Running Primaries Thread

Presidential politics are more about personality than policy for a lot of people. I haven't decided what I'll do if it's Clinton vs. McCain and Clinton has secured the nomination through superdelegates, but I can understand if Obama supporters hesitate to vote for her after her behavior this campaign. She's crying, she's scolding, she's fear-mongering and then she's propping up the Rupublican nominee. That's going to turn people off. Actions have consequences and it's not just about a bunch of policies -- many of which will never get passed.

 

Translation: People have every right to vote against their own interests.

Of course they do. It doesn't make it any less stupid, though.

 

If you think that's the translation, fine. Keep in mind, one of the Democratic candidates has spent the last week praising a Republican candidate who represents a complete opposite point of view. She did this in her own pursuit of the presidency rather than the pursuit of Democratic interests and ideals. That's going to piss people off. It pisses me off.

One other thing, demeanor matters when it comes to leadership. It's not just about policy proposals. It's about an ability to institute them. If you can't, then it really doesn't matter what you propose. Also, if you have a press conference where you look like a raving lunatic, it's going to concern some people.

 

Let's agree on one thing: It is 100 percent impossible to fairly conduct revotes.

The only way to do it equitably would be to allow participation by those who voted the first time. That cannot be done because people have moved, died, changed parties, etc., etc.

You can't allow all the voters registered at the time of the revote to participate because that would mean people who voted in one state and who have since moved to Florida/Michigan could vote in a second election. And I'm sure there are dozens of other circumstances that would arise.

Charlie Crist and Ben Nelson: Do everyone a favor and be quiet.

 

I'm not necessarily in favor of a re-vote (which would change the situation from punishing Fla. and Mich. for breaking the rules to rewarding them by essentially giving them the tie-breaker - can you imagine the economic pandering that will go on in Mich.?), but the concern that it shouldn't be done because people have died or moved seems so minor as to be not even a quibble.
For one, primaries are a party process, not protected by the constitution. And the parties can pretty much do what they please, which is why we have so many different varieties of primary/caucus. So if they want a re-vote, and will pay for it and can get the campaigns to agree, why not?
Also, any election is just a snapshot in time. If everyone agrees to a take another picture, so be it. No one's trying to replicate precisely what would have happened back in January. They'll be fine with what happens in June, deaths, moves and whatever else aside.
Also, primaries being scheduled the way they are, you could easily have voted in Iowa in January, moved, voted in Texas in March, Pennsylvania in April and Puerto Rico in June. Only thing stopping you from bouncing all over the country and casting 20 ballots is voter registration deadlines and the need to show ID at a polling place.

 

Crist was an utter idiot w/Matthews, last night. A national embarassment.

 

Great tan, though.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece

Though this was written prior to Tuesday, it remains wildly encouraging.

The chance of a parallel approach from his opponent -- less than zero.



And as an aside . . . how pathetic is it that the curious were left to read the foreign press to
pick up on this?

 

And, for the purposes of electoral politics, this differes from HRC's praising John McCain exactly how?
At least she's not going to give him a job.

 

Hil's McCain games are specifically designed to embarass Obama.

When this was written, BO was actually looking ahead -- what a concept.

Still waiting for those tax returns . . . can't wait to see all that influence-peddling by hubby, meticulously-detailed.

 

Yeah, because she doesn't release them, she must be guilty.
Ken Olson would approve.
And I don't give a damn why he did it. Saying your going to put Republicans in your cabinet after their performance over the past seven years is futile and stupid. Actually doing it would be infinitely worse than saying nice things about John McCain.

 

Disagree. And so it goes.

After 42's cabinet, the "potential" of an HRC cabinet is scary as hell. The
history of the AG position with Bill -- a nightmare, thanks to HRC's relentless
insistance that the post MUST go to a woman -- lingers.

Look up "hack" in Webster's: the picture is of Janet Reno.