Nah.The fact the right keeps pushing Shapiro is enough to know she made a good choice.
They would have picked one of the people she didn't choose and hype them no matter what.
It's an easy PR play.
Get ready Kamala fans...this is just the beginning
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
They would have picked one of the people she didn't choose and hype them no matter what.
It's an easy PR play.
Not materially different.
There were unbound delegates and Humphrey petitioned them and won.
Same as what happened with Harris here.
Remember, both back then and now only delegates vote for the candidate.
He lost.Now what happened to Humphrey in November 1968? My memory escapes me.
The convention was chaotic.
There was a rare massive third party vote in a region which one a significant number of delegates.
It also provoked a massive reform to the nomination system.
We will see if any of those 4 things happen this time.
No, it is not.
Or rather, it is more direct in Canada if you are a member of the party.
In the US, it is much less direct because the primary process is so patchwork.
More of the population can participate in the Presidential candidate selection, though.
(Of course, the debate on who is selecting the candidates has its own issues, as seen by the various arguments over what type of primary or caucus to have. Most Americans have a very confused view of what role they play in the process.)
I continue to find it bizarre that many people think a candidate is required to accept the nomination, but yes, it does seem some people have a really weird view on this.
Like I said, most Americans are very confused about the actual process.
Nope.
Rule 9 of The Rules of the Republican Party provides guidance on how to fill presidential and vice presidential vacancies.
It says that the Republican National Committee (RNC) is authorized to select a new candidate by majority vote or by reconvening the national convention to fill the vacancy. In the former process, the three RNC members from each state—comprised of a state chair, a national committeeman, and a national committeewoman—would be able to cast the same number of votes as the entire delegation from that state to the convention.[9] Under Rule 9(c), if the three RNC members did not all support the same candidate, their votes would be proportionately distributed.[9] For example, each RNC member would cast 13 of Kansas' 39 delegate votes
Humphrey entered the race in April 1968. If you feel party insiders determining the nominee is the norm, that's fine. However, it's very well documented that the 1968 nomination process was reformed to give "Democratic" voters more direct determination of the nominee. Of course, it's not a popular vote process. We do know Kamala received zero votes in a Democratic primary.
In my opinion, LBJ's decision to not run in March 1968 was a more honest and realistic reaction to the situation than what transpired this spring and early summer.
So no, not the same.
Yeah, so. Comparing today's process to the process fifty-six years ago is more than extraneous.
It would wise for the Republicans to select someone else... the ship is sinking and Trump will be the first one to escape and spend his time golfing in his pro league where he wins every tournaments.
x.com
x.com
Crowd waiting for
@KamalaHarris
in Michigan. (We could hear the noise from inside the plane.)
Earp, isn't this the same obsession with irrelevant, self-serving minutiae as your 10-page argument that Trump wasn't judicially determined to be a sexual predator because he wasn't found guilty in a civil trial to the criminal standard?
No one really gives a fuck about whether KH would have been nominated back in 1968, do they? Except apparently for you.
Are you even following the discussion?
Please stop this prepubescent obsession of following me around the schoolyard to repeatedly tell me you don't like me.
LMAO
"She has not done an interview. She has not done a press conference in the past 17 or so days." "Donald Trump is now doing a press conference at 2:00. It is a new type of trolling. He is becoming a bit of a stuntman here for Donald Trump." "But does he have a point that the public has not seen her do a press conference or sit down interview yet?” Dem. Senator Padilla has a ridiculous excuse for why Kamala Harris is HIDING from the press. "You’ve got to cut her a little bit of slack for the last three and a half weeks, an unprecedented way to become the nominee for the Democratic Party." Right, being nominated for president in an undemocratic "coup" certainly is "unprecedented."
"She has not done an interview. She has not done a press conference in the past 17 or so days." "Donald Trump is now doing a press conference at 2:00. It is a new type of trolling. He is becoming a bit of a stuntman here for Donald Trump." "But does he have a point that the public has not seen her do a press conference or sit down interview yet?” Dem. Senator Padilla has a ridiculous excuse for why Kamala Harris is HIDING from the press. "You’ve got to cut her a little bit of slack for the last three and a half weeks, an unprecedented way to become the nominee for the Democratic Party." Right, being nominated for president in an undemocratic "coup" certainly is "unprecedented."
Last time I checked, this was a discussion board and people discuss issues.
You're welcome to put me on ignore, if you choose.
My point is that no one - aside from a handful of GOP-supporting political buffs - really cares that the way Harris got nommed was irregular. Shit happens and it happened in the Dem party this year. Once in a lifetime, maybe. But that's how shit rolls.
So maybe it's more useful to focus on the issues of the campaign than to continually suggest that Biden was coup d'etat-ed and Harris is somehow an improper choice for the nom.
I've got a question for you btw. Given Trump's very sparse campaign schedule and the wet splat that JDV has made, will Trump stay the course, or will he either pull out altogether or will he fight a half-hearted campaign and claim it was unwinnable when he loses in October?
This is patronizing, condescending, and offensive.
She's a run-of-the-mill grifter.
She's a run-of-the-mill grifter.
