Party leaders are thumbing their noses at KY again.

[Wildcat]

Looks like the Deomcrat Party leaders and the media is thumbing their noses at the Deomcrat voters again.

Look at the long list of party leaders calling for Hillary to quit before Kentucky has a chance to vote. Same with the meida. Time mag has Obama on the cover of their next issue and saying he won. How has he won yet??? He does not have the required votes?

Simple. When the party changed the rules last year they made sure whoever had the most votes after Super Tuesday back in Feb would be the winner no mater how the rest of the states voted.

Under the Democrat Party rules they have to SPLIT the votes, no mater who has the majorty of the votes.

Once someone got ahead all he has to do is cost to the finish line the rest of the way.

Hillary has no chance ever if she won 100% of Kentucky,s democrat votes.

Under the Republican rules which is based on the General Election rules it is a winner take all the state he wins. McCain won the REQUIRED number long ago.

As for the voters of Florida and Michigan, Jimmy Carter said they should only be allowed to vote and counted in 2012, not this year.

[gobblergetter]

I'd have to think about it more but I'm not 100% opposed to a winner take all systme in the Democratic party. Its an interesting point you make. I wonder who (Obama or Hillary) would be ahead in the delgate count as of tuesday's primaries using the winner take all system.

[Art]

To me, it seems the democratic party doesn't care about the nomination anymore. They have moved on. They really don't care if Hillary wins or loses because now they are talking about the "dream ticket". Both of their darlings are going to the dance one way or another. It REALLY scares dems that there has been such a rift between Obama and Clinton, because many members of their respective bases are claiming they will vote for McCain if their person loses.

[hwright]

They said on newschannel 6 last night that Barrack will not be advertising over here. He will instead be advertising in the "golden triangle". I guess there are not enough black people over on this end of the state. He doesn't stand a chance in the general and even he knows it. He is trying to fire up his "base" and says screw the rest of them. His "base" will not be enough to get him elected in the fall. I say let the Democrates screw themselfs. HEATH

[MsgMills]

So So right...an Obama win and nomination as the Democratic representative means a sure fire win for our next President:
John McCain :)

[gobblergetter]

FYI If it were a winner take all system like Wildcat suggested the score would be Hillary-1501 Obama-2122 (delegate estimate) Still would be Obama v McCain.

[Willie]

FYI If it were a winner take all system like Wildcat suggested the score would be Hillary-1501 Obama-2122 (delegate estimate) Still would be Obama v McCain.


How about electoral college like the general election will be decided?

[gobblergetter]

How about electoral college like the general election will be decided?

Not sure. I'd have to crunch those numbers too. I'll get back to ya on that one.

[gobblergetter]

How about electoral college like the general election will be decided?

Well here is the problem. The last 6 remaining primaries are yet to be decided so those aren't included and Michigan and Fla are not included b/c they're primary delegates were seated so that would slant the numbers. Having said all of that, the numbers are Obama 273 and Hillary 184. If it were done by electoral college.

[buckfever]

I'd have to think about it more but I'm not 100% opposed to a winner take all systme in the Democratic party. Its an interesting point you make. I wonder who (Obama or Hillary) would be ahead in the delgate count as of tuesday's primaries using the winner take all system.

I think America's whole electoral system is screwed up and needs to be overhauled.

I believe that primaries in all 50 states should be held within 3-4 weeks of each other and that they should occur sometime in the Feb/March time frame before the general election. A later primary would allow the candidates plenty of time to spread their message and to campaign where ever they choose. America's voters will (or at least should) have an appropriate understanding of the various candidates and their views by this time.

I believe this would also help reduce the influence of money that many believe is so prevalent in our political process. The current, watered down, never-ending primary election system is set up to favor BIG MONEY. It provides the candidates with the biggest pocket book the advantage of giving them more time to go from state to state and spend that money. IMO, the American public gains no particular benefit by being bombarded with political advertisements and candidate marketing.

I think a much shorter primary system would generally reduce the subversive influence of money (b/c candidates would not have enough time to set up elaborate political marketing strategies and negative campaigns over a shorter cycle in every state). In the end, I think this would cause voters to actually give more credence to actual policy positions, according to the candidate's known track records and platforms, and would reduce the need to filter through all the distortions/lies/half-truths found in negative political advertisements that inevitably come in every political election.

