Getting close
Hillary Clinton's gaining ground in North Carolina polls, but I wonder if that's misleading. So many people have voted early that a late surge can be too late. She might win most of the ballots cast tomorrow but still lose the primary.
I didn't vote early because I wanted to give the candidates every opportunity to influence my decisions.
I heard some discussion about how "undemocratic" it would be if one presidential candidate won the "popular vote" across the country but ended up losing the nomination. Bogus complaint. There is no national popular vote in the primary process. Some states don't even have primary elections at all but caucuses, which are more like horse-trading than voting. The system is what it is, and the name of the game is collecting a majority of delegates at the convention by whatever means you can.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Democrats would typically say that it is unAmerican. That's there typical put-down.
Posted on May 5, 2008 10:09 AM
Some Republicans might say the same if this were happening in their nominating process. The point is, it's the way it is, not what some people wish it was.
Right now, the day before the North Carolina primary, when we share the spotlight with only the state of Indiana, I'm very happy there is no such thing as a one-day, 50-state primary.
Posted on May 5, 2008 11:17 AM
The system is what it is, and the name of the game is collecting a majority of delegates at the convention by whatever means you can* Doug
You got that right! The Democrats are back to smoke filled back rooms deciding who will be prez....Wait a minute! Those rooms will be Green filled with plants since the Democrats are the new and improve smoke Nazi's.......
Posted on May 5, 2008 12:47 PM
Obama's speeches are based around three words hope, change and I voted no to the war. Lets see here, the words hope and change are undebatable, we all want hope and change after the Bush presidency. Voted no to the war, as a senator of Illinois he did but how would he have voted if at the time he was in National government and given the same info how would he have voted. It is unknown. As far as relief gas tax, as a middle class citizen a little is better than none. we are a two car family and i travel 140 round trip to work . Your better believe any little bit helps and with two cars, travelling to work and back it is more than the 30.00 Obama nsays. And look at the truck drivers and their gas fill ups.
Posted on May 5, 2008 3:35 PM
Obama didn't have any kind of vote on the war but said publicly at the time that he opposed it. No one can say what he would have done had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time, but it seems fair to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Posted on May 5, 2008 4:10 PM
Nah, Republicans wouldn't be complaining as much. Your complaint that Democratic complaining is bogus is itself grounded in a basically Republican orientation toward elections--namely, that they are governed by rules.
For Democrats, elections are governed by "fairness"--a much more elusive standard. (Recall how strenously Al Gore tried to find a fair way to steal the election in 2000.)
The same split finds its way into legal discussions. Republicans tend to see the Constitution as a set of stated rules; Democrats, as a "living document" capable of endless manipulations (in the name of "fairness" or "justice").
Posted on May 6, 2008 2:13 AM