Do you miss the party conventions of old?

[Psychic Octopus]

I'm sure that we are all familiar with party conventions, which occur every four years before a presidential election. My question is do you miss the old conventions, or how they often occurred until the mid-twentieth century, in which candidates usually arrived at the conventions not sure of being nominated, and often times compromises and deals were passed out. Sometimes, such as in the Republican Party in 1944, this was not the case, and a candidate easily was nominated.

What do you all think?

[Bo]

Yes (D). Of course. I especially liked it when an unknown dark horse was chosen to be the nominee of a partical party. Those were the fun, exciting days.

[The Mikado]

With the exception of Torie and Muon, none of us are old enough to remember these firsthand.  (I'm counting 1972 as the last one, if you count 1980, throw Gramps in there too).

That said, there were some pretty exciting floor fights back in the day.  However, dark horses and backroom dealings, however exciting, were deeply flawed and corrupt processes.  I'm not totally cool with the primary system, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of what preceded it.  (Frankly, primaries were one of the only good reforms to the political system of the progressive era.  I'd be happy to ditch referenda, recalls, etc.)

[Torie]

Absolutely!  They were grand. The 1964 GOP convention was a real blast, along with the 1968 conventions of both parties, but the best was the 1972 Dem convention. That was chaos! 

[Bo]

Absolutely!  They were grand. The 1964 GOP convention was a real blast, along with the 1968 conventions of both parties, but the best was the 1972 Dem convention. That was chaos! 

I thought the 1968 one was more chaotic.

[Guderian]

I hate the current primary system so much that I would take the old conventions with floor fights and backroom deals back. But it's not a perfect system either.

[Torie]

Absolutely!  They were grand. The 1964 GOP convention was a real blast, along with the 1968 conventions of both parties, but the best was the 1972 Dem convention. That was chaos! 

I thought the 1968 one was more chaotic.

In 1972, McGovern gave his acceptance speech at some time around Midnight EST. That is chaos baby.

[Bo]

Absolutely!  They were grand. The 1964 GOP convention was a real blast, along with the 1968 conventions of both parties, but the best was the 1972 Dem convention. That was chaos! 

I thought the 1968 one was more chaotic.

In 1972, McGovern gave his acceptance speech at some time around Midnight EST. That is chaos baby.

And having massive anti-war riots is not chaos? Though to be fair, weren't the riots in 1968 right outside the convention?

[Deldem]

Absolutely!  They were grand. The 1964 GOP convention was a real blast, along with the 1968 conventions of both parties, but the best was the 1972 Dem convention. That was chaos! 

I thought the 1968 one was more chaotic.

In 1972, McGovern gave his acceptance speech at some time around Midnight EST. That is chaos baby.

And having massive anti-war riots is not chaos? Though to be fair, weren't the riots in 1968 right outside the convention?

Well, there were different kinds of chaos. I mean, in 1972 there was the incredible fiasco that was the McGovern campaign, while obviously 1968 featured rioting.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course. The current system sucks.

[Deldem]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

[Bo]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

Barack Obama	17,628,560	47.12%
Hillary Clinton	18,055,516	48.26%
John Edwards	1,003,011	2.68%

[patrick1]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

Barack Obama	17,628,560	47.12%
Hillary Clinton	18,055,516	48.26%
John Edwards	1,003,011	2.68%

It is fun manipulating statistics, isn't?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

Barack Obama	17,628,560	47.12%
Hillary Clinton	18,055,516	48.26%
John Edwards	1,003,011	2.68%

It is fun manipulating statistics, isn't?

You are accusing Dave Leip of manipulating statistics?

[patrick1]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

Barack Obama	17,628,560	47.12%
Hillary Clinton	18,055,516	48.26%
John Edwards	1,003,011	2.68%

It is fun manipulating statistics, isn't?

You are accusing Dave Leip of manipulating statistics?

I wasn't aware that was the source but there are problems with that.  Caucuses for one and Obama not even being on the ballot in Michigan.  I dont have a dog in this fight so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries#Problems_with_popular_vote_metrics

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

Barack Obama	17,628,560	47.12%
Hillary Clinton	18,055,516	48.26%
John Edwards	1,003,011	2.68%

It is fun manipulating statistics, isn't?

You are accusing Dave Leip of manipulating statistics?

What did blank quoting me accomplish?

[patrick1]

Computer went haywire.  My answer is above.

[Bo]

Of course. The current system sucks.

