2016 Democratic Convention: 1968 Redux?

[jwoodie]

In 1968, we had a Democratic President (LBJ) not running for reelection, and a three-way battle for the nomination between a moderate Vice President (Humphrey), a liberal (RFK) and and a left-wing radical (McCarthy). RFK would have been nominated if he hadn't been assassinated, but Humphrey got the nod while McCarthy's supporters rioted in and outside the Convention.

Isn't this strikingly similar to the scenario we are now watching? Obama is the President, Biden is the VP, Hillary is the liberal, and Sanders is the left-wing radical. Hillary's political career is being assassinated by her email scandal, but the Party Insiders don't want to throw away the election by running a Socialist candidate. That leaves Joe Biden to step in as the Establishment candidate to save the Party.

In this event, the Sanders supporters will go ballistic at the Convention, and wide-spread protests (aka rioting) will take place in the streets of Philadelphia.

I can hardly wait.

 

[Arianrhod]

In 1968, we had a Democratic President (LBJ) not running for reelection, and a three-way battle for the nomination between a moderate Vice President (Humphrey), a liberal (RFK) and and a left-wing radical (McCarthy). RFK would have been nominated if he hadn't been assassinated, but Humphrey got the nod while McCarthy's supporters rioted in and outside the Convention.

Isn't this strikingly similar to the scenario we are now watching? Obama is the President, Biden is the VP, Hillary is the liberal, and Sanders is the left-wing radical. Hillary's political career is being assassinated by her email scandal, but the Party Insiders don't want to throw away the election by running a Socialist candidate. That leaves Joe Biden to step in as the Establishment candidate to save the Party.

In this event, the Sanders supporters will go ballistic at the Convention, and wide-spread protests (aka rioting) will take place in the streets of Philadelphia.

I can hardly wait.

While you wait, I'd recommend you inform yourself of all of the events in the U.S. in 1968 and how they affected the one you're interpreting.

 

[jwoodie]

While you wait, I'd recommend you inform yourself of all of the events in the U.S. in 1968 and how they affected the one you're interpreting.

My post contains facts and conclusions, whereas your response contains neither. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Arianrhod]

While you wait, I'd recommend you inform yourself of all of the events in the U.S. in 1968 and how they affected the one you're interpreting.

My post contains facts and conclusions, whereas your response contains neither.

It concludes you don't understand that the events surrounding the DNC convention and Mayor Daley's excessive use of force were not encapsulated in that time and place but had precedents in other events that occurred in 1968.

That doesn't even begin to address the excessive use of force. Prior to Chicago '68, the only place rolling out tanks against unarmed civilians occurred in Soviet countries.

 

[jwoodie]

So you believe that the 2016 Convention will be peaceful if Hillary withdraws and someone other than Sanders is chosen?

 

[Arianrhod]

So you believe that the 2016 Convention will be peaceful if Hillary withdraws and someone other than Sanders is chosen?

I don't have psychic powers, but I can tell you that lessons were learned in Chicago '68 and they will have an impact. That's aside from the fact that there haven't been two assassinations in 2016.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"2016 Democratic Convention: 1968 Redux?"

No, but that some on the right wish it were true is telling.

 

[Arianrhod]

So you believe that the 2016 Convention will be peaceful if Hillary withdraws and someone other than Sanders is chosen?

Besides, who else would the DNC put forward? It's the RNC you need to concern yourself with, given how dedicated Party Elite are to promoting "Anyone but Trump."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

While you wait, I'd recommend you inform yourself of all of the events in the U.S. in 1968 and how they affected the one you're interpreting.

My post contains facts and conclusions, whereas your response contains neither. Why am I not surprised?

Your post fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[jwoodie]

These emotional responses are baffling to the rational mind. The OP cites historical facts and asks if there is a similarity to the current situation. Instead of considering this possibility, the responders attack the subject matter as if it can be wished away.

Is the idea that Hillary might not get the nomination simply too horrible to contemplate?

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Sorry to throw cold water on your wet anti Clinton dream, but She will be the Democratic nominee, and Biden will willingly retire to his mansion, and live happily ever after..

I don't get it if Hillary is so weak and beatable don't you want her NOT to get indicted ?so Trump can beat her in the General????

 

[jwoodie]

Unlike the rest of you cheer leaders, I deal in facts and logic. I believe that the email scandal has so weakened Hillary that her odds of being nominated are no better than 50/50. I also believe that, if she is the nominee, Trump will beat her in the general election. Sanders or Biden would be much stronger candidates, as the polls consistently show. However, the dynamics of a "brokered" convention pose as many problems for the Democrats as one would have for the Republicans. Is that so hard to contemplate?

 

[Old Rocks]

Not at all. Should Sanders somehow end up as the candidate, he would beat Trump by a larger margin than Clinton.