1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ickes says Hillary has it locked up

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by hondo, Feb 16, 2008.

  1. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    With the exception of Bill Clinton, the Democrats have nominated the wrong guy almost every election since McGovern (I don't count Jimmy Carter, because the Dems could have nominated FDR's corpse in 1976 and won). Here's who they nominated (and got beat with) and the guy they should have nominated:

    1972: McGovern (Scoop Jackson).
    1980: Carter (should have seen the handwriting on the wall and nominated Kennedy).
    1984: Mondale (wouldn't have mattered, but someone had to be better than him).
    1988: Dukakis (Bill Bradley)
    2000: Gore (anyone who wasn't a wooden indian)
    2004: Kerry (Dick Gephardt would have been a safe, saner alternative).
    Now they're going to go against the will of their people and find a way for Hillary to win -- because it's her turn and she's entitled.
     
  2. Hondo - Gore was the right guy. And if he would have been the Gore we have seen since then, he probably would have won.
     
  3. hondo --
    I hate to break it to you, but Scoop Jackson wasn't an alternative in 1972. (Neither was Bradley in 1988). Nor should I probably point out that there were certain irregularities in the 200 election that you ought to take into account, to say nothing of a 500K advantage in the popular vote. Anway, Scoopster ran in 1976, won Massachusetts and nothing else, and vanished without a trace. (I note, too, that the 1976 election, the one that Carter won, is not on your list). As to the rest, well, a fella can dream, I guess.
    Not to minimize the Mighty Power Of Straight Talk, but the notion that the Democratic -- See, Boom, it's easy. Only two more letters -- nominee starts with an inherent structural disadvantage against the unified, ferocious Republican party this time around really ought to take into account a) the turnout figures, and b) the polls that still indicate that GOP voters don't like any of the rodeo clowns. I know that the Hildebeast's Jedi mind-tricks give everyone the vapors around here, but folks should really pay attention. Simple -- follow the rules. That means the Supers vote for whoever they want and Michigan and Florida don't count.
     
  4. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    With the exception of Clinton, every democratic nominee since Carter has been a zero on the likability scale...

    If they nominate Obama, he probably wins... Knowing the dems, Hillary will get the nod and McCain will be the president...

    The way I look at it, as long as it's not Hillary, I'm happy...
     
  5. I don't want complete crackpots (Janice Rogers Brown? Who even Bork thought was a loon?) on the Supreme Court, or a president who's going to defer decisions on the economy to Carly Fiorini because he doesn't really give a fuck, so, no, I don't agree with you.
    I thought Kristof's piece in the NYT yesterday about how St. John is a principled waffler was about the funniest thing I ever read there.
     
  6. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    "That means the Supers vote for whoever they want and Michigan and Florida don't count."

    That is what should happen but it won't. The Clintons can't help themselves. They already have lawyers in Florida and Michigan looikng things over.
     
  7. hondo

    hondo Well-Known Member

    Scoop Jackson was a candidate in 1972. And in 1976.

    Al Gore may or may not have been the right guy in 2000. If he had just won his home state, he would have been the winner.
     
  8. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    I thought Gore won the District of Columbia...
     
  9. T2

    T2 Member

    The Democratic Party doesn't like to be called the "Democrat Party," you know. Nevertheless, Rush Limbaugh and others routinely provoke them by omitting the "ic."

    I think the Dems should counter by omitting the GOP's "ic." From now on, it should be called the Republan Party!
     
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    The party powers-that-be don't want the unwashed masses to pick their candidates if they can help it.

    Is this news to anyone?
     
  11. Pastor

    Pastor Active Member

    Keep the "ic" drop the "l'an"... Repubic Party.
     
  12. Lugnuts

    Lugnuts Well-Known Member

    Just because the Republicans are desperate to fall in line like sheep behind a nominee in freakin' February-- just because we like to contest the damn thing over here-- certainly doesn't mean the Democrats are screwed.

    Listening to Chucky Schumer on MTP yesterday... I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary shocks everybody and bows out gracefully when the time comes. I think she'll fight like hell, bitter bitter hell, lawyerish, race card-ish, favor-calling-in bitter hell... until a point. Then she'll surprise everybody and get out. Just my opinion from some between-the-line reading.

    Then she'll wield some serious power in the Senate during an Obama presidency.

    .... Republicans' worst nightmare ..... ;D
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page