I'm an Arlington voter who was strongly pro-Moran and anti-McAuliffe at the beginning of the campaign. I did end up voting for Moran after talking to him personally, but if it had been for his personal assurances I probably would have voted for McAuliffe.
The main reason for this is the tenor or Moran's campaign was incredibly negative and turned off a lot of people who wanted to support Moran. McAuliffe's campaign on the other hand showed what a professional campaign should look like and how a Democratic primary should be conducted. You could learn a lot from them Jerome.
I'm not at all sure what you mean.
It seems to me that Stiglitz agrees with this post. he recently said that tose who lobbied for more lax regulations should feel sorry. In this case the diarist is also saying that those who supported lax regulations messed up.
What conflict are you referring to? (Also you want to justify those accusations you make below?)
If you give Clinton votes you need to at the very least give Obama the uncommitted votes. Problem is you can't really do that. You can't count Michigan and have any kind of relevant popular vote count. Saying otherwise is pretty stupid.
Barack Obama isn't just doing well because he is black. This state has a huge union population and has some of the worst economic conditions in the country. They are seeing something more than that he is black.
You talk about the Michigan polls as if the data went as far as every other state. The last poll they show is early December. It probably tightened up some. In fact, I saw a Michigan poll recently showing Obama beating Clinton in a primary match up.
There used to be a point where you were opposed to Republican talking points. You used to do Ad Watches where you would criticize Democrats using Republican messaging. You need to open your eyes.
People aren't mad at Clinton for attacking Obama. I could care less if she was attacking him on his policy differences. She isn't attacking him on his health care plan, she is saying the he is a liberal elitist (as was apparently Kerry and Gore).
Your analysis is far more biased than his, so don't write him off as an "optimistic Obama supporter." He did a strong statistical analysis. It could be wrong, but that doesn't make his research biased.
Specifically, the primary was infeasible because the lists generated from the January 15th primary would need to be accessible for the new primary. That is to prevent individuals who voted in the Republican party from voting in both. Even if that weren't the case, individuals did cross over because it was clear the Democratic primary would not count. Many Democrats crossed over to make mischief because their Democratic primary votes wouldn't count. What happens to those Democrats?
Feel free to report me, I'm confident that they will support my use of the ratings system.
This site is intended for individuals who will promote the Democratic party. That includes voting for the Democratic nominee for President. Saying that you are going to vote for McCain or work against the Democratic nominee is not acceptable on this site. As I said, you have every right to do that in your personal life, but you are promoting the Republican party if you do.
Clinton has herself urged her supporters to back Obama if she does not secure the nomination. She knows what is at stake.
Ah yes, but it disenfranchised many of the voters who had voted in the January primary. Furthermore, with the January 15th primary ruled unconstitutional they are unable to use the prior list to figure out who is eligible to vote.
I'm sorry, one of my criteria was that it not disenfranchise voters, this is what the primary plan did.
Why would you leave your name on a ballot that is to have no influence on the nomination? Michigan violated the rules, the Democratic leadership in the state knew that they were doing this. If they wanted their votes to count they would have stayed within the parameters of the DNC rules.