It says Im closest to Ron Paul and furthest From Fred Thompson on that lil quizz. He was the only one that even got close enough to touch My circle. Im closer to Hillary?....yucky
The way some of the questions are worded leads you to an answer you might not otherwise give.
Example: the way they handle the death penalty.
Im for the death penalty but the question is "Do you think it deters crime?"...I gave a neutral answer to that where if they asked "Do you think the death penalty provides justice?" I would have been all in .
Why did Edwards and Obama take their names off the Michigan Primary ballots? I don't understand this? Hilary won for the Den's, but USA Today says the victory means nothing because Michigan moved up it's Primary date and was stripped of it's 156 delegates.
Could someone please explain what the "delegates" represent and how does a candidate finally win the nonination? Are there a certain # of "delegates" assigned to each state and when you win the majority of the delegates, you win the nomination? It sounds almost the same as the presidential election unless I am mistaken.
Sorry for the ignorance, but I never paid much attention to the primaries until now.
All this hype about who wins is really only about the number of delegates a candidates earns for the national party convention. Because Michagan moved up their primary their delegates are void for the convention.
Even though the media talks about the primaries as wins like a general election in reality, these candidates are fighting over numbers of delegates not winning a state. But the media hype and the nature of politics these days creates a situation where winning states knocks off the other guys so there are no candidates in march, april, may june etc.
So how it's supposed to work is the candidates are to take their "delegates" won in the state to the party convention. They need a certain number and like I said, because candidates drop off they can gain that magical number well before the convention. Should a candidate not get that magical number it will need to get other candidates delegates to put him/her over.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
JRod wrote: Should a candidate not get that magical number it will need to get other candidates delegates to put him/her over.
It's potentially important to know that the Democrats also have "super-delegates" in play. These are former elected officials and luminaries who are not awarded in any primary. They're a holdover from the reaction to the McGovern commission reforms of the 70's. This could be huge for Hillary if the race remains neck-and-neck, as the conventional wisdom says they would break for her in large numbers.
XBL Gamertag: RobVarak
"Ok I'm an elitist, but I have a healthy respect for people who don't measure up." --Aaron Sorkin
The news networks pay so much attention to these early primary wins because these are small states with relatively few delegates, so it's more important to win these states to build momentum for the bigger states where there are more delegates at stake.
For instance right now Mitt Romney has nearly twice as many delegates as any other republican candidate after 2 second places and 1 first place, but he's clearly not in the lead for winning the nomination.
Romney's going to be around with the win but he twisted himself to achieve it:
Romney ran in Michigan the way many people thought he should have from the start: as a man from the business world who could fix their problems. He also pandered robustly. Romney told Michiganders he would protect them from the business cycle and save their jobs. (It was a neat trick that Romney could win support for his success in the business world—where he succeeded by not protecting every job—while simultaneously promising to protect every job.) McCain had decided not to tell locals what they wanted to hear and said that some jobs weren't coming back. McCain said he'd cut pork-barrel projects. Romney promised Michigan-specific help from Washington. (At times it felt like he was running for Senate.)
Romney returned to the image he'd presented at the launch of his campaign, before he took a detour by trying to run as the campaign's true social conservative. The question for Romney is whether he'll spend the remaining days in South Carolina running as Mr. Fix-It or return to the previous mishmash that voters have found so inauthentic.
Naples39 wrote:The news networks pay so much attention to these early primary wins because these are small states with relatively few delegates, so it's more important to win these states to build momentum for the bigger states where there are more delegates at stake.
For instance right now Mitt Romney has nearly twice as many delegates as any other republican candidate after 2 second places and 1 first place, but he's clearly not in the lead for winning the nomination.
Potentially Romney could finish second in a lot of states and by the time the convention rolls around he has the most delegates. If states split between McCain, Huckabee and Rudy, and Romney finishes in decent position you could see this happening.
This is how the process is supposed to work and how it did prior to the 1970s when conventions were there to determine the party's candidates not serve as a 4 day soap box.
I know there's still a lot of time, but there's an outside chance that one if not both parties could see a convention fight for the nomination. Let's hope that happens because that would mean more primaries in the nation will have a real impact in the election. And it would make for some great atmosphere at the convention to see delegates and states fought over.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
Naples39 wrote:The news networks pay so much attention to these early primary wins because these are small states with relatively few delegates, so it's more important to win these states to build momentum for the bigger states where there are more delegates at stake.
For instance right now Mitt Romney has nearly twice as many delegates as any other republican candidate after 2 second places and 1 first place, but he's clearly not in the lead for winning the nomination.
Potentially Romney could finish second in a lot of states and by the time the convention rolls around he has the most delegates. If states split between McCain, Huckabee and Rudy, and Romney finishes in decent position you could see this happening.
This is how the process is supposed to work and how it did prior to the 1970s when conventions were there to determine the party's candidates not serve as a 4 day soap box.
