1968. "Hello, Democrats!"

[CentralCoaster]

.





Resistance is futile.










Do the right thing. Get out the vote.

[merrily]

1. In 1968, as they had for years, party bosses picked the nominee.

Oh, wait...

[Silver_Witch]

3. I saw what you did there. Very nice!

[Eric J in MN]

15. Hubert Humphrey won zero primaries.

Humphrey's campaign concentrated on winning the delegates in non-primary states, where party leaders controlled the delegate votes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1968

[merrily]

16. Correct. He didn't even enter any. He entered the race for the nom too late to enter any primary.

He may have done that for reasons related to him and Johnson and the Vietnam War, or he may have done that because he had not done well in primaries against John Kennedy. Hard to know. Of course, RFK had declared shortly after the NH primary--the first then, I believe, and one hopes HHH had no idea that RFK would not make it beyond California. So, he may especially not wanted to face another set of primaries against another Kennedy. Crazy that year. RFK and MLK, Jr. both assassinated during the primary and then the brutality outside the convention. And Johnson, who had won historic victories in 1964 questioning whether he could win against McCarthy and RFK. Just cray.

[Land of Enchantment]

27. Bingo, absolutely correct. It was a VERY sad year. I remember LBJ

saying he would not run and would not serve and it all hit the fan after that. I recall HHH was VP and was just waiting in the wings as perhaps Biden might be? Your earlier post spelled it all out as it happened--HHH never participated in a single primary. I can't predict what will happen this summer but we all know and some remember exactly what they are capable of and their willingness to execute their plans.

[merrily]

32. HI! How is meadowlark merrily?

I am on top of 1968 because I have been doing a series of posts at JPR on Presidential elections since 1952. I got to 1968 and got bogged down because it's such a big subject. So far, I've done two posts on the 1968 candidates and events and I am just getting up to the convention, which will probably take 1 or 2 more posts. All the other years, I glossed over in one post, but 1968 was yuuuuge.

[Land of Enchantment]

35. Well hello there!

I've missed you! I haven't been on DU much lately b/c of all the animosity and am trying to learn how to navigate JPR. I will make a point to read your posts over there and am happy to hear you are covering the history of the elections. What an endeavor!

Meadowlark Merrily has not left our home. She sings to me every morning when I am working in the vegetable garden. We 'carry on conversations' that go something like this....

Chirpity chirpity!

Well, Hello Merrily!

Chirirrip--chirp chirp!

I'm happy to see you too! Got a nest yet?

ChirpityChirp---breaks into a melodic song for about 15 seconds...

That was beeoutiful!!! You are a beautiful bird!

Another song with variations...

She responds to me and this goes on for up to a half hour on the not too windy mornings....

Here is her nest from 2 years ago...in the pine tree 10 feet from the front door.



And here she is with her three chicks!



Can't wait to see what happens this year. She is really special--meadowlarks nest on the ground--this was a first!

[merrily]

42. Awww. That's adorable. I hope she had a great Mother's Day!

[Art_from_Ark]

43. 1968 was indeed yuuuuge

It seems like the feces was hitting the ventilator everywhere around me-- not only at the national level with the assassinations of King and Kennedy, but at the personal level, when three people I knew all died within 3 months of each other-- and a dog and a neighbor kid were both run over on my block, just a half block, and 3 weeks, apart.

And the Chicago convention-- just wow.

And the Tet Offensive, and the USS Scorpion and USS Pueblo incidents (hearing about the Scorpion even today gives me the creeps).

It was a weird year.

It did end on an optimistic note (for me, at least), with the Apollo 8 mission and the astronauts' Christmas Eve message.

[merrily]

44. Wow. That's a lot. I am glad it ended well. Year end is such an optimistic time, isn't it?

It always feels to me as though the coming year is going to be a good one.

[Art_from_Ark]

47. I did feel that 1969 would be a good year for me

and as it turned out, for the most part it was. If I had my choice of any 5 years I could return to, that would likely be one of them.

[PatrickforO]

51. Yeah but the Hube was a willing part of the Democratic 'machine'

Heck, we don't want who the people want! WTF. Let's put our own guy in there!

