• on a comment on ABC: Edwards admits affair! over 5 years ago

    This is what infuriates me.  He KNEW that this ticking time bomb was out there, but here he was, glibly running for office.  What if he'd been our nominee?  Weeks before the election, here we go again, another Democrat who can't keep it in his pants, it's like a joke.  Geebus, can you imagine the panic and disaster if he had been the presumed nominee, or the presumptive VP pick?  How dare he do this to us?

  • on a comment on And So It Begins... over 6 years ago

    Why is a mail-in vote funded by the Dem party not an option?

  • on a comment on And So It Begins... over 6 years ago

    Vote by mail, seems cheapest and easiest to accomplish.  I participated in an absolutely hellish caucus in Kansas, and think it's undemocratic and disenfranchises voters.  I'm fairly young, but I was standing in sleet in the cold for an hour, then waiting for an additional 2 hours to be checked against the voter rolls, then standing an additional hour for the caucus to get organized.  All told, some 4 hours on my feet, my legs and joints were in terrible pain.  Elderly people, the disabled, and parents with children were forced to abandon their right to vote because of it.  I've never seen anything as shameful.  Caucuses should not be permitted to determine any re-vote, and should be abandoned out of general principle.

  • on a comment on Potomac Primary Turnout over 6 years ago

    If they want to vote for "the weaker candidate," they should stay on the red side of the aisle.

  • on a comment on Kansas Rebukes John McCain over 6 years ago

    Kansas Dem caucus was around 27,000.  15,000 turnout for Repubs this year vs. 27,000+ for Dems.  In most of KS, registered Repubs are 70-80% of the registered voters, so this is very disproportionate turnout.  Of course, their nomination process is pretty much locked up by now, which will depress turnout.  Still, Repub turnout is WAY down.

  • on a comment on Kansas Rebukes John McCain over 6 years ago

    For the Kansas Dem caucus, we stood on our feet for 4 hours.  It was complete chaos, they were not prepared to handle the volume of voters (to be fair, apparently 37 people caucused in our district in 2004, it was 1200+ on 2/5).  But it was sleeting out, and we stood in line for hours even once inside, and there was nowhere for the elderly or disabled to sit and rest.  Then, charmingly, the college-age organizers of the caucus had the brilliant idea that the Hillary supporters should use the balconies of our venue (a college theater), so elderly people were trying to climb 2 and 3 flights of stairs to get to the designated Hillary locations.  The caucus was supposed to start at 7, but did not begin to get organized until after 9.  It was after 10 before it broke up, on a school night.  Lots of mommies left, basically all of the elderly left, it was a complete cluster%#$* and outright disenfranchised hundreds of voters in my district alone.

  • Actually, I think this is indicative of their respective "constituencies."  Hillary appeals to working class, less-educated, core Democrats.  Obama appeals to "limousine liberals," the college-educated, and Republicans.  She's going to be at a fundraising disadvantage by virtue of who supports her.  I think this is a fascinating development for the Dem primary, really, the clash of social classes in a way.

  • on a comment on Updated Delegate Counts over 6 years ago

    In my caucus in Kansas, it was registration at the door, and about 1/3 of the Obama supporters stood up to identify themselves as Republican voters who had switched their registrations at the door (all men, as far as I could tell).  Some additional independents also stood up for Obama.  

    Our caucus was a complete disaster from start to finish, though, we had 1200 people standing in line for more than 2 hours to get their names checked against the rolls and to get registered if they were R or I.  Then, trudging up multiple flights of stairs to get to a balcony area in our caucus site.  Then, almost another 2 hours to get organized and get votes counted.  The standing in line was the brutal part - elderly people were checking out in droves, they just could not stand on their feet for 2 hours waiting to vote.  Parents with kids were checking out, it was 10 pm before we got back to our car in the parking lot, pretty late for families in KS.  Overall, the caucus process was extremely unpleasant, disorganized, and heavily favored young, childless voters (i.e., Obama's demographic).

  • on a comment on Primary Morn over 6 years ago

    I honestly can't remember the last time the media spun a loss, even a close loss, as a "win."  They didn't spin Hillary's 2nd place in delegate count in Iowa as a "win."  In fact, they spun it as a total loss for her. Obama's campaign will try to spin it that way, but I don't see the contortions to make a close loss into a win actually playing well with the low-information media consumer.

  • on a comment on Expectations for Tomorrow over 6 years ago

    I think it's Hillary.  This is not my original thought, but one that bears repeating - could the Dem party actually consider nominating a candidate who could not win NY, CA, FL, MI, MO, and OH?  Core states and key swing states?  The first five are almost certainly a lock for Hillary, the last is leaning her way as of recent polling.  Wouldn't it be general election suicide to nominate a guy who couldn't win the states that will be crucial to our GE win?  Turnout will be crucial to our general election strategy, and we need a nominee who has generated big turnout in swing states (FL, MO, and OH included).  The superdelegates are not likely to miss that point.


Advertise Blogads