PDA

View Full Version : What's with the Democrats?


TroysBadDawg
05-14-2008, 10:48 PM
Not to confuse the masses, but if one of the Democratic Parties candidates are so worried that everybody’s vote should count , even those in Michigan and Florida, who held their election before they were supposed to and Senator Barack Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot to be a choice. All Candidates said they would not count those votes. Now one Sen. Clinton wants to have them count knowing full well her oppositions name was not even on the Michigan ballot to be voted on.

But going a step further: if all votes count the same, one person one vote, for the candidate of your choice. Why do the super candidates get to vote twice? Everybody gets one vote for the candidate of their choice, but others receive two votes, sounds elitist to me, not very democratic as they claim.

Just some fuel for thought.

and My humble opinion.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
05-14-2008, 10:51 PM
Im not sure whats wrong with Democrats.
However, I dont understand why the states did this......They should have to vote again or something....All votes should count......I really dont understand it...They should just vote again......

X-Terminator
05-15-2008, 12:40 AM
It's these kind of shenanigans that makes me not even want to bother to vote.

verks36
05-15-2008, 12:44 AM
everything

CantStop85
05-15-2008, 02:22 AM
everything

Get back at me when you're actually old enought to vote.

That said. If Clinton is willing to reconcile the Michigan and Florida primary elections, she'll divide the democratic party and only weaken Obama and the party as a whole during the election. In that case, she cares only for her own political image and not the welfare of the party as a whole, which is no surprise.

GBMelBlount
05-15-2008, 06:39 AM
Get back at me when you're actually old enought to vote.

That said. If Clinton is willing to reconcile the Michigan and Florida primary elections, she'll divide the democratic party and only weaken Obama and the party as a whole during the election. In that case, she cares only for her own political image and not the welfare of the party as a whole, which is no surprise.

I don't really see how she can win at this point. But, as has been said earlier, until she is officially out, NEVER underestimate the power of the Clinton political machine. I think that her (& Bill) may have something up their sleeve. They are quite resourceful you know........ I still think the dem's have plenty of time to "consolidate" though.

fansince'76
05-15-2008, 08:12 AM
Get back at me when you're actually old enought to vote.

Kinda funny coming from someone who is barely of voting age himself. :chuckle:

HometownGal
05-15-2008, 08:21 AM
NEVER underestimate the power of the Clinton political machine. I think that her (& Bill) may have something up their sleeve. They are quite resourceful you know........

Yes they are. Ask the family of Vince Foster.

Dino 6 Rings
05-15-2008, 12:04 PM
Hillary can't get out of the race now, she's too much in debt and needs to conintue to raise money to make up her loans to her campaign. She must be miserable knowing she is losing this thing, but she has to stay the coarse or eat the cash. Clintons dont enjoy losing money.

However, I believe if Obama is the nominee, Hillary will not be a very strong supporter and there may be some effort, by the people who support her, like Carville and the likes, to hurt Obama, maybe report a little more on the Wright thing or dig up more dirt. She'll try again in 2012 if McCain wins, cause McCain is not a 2 term guy. He's too old to hold the position for 8 years. So I believe she's already eyeing the 2012 election season, but she can't run in 2012 if Obama is the POTUS.

Atlanta Dan
05-15-2008, 02:19 PM
Hillary can't get out of the race now, she's too much in debt and needs to conintue to raise money to make up her loans to her campaign. She must be miserable knowing she is losing this thing, but she has to stay the coarse or eat the cash. Clintons dont enjoy losing money.

However, I believe if Obama is the nominee, Hillary will not be a very strong supporter and there may be some effort, by the people who support her, like Carville and the likes, to hurt Obama, maybe report a little more on the Wright thing or dig up more dirt. She'll try again in 2012 if McCain wins, cause McCain is not a 2 term guy. He's too old to hold the position for 8 years. So I believe she's already eyeing the 2012 election season, but she can't run in 2012 if Obama is the POTUS.

Why would anyone continue to contribute to a candidate who will not be the nominee?

