What if: Democrats' first choice loses nomination?

[Kyle (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

If you're in Maryland, your vote doesn't count anyway. Some Baltimore homeless person will be cancelling out your vote ...

Or one of Marylands Metabolically Challenged Democrats who vote religiously from their residences at Eternal Gateway, Memorial Gardens and Heavenly Meadows.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by aps45819

Since Maryland's electoral votes are going to the Democratic candidate...

Not so fast. I realize that it's likely that MD will go DEM but it's not a gurantee. I've posted this before but here it is again. Since the 1948 election, MD has gone for the DEM nine times and went for the GOPer six times. Not exactly a slam dunk for the DEMs.

[awpitt]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

Well, a new Gallup poll has answered that question, and the result is good for the Republican Party.

Gallup Poll: Many Democrats Ready to Vote McCain if Their First Choice Doesn’t Make It to November - America’s Election HQ

I can see this happening, especially if the super delegates change the outcome away from what the popular votes have been saying.

[High EGT]

Another link regarding the latest Gallop Pole on were the votes will turn

If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

[Mateo]

This is the McGovern Campaign redux., or if even earlier, the Humphrey campaign of '68. All that is missing is the chanting "Antiwar demonstrators", the "rioting" Chicago Police and a "shocked" media.
The Dems are self-destructing again.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Mateo

This is the McGovern Campaign redux., or if even earlier, the Humphrey campaign of '68. All that is missing is the chanting "Antiwar demonstrators", the "rioting" Chicago Police and a "shocked" media.
The Dems are self-destructing again.

...that is a good analogy. McGovern was able to thwart the will of the Dem party establishment because he had money sources outside their control which Obama certainly does BUT, BUT Barrack seems to have an awful lot of establishment backing; Kennedy, Kerry and so forth, a friendly party apparatus, that McGovern did not. Dems in '72 were petrified because McGovern was 'unelectable' as so much of the party was of the Reagan Democrat variety.

I haven't seen where Obama is unelectable. Make a good case for that and I'll agree.

[Mateo]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...that is a good analogy. McGovern was able to thwart the will of the Dem party establishment because he had money sources outside their control which Obama certainly does BUT, BUT Barrack seems to have an awful lot of establishment backing; Kennedy, Kerry and so forth, a friendly party apparatus, that McGovern did not. Dems in '72 were petrified because McGovern was 'unelectable' as so much of the party was of the Reagan Democrat variety.

I haven't seen where Obama is unelectable. Make a good case for that and I'll agree.

You are correct...Obama is electable because of all those things...to what looks like the majority of the democratic party,and some disaffected republicans and independents.
However, I don't think he is electable to the rest of the people and I believe this is the "silent" majority that we have heard of so much .
He is untested , even more so than Ms Clinton. Are you willing to trust our country's fate in his hands ? I am not, but as you point out, I am nothing more than a mote in God's eye (to paraphrase a SF title), hence my slim vote will mean nothing in this election..except to my conscience.
I know you are quite intelligent and knowledgeable. So are a large number of the forum posters here. I hate that our choices are rather pathetic in this trio and in the end, we sadly eat our own and appear to curse one another for our choices.
What do we do as Americans to bring out better candidates ? The ones that are worth it can't because they don't have the wherewithal to continue or they are too moral to get caught up in this prostitution.
You are quite correct, Larry. I can't convince you. Sadly, because, I can't convince myself.
AMERICA RULES ! God bless the USA !

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Mateo

Are you willing to trust our country's fate in his hands ? I am not, but as you point out, I am nothing more than a mote in God's eye (to paraphrase a SF title), hence my slim vote will mean nothing in this election..except to my conscience.
I know you are quite intelligent and knowledgeable. So are a large number of the forum posters here. I hate that our choices are rather pathetic in this trio and in the end, we sadly eat our own and appear to curse one another for our choices.
What do we do as Americans to bring out better candidates ? The ones that are worth it can't because they don't have the wherewithal to continue or they are too moral to get caught up in this prostitution.
You are quite correct, Larry. I can't convince you. Sadly, because, I can't convince myself.
AMERICA RULES ! God bless the USA !

...nothing to do with me from an actual vote standpoint because this is the first time in my voting life where I can't even begin to make a case for any of the major candidates. *edit* and that doesn't mean much because my record the last two presidential cycles has not turned out as I planned.

Obama is terribly out of his league. He has no frame of reference for anything as large as a city government let alone a state or the US as a nation. Hillary's underlying argument about his lack of experience is accurate. This is no place for amateurs and we'll either get lucky with a Lincoln-esque character who just has it in him to handle great things. Or not. Further, rising above the mindset of community activist to that of President of the United States is not something I'm counting on either.

Hillary is further correct that she is experienced. Her experiences are precisely the things that preclude her from being someone I could vote for.
That Obama has given her a free pass on her 'experience' does not change those experiences.

McCain is, by all accounts, very self centered and has a short fuse. he does not play well with other. That's just not good for a president of the PTA let alone a nation. His candidacy is laughably bad except it is not a joke.

Senators just make horrible Presidents. The just do. All we can do now is hope that is not always the case.

As for the future, well, Obama is a candidate an awful lot of people seem to be voting FOR and that is a good thing. So, that's the key, voting FOR someone.

He wouldn't be the first tall, funny looking lawyer from Illinois with a rather limited public service background who was derided for his inexperience that turned out to be made of good stuff when the moment demanded it.

Originally Posted by Mateo

What do we do as Americans to bring out better candidates ?

I think the answer to that question is nothing. This election is really an anomally in our political history. On the Democrat side, everyone knew that Hillary was going to be running this year, so most quality candidates sat out the contest. On the Republican side, I think most our best candidates saw that the war in Iraq was going to be the dominant issue, and also saw it as a loser issue for Republicans, so they sat out. At the end of the day you had the perennial Democrats like Richardson, Biden, and Kucinich, and those with nothing to lose like Obama, running; and a host of B-list and lower Republicans. The 2012 election is going to have much better candidates.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Bruzilla

The 2012 election is going to have much better candidates.

...let me make a note here.