American Moment | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
Huh? (none / 1)
"...the same lady that is directly responsible for the fiasco that is Fla & MI."

I don't really have any concern over Brazile one way or another. I DO have concern over this entire primary season and the tendency to throw blame where it doesn't belong. She is not to blame for Florida and Michigan moving up their primary dates - that's on the citizens of those states.

Every time I hear Hillary or a Hillary-bot say "Bill didn't nail the nomination down until June," I want to reach through the screen and slap the person they're spouting this crap to for not saying, "Yeah, but the primary season is a heckuva lot different than it was then. Apples and tangerines."

If you want to get on my bandwagon to get the season down to a reasonable time frame by outlawing any elections prior to March 1st, the more the merrier! This spread out insanity is too damn long. No reason for it to start 8 months before the convention/11 months before the general election.


by MedfordTim on 05/10/2008 02:33:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim (none / 1)
You are familiar with her role in the fiasco don't you. It was she who pushed for the so-called "death penalty" for MI & FL (when the rules called for cutting their delegates in half.)

I didn't mention Bill and I am not a Hillbot (I supported Edwards, he would be my choice over both of them)

I agree we need to fix our primary system so that it is more reflective of the actual voters. (no caucuses and no SDs)

by LORD FOUL on 05/11/2008 10:44:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You are a Hillbot, (none / 0)
Why? Because you support Hillary and we so no logical reason to do so at this point. It is the same reason why Hillary supporters say we are all "Obama-bots." It doesn't matter if we supported, as I did, Edwards at first and even if we then were leaning towards Hillary when Edwards first dropped out. At any rate, that is just something to say to piss people off on both sides ;)

As far as the process goes, I agree that they have to do something to shorten the amount of time between the first and last primaries. I don't think it's necessary to do away with caucuses, they are just as democratic if not more so because the results of caucuses are more open and less subject to mechanical issues. But that's a smaller issue, you say we should do away with super-delegates (admirable view, considering they are the only way your candidate could win). I think they just need to restructure things a bit.

How about making it so elected delegates HAVE to vote for the person they were selected for, and can only switch if the candidate releases them? As for superdelegates, the idea is sound. What if some disastrous thing were to happen to the candidate, or some absolutely shocking revelation about them were to come out? We may not still want to run that candidate even though we voted for him/her (though the judgment of party leaders on what constitutes "shocking" I don't have much faith in). But... it should be that the "magic" number of delegates should be determined only by elected delegates. A candidate who wins the majority of elected delegates is the nominee. The only role for superdelegates would be if they want to disqualify the nominee at the convention. It should be worded that way too. To actually come out in the convention and disqualify the nominee of the party would take one hell of a revelation, imo.

by Weapon X on 05/11/2008 05:08:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

American Moment | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)