To quote the late great Hunter S. Thompson, Hillary has as much chance of paying off her loans to herself through others contributing to her current campaign as "a farmer with terminal cancer trying to borrow money on next year's crop."

Here are more plausible repayment scenarios:

Obama himself has left open the door to helping Hillary Clinton pay off her campaign debts. But this does not mean giving her the money directly, either as a contribution or from his campaign funds. Obama, like everyone else, is limited to giving a federal candidate $2,300 in each the primary and the general election; his PAC may donate $5,000 to other federal candidates. What most people anticipate is that he would help her pay off the debt by asking his own contributors to chip in (with new contributions), or perhaps headlining a fundraiser or series of fundraisers for her.

As to the personal loan that she has made: Rich candidates have often loaned themselves money, and then asked their contributors to make them whole. If that is done in the course of a campaign, it may simply be a measure of how enthusiastic people are about someone's candidacy. What the McCain-Feingold law aimed to stop was deep-pocketed pols making themselves a big loan, and then--after (presumably winning) an election--going back and pressuring people to give them money to pay back the loan. Even if she loses, Hillary Clinton will still be a Senator after all this is over; there will be plenty of special interests who might see it in their interest to help her through this financial squeeze.

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/05/the_time_bomb_in_hillary_clint.html#more

fansince'76
05-15-2008, 02:23 PM
Even if she loses, Hillary Clinton will still be a Senator after all this is over; there will be plenty of special interests who might see it in their interest to help her through this financial squeeze.

As I'm feeling extra-generous today, here's my contribution to help out: :twocents:

Don't spend it all in one place now.

stlrtruck
05-15-2008, 02:24 PM
As I'm feeling extra-generous today, here's my contribution to help out: :twocents:

Don't spend it all in one place now.

I hope you got change back.

BettisFan
05-15-2008, 02:27 PM
i am almost sure edwards will be obama's VP, which would be a great balance to obama

HometownGal
05-15-2008, 03:15 PM
She'll try again in 2012 if McCain wins, cause McCain is not a 2 term guy. He's too old to hold the position for 8 years.

John McCain is 71 years old and should he win the 2008 Presidental election, would be 72 years old when he takes office. Ronald Reagan was 70 years old when he took office, held the Presidency for 2 terms and was 78 years old when he left office in 1989.

Atlanta Dan
05-15-2008, 04:39 PM
John McCain is 71 years old and should he win the 2008 Presidental election, would be 72 years old when he takes office. Ronald Reagan was 70 years old when he took office, held the Presidency for 2 terms and was 78 years old when he left office in 1989.

HTG - I adored the Gipper, still regard him as my favorite President during my lifetime (I know Preacher - hard to believe it is not W:sofunny:), and voted for him twice. But we were lucky his mental deterioration, which apparently started while he still held office, was not more pronounced prior to his departure.

One of the subtexts to the campaign is whether seniors, whom one might regard as a given group of voters for McCain, might be concerned whether somone of their own age is up to the job. Nobody better knows the impact of old age upon your physical stamina and mental acuity than the folks who are living that stage of their lives.

HometownGal
05-15-2008, 04:49 PM
HTG - I adored the Gipper, still regard him as my favorite President during my lifetime (I know Preacher - hard to believe it is not W:sofunny:), and voted for him twice. But we were lucky his mental deterioration, which apparently started while he still held office, was not more pronounced prior to his departure.

One of the subtexts to the campaign is whether seniors, whom one might regard as a given group of voters for McCain, might be concerned whether somone of their own age is up to the job. Nobody better knows the impact of old age upon your physical stamina and mental acuity than the folks who are living that stage of their lives.

I adored him too, AD, and feel he was most definitely the most effective President during my lifetime thus far.

I understand where you are coming from, Dan, but I haven't heard many concerns about McCain's age from seniors I know personally or have talked with in my campaigning for McCain. I've actually "converted" several seniors who are diehard Libs, but are adamant about not wanting an African American president. With most seniors, there are still racial biases, unfortunately, which could hurt Obama especially in the South.

Hawk Believer
05-15-2008, 04:58 PM
Why are there super delegates?

