Let’s say we get to the DNC and with this fiasco in MI and FL, neither Obama or Clinton can take the vote.
Furthermore, let’s postulate that by this time, the campaigning was so brutal that few if any will switch votes to the other so that it is clear that by the 10th ballot - neither one will win.
Who would be a compromise that could conceivably take the nomination?
Do you mean other than the two named? If not, Obama would be the best compromise, he has won the overall popular vote, and overall delegate counts.
Hubert H. Humphrey.
Seriously? Sorry to fight the hypothetical, but this isn’t going to happen. It’d be bad for the Democrats if the superdelegates went in the opposite direction of the popular vote, but in that case, whoever wins will still have the support of about half the primary voters. In this scenario, the party would be saying, “Hey, you know how you turned out in huge numbers to support these two candidates, and gave them hundreds of millions of dollars? We’re ignoring all your votes.”
I don’t see it happening without three candidates, otherwise one will get a majority unless someone doesn’t vote.
If it did happen, they should see if they can find an experienced candidate with an Oscar, Grammy, and Nobel Prize under his belt.
It would be even better if such a candidate had been in the Senate, served as Vice-President, has four children, and drives a green 1987 Toyota Tercel.
Does he really drive a Tercel. I’d think he’s have a hybrid.
Gore?
Yes.
Unlikely. Highly unlikely. I doubt there’s any compromise candidate other than Hillary or Barack, and I think at the end of the day Barack is going to get it. We just don’t live an age that a bunch of backroom pols are going to be able to settle on someone who hasn’t already been in the campaign, and then convince the convention to accept him (or her). That’s not what the Democratic Party is anymore, for better or worse (mostly better). I just don’t see it.
And has already won a Presidential election.
Samuel Tilden?
No, the Easter Bunny.
Seriously, this isn’t going to happen. If they both have an insufficient number of delegates to win on the first ballot, Clinton and Obama will be engaging in some heavy-duty arm-twisting to try to get enough.
Interestingly enough, Firefox marks Clinton as a word, but doesn’t think Obama is.
Barack Obama. I think they will ultimately compromise with the fact that he won.
Until 1972 the conventions determined the prez candidate. The conventions were fun to watch then. Sometimes many people were nominated. Many with no chance to win . A state would nominate a favorite son . Then when the convention was deadlocked they could release them and broker the candidate for a cabinet position or VP. It was much better TV.
I’m sure the Chicago riots in 1968 were pretty good TV, also. There was a reason they made the primaries the nominating authority.
Considering all the problems the Democrats are having right now with two candidates, the last thing they need is another one. Throw in somebody like Gore or Edwards and Bloomberg and you’d finally give the Obama and Clinton supporters something to rally together about.
Picking someone other than Obama or Clinton?
Chances of that happening are about equal to you winning lottery five weeks in a row.
Yes, I am an Obama fan, but yes, I would vote for Hillary as well.
Still, I cannot really envision how Obama can lose this primary…especially if he wins the popular vote nationwide (as it seems he will). How could the Democrats rationalize giving it to Hillary?
Plus, Hillary would be a fool to take it. If she REALLY thinks he doesn’t have a chance to win, she should sit quietly for four years and people will beg her to run next time, myself included.
I remember watching this sort of thing happen on TV.
Santos and Russell were vying for the nomination, then Baker started a move to be nominated from the floor!
Someone’s supposing that politicians are loyal to their party, instead of using it as a platform to further the fire in their bellies.
Why won’t Hillary concede? She wants it. Simple as that.
I don’t see it being anyone other than Obama or Hillary. The only way I could see a compromise (i.e. not Obama or Hillary) is if, as postulated, they are both damaged at convention time. This would be extraordinary, as it would probably involved scandals involving both of them, or both of them going orders of magnitude more negative than they are now, and turning everyone off.
In that case Gore would be the obvious compromise.
Also, I agree that Obama has this, but I think Hillary could make a case for the superdelegates to overturn if just Obama damages himself, as outlined above, prior to the convention. i.e. by the time of the convention, somehow Obama does lots of stupid things, says stupid things, and proves himself not worthy, and the polls bear it out. That would be a case for superdelegates “overturning” the will of the people, and I doubt anyone would have a problem with it IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.