1960 Uber-Convention/Primary

[Lief 🗽]

If the Socialists no longer exist then Democrats are going to win every election from here on. Maybe Perot might have an outside chance.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

JFK/HHH if that means anything.

^^^^^^^^

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

HHH!!!

So glad we'll get a 2-way matchup finally!

You know, it's gonna be you guys' fault when Humphrey gets shot. Y'all need to learn to think strategically about this stuff and make it so you've organized who you'll run, when, and why. If we don't nominate HHH, he'll still have at least 2 other chances, which I'm sure he'll get. If we do nominate him, he will be killed.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

If the Socialists no longer exist then Democrats are going to win every election from here on. Maybe Perot might have an outside chance.

Wallace, Anderson (unlikely with Ted Kennedy), Perot, and Nader all have outside chances. Mostly for laughs.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Because the Socialist Party no longer exists, I shall never vote again.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

LBJ/Douglas (assuming the assassination happens)

[Donerail]

HHH!!!

So glad we'll get a 2-way matchup finally!

You know, it's gonna be you guys' fault when Humphrey gets shot. Y'all need to learn to think strategically about this stuff and make it so you've organized who you'll run, when, and why. If we don't nominate HHH, he'll still have at least 2 other chances, which I'm sure he'll get. If we do nominate him, he will be killed.

Y'all should nominate Humphrey. Or maybe Johnson. But probably Humphrey.

Just have a solid VP. Eugene McCarthy!

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I think it is wrong to base one's vote on the assumption that the winner of an election will be assassinated. For starters, you're basically deciding who to kill for the good of the party. Secondly, doing so would require knowledge that a voter in 1960 wouldn't have. Third, you still don't have absolute proof that an assassination will happen on November 22, 1963 in the first place. Just because many of the circumstances are the same doesn't mean the assassination will still happen.

But I'm sure that this forum's far left doesn't care about these trivial details.

[Arturo Belano]

Because the Socialist Party no longer exists, I shall never vote again.

[Supersonic]

Ah man. Without a third party this gets really boring for us Republicans.

To be honest, the best elections were the 1860 to 1900 ones. Lots of party choices and some nail-biting results.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

HHH!!!

So glad we'll get a 2-way matchup finally!

You know, it's gonna be you guys' fault when Humphrey gets shot. Y'all need to learn to think strategically about this stuff and make it so you've organized who you'll run, when, and why. If we don't nominate HHH, he'll still have at least 2 other chances, which I'm sure he'll get. If we do nominate him, he will be killed.

Y'all should nominate Humphrey. Or maybe Johnson. But probably Humphrey.

Y'all should nominate Nixon.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I think it is wrong to base one's vote on the assumption that the winner of an election will be assassinated. For starters, you're basically deciding who to kill for the good of the party. Secondly, doing so would require knowledge that a voter in 1960 wouldn't have. Third, you still don't have absolute proof that an assassination will happen on November 22, 1963 in the first place. Just because many of the circumstances are the same doesn't mean the assassination will still happen.

But I'm sure that this forum's far left doesn't care about these trivial details.

Well, Paul Douglas needs to be president at some point, and since he never ran iotl (and because he's already 68 at this point), I figure this is the best chance he's going to get.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think it is wrong to base one's vote on the assumption that the winner of an election will be assassinated. For starters, you're basically deciding who to kill for the good of the party. Secondly, doing so would require knowledge that a voter in 1960 wouldn't have. Third, you still don't have absolute proof that an assassination will happen on November 22, 1963 in the first place. Just because many of the circumstances are the same doesn't mean the assassination will still happen.

But I'm sure that this forum's far left doesn't care about these trivial details.

Indeed

[Donerail]

To Cathcon: given the nature of the modern era, can we change the threshold to 0.1% of the vote? Those in italics would be on the ballot with that threshold but wouldn't with your current one.

1960: D, R, unpledged
1964: D, R
1968: D, R, States Rights
1972: D, R, Schmitz, Socialist Workers, People's
1976: D, R, McCarthy, Libertarian, American Independent, America, Socialist Workers
1980: D, R, Anderson, Libertarian, Citizens
1984: D, R, L
1988: D, R, L, New Alliance
1992: D, R, Perot, L, America First
1996: D, R, Perot, Green, L, US Taxpayers, Natural Law
2000: D, R, Green, Reform, L
2004: D, R, Nader, L, Constitution, Green
2008: D, R, Nader, L, Constitution, Green
2012: D, R, L, Green

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Have fun mourning Humphrey's tragic death.

[Donerail]

If the Socialists no longer exist then Democrats are going to win every election from here on. Maybe Perot might have an outside chance.

Wallace, Anderson (unlikely with Ted Kennedy), Perot, and Nader all have outside chances. Mostly for laughs.

If Cathcon maintains the same electoral threshold, those, Schmitz, Clark (though that's the same year as Anderson) and Johnson would be the only non-Democratic options (excluding Republicans).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

If the Socialists no longer exist then Democrats are going to win every election from here on. Maybe Perot might have an outside chance.

Wallace, Anderson (unlikely with Ted Kennedy), Perot, and Nader all have outside chances. Mostly for laughs.

If Cathcon maintains the same electoral threshold, those, Schmitz, Clark (though that's the same year as Anderson) and Johnson would be the only non-Democratic options (excluding Republicans).

Couple of things: One, as we have seen, a party's performance in a previous election does have bearing on whether or not they're included in the next election. For example, if Reform nominee Ross Perot gets a good enough percentage in 1996, then whoever wins the Reform primary in 2000 will be on the ballot. The "threshold" is 1% in real life, or one electoral vote. There are potential exceptions, however: Unpledged Electors in 1964, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, Ron Paul in 1988, and Gary Johnson and various other third party options in 2012. Remember, that is aside from carry-overs from previous years (see my Reform Party example).

[Donerail]

If the Socialists no longer exist then Democrats are going to win every election from here on. Maybe Perot might have an outside chance.

Wallace, Anderson (unlikely with Ted Kennedy), Perot, and Nader all have outside chances. Mostly for laughs.

If Cathcon maintains the same electoral threshold, those, Schmitz, Clark (though that's the same year as Anderson) and Johnson would be the only non-Democratic options (excluding Republicans).

Couple of things: One, as we have seen, a party's performance in a previous election does have bearing on whether or not they're included in the next election. For example, if Reform nominee Ross Perot gets a good enough percentage in 1996, then whoever wins the Reform primary in 2000 will be on the ballot. The "threshold" is 1% in real life, or one electoral vote. There are potential exceptions, however: Unpledged Electors in 1964, Eugene McCarthy in 1976, Ron Paul in 1988, and Gary Johnson and various other third party options in 2012. Remember, that is aside from carry-overs from previous years (see my Reform Party example).

Fair enough, I just enjoy having several different tickets and think the 0.1% threshold would be the fairest way of doing so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think there's a solid chance that Nader will win in 2000 and make it onto the ballot in 2004 as he campaigns for reelection.

Nope, in 2000 we'll get Bill Bradley nominated!