Outrageous: A Candidate Schemes to Win the Primary (the plot is revealed)

[iamjoy]

so, you think candidates "conspiring" and plotting to win the primary is new? You think underhanded tactics are a modern addition to our political scene? Well, I got news for you. It is, as Robert Wuhl might say "as American as apple pie."

Let's look at an election from our past, a time when Americans were honest and forthright. You have seven candidates going for their party's nomination. Candidate A has an outside chance, but the front runner and presumptive nominee was Candidate B. Candidate C was greatly helped by picking up an endorsement from the most influential media outlet of his day. However, the nominating convention was in Candidate A's home state, so he did have a bit of a home field advantage.

Candidate A's supporters distributed counterfeit tickets to the convention to his supporters and advised them to arrive early. When other candidate supporters showed up, they found the convention was full. Candidate A's supporters also "conspired" to arrange the seating, making sure Candidate B's supporters were far from other critical delegations, thus preventing any other deals being made.

Candidate A got the nomination, and went on to become President.

And that is how the Republican Presidential nomination of 1860 was "stolen." Yes, my fellow DUers, the man whose supporters perpetrated all these dirty tricks was none other than "Honest Abe" Lincoln (of Illinois).

Oh, and Candidate B, Senator Seward from the great state of - New York.


I kid you not.

[Lerkfish]

1. *sigh* is this a thinly veiled attempt to excuse the overheard clinton/edwards remarks?

Kind of like making 3 left turns to make a right turn.

[iamjoy]

4. Not Excuse It At All

The point is a little historical context. And its not veiled at all.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Kindly get your history right

Lincoln himself did not have anything to do with what his managers did in Chicago. Historians have speculated that Judge David Davis may have promised political favors, especially to Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania (though historical written evidence in Lincoln's own hand over the matter indicate he didn't want to be bound by any political deals). (complete citation of Lincoln's quote can be found on p. 246 of "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Since Lincoln himself was not a party to what was done in regards to the tickets for the Wigwam (unless you can cite a telegram to the contrary), I don't see how your analogy fits. I don't mind your opinion about what Edwards and Clinton allegedly decided amongst themselves; I do mind if you cite history incorrectly.

[Bitwit1234]

2. This is stupid...was the whole conversation heard.

Just like the republicans to take some phrases out of context and post them. They did not tell you what was said before or after or what the reasoning was.

Any body that falls for the republican MSM comments without knowing the whole story should be ashamed of themselves.

[maximusveritas]

3. The problem is that Clinton/Edwards' scheming was caught on tape

and then they refused to admit it even though it was plain for any non-Kool Aid drinker to see.

I think most people understand that this kind of thing goes on behind closed doors. If they read a story about it afterwards, they problably wouldn't have much of a reaction. But when they actually see it being done with their own eyes, they find it distasteful.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. This is a gross simplification of what happened in Chicago in 1860

For one thing, the nomination was virtually decided the night before, as anti-Seward people went around to the various delegations, basically saying that Seward could not win because of his extreme anti-slavery stance. Seward's campaign manager, Thurlough Weed, was blind to this growing opposition and did nothing to counter it. Lincoln's strategy at the time was to be everyone's "second choice"--when the anti-Seward forces came together, they realized that he was their choice for overcoming what they feared would be a Seward victory.

Also, to imply that Lincoln took an active role, or even knew about the phony tickets, is not knowing your history. Lincoln was not even in Chicago at the time; he remained in Springfield, and I challenge you to show any telegram to his managers (David Davis, Leonard Swett, Norman Judd, and Stephen Logan) instructing them to do so. What these men did do was to gain pledges from the various delegations to support Lincoln as a second choice.

I am not saying that the ticket distribution didn't happen; what I am saying is that the coup that toppled Seward and gave Lincoln the nomination was not predicated on that act alone. If anything, it was something added to help break the spirit of the Seward camp.

There is fascinating reading about what really did happen in Chicago in "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Chapter 8 "Showdown in Chicago" gives all the details.

[iamjoy]

7. Of Course Lincoln Wasn't In Chicago

as at that time it was unseemly to actively seek the nomination. And I am sure he was too clever to send a telegram with any instructions that might be found. However, Lincoln was a very shrewd man and not a behind the scenes leader. It is entirely possible he knew his supporters were up to something slightly underhanded, even if he didn't play an active role. And its possible he was completely unaware of it, but that doesn't seem consistent with other things I've read about Lincoln.

Anyway, if I really meant to have an all out discussion on history, I would have posted this in another forum. My point was more to remind people that some eyebrow raising stragizing has happened in prior elections. Also, campaigns have tried to build coalitions and eliminate rivals probably as long as we've had a democracy on this continent.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. I have read and studied Lincoln's life for over 40 years

and I'm sorry, but my take on him is different than yours. Kindly show me ANY Lincoln scholar who would concur with your beliefs, please. Cite sources, as I did. As I said before, I don't mind an historical analogy, but only if it is a true analogy, which yours is not.