unc70
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat May-31-08 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
33. As I said, Iowa egos don't seem that fragile |
|
Edited on Sat May-31-08 06:18 PM by unc70
While bunk has a proud NC origin, I will return some to you.
When the names were removed in Michigan, I don't believe anyone knew how it would finish, and I believe that Edwards was more-often polling in third than was Clinton.
The rules already prohibited any campaigning in sanctioned states. The only thing that might have been different with all the names on the ballot would have been the exit polls with the extra breakout by candidate and a somewhat larger turnout. Those exit polls might have started the "hard working white" voter discussion earlier, depending on what they found, or prompted lots of comparisons with the Iowa story.
The more-important question is why were neither FL or MI able to reschedule or otherwise regain compliance and thus their delegates. I understand the involvement of the Republicans. But why did attempts at Dem-only solutions fail? Since Clinton seemed ahead in each state, did supporters of Obama help scuttle attempts to change the situation? This exactly the type things done in most of Obama's races, his first being the most dramatic. If you opponent has been put at a disadvantage, why help them get out of the situation?
|