Why dont we just have winner takes all delegates? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 23, 2024, 06:46:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Why dont we just have winner takes all delegates? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why dont we just have winner takes all delegates?  (Read 661 times)
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

« on: March 07, 2008, 01:04:55 PM »



The reason Clinton supporters are angry with the obama camp is because he has won caucuses that are full of radical psyhcs that elected kerry. this wing of the deomcratic party that refuses put one cent into florida for the past 8 years ensuring that it becomes another texas.

why do these nutters have so much power in the party.

OBAMA CANT JUST CANT CARRY A BIG STATE. HE WILL GET CRUSHED IN THE GENERAL.

hillary can win arkansas. ohio. west virginia. nevada. new mexico. she has pennslvania, michigan in the bag. she can win

obama cant. these are the people who thought kerry could win.

I see another trend in that map. Obama has carried a lot of traditionally Republican states, and was able to garner votes from traditional Republican voters in places like Nevada. He also beat Hillary in many rural areas where Kerry was able to attract merely 20% approx of the vote in 2004. Based on that showing, Obama would be a far more attractive candidate for independents and moderate Republicans than Clinton.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 11 queries.