[NewImproved Deal]

55. Clinton Machine hack Ed Rendell with the Former First Lady...

Note his "Hillary" button...

[link:|

[doc03]

2. WTF is this what you are advocating or threatening for this years convention? n/t

[NurseJackie]

5. If so, it wouldn't be the first post here so to do.

Of course, I can't know what's inside the OP's mind or what their motivations might be for this particular post. It's certainly a puzzler, and the only way to know for sure would be if the OP returns to clarify their intent.

[HumanityExperiment]

6. Lesson from '68 convention...

It wasn't learned.. history repeats itself

so... to your reply, try again, you're attacking the wrong folks...

[doc03]

8. Your post doesn't make any more sense than the original ops intention.

Are you saying if Bernie doesn't get nominated you want a convention like in 1968 when we lost the election?

[HumanityExperiment]

9. you're dancing...

you're dancing around the reason and your lack of knowing and understanding the history before, during and after the convention of that years shows

SDs were created after the fallout of what happened AFTER the 68 convention and the more democracy based process that nominated Carter, against the will of party bosses and party insiders...

What the OP is clearly stating is that neither candidate will have enough delegates to earn nomination going into convention, it will fall to the SDs to cross that line... and guess whom makes up the SDs? Yep... party bosses and party insiders...

Now, you were sayin'?

[merrily]

23. Lobbyists are also SDs Where did Doc claim super delegates existed in 1968?

Why do you keep berating doc for things not in his or her posts?

[HumanityExperiment]

26. berating?...

"WTF is this what you are advocating or threatening for this years convention?"

OP posted images

images noted riots during '68 convention

convention nominated candidate that party bosses wanted over voter / voted nominees

outcome of convention was rules to make process more democracy based rather than party boss

outcome of those rules nominated grassroots candidate Jimmy Carter, outcome of that was rule to create SDs

now DEMs are almost back to where we started in '68, party boss control of nominee

doc is being intellectually dishonest or willfully ignorant on the point as it pertains to party boss control as it ties in from the '68 and upcoming convention since clearly both candidates won't have enough delegates going into convention this year and the SDs will have to come into play to push either candidate to total required to earn nomination

Do you dispute these facts?

[2banon]

46. FFS! Get a Grip!

You may not have been on the planet at the time, which might explain why you're not getting the OP. Stop being a reactionary, read and learn.

[merrily]

17. You're replying to a question about the meaning of the OP and misharacterizing it an attack.

[HumanityExperiment]

18. ...

was this reply meant for me?

I get the meaning of the OP and know it wasn't meant as an attack

[merrily]

22. Yes. Your reply was to doc, not to the OP.

It said "so... to your reply, try again, you're attacking the wrong folks..." There was no attack in doc's post, only a question to the OP about the meaning of the OP's post.

I said nothing about your interpretation of the OP.

[CentralCoaster]

13. Hardly. Perhaps you missed the final line at the bottom of the OP.

GOTV, let's try to keep it a close race by keeping Sanders numbers high, let's have a contested convention.

Maybe we'll learn from this and eliminate the superdelegate fucked up sham of a fucking system.

Failure to make the Democratic Party operate in a democratic fashion will spell the end of that very party.

Submission to the corrupt way this year's primary has been handled can only perpetuate and deepen the problem.

Maybe this time we'll get it right.

[merrily]

19. Didn't miss the last line but your post was several photos of demonstrators getting messed up

outside the Democratic National Convention by Chicago police on the orders of Democratic Mayor Daley. That is not usual for a GOTV post.

[CentralCoaster]

28. Indeed, not usual for a GOTV post.

This is a very unusual season, ain't it?

We remember how contested 2008 was, how the supers were all lined up for Hillary.

This season is quite different, they loaded the dice, put in DWS, tripled down the carrot/stick thing.

And the Clintons this time have amassed millions if not billions in capital and influence, thanks to her family foundations and SOS years.

She didn't have either of those last time around.

This is a bad season. If we GOTV in California and elsewhere, maybe we can avoid those riots and things.

