I'd like to take a moment and ask the readers of this blog to teach me a thing or two.
1) I was just reading the delegate counts for each state on CNN (you can see it here), and I'm confused. It shows delegates given to each candidate from every state. Are primaries not a winner take all system? Do you still get the delegates who have pledged to vote for you even if you don't "take" the state? If so, why do we do that in our primaries and not our general election? Or am I just reading the site wrong? Also, if Obama happens to win the Texas caucus vote, he'll get more delegates, right?
2) Why all this sudden talk about NAFTA? It doesn't see like it's a topic that has gotten a particularly large amount of air time in recent years. How is our involvement in it a positive thing? How is it negative?
I realize I need to do my own research on these things, but I'd like to hear what y'all have to say first, so please do oblige me.
On a side note, my interest was unexpectedly piqued by a Ralph Nader interview on The Daily Show last night. Watch if you please, but I think he has some really interesting things to say, especially if you've ever found yourself thinking like a Libertarian at all.
2) Why all this sudden talk about NAFTA? It doesn't see like it's a topic that has gotten a particularly large amount of air time in recent years. How is our involvement in it a positive thing? How is it negative?
I realize I need to do my own research on these things, but I'd like to hear what y'all have to say first, so please do oblige me.
On a side note, my interest was unexpectedly piqued by a Ralph Nader interview on The Daily Show last night. Watch if you please, but I think he has some really interesting things to say, especially if you've ever found yourself thinking like a Libertarian at all.
Labels: Politics, Television, Voting
SHARE THIS: Facebook | Stumble It! | Del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Technorati
9 Comments:
The Democratic Party mandates proportional representation of delegates, so it's not winner-take-all. The Republican Party has no such mandate - some states are winner-take-all, some states go by district, & some are proportional. Proportional makes more sense, but then again so does a straight popular vote. Who knows why they do it all these strange ways. And as for the general election, it's the way it is because of the Constitution. Which isn't to say they shouldn't or couldn't change it.
In Texas, 2/3 of the delegates are chosen by the primary vote, & the other 1/3 are from the caucus. So yes, Obama could get more TX delegates.
Neither HC or Hussein can get the required number of delegates based on popular vote, so it will be up to the superdelegates. There's a response to your prior post that reveals the truth about that hack system.
Probably the talk about NAFTA is because Obama was found to be a total fraud on it. He was going around talking badly about it in public because people want to hear that, then one of his minions was caught with a memo from Obama basically telling Canada he's just kidding & really likes NAFTA. So it's not so much NAFTA as an issue - it's dirty politics from Obama, the "clean" candidate.
HOpe that helps. We all need more research.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
ACTUALLY - I believe Obama can still get the proper amount of delegate votes if he wins Pennsylvania. But I think that's the only way. I don't believe Hillary can unless she wins all the rest of the states (about 8 or 9 left I think) by 20% or more. But that isn't going to happen, so I think she is the position of just preventing Obama from getting the nod and forcing the campaigns to negotiate some kind of settlement (CAN'T IMAGINE how that would look) or forcing what is called a brokered convention, which I think basically means that when they all get to the convention, vote, and no one gets the proper number of delegate votes, then the favor trading/calling-in will begin. Sounds like a lot of fun to watch if you ask me! I'm bucking for that one. By the way - on another note - has anyone heard how McCain may not legally be able to be President because he was born in Panama. According to my source, there is potential for a lawsuit if he's elected. ??? Can you IMAGINE??
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
They researched the McCain birth thing last time he tried to run, & they decided he's OK. He was born at a military base, & it would be really bad precedent to say that if our soldiers are stationed outside our borders & have a kid, those kids can't serve the country.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Hey anon, you've got a name. Use it.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
So I'm confused - you can make up a name like Lois Lane or Molly McGee, but you can't be anonymous? You make the rules.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Regarding NAFTA...
Perhaps NAFTA is also on the radar because the dems were vying for Ohio. From what I understand, Ohio has suffered severe job losses since NAFTA was signed by President Clinton in the 1990's. Which makes it interesting for Hillary as a candidate today.
Additionally, theories about NAFTA have been getting some media play. e.g. the constant NAFTA buzz from CNN's Lou Dobbs. (I'm concerned that one day he will have a stroke on the air!) Dobbs mainly talks about the loss of jobs and the direction NAFTA could take the country: the possiblity of a North American Union--like the EU--that could further hurt the U.S. economy.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Thank you, Jill! That makes sense!
Thursday, March 06, 2008
owwlias, what if our names really are Lois Lane and Molly McGee? But seriously, I think the purpose of creating even the silliest names just lets the readers follow who's making which comment. Four anonymouses may say four different things and we'll just conclude it's one person with split personalities :)
Thursday, March 06, 2008
It's pretty easy to find out who I am, since I say it up front. Same with Molly McGee, if you look around. Mz Lane prefers a kind of anonymity, but you know a lot about her, her life, her husband and her devotion to LOST if you read her blog.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Post a Comment
<< Home