McCain's wrapped up the GOP nomination...

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DanS


The open primary was instituted to better reflect the reality of loose party affiliation. You can be sure that the Dems welcome the votes, no matter the voters' intent.

Nothing stops "loose party" afiliates from voting however they choose on election day. I'm saying if you want to choose the leader of the party it should be confined to those that have actually demonstrated their allegiance to that party. Take out a membership otherwise accept the candidate the members choose.

To be honest, even if you consider it a problem, there are much more important everday things to worry about. Like the weather. Or the next bottle of beer.

You're right. In fact why bother voting at all?

[snoopy369]

So long as most voters don't vote based on the candidate they think will LOSE to their candidate - which I think most don't, although certainly a few do - the open primary benefits the Democrats, because if the moderate republicans select the candidate they like more and might vote for over McCain, that's exactly what the Dems want. It doesn't help if the left wingers select the candidate; it helps if the moderate side who are not guaranteed voters select the candidate.

That's assuming the Dems prefer to 'win' rather than 'having the candidate that best reflects their views', but that's a pretty clear choice nowadays unfortunately...

[DanS]

Originally posted by Wezil
Nothing stops "loose party" afiliates from voting however they choose on election day. I'm saying if you want to choose the leader of the party it should be confined to those that have actually demonstrated their allegiance to that party. Take out a membership otherwise accept the candidate the members choose.

There is no single party leader in American party politics, and you aren't voting for one in the presidential primary. Sometimes the party regulars defer to the president. Sometimes not. This is not Canada.

Nothing stops these voters from voting how they wish in the general election. But again, the parties set up the system to make it easy to vote for their guys early and often. This seems to make sense to me.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Face it, any way these goes down it will be a brokered convention. Which is exactly what the right wingers were aiming for.

You talk as if non-registered Democracts had not voted in any of the previous races. Part of Obama's delegate lead is based on non- democrats voting for him.

To be fair it was mostly likely going to be a long fight to the finish followed by a brokered convention anyway though the one chance was if Hillary lost yesterday and decided to bow out gracefully. Fat chance of that even if she had lost though.

Sorry, but why should she have "bowed out gracefully"? As much as you hate her, the reality is that the Democratic Party is SPLIT.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by CrONoS
Reagan
Obama quoting Reagan

They've already both quoted from him.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by GePap

Sorry, but why should she have "bowed out gracefully"? As much as you hate her, the reality is that the Democratic Party is SPLIT.

Here's the way I see it. It's possible that in PA, either Obama or Clinton will win a decisive victory, but even if Clinton wins PA by the same margins as she won OH (and other states play out the way they are likely to), Obama will still have a significant delegate lead and likely a lead in the popular vote (obviously, how you deal with MI and FL play into this). Turn it around, and a decisive Obama victory would probably carry more weight, as PA is a state whose demographics are closer to Clinton's base. But, no matter what way you cut it, this will be decided by superdelegates. And if we know that this will come down to a brokered convention, which would guarantee that McCain would win the White House, it would be insane for the Democratic party to let that happen. So, knowing this, either now or right after PA the superdelegates will likely line up in large numbers behind a candidate, and give him/her the magic number.

[GePap]

A brokered convention does not guarantee McCain anything.

Any democrat should hope that given the huge and continuing turnout imbalance, that democrats wouldbe able to score a victory in November. This will be specially true if the economy continues to be weak, or whether something bad happens in Iraq (I would not expect any great positive coming out of there).

Now, if democrats can;t stand the system THEY created for choosing their nominee, then tough. I prefer Clinton to Obama, but I would vote for either. Obviously people like Oerdin or Imran wouldn't. The question is, which group is more numerous.

[Dinner]

The only way I could see a brokered convention not pissing off half of the party is if they some how forced a party unity ticket through with the delegate leader taking President and the second place accepting VP. Given how Hillary and Obama hate each other due to the negative nature of the campaign I don't see that happening.

So one side will win, the other will get zip, and half of the party will be pissed. Not a good way to lead into an election.

[GePap]

Well, this is a bed of the Democrats own making (me being one). As always with these huge unwiledy American parties, the question is, do we vote for the good of the whole, or would we (wing of the party) rather lose so that next time we win, aka The Religious Right strategy.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DanS

This is not Canada.

No one said it was. Even we have enough sense however to see a system that allows people to intentionally vote to have a weak opponent of a party to which they do not belong is wonky. I realise it is not a large percentage of voters but it is still undeniably happening and you just shrug your shoulders. Okay then.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DanS


There is no single party leader in American party politics, and you aren't voting for one in the presidential primary.

So you will have more than one "Democratic" candidate on your presidential election ballot? Really?

[Ramo]

I didn't think we were going to see a split ticket yesterday. I think we might today. 'Specially if, as seems likely, Clinton wins PA (which looks a lot like OH in terms of demographics).

As I was saying, the delegate math looks very dubious for her. She'd have to win overwhelmingly in most of the remaining states, and get the full FL and MI delegations seated or win overwhelmingly in revotes. Not likely, to say the least. And if she wins PA overwhelmingly and ths situation occurs, there'd be immense pressure for Obama to get on the ticket in the name of party unity.

But if she wins PA by a smaller margin, it would look like Obama can't close the deal among Democrats, and there would be immense pressure for Clinton to get on the ticket in the name of party unity.

If Obama wins PA, I'd assume that he sews up the nomination, and there wouldn't be pressure to pick Clinton as Veep.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wezil


So you will have more than one "Democratic" candidate on your presidential election ballot? Really?

NO, but in the US there is no such thing as a Party leader, since while parties put up nominees for President, you are really voting for the person at the end, not the party.

Come on really, the difference between a Parlimentary system and a presidential system sould be clear to all by now.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
I didn't think we were going to see a split ticket yesterday. I think we might today. 'Specially if, as seems likely, Clinton wins PA (which looks a lot like OH in terms of demographics).

As I was saying, the delegate math looks very dubious for her. She'd have to win overwhelmingly in most of the remaining states, and get the full FL and MI delegations seated or win overwhelmingly in revotes. Not likely, to say the least. But if she wins PA overwhelmingly and ths situation occurs, there'd be immense pressure for Obama to get on the ticket in the name of party unity.

But if she wins PA by a smaller margin, it would look like Obama can't close the deal among Democrats, and there would be immense pressure for Clinton to get on the ticket in the name of party unity.

Hopefully there will be some sort of redo in both Michigan and Florida. Those states are too important in the general election to ignore.

The single fact here is that the progressive Anti-War side of the party (Obama) and the populist issue based part of the party (Clinton) have not reconciled and neither part is strong enough to ingore the other.

[Ramo]

Well, this is a bed of the Democrats own making (me being one). As always with these huge unwiledy American parties, the question is, do we vote for the good of the whole, or would we (wing of the party) rather lose so that next time we win, aka The Religious Right strategy.

The Obama wing and the Clinton wing are purely artifacts of these specific candidates. Male, educated, black, young vs. female, working class, latino, old? These are coalitions that are never going to appear again in a national Democratic Primary.