Running Primaries Thread

Keep looking.
Meanwhile...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/15/AR2008031502047.html?nav=rss_politics

 

Thanks Nita

 

"It's no mystery," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He's just killed the Republican brand."

You followed him over the cliff, foof.
I find myself strangely unsympathetic.

 

The whoring's great, until you're caught nine feet off first . . . leaning the wrong way.

 

BTW, final numbers are in from Iowa, and it was better than expected for the Obama camp.

+9 for them, plus a -1 for HRC for a +10 net.

Or, for those scoring at home, one more than she took out of Ohio.

 

The media doesn't care. Actually winning the race isn't interesting. A rousing Clinton comeback (even if it doesn't exist)? Some negative spew from a pastor? Now that stuff is interesting!

 

I like how Obama had no idea -- NO IDEA -- that his pastor, the pastor who married he and his wife, the pastor who inspired the title of his book, indeed the pastor who supplied the entire basis for his presidential candidacy, had made such inflammatory statements.

Does that ring true to anyone here? Does such an implausible contention sound like a new kind of politics?

 

Enough of this BS about the nomination being "stolen" at the convention. The party rules are what they are. If Barack Obama wants to set them aside, then he should say so plainly.

And let me dispel any false comparison to Bush v. Gore before it arises. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court basically superseded the laws of Florida ex post facto.

Here, Superdelegates hold a substantial portion of the total delegates, and it should be expected that they cast their vote according only to their own conscience.

 

It's nearly the end of fucking March.
Isn't the fact that they're still tallying up Iowa prima facie evidence that caucuses are a for-shit way of determining a nominee?

 

No.

It's the county conventions. The delegates Edwards had, along with the odd delegate that a Dodd, Biden or Denny The K rolled up are free to switch allegiances, and align behind a candidate who is still viable.

Given that there are still, what, ten states left to vote at all, I don't think Iowa following the process it always follows is prima facie evidence of anything. Except, possibly, further evidence that Hillary Clinton has no chance in hell of winning Iowa or of catching Obama.

 

1) Iowa's - and New Hampshire's -- endless bellyaching about their idiotic pride-of-place in the nomination process is part of the reason why we have the Michigan and Florida debacles.
2) Caucuses suck, now and forever, as opposed to primary elections. The idea that we have to wait two months for the Cornshuck County convention to determine the final tally for the first goddamn event of the cycle is proof enough of that.

 

Like I said before, it's a shame they invented all these electoral methods this year just to screw the Clintons. Caucuses would be much more acceptable if they were part of our national history.