Consider this a Guam thread. Now why do we think Democrats allow territories that don't get to vote in presidential general elections to have a say in the presidential primary nomination? It doesn't really seem to make sense.
« The Fox Factor | Main | Iverson Revisited »
Guam -- A Place That Actually Probably Shouldn't Count
03 May 2008 10:11 am
Comments (60)
Why doesn't it make sense? There's a Democratic Party in Guam, and delegates are apportioned to states and territories based largely upon participation of the local Party apparatus (turnout for primaries, number of reg'd voters, etc). Now the Dems could have a nominating process that, like the GOP's, mirrors the general election, but they don't. Maybe that doesn't make much sense as far as strategy to pick the candidate with the best chance of winning goes, but including non-voting territories is certainly self-consistent with the rest of the process. Ditto to all of the complaints about Philly congressional districts getting 1.something times the vote of rural PA districts.
I'd flip the question around. Why, from a normative perspective, should territories have no say in selecting the head of their government? It's kind of like how DC deserves some voting representation in the Congress . . .
And in the mean time, isn't allowing them some say in the Democratic nomination process a good compromise? It may distort the selection somewhat, but it's the right thing to do and expands the party's donor base if nothing else.
I think I'm with southpaw here: the real question is, why does the US administer territories that aren't given the full rights and assessed the full responsibilities of being a part of the US?
D.C. is one example (all of the responsibilities, so far as I know, but fewer rights), while Guam, Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and likely other places have mixes of fewer rights and fewer responsibilities.
It's always funny how we get told in school that the lack of representation justified and made necessary the American Revolution, while our country continues to administer territories to whom we don't extend representation.
Suggested reforms:
1) No more superdelegates.
2) No more primaries that aren't winner take all.
3) No more caucuses.
4) No more Guam primaries.
Also, to follow up southpaw:
American Samoa, Guam, Democrats Abroad and the Virgin Islands send very few delegates to Denver. It makes them, both the party leadership and the people, part of the process, but they're not determining the nominee.
The difficult question, then, is whether or not Puerto Rico should be getting 55 pledged delegates. That makes it the largest single delegate haul after May 6. The DNC chose to treat Puerto Rico like it was any other state, and since it has about the same population as Kentucky, it has about the same number of delegates as Kentucky (KY has 51).
I do find it sort of amazing that both campaigns are actually investing resources there. I mean, how is it not going to be a 2-2 split no matter what?
I don't see why we should be in favor of winner take all primaries. They're distinctly less Democratic than proportional. I do think we should get rid of the congressional district stuff and instead just have it proportional strictly by the vote in the state as a whole.
"2) No more primaries that aren't winner take all."
I do deeply object to that suggested reform. I would strongly prefer to abolish the Electoral College, not emulate it.
Correction:
Now why do we think Democrats and Republicans allow territories that don't get to vote in presidential general elections to have a say in the presidential primary nomination? It doesn't really seem to make sense.
Both parties have delegates in the territories. Guam already held it's Republican convention and John McCain won its 6 delegates. I suspect that the reason that they do it is to give representation to American citizens who favor their party, whether or not they have the right to vote in the general election for President.
But it's important to note that it's not an exclusively Democratic practice.
Zach:
The GOP's nominating process doesn't mirror the general election. They do their own weighting of the states and not all states are winner-take-all (Florida was actually the first one that was completely WTA).
Rich:
Winner-take-all primaries are as stupid and disenfranchising as the Electoral College. No, the Democrats' existing proportional system is a much fairer way to apportion delegates.
JE
Keep in mind the growing strategic importance of Guam. Many on this page find that notion ridiculous but we are expanding military facilities on Guam as we draw down in Korea and Okinawa.
I propose that the various commonwealths vote one time for independance or statehood and be done with it.
I like proportional primaries, though I'm not sure the current system is what I'd prefer (I think more of a bonus for winning the state, for example, would be a good thing).
The U.S. administered entities outside of the 50 states incorporated into the union are populated by minorities. Brown people. Uppity negroes. Funny clothes and funny languages, strange food and customs. Foreigners at least in spirit. And please, don't claim some innate or learned allegiance to the United States, WE all know better. You all stitch a mean tennis shoe. Your beaches are fine for lounging as you serve us drinks and massage our tense muscles. But you're not one of us! You just think you're voting for a Presidential candidate. Democrats let you in the door for a bit, kinda like letting a hamster out of the cage to stretch its legs. However, there's already enough trouble with the coloreds here and you're not about to make matters worse. Next damn thing you know you'll want the same rights as all the damned Mexicans under foot around these parts.
