If our nominee does not win the GE in November, should the runner-up be handed the nomination

[jlake]

Poll question: If our nominee does not win the GE in November, should the runner-up be handed the nomination

on a silver platter in 2012? ETA: HANDED BY THE VOTERS.

I think we're on a path that will leave the party fractured and HALF bitter.
I am starting to think that whoever wins the nomination will not be able to win the GE because of turmoil within the party.
Will this give the runner up to the nomination a virtual claim to the nomination in 2012 as the "I told you so" candidate (And I know "I told you so" never works, or we would be nominating Joe Biden)

[Crooked Moon]

1. absolutely not.

the next four years could produce a new face and a new vision, and the party would be shooting itself in the foot to cling to the past, even the recent past.

in the unfortunate event of a loss, the slate is wiped clean, and it is up to an aspiring 2012 candidate to wrest the enthusiasm of the party for him- or herself.

[Lisa0825]

4. Bingo.

I totally agree. The runner up is welcome to run for the nom again, but not "handed" it.

[jlake]

7. I mean handed by the voters - as an aopolgy for their previous error in judgment.

[Lisa0825]

8. A lot can happen in 4 more years.

The voters will "hand" the nomination to whoever WINS it, not to the runner up by default.

[jlake]

10. I guess we have a misunderstanding - or you're being dense on purpose.

[mutant80]

12. Whatever Obamababies want

[Lisa0825]

26. Oh joy... another immature poster for my ignore list.

:eyes:

[Lisa0825]

25. You're dense.

It's idiotic to say a runner up should be handed the nom, regardless of HOW you supposedly meant it. No one knows what will transpire in those 4 years. If the runner up ends up having 4 solid, successful years to build on, then there's a strong possiblity that he or she could get the nom then. But what if the runner up ends up having 4 controversial years due to policies, decisions, or whatever. His/her chances of getting the nom could actually be WEAKER by then if other strong candidates arise during that time.

[Guaranteed]

9. You're clearly heavily emotionally invested in your candidate.

But I invite you to deal with this directly and think of the immediate future and consequences of subverting the Democrats' choice.

Trust me- you do NOT want four more years of Republicans infesting the White House.

If you lose, you need to let it go.

[jlake]

13. I don't know why you are using this personally against me.

I think Hillary will win the nomination - but many Obama supporters claim she can't win the GE -
Since Michelle said they wouldn't run again - the only way for him to get to the WH would be if he was drafted.

[Guaranteed]

18. That goes for both of us.

I'll work for Clinton if I have to. She's worked hard in this campaign.

[jlake]

20. I didn't personally attack you.

Low class - and then to say "this goes for both of us"

[Guaranteed]

27. I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying

that you need to be strong in whatever happens.

[noamnety]

2. Wow, I found the options offensive.

Where's the option for objecting on principle without tying it to specific scenarios of who wins/who loses?

I have a serious problem with some perverted sort of democracy that relies on legacy votes from previous elections to determine nominees for future elections.

If they don't win the general election for a third presidential election in a row, maybe it's a sign the establishment needs to stop giving all their support to that sort of candidate, no?

If you offer me brussel sprouts with butter or brussel sprouts with butter and salt, and the general population rejects them both, don't call me up 4 years later and say "the public rejected sprouts with butter, so now sprouts with butter and salt is all we are offering."

What I want is a different menu, and a wait staff that doesn't present the new items this way: "We have asparagus now but nobody orders it, everybody gets the sprouts, I think you'd better get the sprouts, too."

[jlake]

6. That would be "other" and I don't mean dictated by the party - but

that the voters would feel the need to anoint the 2008 loser as the nominee in 2012 because they know they messed up.

[Guaranteed]

3. Nope, none of that, now. Whoever loses had better suck it up

and work their asses off until November.

No excuses, no crying.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. What's with all the crazy talk on GD-p lately? An election is an election. Then it's over.

[MADem]

11. Four years is a lifetime in politics. Should Lieberman have been the presumtive nominee in 2004?

I don't THINK so!!!

[jlake]

14. No, but Gore should have been since he won.

[MADem]

28. Gore chose not to run. Holy Joe felt he was "next up" and he was mistaken. NT

[newmajority]

19. He thought he was.

Unfortunately for Joe, he was the only one who did.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. No, but the runner-up will be the frontrunner

Think Gary Hart in 1988 without the Donna Rice business.

[newmajority]

16. Obama will win the GE in a landslide

Any other outcome would mean the end of the Democratic Party, and likely, the end of America as we have known it. :evilfrown:

[Orangepeel]

17. Every nominee should have to earn it.

And, if we lose the General, it won't be because there was a primary fight.

[bunnies]

21. Of course not.

Thats the most undemocratic thing Ive heard in a while. Come on.

[jlake]

23. You don't think voters would want to apologize for their bad decision?

[jlake]

22. I wanted to add that many Obama supporters are Dark, mean spirited and toxic individuals

Thanks for the personal attacks!

[JVS]

24. Gee, that sounds like a recipe to induce disgruntled people to sit this november out