The one where people get to vote? Oh yeah, I hate that democracy thing...

If that were the case, Hillary Clinton would have been the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee.

Why?

Barack Obama	17,628,560	47.12%
Hillary Clinton	18,055,516	48.26%
John Edwards	1,003,011	2.68%

Popular vote is irrelevant in the primaries. Even if it was relevant, the PV totals should not include MI or FL since these two states were told that they will not count and thus many people declined to vote. Also, the Democratic Party asked all candidates in MI to remove thier names from the ballots, and Obama obeyed the party while Hillary did not, and thus it is unfair that Hillary is counted as getting several hundred thousand votes in Michigan while Obama got 0. Finally, there is no way to determine how many people exactly voted at the caucuses since caucus results are arranged by county delegates rather than by actual votes. In most caucus states, the number of actual votes a candidate received was never tallied.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Caucuses are undemocratic garbage to begin with, so there is no reason to count them anyway.

Hillary was the democratically-determined Democratic nominee in 08. So much for democracy and letting the people decide.

[Franzl]

Caucuses are undemocratic garbage to begin with, so there is no reason to count them anyway.

Hillary was the democratically-determined Democratic nominee in 08. So much for democracy and letting the people decide.

Even counting Michigan and Florida, it is very likely that Barack Obama received more votes. Whether you like caucuses or not (I hate them personally), people did actually cast votes in them.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Caucuses are undemocratic garbage to begin with, so there is no reason to count them anyway.

Hillary was the democratically-determined Democratic nominee in 08. So much for democracy and letting the people decide.

Even counting Michigan and Florida, it is very likely that Barack Obama received more votes. Whether you like caucuses or not (I hate them personally), people did actually cast votes in them.

Doesn't matter, caucuses don't represent the people.

And by the way, I added Obama's total caucus votes in, and Hillary Clinton still comes out ahead without even counting her caucus votes.

[Bo]

Caucuses are undemocratic garbage to begin with, so there is no reason to count them anyway.

Hillary was the democratically-determined Democratic nominee in 08. So much for democracy and letting the people decide.

Even counting Michigan and Florida, it is very likely that Barack Obama received more votes. Whether you like caucuses or not (I hate them personally), people did actually cast votes in them.

Doesn't matter, caucuses don't represent the people.

And by the way, I added Obama's total caucus votes in, and Hillary Clinton still comes out ahead without even counting her caucus votes.

If the rules said that the candidate with the greatest PV won, then Obama would have ran a much different campaign. He would have ignored all the small caucus states and massively campaigned in all the large cities to maximize his vote total there. Also, he would not have removed his name from the Michigan ballot (like the party asked all the candidates to do) if Michigan was to be counted in the full popular vote tally. BTW, if Hillary would have won the nomination and Obama would have won the PV, Hillary's supporters would have defended her and said that she followed the rules and won the nomination fair and square while Obama did not. Likewise, if the 2000 election was going to be determined by popular rather than electoral vote, Bush Jr. would have campaigned much more in large cities and suburbs instead of visiting many small rural areas.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Caucuses are undemocratic garbage to begin with, so there is no reason to count them anyway.

Hillary was the democratically-determined Democratic nominee in 08. So much for democracy and letting the people decide.

Even counting Michigan and Florida, it is very likely that Barack Obama received more votes. Whether you like caucuses or not (I hate them personally), people did actually cast votes in them.

Doesn't matter, caucuses don't represent the people.

And by the way, I added Obama's total caucus votes in, and Hillary Clinton still comes out ahead without even counting her caucus votes.

If the rules said that the candidate with the greatest PV won, then Obama would have ran a much different campaign. He would have ignored all the small caucus states and massively campaigned in all the large cities to maximize his vote total there. Also, he would not have removed his name from the Michigan ballot (like the party asked all the candidates to do) if Michigan was to be counted in the full popular vote tally. BTW, if Hillary would have won the nomination and Obama would have won the PV, Hillary's supporters would have defended her and said that she followed the rules and won the nomination fair and square while Obama did not. Likewise, if the 2000 election was going to be determined by popular rather than electoral vote, Bush Jr. would have campaigned much more in large cities and suburbs instead of visiting many small rural areas.

You can't prove anything you've said here.

Also the party nomination process is not dictated by the Constitution like the electoral college is. It is pretty ridiculous that the same people who want to drop the electoral college and base it on the popular vote have no problem with the ridiculously undemocratic method by which their party nominates its candidates.