He's not even letting her breatheFollow

Obama is taking it to her

Bodes well for Ohio. Both states are largely white (5% Black in WI and 7-10% in Ohio) with barely any Hispanic population. Both states have economies which rely first on manufacturing and then on agriculture. They differ by about $1000 in people's average annual income. In other words, Wisconsin was a good test for how well Obama can do in Ohio with enough groundwork.

The win in Wisconsin was something of a surprise. Although Obama was favored, his polling averages never broke 4% and, by last night, folks were saying they wouldn't be shocked at a Clinton upset. Obama winning by 17% was completely unexpected.

Obama's campaign has been trying to hit 500,000 unique contributors by March 4th. Last night, I saw the counter jump from 455,000 to 470,000 in about an hour or two. 15,000 new people sending in money in a two hour span is nothing to sneeze at.

Uhm, we do too. It's part of the campaign funding.

Hillary launched a new website today to argue the current delegate process. How conscientious of her.
http://www.delegatehub.com/

Well, each party IS voting for their candidate via the primaries but I don't think there'd be much support for a system where the public was shut out of the first round. Constitutionally, anyone who is a naturally born citizen and 35+ years of age can run for President. On the state level, you need to have enough support to get your name on the ballot. Saying that the political parties would decide for you would be, frankly, unconstitutional in my opinion. Plus it would make every other presidental hopeful run as an independent, thus fracturing the parties completely. There's no benefit to the parties to choose internally.There is if you accept public funding. If you privately fund yourself through contributions or your own pocket or whatever then you're free to spend as much money as you want.One of the big surprises that came out of Obama's fund-raising organization is that it's based on lots and lots of donors giving in small increments. The average Obama contributor has given $200 so far, usually in several contributions. but all of those $25 donations add up and its a constant source of cash for the campaign. In contrast (and working against her), over half of Clinton's donors gave the maximum legal limit of $2300 and are shut out from donating again for the rest of the primary. She spent all that money early on and is working on a much smaller pool of donors to keep her going. which'll only get worse if people think they're backing a loser.

Edited, Feb 20th 2008 1:02pm by Jophiel

No, it wouldn't. If you have a clear front-runner for one party and a split like we have now in another party, the party with the clear front runner is going to win. If we had a general election at the beginning and the majority of republicans voted for McCain and the democrats were split...you see what I mean? This way, it tells the parties who their candidate is so that they can choose between parties.

Nexa

You're right it wouldn't be the same result. I think it would be a better system. If 10000 people vote for John, 5000 vote for Jenn, 6000 vote for James, then John should be president no matter what parties Jenn and James are a part of. You should be voting for a president not a party, but that's just my opinion. It should be best person for the job, not the person who happens to have the kind of friends you like.

Meh, if it works for you guys great. At least I understand how it works now :).

Doing so reduces voting to a random expression of preference of the voter, whereas the ideal at least is the decision made from the result of an informed and contemplated judgment. Part of voting is deciding who you don't want in office, and if 11k people do not want John in office, then they should overrule 10k that do. Having a primary allows people to make compromises on which issues they believe are represented most by the candidates that have a shot at winning.

If we were only attempting to elect people with identical views on issues as ourselves, then there would be no point in elections at all, for we would be much better off by simply ruling our own, personal lives. We can't do it that way though, and thus need a system which allows the voter to express an informed opinion of, not only what they want to have happen, but of what they wish to prevent.

Well I also believe that the executive branch of a government should have very little decision making powers and be more of a communication tool/figure head, NO single person should have as much power as the American President is given.

If you wanted something remotely like that, you'd have to use a run-off, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference. Incremental point values are awarded for a vote at each rank.

Sure, but it'll be a guy.

Nexa

Quite a compliment to your woman, there, Smoove.