Emails released by Wikileaks raise questions of DNC's impartiality
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
For starters, I misread you. I understand your point. The details are still wrong, but you weren't saying something I thought you were, so I'm also in error on my response.
The problems started in 1968, with the infamous riots and police brutality at the Democratic Convention under the oversight of Mayor Richard Daley. I suspect nothing would have changed if the Democrats had won, but Humphrey lost by a whisker to Nixon. That was the first loss in the Presidential race to a 'real' Republican the Democrats had endured since 1928, a literal period of forty years. Yes, Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and 1956, but he was not 'really' a Republican and, in fact, was hoping BOTH parties would nominate him and he'd win the 1952 race unopposed.
So the whole thing was born in the same kind of arrogance the Republicans had when they'd held the White House for 20 of 24 years in 1992 (e.g. it's why so many Republicans cannot accept losing and blame it on Perot).
The big stink was caused by the fact that in 1968, Eugene McCarthy torpedoed LBJ and won several primaries, (so did RFK but his assassination made those moot)......and the party then nominated VP Humphrey, who had not entered ANY primaries. This ticked off some of the lower echelon. As a result, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was formed and made a truckload of contradictory demands, including establishing quotas for the delegates (they had a big internal war over this because their verbiage explicitly denounced quotas and yet also made it clear that any group NOT following quotas would be rejected).
The most controversial point was what was called the unit rule (aka winner-take all like the Electoral College save for Nebraska and Maine). A huge fight broke out in 1972 when (wait for it) MCGOVERN HIMSELF was running for the nomination and demanded all 271 delegates for winning the California primary. His argument was that you can't change the rules in the middle of the game (Keep reading, it's important). Also, George Wallace (who won several states and got 49% of his third party vote in 1968 from OUTSIDE the south) clobbered the field in Michigan and scared the living daylights out of the party. But he got shot, and it was a moot point.
McGovern thus won the nomination and got creamed in the November election.
In 1976, Carter began early and finished second in Iowa (to uncommitted) and won New Hampshire. Carter was a Southern moderate, liberal on civil rights, conservative on defense, and very middle of the road on most other things. Carter - like Trump - benefited from the fact he was the sole moderate in a race with ELEVEN other candidates, including eight liberals and two conservatives (G Wallace and Lloyd Bentsen). Carter kept winning races (just like Trump) because the other candidates kept splitting the liberal vote into pieces. Morris Udall, the constant runner-up, never got a clean one-on-one shot at Carter and lost everywhere.
Carter barely won (by all of 9,245 votes in two states) and was never the choice of the party apparatus.
Then in 1980, Ted Kennedy jumped into the race and made a total fool of himself. The party was leaning towards Carter because he was less of a threat to their own retention of seats than Teddy was. They clawed it out at the Convention and here came good ole George McGovern again......only now since he supported Teddy, he forgot all about that 'change the rules in the middle of the game' argument and now dared to say that the voters in April could not possibly know the conditions that demanded a change in August.....like the monumental hypocrite he was.
Carter won because he had the party apparatus locked up.......and Reagan clobbered him that fall.
So to prevent the outsider from ever winning again, the Democrats formed something called the Hunt Commission (overseen by the NC governor of the same name). They concocted the idea of having a group of 'super delegates' that would 'endorse or reject' the nomination as determined by the primaries. (In another heaping helping of liberal hypocrisy, after demanding all this stuff come directly from the people, the Michigan legislature outlawed the primary in 1983 after watching Wallace win in 1972 and setting up a poll tax in 1980). A huge argument broke out over WHAT PERCENTAGE of delegates should be super delegates. After all.....if you have TOO MANY then the primaries are totally irrelevant (you know, just like those polls prior to the Four Team Playoff committee meetings in October) but if you have TOO FEW then the entire idea of super delegates is meaningless since they can't overturn it anyway.
Guess what the big argument was? Teddy Kennedy was thought to be a 1984 candidate (the reforms were in 1981-82 time frame), and he opposed this because he figured they would stand in his way what with Chappaquiddick and all; Walter Mondale, on the other hand, FAVORED it, because he figured it might help him win the nomination against Teddy in 1984. (As it turned out, the SDs DID select Mondale but over Gary Hart, primarily because of rumors about Hart's multiple affairs that, of course, turned out not to be true). Yes, those rumors were there in 1984.
Incidentally, guess who came forth with the compromise that saved the super delegates proposal and set the percentage at 14%? Geraldine Ferraro.
In 1988, the super delegates then did something that has become the norm and enables the control they have now. After Super Tuesday, the Democrats were facing a potential disaster. Mike Dukakis, Al Gore, and Jesse Jackson emerged from Super Tuesday as triple winners, all winning at least five states and the party came unglued. Their fear was that Gore and Dukakis would split the white vote (as Gore-Gephardt-Dukakis-Simon had been doing) and give Jackson the black vote and huge chunk of the liberal vote all to himself.
To say they came unglued is an understatement. In fact, they totally freaked out. And then it happened - first, Paul Simon won Illinois and Jackson finished second, relegating Dukakis to third (note that it was Simon's home state and Jackson claims Chicago). Then.....remember me telling you about Michigan earlier? Well, what happened was the Democrats had a caucus unmonitored by the party and Jackson clobbered Dukakis with a YUGE black turnout.
The SDs jumped into the race and started endorsing Dukakis like crazy.
He won that summer and lost that fall.
1. More proof why are voters fed up with the Establishment?
2. You mean the Party of the Big Tent is biased? :eek2:
2. You mean the Party of the Big Tent is biased? :eek2:
They're trying to raise it with those phone calls to you offering to fix your computer that is infected with a virus...
No, even more ironic - the Democrats are upset the Russians are stealing an election by releasing emails showing them stealing an election.
I heard Trump promised to give the Russians the USS Gerald Ford in exchange for their help.
It probably would have been better for Ford if he had just fallen down at that point.
I'm not sure ultimately what effect all this had on the primary. Did it cost Bernie any states or any delegates or was it just not effective at all?:conf2:
I know it points to intent but that is probably all.
I know it points to intent but that is probably all.
In Trump's press conference this morning he said if the Russians could find those 30,000 emails that Hillary deleted.....he would love to see them released.....
:biggrin2:
:biggrin2:
Yep. Takes a special kind of deranged to applaud a supposed patriot asking a foreign power--one that's not our ally--to swing an election in his favor.
Oh, come on. You libs would be fine with it if it was swinging an election in favor of your preferred candidate. You'd be saying it wasn't Russia, rather it was the truth coming to light that was swinging it.
Latest threads
-
-
-
SIAP there was an article that Joe K interviewed for assistant coach
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 11
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
