Will today's primary decide the Dem nominee?

[Ravi]

Consistency check.

I'm undecided about the issue, you've raised some good points but I still think they don't apply to primaries.

 

[manifold]

Consistency check.

I'm undecided about the issue, you've raised some good points but I still think they don't apply to primaries.

Look at the big picture. Only two candidates ever have any real chance in just about any election, the odd local/state third party winner notwithstanding. So the only chance a voter has to influence who these two choices are is in the primaries. So why not allow voters to freely decide which primary to vote in?

All this talk about ratfuckers nominating weak candidates from the opposing party is a red herring. When has that ever worked?

 

[AllieBaba]

Hillary would have already dropped if it weren't for ratfuckers. By keeping her in, we allow the Dems to do all the dirty work themselves. Obama and Clinton have no problem whatsoever punching away at each other. It keeps us from having to get our hands dirty.

 

[Ravi]

Look at the big picture. Only two candidates ever have any real chance in just about any election, the odd local/state third party winner notwithstanding. So the only chance a voter has to influence who these two choices are is in the primaries. So why not allow voters to freely decide which primary to vote in?

All this talk about ratfuckers nominating weak candidates from the opposing party is a red herring. When has that ever worked?

Affirmative action for weak candidates?

I'm shocked.

 

[manifold]

Hillary would have already dropped if it weren't for ratfuckers. By keeping her in, we allow the Dems to do all the dirty work themselves. Obama and Clinton have no problem whatsoever punching away at each other. It keeps us from having to get our hands dirty.

Not very likely.

 

[manifold]

Affirmative action for weak candidates?

I'm shocked.

That make no sense to me at all. But don't bother explaining, I'm pretty sure it doesn't to you either.

 

[Ravi]

Okay

 

[AllieBaba]

Not very likely.

It's already happened. McCain hasn't had to say a word against either candidate because they're airing each others' dirty laundry.

It's like a wonderful circus.

 

[manifold]

It's already happened. McCain hasn't had to say a word against either candidate because they're airing each others' dirty laundry.

It's like a wonderful circus.

I was referring to your bogus assertion that Hillary has been artificially propped up by republican ratfuckers.

 

[AllieBaba]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get used to them, you're going to spend the next several years masticating them.

 

[Dogger]

I was referring to your bogus assertion that Hillary has been artificially propped up by republican ratfuckers.

I agree that is bogus. Clinton had open GOP support in Texas and Ohio, but not enough to swing the outcome. Though the media reported her victorious in TX initially, she didn't drop out even when the final tally gave more TX delegates to Obama.

 

[jillian]

I agree that is bogus. Clinton had open GOP support in Texas and Ohio, but not enough to swing the outcome. Though the media reported her victorious in TX initially, she didn't drop out even when the final tally gave more TX delegates to Obama.

That's only because of those very "democratic" caucases.

 

[Dogger]

That's only because of those very "democratic" caucases.

Good point. I was commenting on her persistence, but I didn't mean to sound like I was defending the caucus system. That needs to be scrapped, or opened up for people who can't appear at a narrow time (like working mothers) or at all (like the disabled).

 

[Ravi]

Reading thru Jillians wikipedia link, it's obvious that both open and closed primaries are unconstitutional.

 

[Dogger]

Reading thru Jillians wikipedia link, it's obvious that both open and closed primaries are unconstitutional.

On what grounds?

 

[Ravi]

Open primaries violate freedom of association.

The other issue is more complicated but it is described at the link.