1968 Democratic National Convention

[me b zola]

How much will the nomination of our 2008 Democratic nominee resemble or differ from the nomination process of 1968?

In 1968 pro-war factions in the Democratic Party (what we may think of as dlc today) made back room deals to nominate Hubert Humphrey and to grab power within the Democratic Party. Most Democrats wanted a clear anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern.

There was chaos in the convention because although McGovern won the first vote, the pro-war faction fought to over turn that vote by challenging some of the delegates.

Now we know, as was pointed out so well by a recent episode of West Wing, that the party conventions have become almost obsolete because the nominations now are wrapped up well before the convention. But in terms of the nomination process, how will 2008 resemble 1968?

The only Dems that receive air time are those opposed to total withdraw from Iraq within one year. Clinton, Biden, & Schumer, appear to the average voter who is not as informed as we are believe that these are the only real choices for our candidate, and the polls reflect this.

There is a disconnect between what the voters want as policy and the candidates that they are choosing in the polls. In 1968 the voters got to watch the convention and be assured that their will was being carried out by the party, and no one or two candidates were being offered to them years in advance as their only viable choice.

I would really like it if we can discuss party issues without the thread devolving into most hated/most loved candidates. This isn't about Dem "bashing", nor "bashing" those who are seeking real representation from our party.

I will repeat my opening question. How much will the nomination of our 2008 Democratic nominee resemble or differ from the nomination process of 1968?

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. The nominee is now effectively determined by....

the primary electorate. For this reason, I can't conceive of a Clinton, Biden, or Lieberman being nominated. Look how well Lieberman did in the '04 primaries. Their world view is a minority world view within the party.

There shouldn't be much resemblance. to '68. If a prowar candidate is nominated, it will because she or he has finessed the question. Circumstances may also evolve to make this more likely than it appears now.

[leveymg]

2. I think the GOP is in much more serious danger of having their convention

turn into a riot, both inside and outside the hall.

They're the Party in power who is to blame for Iraq and whatever bloodbath they next conjure up during the coming three years, and all the catastrophes since January 2001.

The US presence will be drawn down significantly by election day 2006 - and will be virtually nill by 2008.

[MrBenchley]

3. Wow, what a silly comparison....

There wasn't a clear cut candidate during the 1968 convention...

"Most Democrats wanted a clear anti-war candidate, Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern."
Actually, most Democrats didn't....Most Democrats wanted Bobby Kennedy. Some Kennedy supports put George McGovern up as a substitute, but you can't even say most Kennedy suporters wanted McGovern that year.

And as far as who's the DLC and who isn't, worth noting that most of the DLC is well to the left of Dean on most issues....that would make Dean the Humphrey clone.

"This isn't about Dem "bashing", nor "bashing" those who are seeking real representation from our party."
Says somebody who's whizzing on "Clinton, Biden, & Schumer"....

[RB TexLa]

5. And about 30% of RFK supporters listed Wallace as their second choice n/t

[MrBenchley]

6. Source?

[RB TexLa]

7. It was in both T. White's making of for '68 and F and L on the trail

added message on edit


I don't know where in either book or what they used for their sources or the exact number. Just remember both of them had it and it was around 1/3ed. I thought it was odd for second choices but Bobby and Wallace did share a strong law and order platform and both had appeal to blue collar working class voters not to mention it was a very odd election cycle.

[MrBenchley]

8. Don't recall it in White....

But I'd be leery about taking anything Hunter Thompson wrote at face value....

[RB TexLa]

10. actually had it backwards, RFK was the 2ed choice of 30% Wallace voters

[MrBenchley]

11. Ah! THAT makes more sense....

Worth noting that if Wallace had stayed out, Humphrey would have won handily despite the chaos at the convention...and that when Wallace was shot, Nixon sent his plumbers to break into the assassin's apartment to try to tie him to the Democrats.

[RB TexLa]

13. a great Wallace qoute from the campaign

"They say we need $25M for better bombers, have the people we've been bombing been complaining?"

[MrBenchley]

16. What a malignant little gump Wallace was....

and from all accounts his son is no better...

[RB TexLa]

17. I don't see him too often

But they are cousins. Wallace Jr was a total political whore, got the NAACP endorsement in '48 I think it was, lost and the rest was history till the 70's and the "Wallace coalition" of blacks, teachers and blue collar unions. Always the debate of "the changing southern view vs. political whoredom"

[MrBenchley]

20. His son just made the news....

for speaking to the racist C of CC....