I also disagree with the "winner take all" methods employed in various states. IMO, it should not matter whether you live in NY, KY, ND or Florida. In a national election, every voter should have equal representation, and assigning delegate votes on a % of votes won basis better accomplished this purpose. The "winner take all" method can easily lead to arguably unfair results. A candidate might win 80% of the votes in a number of smaller states, but still lose an election because his opponent won 50 more votes in a state like NY or California. This, of course, puts a much bigger premium on winning (even if only by the slimmest of margins) in the more populated states and dilutes the importance of the smaller states, like KY, even if the candidate won 95% of that state's votes.

[Hammer]

They said on newschannel 6 last night that Barrack will not be advertising over here. He will instead be advertising in the "golden triangle". I guess there are not enough black people over on this end of the state. He doesn't stand a chance in the general and even he knows it. He is trying to fire up his "base" and says screw the rest of them. His "base" will not be enough to get him elected in the fall. I say let the Democrates screw themselfs. HEATH


sadly, I don't think u are right here. I think Obama will probably win. :( I think the election will be very, very close this fall. Time will tell...

[Scott7m]

sadly, I don't think u are right here. I think Obama will probably win. :( I think the election will be very, very close this fall. Time will tell...

your exactly right.....................

the only chance mccain had was a weak democratic candiate, and he has that in obama.. that is what will give mccain what I'd think to be a slight upper hand

[raktrakr]

I think blowing off KY and VA because you cant win only shows what kind of leader he would be. We're "blue-collar" and he wont waste his time for our vote so whats that say about what he'll do for us if elected?

[turkeytalker]

sadly, I don't think u are right here. I think Obama will probably win. :( I think the election will be very, very close this fall. Time will tell...


I really don't see how Obama has a chance unless he comes up with a few ideas:confused:. The "Yes we can", "Change", "Hope", message is as old as political campaigns, it will be falling on deaf ears soon.


I'm a realist so i know its possible he could win, thats also why i'm for Hillary to win the nomination. At worst we would have another Billy Jefferson klinton, but with Obama i'm scared of the worst.

[turkeytalker]

I think blowing off KY and VA because you cant win only shows what kind of leader he would be. We're "blue-collar" and he wont waste his time for our vote so whats that say about what he'll do for us if elected?

He's a San Fran man.

[ptbrauch]

I also disagree with the "winner take all" methods employed in various states. IMO, it should not matter whether you live in NY, KY, ND or Florida. In a national election, every voter should have equal representation, and assigning delegate votes on a % of votes won basis better accomplished this purpose. The "winner take all" method can easily lead to arguably unfair results. A candidate might win 80% of the votes in a number of smaller states, but still lose an election because his opponent won 50 more votes in a state like NY or California. This, of course, puts a much bigger premium on winning (even if only by the slimmest of margins) in the more populated states and dilutes the importance of the smaller states, like KY, even if the candidate won 95% of that state's votes.

However, if the votes were distributed where essentially the whoever won the popular vote won the nomination or the election, then all a candidate would need to do is appeal to the Northeast, California, and a couple other large cities to win. "Flyover" country would be ignored. A "winner take all" system means the candidates have to appeal to all areas of the country.

Frankly, I find the whole Clinton-Obama thing amusing. It seems that the whole liberal idea of trying to please everyone and give all the kids a trophy is coming back to hurt them.

[swamper]

They said on newschannel 6 last night that Barrack will not be advertising over here. He will instead be advertising in the "golden triangle". I guess there are not enough black people over on this end of the state. He doesn't stand a chance in the general and even he knows it. He is trying to fire up his "base" and says screw the rest of them. His "base" will not be enough to get him elected in the fall. I say let the Democrates screw themselfs. HEATH

They must have been wrong. I've gotten 3 mailers already from Obama, nothing from the others. I'm closer to Dixon than the Golden Triangle.

[swamper]

your exactly right.....................

the only chance mccain had was a weak democratic candiate, and he has that in obama.. that is what will give mccain what I'd think to be a slight upper hand


The single thing that will beat McCain this election is his stance on the war....doesn't really matter who he runs against.

[Hammer]

the local BG chapter of my.barackobama.com's office called me this afternoon. It was a kid with a speech impediment reading poorly from a script. I asked him some questions, and he then handed off the phone to his speech impediment mom. I talked with her about 20 minutes. All she could say was change, change, change. She ended up telling me she was pro-life http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/images/smilies/mj07.gif and that BHO had as much experience as Hillary http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/images/smilies/mj07.gif

The only thing she knew about BHO and the second ammendment was that he doesn't support convicted felons being able to purchase firearms. http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/images/smilies/mj07.gif no chit, so do I , and that's the law now.

