Comments on: The Democrats' Two "Bush v. Gore" Conundrums http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/02/the-democrats-two-bush-v-gore-conundrums/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:23:54 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tony http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/02/the-democrats-two-bush-v-gore-conundrums/comment-page-1/#comment-5914 Tony Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:42:50 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=3932#comment-5914 Does <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/my-brother-the-superdeleg_b_85924.html" rel="nofollow">this count</a>? It has everything. <BR /> <BR /><a href="http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=9656" rel="nofollow">Via</a> John Cole. Does this count? It has everything.

Via John Cole.

]]> By: Brian Miller http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/02/the-democrats-two-bush-v-gore-conundrums/comment-page-1/#comment-5913 Brian Miller Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:45:18 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=3932#comment-5913 Hey here's an idea -- why don't we get government out of deciding who candidates for various political parties will be? <BR /> <BR />Why have a six-month taxpayer funded primary when Democrats and Republicans can do what Libertarians, Greens and Constitution Party people do -- show up to their own, privately funded convention to have delegates vote for a candidate? <BR /> <BR />Then, the people who are most involved with the party can have their choice selected in a Democratic way without state requirements that the desires of "independents" or members of another party be factored in. Hey here's an idea — why don't we get government out of deciding who candidates for various political parties will be?

Why have a six-month taxpayer funded primary when Democrats and Republicans can do what Libertarians, Greens and Constitution Party people do — show up to their own, privately funded convention to have delegates vote for a candidate?

Then, the people who are most involved with the party can have their choice selected in a Democratic way without state requirements that the desires of "independents" or members of another party be factored in.

]]> By: Skip Oliva http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/02/the-democrats-two-bush-v-gore-conundrums/comment-page-1/#comment-5912 Skip Oliva Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:33:02 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=3932#comment-5912 If there's litigation, it couldn't take place until after the Democratic convention, since the credentials committee would have to vote not to seat the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations. The Clintons are certainly capable of such an act, but I suspect enough superdelegates would switch their allegiance to Obama to make the difference irrelevant. <BR /> <BR />The real disaster scenario is a walkout by the Clinton or Obama delegates and the staging of separate conventions. There's historical precedent (i.e. the "Dixiecrats" in 1948.) That would cause litigation over which convention was legitimate. It would also guarantee a McCain victory, but nobody ever said Democrats weren't self-destructive. If there's litigation, it couldn't take place until after the Democratic convention, since the credentials committee would have to vote not to seat the disputed Michigan and Florida delegations. The Clintons are certainly capable of such an act, but I suspect enough superdelegates would switch their allegiance to Obama to make the difference irrelevant.

The real disaster scenario is a walkout by the Clinton or Obama delegates and the staging of separate conventions. There's historical precedent (i.e. the "Dixiecrats" in 1948.) That would cause litigation over which convention was legitimate. It would also guarantee a McCain victory, but nobody ever said Democrats weren't self-destructive.

]]>