Posted on 04/10/2007 9:42:12 AM PDT by dangus
Well, a brokered convention did get us Abraham Lincoln.
... and if the super-delegates hadn’t been nixin’ the idea, we may have gotten Reagan four years earlier.
“Brokered convention” - Just imagine the broker’s fees and commissions...
Gee, I don’t know it sounds like fun. Course the convention system was in place for a hundred and fifty years and the nation survived so pardon me if I don’t panic.
And a Civil War for good measure.
Well, prior to the primary system, we didn’t have Campaign Finance Deform, the eight-month-gap, etc.
It would really serve us right. We are spending so much time on 2008 this early that the irony of not knowing who the candidates are until August 2008 would be just perfect.
The Civil War resulted from the actions of the Slavers not the Republican Convention.
Al Gore could make a killing selling “DNC Collapse” off-sets.
OK, I’ll admit it... I’d LOVE to see a Democratic brokered convention. Especially when Obama loses because the racist Dems wouldn’t dare run a black man. Can you picture it if Obama loses after getting a field-leading 35% of the elected delegates?
CFR is the biggest Nothing Burger in the history of Nothing Burgers. It has had NO significant impact on political campaigns being limited to controlling political parties and Sneak Attack groups. Have you even read the law. Only idiots would be constrained by it as 04 and 06 showed.
Our election history is VERY varied in how the process operated and has changed numerous times in the past.
CFR requires massive organization, and splitting of money. So far, it only hurts populism in smaller elections. But it could be deadly in a brokered convention.
If that happened Democrats might find themselves about 10 million votes short.
... But I do agree that, in general, CFR is overstated. It’s the constitutional issues, rather than the political effect, that has everyone in a tizzy: not that the government’s intrusion is so huge, but that it has absolutely no right to intrude. Anyway, as interpreted by Bush, it has had minimal harm... but many fear what another adminsitration’s broader interpretations could mean.
I've never understood why blacks vote Democrat. One of these days, they will tune into the Republican message (tax cuts, education vouchers, etc.) and they will like what they hear.
A split country, hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, a dead president. That really turned out well, didn't it.
And before anyone starts yelling about slavery, how much better off were the Blacks in 1880 as sharecroppers than they were in 1860 as slaves.
I can see why liberal ‘rats are pushing for early primaries... creating a scenario for a more left candidate, or at least a candidate mouthing more leftist claptrap. But, why do the ‘pubs follow suit? Seems to me to counterbalance the ‘rats push for early primaries, pubs should push for late primaries, or at least leave them as they are. Other than primary costs, is there a reason to have ‘Rat and ‘Pub primaries simultaneously? In my mind, having later ‘pub primaries along with early ‘rat primaries would result in a ‘pub advantage in the general election.
Brokered conventions get us better candidates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.