tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post7291911591874668838..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: How a 19th Century Akin Would DifferJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-78550444248958817952012-08-28T22:48:49.817-05:002012-08-28T22:48:49.817-05:00Good points, Jon. I should probably have been more...Good points, Jon. I should probably have been more clear. Yes, if a 19th century party leader and the vast majority of active party members suddenly wanted to dump a nominee, it wouldn't have been terribly hard, especially given the lack of state sanction of the nomination. I was thinking more of a situation in which the party leader wanted to dump a guy who still had a sizable chunk of supporters among the active party members. That could potentially undermine the leader's support, causing some sort of rebellion in which members formed another convention or maybe deposed the leader. Convention delegates could be controlled by a strong leader, but within some limits.Seth Maskethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17178036016555722068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-71025401104098733512012-08-28T12:20:01.904-05:002012-08-28T12:20:01.904-05:00Sure -- and I should say before someone points it ...Sure -- and I should say before someone points it out that there's no 19th c. Akin because there's no direct election of US Senators. Members of the House aren't really similar because, well, no one cares very much about them; no one would get far running nationally against a bad House nominee, and the locals probably wouldn't care because the vote would be driven by higher up on the ticket. They would care, however, if a gov. nominee became an embarrassment. Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-59061603307329150472012-08-28T12:04:49.393-05:002012-08-28T12:04:49.393-05:00Yeah, I'd also say that the goals of political...Yeah, I'd also say that the goals of political parties back then could be quite different as well. For example, the big city machines that dominated much of the Democratic Party often were more interested in wining the obscure local elections that would give them control of patronage jobs than advancing an ideology or legislative goals on the national level. A sort of last hurah of this strategy happened in 1956 when Richard J. Daley successfuly pushed for Adlai Stevenson to get the Presidential Nomination again after he was thumped by Ike in 1952. Stevenson went down in flames yet again but was able to help unify machine ethnic Democrats and wealthier liberals in who didn't trust Daley's machine in Cook County to win all sorts of obscure jobs in local government ( county commissioner posts, judgeships etc) that Daley valued more than who happened to be in the White House. So just because some candidate shot themselves in the foot and prevented their election doesn't mean the party bosses of that era would necessarily care.longwalkdownlyndalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13173899547449318257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-47964010711826054512012-08-28T11:39:05.066-05:002012-08-28T11:39:05.066-05:00The discussion might be a little more enlightening...The discussion might be a little more enlightening with actual examples when a party dumped, or tried to dump, its own nominee in the 19th century. Certainly we have to take into account the lack of Youtube, Twitter, the 24-hour news cycle, and so on, but I know 19th-century campaigns did have their share of "gaffes" and embarrassing moments (such as "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_D._Burchard_%28minister%29" rel="nofollow">rum, romanism, and rebellion</a>" in the 1884 presidential election).Kylopodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06932528611103718373noreply@blogger.com