She is also unemployed and has no health insurance. Shocker there; why else would she be cold-calling for BHO?

One of her questions to me right off was I a Democrat. I told her I was registered Democratic (duh, that's how u got my phone number).

When she would try to refer me to a website, I would ask her how she felt. She had as much grasp for politics as I do for rebuilding a carburetor! I guess this is a true, grass roots effort. I told her that he had already won and that Kentucky's primary really means nothing.

The only thing good about this is it's an actual person (although an idiot) making the phone call. I can't stand those automated election week calls from all the candidates. They're always at the worst times and a waste of time.

[killinmammals]

the local BG chapter of my.barackobama.com's office called me this afternoon. It was a kid with a speech impediment reading poorly from a script. I asked him some questions, and he then handed off the phone to his speech impediment mom. I talked with her about 20 minutes. All she could say was change, change, change. She ended up telling me she was pro-life http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/images/smilies/mj07.gif and that BHO had as much experience as Hillary http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/images/smilies/mj07.gif

The only thing she knew about BHO and the second ammendment was that he doesn't support convicted felons being able to purchase firearms. http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/images/smilies/mj07.gif no chit, so do I , and that's the law now.

She is also unemployed and has no health insurance. Shocker there; why else would she be cold-calling for BHO?

One of her questions to me right off was I a Democrat. I told her I was registered Democratic (duh, that's how u got my phone number).

When she would try to refer me to a website, I would ask her how she felt. She had as much grasp for politics as I do for rebuilding a carburetor! I guess this is a true, grass roots effort. I told her that he had already won and that Kentucky's primary really means nothing.

The only thing good about this is it's an actual person (although an idiot) making the phone call. I can't stand those automated election week calls from all the candidates. They're always at the worst times and a waste of time.
WOW...glad I haven't got one of those calls

[Wildcat]

FYI If it were a winner take all system like Wildcat suggested the score would be Hillary-1501 Obama-2122 (delegate estimate) Still would be Obama v McCain.


I don't know where you got your numbers or how you got them, but Hillary has said publicly several times that if they were under the Republican system she would have won months ago. Karl Rove and Sean Hannity has said on TV a few times the same thing, that Hillary would have already won like McCain

[Wildcat]

I think America's whole electoral system is screwed up and needs to be overhauled.

I believe that primaries in all 50 states should be held within 3-4 weeks of each other and that they should occur sometime in the Feb/March time frame before the general election. A later primary would allow the candidates plenty of time to spread their message and to campaign where ever they choose. America's voters will (or at least should) have an appropriate understanding of the various candidates and their views by this time.

I believe this would also help reduce the influence of money that many believe is so prevalent in our political process. The current, watered down, never-ending primary election system is set up to favor BIG MONEY. It provides the candidates with the biggest pocket book the advantage of giving them more time to go from state to state and spend that money. IMO, the American public gains no particular benefit by being bombarded with political advertisements and candidate marketing.

I think a much shorter primary system would generally reduce the subversive influence of money (b/c candidates would not have enough time to set up elaborate political marketing strategies and negative campaigns over a shorter cycle in every state). In the end, I think this would cause voters to actually give more credence to actual policy positions, according to the candidate's known track records and platforms, and would reduce the need to filter through all the distortions/lies/half-truths found in negative political advertisements that inevitably come in every political election.

I also disagree with the "winner take all" methods employed in various states. IMO, it should not matter whether you live in NY, KY, ND or Florida. In a national election, every voter should have equal representation, and assigning delegate votes on a % of votes won basis better accomplished this purpose. The "winner take all" method can easily lead to arguably unfair results. A candidate might win 80% of the votes in a number of smaller states, but still lose an election because his opponent won 50 more votes in a state like NY or California. This, of course, puts a much bigger premium on winning (even if only by the slimmest of margins) in the more populated states and dilutes the importance of the smaller states, like KY, even if the candidate won 95% of that state's votes.

The primaries are run by the parties, not the federal govt. It is up to each party when, where and how to hold their primaries. Every year each party holds meetings and votes on any rule changes they want. After the 2000 General Election where Bush won the Electoral College the Democrat Party voted to change their primary rules to split the vote between each candidate. They changed them again in 2005 and yet again in 2006 to what we see today. Under those rules there is no way on earth anyone behind after Super Tuesday can catch up because they have to split the votes.