[merrily]

31. West Virginia next.

A lot of supers rushed to Hillary at first, but not all of them, like this time. I assume they assumed it was her turn. However, there is usually a hierarchy among equals (aka, primus inter pares), as oxymoronic as that seems. And Harry Reid, Kerry (the 2004 nominee), Pelosi and Kennedy were among those who favored Obama.

[GulfCoast66]

36. Super delegates

Are Bernies only chance.

He is losing the popular vote and the bound degelates.

1968 will be analogous only if he gets the nomination.

[CentralCoaster]

37. We are where we are in part because of 1968. No analogy was intended.

The OP is more of an open question: How did we get here, was the superdelegate idea a good thing?

The only analogy might be if we come close but this is a new era, these are frightening times, the party picked the candidate before the first citizen voted and I think the machinery is less democratic than ever before.

Not good.

[KPN]

52. You are right.

Just wanted to throw you some support.

[merrily]

45. I wouldn't worry. Threatening brutality of demonstrators by police and militia per 1968 seem empty,

unless the OP is Mayor of Philadelphia or the Governor of Pennsylvania. Or maybe former Governor Rendell. He probably has juice with the Mayor and the current Governor. Seems like the type who would do it, too.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. They should make the riot police wear those light blue helmets again.

[merrily]

25. Pink would be better, but I bet they'd refuse to wear pink helmets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker-Miller_Pink

[CobaltBlue]

7. 1968 Ds vs. 2016 Ds—Not the same characteristics…

The Vietnam War destroyed Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.

Robert Kennedy’s assassination made it furthermore unlikely the Democrats could hold the White House.

The party fractured.

The convention destroyed the party’s hopes.

In a way, Hubert Humphrey was able to carry more states—and electoral votes—than what might have otherwise materialized with a different candidate.



In 2016, I think neither major party’s convention will bomb—in terms of destruction. But, this election is favoring the Democrats, in part, because Republicans are less supportive of their likely nominee, Donald Trump, than the Democrats are with their likely nominee, Hillary Clinton.

[CentralCoaster]

11. Things are worse now. Wars are endless, Patriot Act and Police State policies. Not good times.

Shit, we can't even trust a "progressive" institution like the University of California at Davis to have our backs.

They tried, literally, to rewrite history and destroy any record of this having happened:




"UC Davis thought it could pay to erase a scandal from the Internet"

[merrily]

20. Wallace, running "third" party, also carried about six Southern States.

This was the first convention after the Voting Rights Act.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Five states, I think

Including my state of Arkansas. What's interesting about that is, most of the kids I knew (that is, their parents) were supporting Bobby Kennedy when school let out for summer vacation in May 1968. When the new school year started 3 months later, most of those same kids (parents) were supporting George Wallace. My grandparents supported Nixon.

[merrily]

50. Yep. Five.

Interesting that they switched from Kennedy to Wallace, but I am not surprised they were for Kennedy initially.

RFK stood for racial equality and economic justice, non-aggression in foreign policy, decentralization of power and social improvement. As with Senator Sanders in 2016, the young were a crucial element of RFK's campaign. He identified them as the future of a reinvigorated American society based on partnership and social equality. The business world was opposed to the tax increases necessary to fund RFK's proposed social programs. At Indiana University Medical School, medical students, expecting to enter lucrative careers, asked RFK, "Where are we going to get the money to pay for all these new programs you're proposing?" RFK replied, "From you."

IMO, RFK's association with his fallen brother cannot be overestimated. Although JFK had won his election narrowly, during his administration, the Kennedy family was well on its way to becoming American royalty. Moreover, a tsunami of sentiment engulfed the nation when JFK was assassinated. In almost every city and town, schools, streets and civic buildings were re-named. I believe that the national mourning contributed greatly to Johnson's dramatic electoral victory in 1964, as well as to Johnson's success in passing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In RFK, I believe Americans saw a way to honor JFK and a second chance at a Kennedy Presidency, Camelot Redux, perhaps.

http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?8147-The-Democratic-Party-ends-pesky-Party-Democracy-Part-Eight-of-a-Series&p=47379#post47379

[Art_from_Ark]

54. I think Wallace was part of the "Southern identity" thing

I'm guessing that people didn't like Humphrey because he basically got the nomination handed to him, and his running mate was also a Northerner (Muskie), making for the first "unbalanced" Dem ticket since Roosevelt-Wallace in 1940. And they weren't ready to go whole hog for a Republican. George Wallace was the only Southern Democrat in the '68 race.

