Since no one here knows history prior to to 2000, I will tell you: In 1968... just 13 primaries

[theboss]

Hillary drawing an analogy to 1968 is not only of questionable taste, it is historically meaningless.

Drawing a comparison to the 1968 primary season is like drawing a parallel to the 1860 election. It may get the blood flowing, but it holds no meaning.

The odds were pretty good that Humphrey was going to be the nominee regardless of whether Kennedy had lived or not.

Why? Because Humphrey had the most delegates.
Why? Because Humphrey was in the pocket of the party bosses like Daley.
Why? Becase the party bosses like Daley could just give Humphrey their states delegates.

1968 was the year that McGovern starting changing the delegate-selection process which led to Jesse Jackson - not Daley - controlling Illinois in 1972.

Moreover, there is simply no election in history that parallels '68. In '68, there were four candidates two of whom were fighing for the same ground on the Left, one who was representing the old-school bosses, and one who was representing all the southern peckerwoods who were up to here with the Dems giving into the Nigras.

The Party was imploding and honestly has never fully recovered. And a convention fight was inevitable.

I can't even begin to imagine what a convention in Chicago featuring Kennedy would have been like. Part of me thinks that he would have grabbed the brass ring and led us into a new era. Part of me thinks that the Democrats would have split into three parties and would never have been a national force again.

One more point: It's all well and good that primaries used to last into June. However, they don't any longer. Presidential candidates used to not campaign. Things change. McCain has been campaigning for two months now. That is valuable time that we lost. We can make that up. But if this madness lasts until the end of August - with the Republican convention following us - it is going to be disastrous.

[onenote]

1. agreed that comparisons to 1968 are inapt. The better comparison is 1980

The 1980 campaign continued all the way to the convention, even though Teddy Kennedy had no chance of unseating Jimmy Carter. Kennedy continued to contest primaries until the very end -- the last primaries, held in early June 1980, included California, West Virgina, New Jersey, and Ohio (other states with primaries or caucuses in early June included Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Rhode Island).

So there is precedent more recent than 1968 for continuing to fight through June. The reason that its not such a great example for HRC to cite, of course, is that Teddy kept running, but he kept losing and he never had a realistic chance of grabbing the nomination away from Carter. The comparison to Teddy's fruitless pursuit of the nomination in 1980 probably hits way too close to home for HRC and her followers to use it.

[phrigndumass]

2. Kick

:kick:

[ecdab]

3. ugly but meaningless crap designed to play on emotions has been

the backbone of Hillary's campaign for several months now. I really liked her not all that long ago - now I'm just sick and tired of her.

[book_worm]

4. True in '68 the party machinery still controlled the nomination which is why

HHH was actually ahead in delegates. For instance no primaries in Michigan and PA where the party bosses and organized labor gave Hubert the lions share. Don't get me wrong, I think Humphrey was overall a great democrat and good liberal and he would have been a much better president than Nixon.