You have to love the last few lines...

Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

emphasis mine.

My, this is getting stupid.

Someone please make it stop.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

My, this is getting stupid.

Yes, it is. Only not how you mean.

Maybe it would be if someone was talking about a rule change. Only no one's suggesting a rule change.

This is an argument that the Clinton camp has long put forth - it goes to electability. Clinton carried California and New York, e.g. Those two states alone equal over seventy EV's.

The words of Bayh: "...who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider..."

Not "...we should change the rules so that you choose a candidate based on who got the most states in the primary which would constitute more electoral votes..."

And I'm sure Senator Clinton still supports the reform of the Electoral College, but that's not going to happen by November.

So if there's some other means by which we elect presidents, would somebody let me know? Because this looks really friggin' straightforward to me.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

I don't think it's a given that who performed best against another Democrat in a state is an indication of who will do best against McCain.

It's not a given. But you might want to rate performance in "safe" Democratic states along with rating performance in battleground states. That's the argument that Bayh is putting forward.

That said: this isn't evidence of CHEATER CHEATER EVIL EVIL TWISTED RULE-BENDING CLINTON!!11!one!!! Sorry, I simply don't see it.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Polls from CA show Obama doing better against McCain than Clinton against him. Same with NV, and I believe NY too. There are a small handful of states where Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama, and sadly they tend to be near us: TN, WV, KY and AR.

There are a small handful of states where Clinton would do better against McCain than Obama, and sadly they tend to be near us: TN, WV, KY and AR.

A Democrat beating a Republican is sad, um, why?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

If Obama takes another hit like Wright, closer to the convention, the Superdelegates will have to look at who has the best chance of winning. That is what they are designed to do. A Survey USA poll from,I think, last Week shows Clinton over Sydney by 5 points nation wide. This is with little or no campaigning against him.
My worry is, if Obama does take another bad hit and Clinton gets the nomination due to electability, will Obama supporters want a Democrat in the White House or will they sit out? As for me and my house, we will support the ticket.

Does it not occur to the Clinton supporters as they keep trying to imagine these wacky scenarios, that they are proposing, within the Democratic Party, the kind of nonsense that happened in the general election in 2000?

If Obama enters the Democratic Convention as he is likely to do, with more delegates, more states, and more votes in the aggregate voter tally, why on God's earth would anyone sugest the nomination should go to Clinton? The scenarios being proffered by the Clinton camp are as imaginary as her description of her visit to Bosnia. We don't need another case of someone cheating their way to a "win."

March 4 Miss primary
April 22 Pa primary
May 6 Indiana/NC

Round & round the spin goes..
where it stops nobody knows.

It's this

The Pennsyslvania primary is the new Iowa.

Maybe this

The North Carolina primary is the new Pennsyslvania.

Or how about this.

The Indiana primary is the new North Carolina.

No it's this

A meeting of super delegates..
is the new convention.

We can spin ourselves dizzy & get snarky to boot.

Folks,it is what it is..& its damn close.

Trying to figure out who is/should win
or how it will/should happen.

We are sounding like the kids in the car shouting

Are we there yet..ARE WE there yet..ARE WE THERE YET???

No...& we may not get there till the convention.

We dont have to have a nominee so soon.

It's 2008

Labor Day is the new July 4th.

Clinton supporters holler like hit dogs when people use terms like "Billary,"

I prefer "HillBilly".

The HRC - BHO fight is really getting fun to watch. You have to ask yourself each night, what's next tomorrow and from whom.

Chuck Todd reported that there are 76 super delegates that have not been selected.

These delegates will be elected by the state's selection rules in the primaries that have not yet been held.

By late afternoon yesterday a record 4,044,952 have registered to vote in the Pa. Democratic primary.

The Pa. state elections commissioner has told election officials to prepare for a record turn out.

We prefer to let the people decide.

I'm guessing you mean Super Delegate people, cause it looks like they hold the keys. And, if you follow Governor Phil's lead it will be decided in a two day meeting of these several hundred "people".

You all keep fightin'. I've said before that this was a year for the Democrats to lose and by dang it looks like they just might pull it off. I'll save debating the general election until the Dems figure out their nominee.

I'll save debating the general election until the Dems figure out their nominee.

"Debating?" Is that what they call "polishing John McCain's knob" these days?

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Is that what they call "polishing John McCain's knob" these days?

I sure hope you find a prominent place in the Democratic nominee's campaign in Tennessee. With these sorts of foul retorts, McCain would be sure to win by double digits.

I sure hope you find a prominent place in the Democratic nominee's campaign in Tennessee.

Wouldn't want one, don't aspire to have one. But I'm deeply touched by your concern.

With these sorts of foul retorts, McCain would be sure to win by double digits.

Eh, I know you're a lost cause already, Chad.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.