Perhaps if Humphrey had chosen a Southerner as a running mate (maybe even Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright), he would have done much better in the South.

[merrily]

57. Adlai Stevenson had the nom handed to him. Such primaries as there were at the time nominated

Kefauver. However, the Party bosses were ticked at Kefauver because his hearings had revealed mob connections with Democratic party bosses in a number of cities. So, they ignored the primaries and nominated Stevenson, who couldn't even make up his mind if he wanted to run. He probably would have lost anyway, Ike haveing been such a war hero, but nominating the guy no one had voted for in any primary could not have helped.

About Republicans: Did Nixon have a "Southern strategy" then? Strom Thurmond ran against Truman in 1948 over integrating the military, but I imagine until the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act the Republicans had written off the "Solid" South.

[Art_from_Ark]

58. You're probably right about the effect of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act

Although I had never thought of it before, the first House election in my district after the passage of the Voting Rights Act was won by a Republican, the first time any Republican had won a Congressional seat in Arkansas since Reconstruction. The district at the time was the whitest part of the state, and the winner was from an area that was-- and still is-- pretty racist. I don't know if the winner himself was racist, but he had tons of support from racist areas. And he kept winning his elections-- he was elected, then re-elected about a dozen times. His closest competitor was a 28-year-old kid named Bill Clinton, who came to within about 5000 votes of defeating him in 1974.

[merrily]

59. I think I said that the Republicans had probably given up on the South and therefore did not have

much of a Southern strategy in their pockets by 1968. They probably thought it would always go Democratic. FDR knew that was not true and, to his great credit, so did Truman. Truman integrated the military in an election year when Democrat Wallace (not the Governor but FDR's former VP) was running against him on the left and Democrat Strom Thurmond was about to run against him on race. I would have to research who was advising Nixon in 1968 then, before I could say with confidence that he had no "Southern Strategy" (effin euphemisms) then.

From what I've read--and I am no scholar--neither Thurmond nor Wallace ever dreamt they would win the general. They ran solely to have some clout.

[Art_from_Ark]

60. After signing the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Lyndon Johnson is reputed to have said,

“We have lost the South for a generation". While I cited the example I knew best, by 1966 I think large parts of the Solid South were starting to crumble. So I don't think that the Republicans had given up on the South. In fact, I think they may have been emboldened, not only by Goldwater's results in the '64 election, but also by Wallace's performance in the '68 election, where he won 5 Southern states (nearly the same ones Goldwater won), and the mainstream Democratic candidate fared very poorly.

[merrily]

61. "Reputed to have said" is very precise and accurate. No solid evidence that he said it, but

he was a shrewd enough a politician to have said that and more--but, if he did say it, he underestimated.

Supposedly, losing the South for Democrats was the reason FDR did so little about race issue. You'd think that would be a cautionary tale for people who put Party above all else, but apparently not. They use it only to bash FDR when his genius in other matters is praised.

[NewImproved Deal]

56. Those Alligator states Wallace won...

Were also won by the Clinton Machine this year...

[KingFlorez]

10. Threats never accomplish anything

If there are riots it will only damage those who support Sanders and make it impossible for them to be heard in the future.

[Wilms]

12. No one is threatening anyone.

That's just BrockBro nonsense. Don't fall for it or his online paTroll.

[merrily]

21. Riots? How about police brutality?

[G_j]

14. "peace now!" was the theme

observe where the violence came from,

[Beacool]

24. Ridiculous!!!!

When Obama won the nomination in 2008, his pledged delegate and popular vote advantage was minuscule. Hillary is well ahead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, but some of you expect the super delegates to switch to Sanders and hand him the nomination????

Are you people for real????

[CentralCoaster]

29. When Obama won the nomination, he wasn't facing the same Hillary Clinton and DNC machine.

We remember how contested 2008 was, how the supers were all lined up for Hillary.

