On Feb 13, 2008, at 9:31 PM, Leland F. Jackson, CPA wrote:
> If Florida and Michigan had been allowed to change the date of their
> primaries ahead of Iowa, etc. we could be looking at a whole different
> ballgame today.
Sure, because then New York, Texas and California would move theirs
ahead of Florida and Michigan, and then...
These are party processes to create a party nominee. It's up to the
party to set those rules. If you don't like them, you leave the party.
> The DNC's banning of any state that changes its primary to an earlier
> date only highlights this problem. It seem like a national primary
> would be at least one alternative to solving this dilemma. Weaker
> candidates would not be to much of a nuisance, because they would not
> have the support from voters needed to finance a vigorous campaign and
> would gradually disappear from attrition, much like candidates running
> in the less well know parties of the general election.
And you'd have guys like Huckabee who would never have even appeared
on the radar. Now you can bet that with a Democratic victory in
November, Huckabee is going to coalesce the fundies and will be the
leader for the 2012 nomination.
-- Ed Leafe
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
