Comments on: Dem Race: If It Ain’t Brokered, Don’t Fix It

By: Tully

Tully — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:32:52 +0000

Election victories are, by definition, mandates. The rest is rhetoric and posturing.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 20:43:44 +0000

2000 was no mandate. Bush, the GOP's desperation "brand name" candidate, won a squeaker and Gore had more popular votes. Bush hardly won -- in fact, Gore had the election in hand and proceeded to lose it beginning with the debates. (Note to Superdestroyer: Again -- the situation for the GOP is not dire yet in terms of special-interest group and minority entitlements. It's simply that the GOP hasn't been appealing or positive lately.)

2004 was pro-GOP insofar as pro-national security was concerned ("Dems are soft on crime") but was largely a Dem self-destruction in choosing Kerry (anyone who's a liberal from Massachusetts, as a rule, is hopelessly doomed because he or she is anathema to most of the USA.) The Dems didn't offer a good alternative.

2006 was about the GOP, Bush, and Iraq: THUMBS DOWN. There was no mandate for the Dems.

The last real mandate was in 1994. That was pro-GOP but was even more anti-Clinton.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:20:14 +0000

DLS The 2006 mandate was just as valid as the 200 and 2004 Bush mandates. By the Rovian mandate, any victory is a mandate. Landslides elections like 1964,1972 and 1984 aren't required for todays mandates.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:15:10 +0000

“congressional Democrats have squandered their 2006 mid-term election mandate”

There never was a Democratic mandate, and I don't know why you keep making this incorrect statement. The 2006 elections were a thumbs down on the GOP as well as Bush and Iraq, that is all. In no way was it a big change over to the Dems, much less seeking the loopier anti-war position the fringe on the left has sought.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:12:22 +0000

Better than the instant run-off is the approval vote. It's a little late now on the Dem side (and on the GOP side, but few care about that race!) with only two candidates, but would have been better earlier this year and may have kept more than two in the race to this point.

"In my catholic view, there have to be at least three candidates for a convention to be truly brokered."

1. Unnecessary but certainly more interesting if it were three or more.

2. I'd prefer not merely three, but five or more major political parties in the US.

By: Michael Jackson » Dem Race: If It Ain’t Brokered, Don’t Fix It

Michael Jackson » Dem Race: If It Ain’t Brokered, Don’t Fix It — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 17:21:06 +0000

[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

By: President Bush » Dem Race: If It Ain’t Brokered, Don’t Fix It

President Bush » Dem Race: If It Ain’t Brokered, Don’t Fix It — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:01:20 +0000

[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Dem Race: If It Ainâ??t Brokered, Donâ??t Fix ItHere’s a quick excerpt The term brokered convention is being thrown around with reckless abandon these days. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is doing a pretty fair imitation of being panicked over Barack Obama’s thus far unstoppable advance while the Democratic Party establishment and much of the punditocracy are in a near meltdown over the implications of a knock-down, drag-out national convention battle between the two candidates. First of all, everybody take a deep breath. Thank you. Feel better now? Second of all, [...]

By: shaun

shaun — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:32:32 +0000

Dave:

As usual, good points all.

The one certainty is that there will be sore losers and that will especially be the case if the Obama horde is denied.

By: Dave_Schuler

Dave_Schuler — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:28:17 +0000

A potential real solution to the primary delegates problem would be runoff elections. What we've got now (in both parties) is a situation in which the majority, even the overwhelming majority, of primary voters may have voted against the winning candidate.

How that could be construed as democratic eludes me. More democratic than the superdelegate system? That depends on you view of the superdelegates. If you view them as a self-interested elite, it's profoundly undemocratic. If you view them as savvy, benign technocrats, it's a good solution to a thorny practical problem.

By: shaun

shaun — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:12:27 +0000

Fixed. Thank you.

By: wally

wally — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:08:54 +0000

Agnew not Ford was Nixon's running mate in 1968 (and 1972)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pres...