This season is quite different, they loaded the dice, put in DWS, tripled down the carrot/stick thing (naughty nice list)
And the Clintons this time have amassed millions if not billions in capital and influence, thanks to her family foundations and SOS years.

She didn't have either of those last time around. Bernie has been facing a much more challenging set of obstacles.

It's my hope that we'll do so well in the remaining states that the party and supers will get a clue.

[Beacool]

38. No, they won't go with the losing candidate.

Since the inception of the super delegates, they have never gone against the will of the people.

[intheflow]

30. Yes, we're for real.

Because what are we supposed to think when DNC power elites say things like, "[Sanders] supporters have to behave and not cause trouble" we are justified in fearing a militarized response from them.

[apnu]

33. The irony here is we have the superdelegate system because of Chicago '68

They started cooking that up after the riots and finally got around to implementing the superdelegate system in 1980. Nobody's said boo about the supers until now.

[CentralCoaster]

34. Their solution was precisely the opposite of what should have been done.

It's a recipe for disaster.

If you want to cooperation, try inclusion instead of authority.

[apnu]

41. The theory at the time was this: prevent the party from being hijacked by grassroots

Which is exactly what happened to the GOP and why they're politically dead and only live on with any viability through gerrymandering in 2010.

Grassroots are awesome and they're the engine of change in America. Good change, positive change, the right change. However, the further to the left (or right) a person is the less patient they become for the rate of change. As the extremes of the parties gain more supporters the faster they demand change.

This can lead to making changes without considering of long term consequences and or shocking the general body of citizens who are unprepared for such changes causing backlash. The greater and rapid the change, the greater the backlash. Look at the Terror of the French Revolution. They swung hard and fast between two extremes and the streets of Paris ran with blood.

The superdelegate system is meant to put the breaks on rapid changes and the party being hijacked by anybody.

This does not mean the superdelegate system is the right system, today, it is not. Corporate interests have taken the slow, patient road and over the decades infected the Democratic party to the point it would not be recognizable to JFK. Big Business has co-opted the Democratic party by inches, same way they've infected and corrupted so many unions. Its a frigging crime if you ask me.

The system isn't perfect and its been corrupted at the top to be an exclusive club for the haves, while the rest of us are depended on to be good little drones. Democratic leadership is a mess. And they take grassroots for granted. Langley the engine of change is shut out now.

I think the only reason the Democrats have been as successful as they have since the W era forward is do, largely, to Republican ineptness. In 2006, all Nancy Pelosi had to do was not look like a goddamn idiot to win back Congress. Yes Dr. Dean's 50 State Strategy was key, but it was more about "don't shoot yourself in the foot when the other side is committing suicide" than it was about running good, fresh, and new candidates in every possible race.

If the Republicans weren't so shockingly dumb and repulsive, the Democrats would be dead and broken up into regional parties at this point. Its not like Democrats have any magic beyond Obama, they don't. There's no RFK waiting in the wings for us. Bernie's doing that yes, but he had to come from outside the party. Yes there is Elizabeth Warren, but she's staying in the Senate like Teddy Kennedy and has no ambitions beyond what she's got now. And she's not exactly ushering in more progressives to the party either.

For real change to happen, the Democrats need to feel the "Bern" up and down the ticket. The more progressives get into office in the small races, the better and faster change will come.

[KPN]

53. Yup. eom

[stevenleser]

39. A bigger irony is that Bernie hired the architect of the Superdelegate system while he and his

supporters have been criticizing it.

[HumanityExperiment]

40. history and facts...

bottom line...
There's a difference in Bernie supporters and Bernie's campaign

Bernie has to try to work within the system whereas his supporters do not in terms or protesting the SD system...
So is his hiring the architect of the very system he has to work to earn the nomination a smart move?

Our pointing out a system designed to fortify party boss control is the issue is it not?

the more and more HRC supporters defend the SD system the more comical it becomes and just circles back to '68 and why the SD system was created in the first place... I fully expect a gigantic push to make it more 'democracy' based and allow 'grassroots' candidates a better chance to earn the nomination in the future

[Art_from_Ark]

49. A lot of people were saying "boo" about the "supers" in 2008

Google "PUMA" and "superdelegates"