Was Lincoln, with fewer delegates than Seward, wrong to contest the Republican nomination in 1860?

[Karmadillo]

From what I'm reading on DU, I have to conclude he was.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/overstating-lincolns-convention-comeback/

<edit>

That year, Sen. William Henry Seward of New York started ahead in the delegate count. After the first ballot vote at the convention, Seward had 173.5 delegates and Lincoln, a former U.S. representative from Illinois, had 102 delegates. The next closest candidates were Sen. Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania with 50.5 delegates; Ohio Gov. Salmon Chase with 49 delegates; and former Rep. Edward Bates of Missouri with 48 delegates. (See page 113 of the official proceedings of the convention.)

[uponit7771]

1. This is the forum for the dem primary, which was never a proportional WIN primary...The entitled one

... should've ran in another party if he thought the rules were unfair

[onenote]

2. I'm guessing that no one came to that convention with commitments from a majority of the delegates

[Karmadillo]

3. Did they have flippable superdelegates back then? And was Seward under investigation for possible

criminal activity?

[TwilightZone]

8. You tell us. You're the one making the connection.

They're not even remotely comparable. See below.

[Karmadillo]

10. I'll help you out: No & No. Thus, your point below is irrelevant.

[Agschmid]

14. As is yours.

[Karmadillo]

16. As is yours.

[onenote]

20. Two very significant and relevant differences between 1860 and 2016

First, in 1860 nearly a dozen candidates came to the convention with delegate support, thus making it not merely possible, but likely that one candidate wouldn't get a majority on the first ballot. In 2016, there are two candidates and it is a virtual certainty that one or the other will get a majority on the first ballot. That's hugely significant because a candidate that can't win on the first ballot is vulnerable.

Second, because there were multiple candidates, Lincoln's supporters didn't have to try to get Seward's supporters to abandon him -- they could go after the supporters of other candidates who had a dislike for Seward. Indeed, Seward had more delegate support on the third ballot than he had on the first. But Lincoln had even more support as a result of getting the anti-Seward forces to join with his original supporters. Again, Sanders doesn't have that option. There are not anti-Clinton delegates out there that aren't supporting Sanders that he can get to jump to him. There are Clinton supporters, Sanders' supporters and a limited number of uncommitted delegates -- but not nearly enough to flip the nomination.

So comparing 1860 to 2016 is a simplistic exercise that ignores fundamental facts.

[Sancho]

22. facts never seem to influence GDP...

[SFnomad]

4. You'll notice that nobody had a clear majority of delegates that year and with the first ballot

having a dozen people get delegates (with 5 of them getting a significant share), that's the verify definition of a contested convention. A situation that isn't happening in 2016.

[TwilightZone]

6. lol

It seems we're on the same page.

[SFnomad]

9. Sometimes saying #smh doesn't do it justice n/t

[Agschmid]

15. Nope.

[TwilightZone]

5. Where does it say that Seward went into the convention with the majority of delegates?

Also, 12 candidates received delegates in the first vote. Five candidates received 48 or more, more than 20% of the number needed.

Think that's going to happen at the DNC in 2016?

Of all the comparisons being made this cycle, this one is probably the least comparable.

[geek tragedy]

7. generally, the period when black people and women were considered property of white men

is not a good place to look for precedent concerning the democratic process

[MineralMan]

11. None of the candidates had a majority of delegates.

There is no comparison to this year's convention. At this convention, one candidate has a majority of pledged delegates. In Lincoln's day, the Republican party did not have any such thing as pledged and super delegates.

Why do you ask?

[andym]

12. There were no primaries or caucuses back then, the delegates to both parties were party officials

The nomination was expected to be worked out in smoke filled rooms. There was no will of the people.

[Zynx]

13. It's not at all the same situation and it's dishonest to suggest it is.

We now have elections to determine the allocation of delegates. They didn't at that time. Hillary won a solid majority in those contests. The unpledged delegates have made clear that they will support her. This isn't the same situation as 1860, at all.

[SFnomad]

18. LOL - you win the thread n/t

[Adrahil]

19. There weren't any primary election in 1860. Thread fail.

No one came into the convention with ANY pledged delegates. Our system today is quite different.

[Tarc]

21. There is no comparison to politics 150 years ago and now

The parties were structured completely differently, with almost no voice at all given to the people to select party nominees.

[LoverOfLiberty]

23. That was a different time

when parties picked their candidates. We now chose them democratically, so your comparison is not valid.

Bernie needs to concede for the good of the party and the good of his own legacy.

[LostOne4Ever]

24. LOCKING AS DISRUPTIVE META (LOCK Rescinded)

Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 11:43 AM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=crimson]It is the consensus of the Hosting forum at this time to LOCK this thread as Disruptive meta.[/font]

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025307978[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]DISRUPTIVE META-DISCUSSION


Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

[LostOne4Ever]

25. UNLOCKING THREAD

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=crimson]More hosts have come online and expressed concern that this was a bad lock. As such, I am now unlocking this thread for the time being.

With that, let me personally extend my apologies for the hasty lock.

Sincerely,

Lost.[/font]

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. Lol

[AzDar]

27. K & R

[CorkySt.Clair]

28. So now Bernie is Lincolnesque?

You folks need a Bernie Break. Stat.

[randome]

29. Everyone knows the Republican Party was infested with vampires at the time.

Maybe "Battleaxe" Bernie is carrying on that proud tradition.