Jump to content

Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Election Q

Politics Democrats 2004

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Godeskian


    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 02:41 AM

Hi all,

I was thinking, Suppose Kerry wins this one, can the Democratic party support Hillary for 2008 or would they have to support Kerry as the incumbent president?

Defy Gravity!

The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.

#2 Shalamar


    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 02:50 AM

I think it would depend on Kerry's approval rateing at the time of the next elections.  I certainly don't ever want to see Hillary as a sitting president.
The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#3 LaughingVulcan


    Still the property of the PPD

  • Islander
  • 3,448 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:05 AM

Probably too early to tell yet, but in general principle the party would have to support Kerry.  It would be very hard to spin the notion that a sitting President was not found worthy enough to be supported for re-election, while proclaiming that here is the new candidate that is worthy.  Sad, though, in some ways.

Nikki's Loving LV.  Property of the PPD.  Aka "Mr. Peppermint"
The Vulcan-Pixie alliance is strong.

#4 UoR11

  • Islander
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:05 AM

You and me both, Shal, but yeah, Hilary could take a run at the 2008 nomination, and could take it even if Kerry wins. Normally, the nomination for a sitting President running for re-election is basically automatic, but there's no rule that they automatically win it. Most obviously was Johnson refusing to be nominated in '68, a nomination which wouldn't have been certain by any means.
Yes, I am an economist. Yes, I do frequently sing "Can't Buy Me Love". No, I don't see any contradiction there.

#5 Delvo

  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 07:08 AM

If the question is whether the Party's internal rules & procedures mean they always must nominate a re-running incumbent instead of holding preliminary caucuses & primaries and then nominating a candidate at a convention, I don't know. But I do know that Kerry could choose not to re-run, and then they'd have to do the "usual" routine to find another candidate.

#6 Cardie


    I'm a very *good* tailor

  • Administrator
  • 22,654 posts

Posted 21 August 2004 - 09:18 AM

Anyone can always seek his or her party's nomination, whether or not there is an incumbent from the party that particular election year.  Johnson's resignation was precipitated by the success Eugene McCarthy was having in the early primaries; Ted Kennedy's challenge to Carter in 1980 showed the serious doubts about him there were within the Democratic establishment.

The major parties' establishments will nearly always throw their weight behind even a wounded incumbent, but if an upstart candidate won the majority of delegates in the primaries, they'd get the nomination.  It would be illegal for them not to, now that convention delegates don't pick candidates in smoke-filled rooms.

Nothing succeeds like excess.

Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics, Democrats, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users