AmericanPapist Comments
I think this is a great thing. There's nothing more nauseating in the political process than having two candidates essentially coronated long before the conventions. I think this shows that the US has a very healthy democracy, with a more engaged electorate than the rest of world would thinks. I for one like having lots of choices and lots to think about!
I'm hoping that when all the primaries are over, there'll be no clear delegate winner. Brokered conventions here we come! While this might sound like a bigger mess, I think with a brokered convention, we might get new candidates on both sides.
Of course, it would also be historically, mind-blowingly interesting.
Although a close fight at the convention might be a lot more entertaining, it probably does not help the nominee win in November.
The last "close" convention was the 1976 Republican Convention that nominated Gerald Ford. He lost to Jimmy Carter, who himself faced a contentious (but not really all that close) convention in 1980. Carter lost, too.
Turbulent and contentious conventions are not helpful to the nominee.
I agree with you both Doug and Brendan. This is an historic moment that has immense ramifications. In the near future it says a lot about the current political scene in that Americans are not satisfied with the status quo of the current political scheme. What it has potential of doing is two fold. Either reintroducing "compromise" to our political landscape or opening the door for more inclusive political activity which means a multi-party system.
I live in SC, and nothing would be more bemusing than to see Fred Thompson win. What would all the folks in the MSM do then? The same could be said for Edwards on the Dems side.
I doubt Thompson will win in SC. I am hoping Huckabee will pull it off. As a southerner, I don't see a Yankee Mormon having much appeal there. And in the general election, Romney would have no chance against Hillary. Has anyone ever won a Presidential election who is from Massachusetts in the last 30 years?
Romney would have no chance against Hillary. Has anyone ever won a Presidential election who is from Massachusetts in the last 30 years?
Well, no, buth neither has anyone from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut (counting GHWB as Maine), Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virgina, Vermont, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Washington, or Wyoming.
what paul said.
Unlike Hillary, Romney has actually run a business *(successfully) and a state. Meaning...he's had to learn and excel at compromise and working with people rather than coming in as a dictator who well, dictates his will and sees that it is done on pain of the goon-squad punishing those lackeys who disobey.
Besides, how quickly we forgot the Clinton's decade old habit of surrounding themselves with less than savory company who are constantly in danger of running afoul of the law. Over a dozen Clinton staffers and administration people or close associates WENT TO JAIL in the 1990's because of real crimes. As the continued illegal fundraising debacles show, the Clintons have not changed their habits or company. A Hillary administration would be just as if not more corrupt than Bill's proved to be.
Ron Paul did best among Michigan Republicans with no religion, receiving 22% of their vote (and coming in second, behind McCain)
If there were a brokered convention on each side (dare to dream, it's possible, although more difficult on the Dems' side), I'd like to see George Mitchell (D-Maine) and either Powell, Dr. Rice, or Alan Simpson be the candidates.
Commenting by HaloScan