The Republican Party has their primary vote, "winner take all" based on the US General Election using the Electoral College. The Electoral College is set in the US Constution and we have used that in every election from George Washington to today. It is the very same numbers as all the states Senators and Representaives and this incules Washington D.C. if they had them. By the way, these same numbers vote on all laws passed by the Federal Govt.

The Federal Govt takes over after the parties primaries are over. The Federal Election Commision runs the General Election in Nov under the rules set in the US Constution.

Something else to remember. The delegates in the primires are only held to their vote only on the first ballot at the conventions. If nobody wins on the first ballot the delegates are free to vote on who ever they want. This has gone on a lot all though history. Example, Lincoln won on the 4th ballot, Wilson won on the 46th ballot.

[buckfever]

However, if the votes were distributed where essentially the whoever won the popular vote won the nomination or the election, then all a candidate would need to do is appeal to the Northeast, California, and a couple other large cities to win. "Flyover" country would be ignored. A "winner take all" system means the candidates have to appeal to all areas of the country.

Frankly, I find the whole Clinton-Obama thing amusing. It seems that the whole liberal idea of trying to please everyone and give all the kids a trophy is coming back to hurt them.

I understand where you're coming from. I just happen to believe that in terms of electing nationally elected officials every citizens vote should receive the exact same weight, regardless of what state they live in. There are certainly legitimate arguments both ways, and our founding father's clearly needed to insure a "voice" for people in our smaller states in order to get those states to agree to join the union and sign on to the Constitution.


The primaries are run by the parties, not the federal govt. It is up to each party when, where and how to hold their primaries. Every year each party holds meetings and votes on any rule changes they want. After the 2000 General Election where Bush won the Electoral College the Democrat Party voted to change their primary rules to split the vote between each candidate. They changed them again in 2005 and yet again in 2006 to what we see today. Under those rules there is no way on earth anyone behind after Super Tuesday can catch up because they have to split the votes.

The Republican Party has their primary vote, "winner take all" based on the US General Election using the Electoral College. The Electoral College is set in the US Constution and we have used that in every election from George Washington to today. It is the very same numbers as all the states Senators and Representaives and this incules Washington D.C. if they had them. By the way, these same numbers vote on all laws passed by the Federal Govt.

The Federal Govt takes over after the parties primaries are over. The Federal Election Commision runs the General Election in Nov under the rules set in the US Constution.

Something else to remember. The delegates in the primires are only held to their vote only on the first ballot at the conventions. If nobody wins on the first ballot the delegates are free to vote on who ever they want. This has gone on a lot all though history. Example, Lincoln won on the 4th ballot, Wilson won on the 46th ballot.

Yeah, I'm not saying that a "winner take all" primary system violates the Constitution, because I completely agree with your above analysis that it's permissible under the Constitution. As I said above, there are certainly some legitimate reasons for structuring it that way. Personally though, I just think that system fails to serve the broader democratic principle that all men (and thus their votes) are created equal.

[drakeshooter]

Video link of Chris Matthews' "Hardball" discussing if Clinton has a looming exit strategy. The dig Matthews takes at Bill Clinton at the 3:26 mark made me smile a little.:)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24546449#24546449

[gobblergetter]

I don't know where you got your numbers or how you got them, but Hillary has said publicly several times that if they were under the Republican system she would have won months ago. Karl Rove and Sean Hannity has said on TV a few times the same thing, that Hillary would have already won like McCain

I wrote down all of the states and who won each in the primary. I got this info from a website (can't remember which one, its been a couple of days) I wrote down the # of electoral votes each state gets ie California 55, Ind 11 etc. I added all the numbers and reached the numbers given in the earlier post. Like I said, we still have 6 primaries left... Not that those would change the outcome. I'm not sure about Hannity and Colmes. I haven't heard them say that. Honestly I'm not a big fan of theirs anyways and don't get foxnews. Probably why I didn't hear that info.

[kytrapper]

The democrats created their own system back when they ran against Richard Nixon. They are the original " try to steal an election" party. Their system also discounts their own individual registered voters and gives power of decision to the " Super Delegate". If anyone is truly interested in how and why the democrat primary system is the way it is Glenn Beck has a very good two minute cartoon on his website that explains it. And they still go around saying " The democrats are for the working man."
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/9373/
Here's the link.