You have to go back to the 1972. The Dem fronterrunner Ed Muskie screwed up in the early northeast primaries by pissing off French Canadians and by appearing to have cried while he was defending his wife's honor to the press (he said it was just melted snow.)

When Muskie faltered, that left the door open for George McGovern. He went on to win the nomination for the dems in spite of being really far off to the left of a JFK style democrat. He went on to get pummeled by Nixon even though he was overseeing an umpopular war and the economy was begining to enter into a downturn.

The Dem party leaders didn't want McGovern because they were concerned he was too far from the middle. The landslide loss confirmed this thinking for them. So out of that came the idea of superdelegates. It was thought that if the rank and file voters made what was felt to be poor strategic decision in who they chose, a core of more seasoned party members should have some capacity to exert more influence on the process. They could essentially be a check in the process.

So eventually the superdelegate system was passed by the Dems in the 80s. Most people forgot about it till this election season because the primary process has always been a bit more decisive and Clinton's desperate clinging to a losing campaign in spite of hemorrahging millions is so unprecedented.

I agree that having superdelegates seems pretty fishy. Since political parties are just clubs (that get a ton of public money to run their club business) there isn't a conflict with the Constitution. But the idea of the will of certain voters potentially being overturned by a group of designated elites sure doesn't sit well with me and probably most other people IMO.

Its kind of like the electoral college allowing the popular vote loser to win an election.

GBMelBlount
05-15-2008, 05:09 PM
I understand where you are coming from, Dan, but I haven't heard many concerns about McCain's age from seniors I know personally or have talked with in my campaigning for McCain.

Maybe they just forgot to tell you.....

Preacher
05-15-2008, 05:13 PM
Why are there super delegates?

You have to go back to the 1972. The Dem fronterrunner Ed Muskie screwed up in the early northeast primaries by pissing off French Canadians and by appearing to have cried while he was defending his wife's honor to the press (he said it was just melted snow.)

When Muskie faltered, that left the door open for George McGovern. He went on to win the nomination for the dems in spite of being really far off to the left of a JFK style democrat. He went on to get pummeled by Nixon even though he was overseeing an umpopular war and the economy was begining to enter into a downturn.

The Dem party leaders didn't want McGovern because they were concerned he was too far from the middle. The landslide loss confirmed this thinking for them. So out of that came the idea of superdelegates. It was thought that if the rank and file voters made what was felt to be poor strategic decision in who they chose, a core of more seasoned party members should have some capacity to exert more influence on the process. They could essentially be a check in the process.

So eventually the superdelegate system was passed by the Dems in the 80s. Most people forgot about it till this election season because the primary process has always been a bit more decisive and Clinton's desperate clinging to a losing campaign in spite of hemorrahging millions is so unprecedented.

I agree that having superdelegates seems pretty fishy. Since political parties are just clubs (that get a ton of public money to run their club business) there isn't a conflict with the Constitution. But the idea of the will of certain voters potentially being overturned by a group of designated elites sure doesn't sit well with me and probably most other people IMO.

Its kind of like the electoral college allowing the popular vote loser to win an election.

Hawk.. Your right.... Right up till your statement about the electoral college...

The two are nothing alike.

There is a great misunderstanding in this country. We do not vote for president individually, we vote for president by state.

The electoral college is the collection of state votes. Each state has the right through law to BIND the electoral college to the popular vote, or not. If they are NOT bound to the popular vote of the state, then the electoral college can cross lines and vote if they want, but this VERY SELDOM IF EVER happens.

The SD on the other hand... is simply a method to invalidate the vote of the party.


I know that it was probably a throw-away line... however, it is not the best comparison.

Dino 6 Rings
05-15-2008, 05:20 PM
John McCain is 71 years old and should he win the 2008 Presidental election, would be 72 years old when he takes office. Ronald Reagan was 70 years old when he took office, held the Presidency for 2 terms and was 78 years old when he left office in 1989.

Great points, and if McCain can be 1/4 the President that Reagan (moment of silence).......................................... .................................................. .................................................. ..............................................was Then I'll be a very happy Citizen of this great nation.

