The Pesky Delegate Count

Submitted by Jean Carnahan on Wed, 04/23/2008 - 9:41am.

The Pesky Delegate Count
by Jean Carnahan

            Pennsylvania: a state that has been described as Pittsburg on the west, Philadelphia on the east, and Alabama in between.  The Keystone State was Hillary’s best demographic, yet she was barely able to scratch the Obama delegate armor.

             Despite all the talk about popular vote, (in which Obama still leads and is likely to continue leading), let’s not forget that presidential primaries are about DELEGATES!!!   Some states arrive at them by the caucus method and some by primaries or, in the case of Texas, a combination of each.  Them’s the rules.  

NBC number cruncher, Chuck Todd, said the pledged delegate count is over.  “It now appears like it’s going to be impossible for Obama to lose his lead.”

            Even so, we soldier on.

            We look next to North Carolina and Indiana for their May 6 primaries.  I was in Western North Carolina last weekend and visited five cities, speaking at voter rallies and canvass kickoffs.  The ground work being done by Obama staff and supporters is strong and enthusiastic.  They have registered 77,000 new voters, have 10,000 volunteers and 20-some offices.  So far, there have been 40,000 early voters. 

            As the two contenders continue to knock heads, one of the big concerns expressed in North Carolina, and elsewhere, is whether a battered Democratic party will be in shape to face the well-rested John McCain.  The happy sailor is taking shore leave, leaving the Dems to duke it out on deck.   

In the aftermath of the Pennsylvania primary, John McCain will have ample time to pursue his new found hobby of scrap booking.  Or, he could head for the seashore, where he can slake himself with sun screen, don his goofy Elmer Fudd hat, and wander the beach in search of seashells.


 

»

Why Democrats Lose!

Submitted by disgruntleddemocrat on Thu, 05/15/2008 - 10:31am.

It is about delegates according to DNC rules and that is precisely why Democratic presidential candidates generally lose elections.  The system does not really promote the best fit candidate to win the general election--if it did then it would more closely model its rules after the electoral college allocation of votes.  The Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot this time and I for one am tired of it and ready to make the first step to becoming an "Independent"!!!

 

Of course, we all know you Obama fans will blame the Clintons whenever Obama loses in Nov.  If you were really smart, you would stop with the excuses and blame and think about how you need to reform your system to arrive at an electable candidate. 

»

Hey, it's a concern troll!

Submitted by Glic on Sat, 05/17/2008 - 7:51am.

think about how you need to reform your system to arrive at an electable candidate. 

 

"Your" system? Doesn't sound like a Democratic poster. Run along on back to freerepublic, safe in the confines of your echo chamber.

 Buh-bye.
 

»

If you must know, I had

Submitted by disgruntleddemocrat on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 11:12am.
If you must know, I had always considered myself a Democrat but now will probably be an Independent leaning Democratic (hence, my username "disgrunteddemocrat").  I say "your" system because it is the system that the Democratic elites and the so-called superdelegates put into place (people like the Carnahan's and McCaskill's).  They certainly never polled us voters about the rules to see what WE wanted.  I would say model the system after the system used in the fall for the general election because that is what matters, winning in November.
»

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.