I know there's still a lot of time, but there's an outside chance that one if not both parties could see a convention fight for the nomination. Let's hope that happens because that would mean more primaries in the nation will have a real impact in the election. And it would make for some great atmosphere at the convention to see delegates and states fought over.
So at the end of the primaries, do the respective parties have the right to choose who they nominate, regardless of the votes? I guess I still don't totally understand the primary process. You mentioned the parties could potentially be "fighting for the nomination". That tells me it's not just cut and dry and whoever wins the most delegates wins?
JackB1 wrote:
So at the end of the primaries, do the respective parties have the right to choose who they nominate, regardless of the votes? I guess I still don't totally understand the primary process. You mentioned the parties could potentially be "fighting for the nomination". That tells me it's not just cut and dry and whoever wins the most delegates wins?
JackB1 wrote:
So at the end of the primaries, do the respective parties have the right to choose who they nominate, regardless of the votes? I guess I still don't totally understand the primary process. You mentioned the parties could potentially be "fighting for the nomination". That tells me it's not just cut and dry and whoever wins the most delegates wins?
Wow...it's certainly a lot more complicated than I thought. This primary system needs to be overhauled just like the regular presidential election system does. Some states are totally left out as the candidate is already determined before they even get to vote. That's just wrong. Knowing that your vote is meaningless is just wrong and contributes to less people voting in subsequent elections. This voting process is supposed to be the backbone of a Democratic system and it's so convoluted, it's no wonder many feel detached from it.
We need to have a popular vote for the Primary and a popular vote for the president.....end of story. All done on the same days or at least within 2 weeks for the whole primary. This whole "delegates" thing is ridiculous.
wco81 wrote:The delegate system is pretty opaque to most Americans.
That's because most Americans couldn't pass an 8th grade civics test.
I don't know that the machinations of how each party awards delegates are inscribed in the Constitution or any other document. Nor that they necessarily have anything to do with governance.
For instance, if the parties decided to change their systems, would Americans in general have a say?
Did the voters in the states which moved up their primaries have a say, especially when the national parties penalized some of the early states which leapfrogged?
The voters didn't vote on it. But the state legislatures have done this.
And if we taught civics in school this process wouldn't be a mystery and dare I say more people would look at it in terms of securing delegates not just winning the most votes like it's a general election.
JackB:
But that brings up a whole host of other issues. Let's see you did a national primary then it would be heavily slanted towards the richest and most popular candidates.
One of the allures of the Iowa and New Hampshire caucus/primary is the ability for candidates to be evaluated in very intimate settings. The problem is that these states are not representative of the nation.
Is the blame of the primary process or on the expectations that we must have two announced candidates by March?
I think the media generates total hysteria in making people believe that America must know who the two candidates are and turns later primaries frivolous.
Like I said in an earlier post, in a perfect world, every state would have a primary and this process would be drawn out until the convention. And at the convention there are 2-3 potential presidential candidate and the delegates would determine who gets the nomination.
Other than that, I don't think there's viable solution for selecting candidates. Any real changes would probably require the two party to concede how they want to run things, which they would never do.
The best thing for both parties now is to have this thing go as long as possible. Maybe that will give more states and chance to see candidates in their states. If we see one candidate dominate on Feb 5th, when a lot of the states will hold their primaries, that could be the moment were the nominees are decided.
I agree this isn't the best way to select with so few having so much power, but I don't know of an alternative that would work. Well a small change would be to have rotate primary states so it's not only Iowa and New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina setting the tone for the nation.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
This is an interesting poll. It shows which candidate agrees with you most on most of the important issues. The results might surprise you. At the very least, it will show you if your candidate of choice agrees with you on the major issues. My winner was Dennis Kucinich.
JackB1 wrote:This is an interesting poll. It shows which candidate agrees with you most on most of the important issues. The results might surprise you. At the very least, it will show you if your candidate of choice agrees with you on the major issues. My winner was Dennis Kucinich.
Well, I hear polls of Democrat supporters show that most believe Kucinich to represent their core values. But those same people say they wouldn't vote for him because he doesn't stand a chance of winning.
Looks like McCain and Clinton are building some momentum.
GOP establishment may rally behind McCain while Democratic party establishment is behind Clinton, who won in Nevada despite Obama getting a big union endorsement out there.
wco81 wrote:Looks like McCain and Clinton are building some momentum.
GOP establishment may rally behind McCain while Democratic party establishment is behind Clinton, who won in Nevada despite Obama getting a big union endorsement out there.
As long as it isn't Romney-Clinton. That could make the Bush-Kerry race from four years ago look like a battle of superlative statesmen.
If it's McCain-Clinton, then my vote goes to McCain with ease. If it's Romney-Obama, my vote goes to Obama with ease.
If it's Romney-Clinton, then I consider a move to Canada. Talk about two Teflon flip-floppers who have almost nothing to offer this nation but a 25-pound sack of horsesh*t and more of the same.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
