Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:18 PM Apr 2016

A hypothetical about southern primaries

For the sake of argument, let's say that Johnson didn't run in 1964 (let's say for health reasons, not a scandal). So without an incumbent, there are contested primaries and George Wallace wins every state below the Mason Dixon Line. Would that make George Wallace a legitimate candidate? Would we be telling other candidates that they were mathematically eliminated and rallying around the delegate leader, George Wallace? Just something to ponder as we argue about southern primaries. (Note to dumb people: I am not comparing Hillary Clinton to Wallace as a person or a politician, the only comparison is that in my hypothetical, he also sweeps the South to build a lead)

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
4. I'm only talking about the "prohibitive" lead in the delegate count
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:24 PM
Apr 2016

I said nothing to suggest she only won in the south. For some historical perspective, running against Johnson, Wallace had his best showings in Wisconsin, Indiana and Maryland

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
10. A majority voting for Wallace WOULD make him "legitimate,"
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:31 PM
Apr 2016

yes. You know, the will of the people thing. Btw, for better and worse, this is why we now have superdelegates. To insert their experience and commitment to electing Democrats in general elections into these situations.

Also btw, Donald Trump could very easily have run as an anti-establishment Democrat instead of an anti-establishment Republican and now be busily turning our nation over to the GOP. I'm sure he must have considered it.

 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
2. So you're comparing Dixiecrats in 1964 to black voters today.
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:21 PM
Apr 2016

Gee I wonder why Bernie's 'movement' has failed at outreach to the African-American community.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
8. Everyone is so worried about insulting individual voters
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:29 PM
Apr 2016

It's not a matter of the makeup of the electorate. It's a matter of winning in states you aren't going to carry in the general election. Does winning there, or Utah, or Wyoming, for that matter, really matter? Even assuming that every Democrat in Utah is a true blue progressive. So what? It's not very indicative of who will win in November.

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)
7. What if George Wallace offered universal health care?
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:28 PM
Apr 2016

Would progressives be rallying behind him despite his anti-civil rights stance? My guess is yes, since free everything trumps all else.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
9. Do you get the comparison you are attempting to make.
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:30 PM
Apr 2016

Might want to pull this one back. Clearly didn't think it through.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
13. I'm only talking about the electoral map
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:49 PM
Apr 2016

That's the problem with this "spat" about the deep south. It's couched by the Clinton side as an "insult" to the fine progressives of the South. It has nothing to do with those fine people, it has to do with the electoral map. I'm more impressed with wins in Florida and Ohio. That certainly doesn't mean the Democrats of Florida or Ohio are any better than the Democrats of Mississippi or South Carolina, but at the end of the day, we are putting a premium on the lopsided results in those states. The only purpose of the hypothetic was not to compare the electorate then and now, but to point out a scenario where huge wins in the South could have put someone on the path to the nomination.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
15. "I'm only talking about the electoral map"
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 02:33 PM
Apr 2016

I'm only talking about a very small cherry-picked section of the electoral map."

Fixed it for you even though I'm pretty confident it isn't what you were going with.

ecstatic

(32,712 posts)
11. FYI, Hillary is winning the popular vote in the "blue states"
Mon Apr 18, 2016, 01:37 PM
Apr 2016
If you *only* counted blue states (voted for Obama twice), the results so far would be:
Clinton 5,174,202 (52.9%)
Sanders 4,603,832 (47.1%)


https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/720817499407822849
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»A hypothetical about sout...