[RB TexLa]

21. sounds about right n/t

[RB TexLa]

12. HST and White, read both back to back

And the facts and political observations hold the same. Defiantly written in different styles but both gave a good inside look, and of course there are always exaggerations in Thompson's work.

[MrBenchley]

15. I thought Thompson an almost insanely entertaining writer

but not much of an actual "journalist."

I can still reel off stretches of "Vegas" from memory..at his best Thompson achieves an amazing poetic effect...

"We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold..." is one of the great beginnings in literature, as far as I'm concerned.

[me b zola]

14. Wow, what an obnoxious response

But that is how you respond to people in most of the threads that I see you in.

How is it "whizzing" on any of the three potential candidates mentioned to state that THEY have publically stated that they are not calling for a withdraw from Iraq within one year? It seems more that YOU are whizzing on those who support those candidates BECAUSE of their Iraq policy.

The OP lends to discussion of the simularities/dufferences of the cultrure, the feelings the public had about the war, and how political parties operated in 1968 compared to now. You seem to not want to discuss any of those things and in fact you appear to want to prevent any real discussion from occuring.

[MrBenchley]

22. Tough titty....

Next time try not to post anything quite so silly.

"how political parties operated in 1968"
Which you got uttterly wrong.

[skipos]

18. Not it is not a silly comparsion. And I wish

DUers could stop being so insulting and condescending to eachother instead. I realize that when everyone is hiding behind anonymous sceen names, it seems to bring out the worst in people. But Sweet Jesus people, we are all on the same team here.

[MrBenchley]

23. Funny how for people on the same team

we get this constant mindless sniping at the team captains....

It's a supremely silly comparison to discuss the 1968 convention while ignoring
--the fact that Bobby Kennedy, who would have been the Democratic nominee, was gunned down prior to the Convention
--the fact that you had both a draft and an active "youth culture" in 1968, neither of which applies today

The "not as informed as we are" makes those two omissions (and the "most voters" claim) supremely silly.

The mindless DLC bashing and the sneering at "Clinton, Biden, & Schumer" is just the cherry on the sundae.

[skipos]

25. No, I find it funnier when people hiding

behind anonymous screen names attack other people for "silly" posts or polls instead of just ignoring them. If you really wanted to change his or her mind about his or her claim, you would have respectfully pointed out what you disagreed with. Instead you went the if-you-disagree-with-me-you-are-stupid route that none of us like in people like Sean Hannity or O'Riley. I just wish people on the DU could debate without the name calling. I used to resort to that, but I am really trying hard not to.

[Blue_In_AK]

4. I am embarrassed to say that I didn't vote in 1968

(the first time I would have been able to) because I was so disgusted by the Chicago convention. I wish now that I had voted for old Hubert -- anybody the Dems put up would have been better than Tricky Dick.

[Selatius]

9. The comparison is FAR, FAR TOO EARLY to make

First off, we don't know what things will look like by 2008 both in the US and Iraq. Secondly, we are not yet fully aware of all the candidates who will run for the nomination. Thirdly, we don't know what Bush will do in Iraq by 2008.

Until then, this is nothing more than mental masturbation. The only way the Democratic Party will be divided over the Iraq War to the point where there is rioting out on the streets is if it was a Democrat who put troops on the ground in Iraq in the first place, and that didn't happen the 2nd time we decided to repeat Vietnam.

[me b zola]

19. But it is not too early to discuss HOW we nominate a candidate

The comparison came to mind after I heard Biden's recent remarks following the near riot in the House following Congressman Murtha's call for phased pullout with six months. It really struck me on how "the powers that be" were intent on a continued presence in Vietnam and were intent on a nominee who would support such a policy, and how similar that is to what we are seeing today with our most visible elected officials.

No, I don't believe that there will be rioting in the streets, because contemporary protests do not resemble the protests of the 60's. I was hoping, though, for discussion of the differences in the culture today vs 1968.


Perhaps I was unable to convey in the OP thoughtful discussion that I was hoping to provoke. I am not asking nor suggesting who will get the nomination, but rather pointing out that it appears that the media is pushing certain candidates upon us. I also pointed out that those who lead in the EARLY polls do not reflect the policies that the same polls say that we are interested in.


Never mind, I will click on a "caption this pic" thread or two.

[MrBenchley]

24. There's no mystery on how we select a candidate

Read up on the Iowa caucuses and the primaries...

"it appears that the media is pushing certain candidates upon us"
It appears to you there's some sort of "Schumer for President" bandwagon?

[ultraist]

26. The DNC and the media do bear some influence on the primaries

The saying, "Kerry was coronated" does have some truth to it.