Hawk Believer
05-15-2008, 07:19 PM
Hawk.. Your right.... Right up till your statement about the electoral college...

The two are nothing alike.

There is a great misunderstanding in this country. We do not vote for president individually, we vote for president by state.

The electoral college is the collection of state votes. Each state has the right through law to BIND the electoral college to the popular vote, or not. If they are NOT bound to the popular vote of the state, then the electoral college can cross lines and vote if they want, but this VERY SELDOM IF EVER happens.

The SD on the other hand... is simply a method to invalidate the vote of the party.


I know that it was probably a throw-away line... however, it is not the best comparison. Nah, I meant it. Many people think voting by state and the electoral college system is anachronistic and has way too many loopholes like the (albeit unlikely) possibility of a faithless elector changing an election's outcome. I think many people understand the need and intent of why the college was created the way it was in the 18th century. But a lot of people think its time for an update.

The fact the the loser of a popular vote (especially if you are on the losing side) can win an election and that certain peoples (those who live in the smallest states) votes certainly seem contrarian to democratic ideals. Thats what meant when I brought it up. Sure, its the rules, but it just doesn't seem to sit right with me.

Most states are now considering legislation that would bind their delegates to the nation wide popular vote winner if all the other states agree to do the same. Its kind of a backdoor way to amend the Constitution. A few states (including my own) have already made that commitment part of their law. I think that there is slowly gaining momentum for this cause and its possible the electoral college system will be changed in our lifetime. But I think it would have to happen by Constitional Amendment eventually because the smallest states would hold hold out not want to give up their inegalitarian advantage.

NJarhead
05-15-2008, 08:16 PM
If anyone thinks this should be in the funhouse, I'm cool with moving it. I just think it fits here. Enjoy!

Father-Daughter Talk:
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing ?'

She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn 't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the Republican Party.'"

:chuckle:

revefsreleets
05-15-2008, 08:21 PM
Remember, the reason Florida and Michigan "don't count" is actually those states own fault. They wanted a little extra love (the kind New Hampshire and Iowa get), so they moved themselves up on the calendar against the strict admonishment of the Democratic Party. They reaped what they sowed. Boo-hoo if Hillary got caught in the crossfire...

Preacher
05-15-2008, 08:28 PM
Nah, I meant it. Many people think voting by state and the electoral college system is anachronistic and has way too many loopholes like the (albeit unlikely) possibility of a faithless elector changing an election's outcome. I think many people understand the need and intent of why the college was created the way it was in the 18th century. But a lot of people think its time for an update.

The fact the the loser of a popular vote (especially if you are on the losing side) can win an election and that certain peoples (those who live in the smallest states) votes certainly seem contrarian to democratic ideals. Thats what meant when I brought it up. Sure, its the rules, but it just doesn't seem to sit right with me.

Most states are now considering legislation that would bind their delegates to the nation wide popular vote winner if all the other states agree to do the same. Its kind of a backdoor way to amend the Constitution. A few states (including my own) have already made that commitment part of their law. I think that there is slowly gaining momentum for this cause and its possible the electoral college system will be changed in our lifetime. But I think it would have to happen by Constitional Amendment eventually because the smallest states would hold hold out not want to give up their inegalitarian advantage.

The issue though, is that the states are making the choice.

Your right... the electoral college system is not democratic... because we are not. We are a representative democracy.. a republic... which means that we are represented by STATE. That is why I think the electoral college is so important. Because it is the STATES that are focused on... not the people.

ANd yes, I am for a very weak central govt. Give me a strong military, a strong justice system, and provide from interstate trade... and leave the rest to the states.

Hawk Believer
05-15-2008, 08:32 PM
Remember, the reason Florida and Michigan "don't count" is actually those states own fault. They wanted a little extra love (the kind New Hampshire and Iowa get), so they moved themselves up on the calendar against the strict admonishment of the Democratic Party. They reaped what they sowed. Boo-hoo if Hillary got caught in the crossfire...

You are right that its the states' fault for violating the rules. But I think the Reps were much wiser than the Dems in how they dealt with the situation. They penalized the states by cutting their delegate total in half instead of saying none of it would count. That way the states were punished but not totally disenfranchised.

