2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumA 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)
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)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
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Since we're cherry-picking
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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)Gee I wonder why Bernie's 'movement' has failed at outreach to the African-American community.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)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.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)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)Might want to pull this one back. Clearly didn't think it through.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)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)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)Clinton 5,174,202 (52.9%)
Sanders 4,603,832 (47.1%)
https://mobile.twitter.com/SteveKornacki/status/720817499407822849