Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 09:57 AM
Original message |
How many here know that Abraham Lincoln was a third Party candidate |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-25-07 09:58 AM by Bandit
He did not run as a Republican his second term. He ran as a member of the National Union Party. A Party that only lasted as long as Lincoln. Third Party candidates do sometimes get elected and sometimes they are pretty good candidates. Just saying.........
|
zehnkatzen
(769 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 09:59 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I certainly didn't know that... |
|
...interesting point you made here. Indeed.
|
RB TexLa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I guess if anti-trade assholes start another civil war perhaps a President can run on a unity ticket |
redqueen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. What? What constitutes an 'anti-trade asshole'? |
mod mom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
10. anti trade asshole? you mean like Sherrod Brown? |
|
Edited on Wed Jul-25-07 10:48 AM by mod mom
|
TwilightGardener
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:00 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I saw Sam Waterston say that yesterday on Tweety. |
|
However, I don't think Bloomberg will be the next Lincoln. And that's pretty much who's going to come out of Unity '08, if anyone. I saw some polls that suggest he's taking more Repubs away than Dems--Dems do BETTER with him in the race. Go Mikey!
|
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Uh - What Am I Missing Here |
|
He ran as a Republican for his first term - but the Republicans, at the time, were a brand-new third party, dedicated to upholding the Constitutional provisions around slavery.
Are you sure he switched parties for his second run?
Or am I totally out to lunch here?
|
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Found It - 'Union Party' Was Only A Temporary Name For The Republicans |
|
I never knew that - interesting, thanks.
|
RB TexLa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message |
6. oh, you do know that the National Union party was the Republicans right? |
|
that they just changed their name for the 1864 elections because of the number of northern Democrats that supported them and they were going to be nice and not make them vote Republican.
|
Bandit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
12. No that is not quite true |
|
It was a combination of Northern Democrats and Moderate Republicans and did not take the place of the Republican Party.
|
UTUSN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:35 AM
Response to Original message |
8. That was then. This is now. n/t |
Breeze54
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:39 AM
Response to Original message |
9. I was not aware of that. |
|
Thanks for the info., bandit.
Very interesting. ;)
|
robcon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-25-07 10:48 AM
Response to Original message |
11. The National Union party was the reason... |
|
that Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, was nominated for VP. It was a coalition, as most third parties were, over a single issue. The issue was the war, and the national Union Party combined the War Democrats and the non-Radical Republicans.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:57 PM
Response to Original message |