By totally disallowing the results, the Dems are alienating key voters in two of the most important swing states. Sure, their legislatures screwed up and deserve a smackdown. But I think the Dems are cutting off their nose to spite their face by not allowing delegates from those states to participate. Especially in a year where each state result has been so important. Any attempt at a fix it will be a chaotic and/or costly mess that has nearly now possibility of achieving a fair outcome. Hindsight sure seems to favor the Republican approach to this one.

Hawk Believer
05-15-2008, 08:36 PM
The issue though, is that the states are making the choice.

Your right... the electoral college system is not democratic... because we are not. We are a representative democracy.. a republic... which means that we are represented by STATE. That is why I think the electoral college is so important. Because it is the STATES that are focused on... not the people.

ANd yes, I am for a very weak central govt. Give me a strong military, a strong justice system, and provide from interstate trade... and leave the rest to the states.

But do you think its right that people in the smallest states have more proportional power than the larger ones? Doesn't that still violate the spirit of an ideal representative democracy?

Maybe we should start using decimals to weight the electors more fairly.:noidea:

Preacher
05-15-2008, 09:04 PM
But do you think its right that people in the smallest states have more proportional power than the larger ones? Doesn't that still violate the spirit of an ideal representative democracy?

Maybe we should start using decimals to weight the electors more fairly.:noidea:

Your still thinking like it is a democracy where people actually have say at the national level.

We don't, except through congress. It is the state itself that has a say at the presidential level.

SO the question has to be asked. Is it fair to have a system where the smallest states get the smallest amount of say, the largest states get the largest amount of say, but both the small and the large is limited in terms of size?

yes. Otherwise, you have three states that drive politics for the nation.

Now.. Let's take away the electoral college and look at what happens.

Obama wants to get elected... so what does he have to do?

Well... He simply has to win the I-5 corridor and the East coastal states. So how is that easiest done? Well, he can go and promise money... help, etc. to California, washington Oregon, Mass, NH, NY, NJ, and a couple others.

Guess what. He is elected... because it is only the popular vote.

Politics itself, and the elections will end up isolating to a few cities in teh country... and everyone else is pretty much screwed. How is THAT democratic?

No, the electoral college balances out problem. It doesn't allow two or three dominant states to control the nation... meanwhile, it also doesn't allow a consortium of smaller states to dominate a couple bigger ones.

In the end... It is the best system... which is why politicians... after a flutter about the college... never end up doing anything about it.

Atlanta Dan
05-15-2008, 09:55 PM
You are right that its the states' fault for violating the rules. But I think the Reps were much wiser than the Dems in how they dealt with the situation. They penalized the states by cutting their delegate total in half instead of saying none of it would count. That way the states were punished but not totally disenfranchised.

By totally disallowing the results, the Dems are alienating key voters in two of the most important swing states. Sure, their legislatures screwed up and deserve a smackdown. But I think the Dems are cutting off their nose to spite their face by not allowing delegates from those states to participate. Especially in a year where each state result has been so important. Any attempt at a fix it will be a chaotic and/or costly mess that has nearly now possibility of achieving a fair outcome. Hindsight sure seems to favor the Republican approach to this one.

It will only be an issue this fall if Hillary continues to force a fight on it to the convention - and what do you think Hillary's reaction would be if the Dems used the GOP 50% solution - she would be bitching about the other 50% not counting. Hillary's idea of "negotiating" is that of the old Soviet Union - "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable".

The Dems and GOP both cut out full representation for Florida & Michigan to send a message not to jump the primary line, assuming it would not matter since the nomination fight would not be close enough for those delegates to be a factor - the Dems simply guessed wrong on that

Atlanta Dan
05-15-2008, 09:59 PM
But do you think its right that people in the smallest states have more proportional power than the larger ones? Doesn't that still violate the spirit of an ideal representative democracy?



