WEIRD idea a bipartisan Presdient

January 1952, Eisehnower announces that the US is damaged by the bitterness of partisan division. He proposes to seek the nomination of both parties
 
If the US had dual filing laws for presidential elections as California had at this time for state and congressional elections, this wouldn't be that ridiculous*, not considering how unusually respected Ike was.

But the presidential party nominating process didn't have these laws, and what's more I doubt it's legal for a candidate to win a majority of national convention delegates in both parties, even if there was a desire to circumvent electoral precedent. I can't see Ike being on both ballots in every state that had a POTUS primary, if indeed any.

Ultimately political realism would stop any such harebrained scheme from being put to the test in the first place.

*Governor Earl Warren was both Republican and Democratic nominee for governor in his last two elections, Richard Nixon was both parties' nominee the second and last time he ran for the U.S. House.
 

Jasen777

Donor
I can't see Ike being on both ballots in every state that had a POTUS primary, if indeed any.

This was before the modern primary system, most states did not have primaries. Estes Kefauver won something like 12 of the 15 states that did have primaries and Taft had a small lead over Ike in the Republican ones. So any ballot issues would not prevent this.

Ike in '52 is likely the best chance, but compromises needed to win at the Republican Convention would likely make him untenable at the Democratic Convention.
 
If one thing would give me a feeling of dictatorship would be a a voting ballot where you have two parties too pick from but both would have the same candidate.

Party A: a vote for general ....

Party B: a vote for general ....

It would be creepy.

But then I find bypartisanship generally creepy. It´s main proponents often seem not to be that fond of democracy. (All this bickering, why can´t we all agree on the middle road that happens to be my vision for the country).

(But now I´m being political).
 
This was before the modern primary system, most states did not have primaries.

I know this. My point about the primaries was secondary to my point that Democratic Party rules and state laws would make it impossible for many state delegations to give their convention votes to someone who wasn't a registered Democrat/was running in the GOP system.

Estes Kefauver won something like 12 of the 15 states that did have primaries and Taft had a small lead over Ike in the Republican ones. So any ballot issues would not prevent this.

Sorry, I don't understand this point. If Ike isn't allowed onto the Democratic ballot in any of the primary states (which I think is almost certainly true of every primary state, with California being the possible exception) then this horserace element is irrelevant.

The homestate rules governing the majority of state delegations at the convention is the main point I was making, but really the most important thing that would stop Ike in his handwaved attempt at winning both nominations simultaneously would be the respective rules committees of both party conventions.
 
Magniac, Bryan ran under the endorsement of the populist and Democratic parties. I'm not sure how delegates were involved, however.

I don't think Bryan ran on separate lines on the ballot, in fact I'm certain the Populists didn't bother raising their own slate of EC delegates. That party merely endorsed the Democratic line in throwing their weight behind William Jennings Bryan, IIRC.

We need someone like David Tenner to explain the difference in election law between the pre-WWI and post-WWII eras, but from what he's written about California's dual filing laws at SHWI, and their unique legal status, I'm confident in saying they were not compatible with the federal process.

In fact California did away with dual filing, and it hasn't been possible since--hence it was only ever a specially drafted electoral law, not something that could be done ad hoc.
 
Top