Question for my Democratic friends

[hislegacy]

That's how Lincoln got the nomination. I don't know how you, as a Conservative, feel about Lincoln, but a lot of people think it was a good choice.

When the Republican delegates gathered in Chicago at the Wigwam (a huge boxlike building) on May 16, they knew that the election of 1860 was theirs to lose. Almost immediately, a stop Seward movement emerged, based upon the argument that he would never carry Indiana or Pennsylvania. Seward led Lincoln on the first ballot 173 1/2 to 102. "I authorize no bargains and will be bound by none," Lincoln telegraphed his campaign managers, but they ignored him to line up delegate support. They won over Indiana and Pennsylvania by offering cabinet posts to those states. Lincoln then gained seventy-nine votes on the second ballot. With the momentum swinging his way, Lincoln won the third ballot.​

​

No one handed Lincoln the parties endorsement, nor candidacy - he CAMPAIGNED for years to win it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's almost like you didn't continue reading what I said. But I'll phrase it better: The Dems lied to Americans repeatedly.

Lied about what? (I don't see your post in the last 12 hours and you are unfamiliar to me.)

 

[BCP1928]

When the Republican delegates gathered in Chicago at the Wigwam (a huge boxlike building) on May 16, they knew that the election of 1860 was theirs to lose. Almost immediately, a stop Seward movement emerged, based upon the argument that he would never carry Indiana or Pennsylvania. Seward led Lincoln on the first ballot 173 1/2 to 102. "I authorize no bargains and will be bound by none," Lincoln telegraphed his campaign managers, but they ignored him to line up delegate support. They won over Indiana and Pennsylvania by offering cabinet posts to those states. Lincoln then gained seventy-nine votes on the second ballot. With the momentum swinging his way, Lincoln won the third ballot.​

​

No one handed Lincoln the parties endorsement, nor candidacy - he CAMPAIGNED for years to win it.

How many primaries did he win?

 

[BCP1928]

Read the OP and I believe you will understand the issue better - keeping in mind the elections in the US is not like the UK nor Australia. Methodology from what you have written is different.

Nixon resigned (something Biden should do) and Ford became President. If Joe does the right thing and resigns - Kamala would rightfully take his place.

But just like Gerald Ford - to be re-elected she would have to go through the primary process - just like Gerald Ford he would have to campaign and demonstrate his position

View attachment 352090

He had to campaign to be his parties candidate -
It is being handed to Kamala
He had to be voted on in convention
It has already been done by Biden giving his delegates to Harris.

He is releasing his delegates to vote for somebody else. The convention delegates get to decide for themselves who that will be.

Hislegacy - thinks checking facts before posting helps greatly with personal credibility.

Right.

 

[Nithavela]

Really? Then all those primary elections the Republicans just did. The ones where there was more than one candidate on the ballot.

What was that?

Unneccessary political theatre and a waste of time and money.

 

[hislegacy]

How many primaries did he win?

It is your reference point - research it out for your self - I cannot and will not do all your research for you.

He is releasing his delegates to vote for somebody else. The convention delegates get to decide for themselves who that will be.

Right.

Wrong - He is passing his delegates to Kamala - have you not been listening? That is why there is NOT going to be an open convention.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

I can't always do your research for you - read the article. They can hold an open convention - or (what they are in the process of doing) hold a virtual vote.

Knowledge is power

Unneccessary political theatre and a waste of time and money.

Perhaps on that side of the world.

 

[BCP1928]

It is your reference point - research it out for your self - I cannot and will not do all your research for you.

OK. The answer is none. Apparently Republicans were denied their God-given right to directly elect their candidate for the 1860 election.

Wrong - He is passing his delegates to Kamala - have you not been listening? That is why there is NOT going to be an open convention.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Paywalled. But technically not true.

I can't always do your research for you - read the article. They can hold an open convention - or (what they are in the process of doing) hold a virtual vote.

Knowledge is power

Perhaps on that side of the world.

 

[Larniavc]

It's almost like you didn't continue reading what I said. But I'll phrase it better: The Dems lied to Americans repeatedly.

My question was about the Media hiding it. Please explain how the Media hid it.

 

[hislegacy]

OK. The answer is none. Apparently Republicans were denied their God-given right to directly elect their candidate for the 1860 election.

Paywalled. But technically not true.

All you are lacking are facts, links - IOW - more than your opinion. But thank you for your opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wrong - He is passing his delegates to Kamala - have you not been listening? That is why there is NOT going to be an open convention.

He can't pass the delegates, only the campaign organization. There won't be an open *convention* but there will be an open vote. Almost none of the delegates are pledged by election anymore. Delegation after delegation has voted to back VP Harris when the vote comes, but that is a choice *they* make, not Biden. The vote will be completed before the convention.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

I can't always do your research for you - read the article. They can hold an open convention - or (what they are in the process of doing) hold a virtual vote.

Knowledge is power

Perhaps on that side of the world.

 

[BCP1928]

All you are lacking are facts, links - IOW - more than your opinion. But thank you for your opinion.

OK, tell me more about the bound primaries that were held in 1860. I always like to learn about history.

 

[hislegacy]

OK, tell me more about the bound primaries that were held in 1860. I always like to learn about history.

third and final time - do your own research.

 

[Hans Blaster]

OK, tell me more about the bound primaries that were held in 1860. I always like to learn about history.

Lincoln was doing poorly until his strong showing in the Nevada caucus. The casino workers really came out for him. The after party was legendary. Lincoln almost lost all of his campaign funds at video poker.

 

[BCP1928]

third and final time - do your own research.

So the answer is "none" just like I thought.

 

[wing2000]

DJT on Monday:

“The Democrats pick a candidate, Crooked Joe Biden, he loses the Debate badly, then panics, and makes mistake after mistake, is told he can’t win, and decide they will pick another candidate, probably Harris,” Trump posted Monday. “They stole the race from Biden after he won it in the primaries — A First! These people are the real THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!”

Imagine, DJT is concerned ***THEY**** stole the race from Joe Biden.

And people fall for it.....

 

[hislegacy]

So the answer is "none" just like I thought.

Correct - that is how much research you have put into it.

See - I can be just as snarky

 

[BCP1928]

Correct - that is how much research you have put into it.

See - I can be just as snarky

Considering that I can find no mention of it in standard sources and bound primaries were not introduced to American politics until 1972, I think I will stick with my answer for the time being. Unless you are suggesting that the results of the supposed 1860 primaries were discarded and covered up in order to nominate Lincoln. That will definitely take more research.

 

[Astrid]

The parties have always been free to appoint their candidates however they see fit. It is not like there is a lot of time to mess around. You might as well ask why Trump didn't bother to debate. He was simply the obvious choice no matter how some might have opposed him.

"Obvious" and "good" sure are not the same.

 

[durangodawood]

"Obvious" and "good" sure are not the same.

Usually distinguishable in hindsight.

 

[Belk]

"Obvious" and "good" sure are not the same.

In some cases they are very far apart.