Please? Can we? Please?

The original site, linked from MyDD, looks like it is no longer has the bit quoted, but the relevant bit is still here:

History Lesson
(Jerome Armstrong, MyDD)

A historically minded reader has suggested that the Democrats end their fratricidal battle by taking a cue from what the Whigs did in the 1836 election when they couldn’t decide between the Northern candidate and the Southern candidate: they ran both. The Democrats could do this, too: put Obama on the ballot in the Western states in which he did well and put Clinton on the ballot in the big Democratic states like Ohio where she won solid victories. Of course, if successful, this strategy would split the electoral votes three ways and nobody would get a majority. Then the newly elected House would choose the President, with each state getting one vote. The Democrats will almost assuredly control the new House. Of course, the battle between Obama and Clinton would then be reignited in the House Democratic caucus so the Democratic members of the House would end up choosing the nominee. But that is going to happen now anyway. However, by doing it that way, the House Democrats would be sure their choice would become President, without having to bother beating a pesky and popular Republican. Of course, the party would need enough discipline to make sure every member of the House voted for the winner of the House caucus vote and normally herding Democrats is like herding cats. The one downside to this strategy is that it didn’t work for the Whigs in 1836; Martin van Buren, Andrew Jackson’s Vice President, won a majority of the electoral vote outright.

I can’t describe just how exciting a scenario like the above would be to watch play out. Of course, the results of 1836 pretty much killed that strategy forever… uh… until now?

Nah, of course not. But it would be fun damn it!