turbo
Gold Member
- 3,157
- 57
Yep! The party exhibits little loyalty or discipline and generally manages to give the GOP lots of ammunition to attack them with.lisab said:Ahh, the Dems. Always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Rooting for the Democrats is like rooting for the Cubs, sometimes.
I certainly hope not. All the Dems pledged not to participate in those primaries, and Clinton reneged both times in a manner "just" oily enough so that she could feign innocence.lisab said:There will be mayhem in the common ranks of the party if the Clintons think they're going to count Michigan and Florida, without re-voting. But if it remains as close as it is now, they might have to do just that.
This sounds like a fair compromise, but such a system would have to be developed in a very short time, and since it would be new to both states (without previous experience and safeguards to prevent rigging) I would be leery of the validity of the results. At least at a caucus (like in my state) you get together with a bunch of politically aware/active people from surrounding communities, and basically argue the good points and weaknesses of the candidates, and horse-trade influence until you've selected a candidate for your delegate to vote for. It's the kind of situation in which you can transcend feel-good sound-bites from the candidates and assess their electability. You may be very taken by a candidate's position on one or more issues, but if your discussions with your neighbors convince you that another candidate is more electable, it's best to show some cohesion with the party and throw your support to the candidate that has a chance in the general election.lisab said:The Republicans in my state choose about half their delegates at caucus, the other half in a primary. If the Dems did that in Michigan and Florida, it would take away any advantage either candidate would have with either system.