If so, then let's abolish the U.S. Senate - the Founders had no intent for their system of government to be subject to 51% of the country at large holding the whip hand over the rest of the country with no buffers

Preacher
05-15-2008, 10:44 PM
If so, then let's abolish the U.S. Senate - the Founders had no intent for their system of government to be subject to 51% of the country at large holding the whip hand over the rest of the country with no buffers

Nor did they intend for a minority to turn the tables and grandstand on everything.

I am quickly concluding that we have the 2nd WORST govt. in the world.

Problem is... everyone else is tied for the worst.

stillers4me
05-15-2008, 10:58 PM
Speaking of Democrats, my sister names her kidney stones. She has passed Damien and Lillith. (Frazier's evil girlfriend)

I named mine Hillary. :toofunny:

TroysBadDawg
05-16-2008, 12:29 PM
Speaking of Democrats, my sister names her kidney stones. She has passed Damien and Lillith. (Frazier's evil girlfriend)

I named mine Hillary. :toofunny:

LMAO:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

Better yet I just named my hemorrhoid Hillary, both are a pain in the back side.

Hawk Believer
05-16-2008, 03:16 PM
If so, then let's abolish the U.S. Senate - the Founders had no intent for their system of government to be subject to 51% of the country at large holding the whip hand over the rest of the country with no buffers

No they didn't. Not entirely. Thats of course why we have a house and senate. It was a ingenious compromise for the dilema faced by a union of large and small states. But things have changed since the founding fathers set up the Constitution. Its been tweaked here and there. Senators were not appointed by vote of the people, but 100 years ago that changed.

I think many of the founding fathers would be OK with direct election of the executive branch given the changes that have occured with voting technology since 1787.

BTW, as I was driving to work today I was thinking random things a realized suddenly that I explained the interstate compact idea for electoral college reform inccorectly. That system would be put into effect in the committed states once they achieved a quorum of 51% electoral votes. That is, those states would assign their delegates to the winner of the popular election irregardless of the decision in their own state. Needing only half the states to sign on seems pretty achievable.

Preacher - I think there are a lot of rasonable counter arguments to your concern that candidates would only campaign in the I-5 corridor and the eastern seaboard. I think a popular vote would put much more of the US in "play." Right now fund raising happens in all states, but hardcore campaigning only occurs in those considered to be swing states. My state always votes Dem for President come hell or highwater since 1984. But I bet we would see a lot more Republican campaigning if the state wasn't winner take all. Sure, there would be more campaigning in more populous areas, but how is that different from now. The "flyover" states would be ignored at a candidates peril. One only needs to look at what happened to Hillary's strategy of focusing only on big states to see how that strategy can fail.

Sure, every system has failings. But I think there are a lot of good reasons as to why more people and states are deciding direct selection is superior to the electoral college.

BTW, sorry for the heinous thread drift.....

MACH1
05-25-2008, 07:31 PM
Remember, the reason Florida and Michigan "don't count" is actually those states own fault. They wanted a little extra love (the kind New Hampshire and Iowa get), so they moved themselves up on the calendar against the strict admonishment of the Democratic Party. They reaped what they sowed. Boo-hoo if Hillary got caught in the crossfire...

http://poplicks.com/images/hillary-train-wreck.jpg

Godfather
05-29-2008, 09:33 PM
Preacher - I think there are a lot of rasonable counter arguments to your concern that candidates would only campaign in the I-5 corridor and the eastern seaboard. I think a popular vote would put much more of the US in "play." Right now fund raising happens in all states, but hardcore campaigning only occurs in those considered to be swing states. My state always votes Dem for President come hell or highwater since 1984. But I bet we would see a lot more Republican campaigning if the state wasn't winner take all. Sure, there would be more campaigning in more populous areas, but how is that different from now. The "flyover" states would be ignored at a candidates peril. One only needs to look at what happened to Hillary's strategy of focusing only on big states to see how that strategy can fail.


I agree...right now, your vote probably won't count. Seattle will give Washington to Obama. If direct election mattered, McCain would have to visit the flyover part of the state to rally his supporters and Obama would have to visit the Left Coast to do the same.

I have the same problem in Mississippi, except my vote will be running up the score for McCain instead of being thrown away in a losing effort.