the Party down ticket - 12 Senate seats were lost. 35 House seats went down the tubes.

There is no way you can call what Kennedy did good for the party.

I will applaud it!

Why?

keep seeming to enjoy democratic defeats?


noooowwww Why is that? (/andy rooney)


:)

They were not good, but the last 7 years have been pure hell. This country cannot survive another four years of Repuke rule. Hillary is only helping the Republicans.

Carter had just been president and none of us knew what was about to happen with Reagan and the beginning of the neo-con era.

There are much bigger stakes this time around.

I don't even see how thats debatable. Stay in till June 3rd, then call it off and lick your wounds.

You sick fuckers have absolutely no sense of shame.

:puke:

quit crying about her lose and go by the rules.

:think:

and today. First, when Kennedy first entered the race, Carter's approval numbers were near George W. Bush lows. The economy was in trouble. Carter did get a temporary bump in his polling numbers when the Iranian hostage crisis began as people rallied around the president. Furthermore, I recall Carter repeatedly refused to debate Kennedy during the primary season, at a time when many people were concerned about the direction of the country. Part of Kennedy's rationale for taking the nomination to the convention, as I remember it, was that there had been very little substantive discussion between the candidates and their positions on the issues.

:eyes:

Great example.

:eyes:

That worked out beautifully!

We all know what happens if Hillary turns this into a floor fight at the convention, and she damn well knows it too. If she does it anyway it's because her goal is to sink the Democratic prospects this year so she can run in '12 and that's all there is to it. And we will NOT forget.

kinda makes you wonder what the REAL agenda here is.

If you read the OP I clearly use the 80 convention to show that this current situation is not something that has never been done before. If you read the thread, you see repeatedly the argument that Carter did not lose the election based on Kennedy's efforts to win the nomination. Almost any clear-headed person who knows of that election knows that the gas lines and the failed attempts to rescue the hostages from Iran cost Carter the election. Nightline was devoted to nightly focus on the hostage situation, which did not help either.

Are you really that uneducated as to what national politics looked like during that time, and the mood of the nation, or are you just being disingenuous?

The OP was to show that going to the convention, even behind in delegates, is not something new. Big-time Obama supporter Kennedy did it. Now people have jumped on that example saying, wait, we lost that election as a result. Well, either some are just being disingenuous, or there is a real lack of knowledge here about what cost Carter the election. There are a couple of snips below, but the entire page is a good read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1980

snip:

The United States presidential election of 1980 featured a contest between incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter and his Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan, along with third party candidates, the independent John B. Anderson and Libertarian Ed Clark. Reagan, aided by the Iran hostage crisis and a worsening economy at home, won the election by a wide margin.


snip:

The most important event of the entire 1980 presidential campaign was the second presidential debate, which was held one week to the day before the election (October 28). Over the course of two hours, the entire race changed drastically, and what was considered an extremely tight race with the President slightly ahead became a comfortable Republican victory.

Moderated by Howard K. Smith, the Presidential Debate between President Carter and Governor Reagan received among the highest ratings of any television show in the previous decade. Debate topics included the Iranian hostage crisis, and nuclear arms treaties and proliferation. Carter's campaign sought to portray Reagan as a reckless "hawk." Reagan would have none of it, and it came as no surprise, then, when the candidates repeatedly clashed over the nuclear weapons issue in their debate. But it was Carter's reference to his consultation with 12 year old daughter Amy concerning nuclear weapons policy that became the focus of post-debate analysis and fodder for late-night television jokes.

Reagan's demeanor, on the other hand, was sunny and tolerant. When Carter made a reference to the governor's record, voting against Medicare and Social Security benefits, he replied with a cheerful "There you go again."

In his closing remarks, Reagan asked a simple yet devastating question that would resonate with voters in 1980 and beyond: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" According to Carter' Press Secretary Jody Powell's memoirs, internal tracking polls showed Carter's tiny lead turning into a major Reagan landslide over the final weekend.