• ...is that they generally only include results from states that have primaries.

    I realize that Clinton has to cling to the idea of winning the popular vote, but it still overwhelmingly discounts the voters in all of the states that had caucuses.

  • obviously you have never attended a caucus.

    bullying and mobbing people?

    This is what you think happens at a caucus?

  • comment on a post ...And Pennsylvania Tightens Some More over 6 years ago

    Anything else there is a loss for her.  This state is supposed to contain "Hillary voters".

    I do not trust these "closer" polls.  Hillary will win in Pennsylvania, but anything but an enormous win for her will be a loss.

    If she is so popular in Pennsylvania and Obama is so "unelectable", why isn't her lead in the polls increasing?  Perhaps the actual voting will give her the huge victory that she needs to make her case.

  • comment on a post The lifeline strategy over 6 years ago

    ...michigan and florida did not follow the rules, and therefore should not have an influence over the outcome.

    If they want to follow the rules, the state parties can hold caucuses.  As for the costs, at the caucus I attended, a hat was passed around the room to pay for the caucus; we more than offset how much it took to print out the voter register rolls.

    The state parties really have no excuse for their behavior.

    Also- there really is no such thing as a popular vote count except in states that held primaries;  Since caucuses are not included in this parameter, I am not sure how this really is an indicator of too much except that it currently agrres with the pledged delegate.

    This is a delegate race and really nothing else.

  • comment on a post Where is the Outrage? over 6 years ago

    ...Michigan and Florida did not move their primaries to before february 5th to give their voters more influence over the nomination.  If they had been concerned about their voters, they would not have moved their primary dates.

    They moved their primaries up so they could capitalize on the campaign cash.  And now they are upset that they missed out on that.

  • ...I thought it was founded by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.

    I didn't know it wasn't around until Bill Clinton.

  • ..well...that would probably display that Obama's viability as a candidate is shot.

    You really think that is probable?

  • comment on a post The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket over 6 years ago

    ...at the convention are going to not vote for either Hillary or Barack in order to not have a winner on the first round of voting?

    Do I understand this argument correctly?

    This sounds silly to me.

    And a certain amount of grasping at any way to deny Obama the nomination.

    I assume that if Hillary was in the lead with pledged delegates that this line of reasoning would not even be occurring.

  • comment on a post Behind but not beyond over 6 years ago

    obama is a loser and tends to think that people do have different skin colors and thinks that americans tend to notice that.

    It is so sad that people on this site are attacking the speech that Barack gave on Tuesday.

    If Barack loses because of that speech and what his minister said, well that is a very sad statement about our country.  Call me naive, but I do think most Americans are better than that.

  • ...mathematically it would be impossible for obama to divide the country based on race and win any sort of nomination or election.

    How many black people do you think live in our country?

  • comment on a post Thoughts on the Politics of the Obama Speech over 6 years ago

    for writing a reasoned, sane entry on this site about Obama's speech.

  • on a comment on Obama-Nail in the coffin -Done over 6 years ago

    I guess you did miss the whole point of the speech.

    You must have cringed at the biblical references and quotes.

  • on a comment on Barack Obama Speech Thread over 6 years ago

    I guess you have been living in an entirely different universe for the past 40 years.

  • comment on a post MI and Republicans over 6 years ago

    Sometimes I think he writes things that he doesn't think or believe just to see how much "buzz" they will cause.

    It might be time to promote him to the white house press corps.

  • comment on a post MI and Republicans over 6 years ago

    ...this would not be a "re-vote".

    As was clear at the time, the primary held in Michigan in January by the state of Michigan was never an official primary that would be allowed to award delegates to the convention.

    Any suggestion of a "re-vote" is nonsense.  If it is a new election, it is a new election and I would assume that the Democratic Party of Michigan would get to choose who can vote in that process.

    However, they seem very disingenuous to me.

    First, they complain about the cost, but they rule out caucuses or some other simple, cheap form of primary.

    Next, they decide to escalate the cost by saying that only those people who voted in the democratic primary in January, or did not vote at all, are eligible to vote in their new super-duper primary.  This sounds like a nightmare from a logistics standpoint to me.

    Either they want to do a primary or caucus that will follow the rules of the Democratic Party or they don't.

    Either they want people to participate in the process or they don't.

    From the very beginning it appears that they really just don't want to follow the rules and are seeking a pre-ordained outcome.


Advertise Blogads