Chris O:
There are actually 8 delegates, each with 1/2 of a vote. So if one candidate gets more than 56.25%, that candidate would earn 2.5 delegates, with the loser getting 1.5.
More than 68.75% (less likely) would earn a 3-to-1 win.
JE
JE, I'm pretty sure that all the territories have an arrangement such that they do not send fractions of votes to the convention. The only exception to this is Dems Abroad, which so far is splitting into a .5 for Obama and a .5 for Clinton.
The problem isn't proportional representation. The problem is superdelegates. If it were just proportional representation, Obama would have locked this up on March 4, when Clinton's "stunning" comeback netted her about 6 delegates when all was said and done. Because the "supers" will decide this, the race is going to extend to June 3. Neither Obama nor Clinton will emerge from this campaign as strong nominees. All Clinton succeeded in doing was increasing Obama's negatives and weakening him among lower-class whites. She hasn't strengthened herself at all.
The problem isn't proportional representation or Guam, or Puerto Rico. The problem is superdelegates. If it were just proportional representation, Obama would have locked this up on March 4, when Clinton's "stunning" comeback netted her about 6 delegates when all was said and done. Because the "supers" will decide this, the race is going to extend to June 3. Neither Obama nor Clinton will emerge from this campaign as strong nominees. All Clinton succeeded in doing was increasing Obama's negatives and weakening him among lower-class whites. She hasn't strengthened herself at all.
Guam also has 3 uncommitted superdelegates, and it's likely that they'll be basing their support on the popular vote, so the percentage they get will matter for more than just getting an extra 0.5 delegates.
Hey, knock it off. My father's ship blew the crap out of that place so that, one day, it could play a key role in a presidential election 7000 miles away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Guam_(1944)
Guam -- Where America's Day Begins!
Shorter MY: Don't hate the player, hate the Guam.
(Apologies for the double-post). Anyway, as for Guam, Puerto Rico, etc, I think it's fair enough to let them have a say i the nomination process, though perhaps they'd be wise to move them up to the "early" season (if the DNC and RNC allow them to) so that they get more attention. However, I don't think it would be legitimate for one candidate to claim a "popular vote" victory based on victories in those territories, since they don't get electoral votes in the fall. Perhaps they should do what four of the caucus states do and not release detailed voting counts, just raw percentages or delegate totals.
Guam isn't a big deal, Puerto Rico is. Why do they pick the nominee when they can't help the Democrats win in November?
I think I'm with southpaw here: the real question is, why does the US administer territories that aren't given the full rights and assessed the full responsibilities of being a part of the US?
Because the Constitution envisioned territorial status as a waypoint to statehood. The threshhold to achieve statehood was historically quite small. Of course, in 1776 the idea of owning far-flung island possessions didn't exist. But Hawaii was added as a state. We could, theoretically, add any of the Marianas, Samoa, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands as new states.
Puerto Rico has rejected statehood when it has come up for a vote. Guam has tried for several years to hold a plebescite in the issue of statehood, but apparently without success, due to a variety of issues.
KPO'M is exactly right. The existence of too many superdelegates is the problem. It requires over 62% of pledged delegates to overcome the superdelegates.
As for districts, one has to remember that the process is to select actual people (yes, delegates) to the convention. As such, I want my district represented by a few people, rather than allow the politicians in the state capital to send all their cronies.
Guam isn't a big deal, Puerto Rico is. Why do they pick the nominee when they can't help the Democrats win in November?
(Apologies for the double-post). Anyway, as for Guam, Puerto Rico, etc, I think it's fair enough to let them have a say i the nomination process, though perhaps they'd be wise to move them up to the "early" season (if the DNC and RNC allow them to) so that they get more attention. However, I don't think it would be legitimate for one candidate to claim a "popular vote" victory based on victories in those territories, since they don't get electoral votes in the fall. Perhaps they should do what four of the caucus states do and not release detailed voting counts, just raw percentages or delegate totals.
All Clinton succeeded in doing was increasing Obama's negatives and weakening him among lower-class whites. She hasn't strengthened herself at all.
Posted by KPO'M | May 3, 2008 11:22 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KPO'M, Obama's electoral prospects with lower class whites were dim before this race started. Lower class whites are exactly that, lower class, for a reason. They're superstitious bigots possessed of a myopic, distorted world view informed by a lifetime of anti-intellectualism combined with alcohol and nicotine abuse. They're ill equipped starting at birth to advance very far in the world and their families pile on the generational shortcomings starting with that first breath. It's unfortunate to have to even appeal to them as a class. A charitable public servant would differ with me, claiming he/she wants to provide the tools for them to climb out of their current caste. However there is an entrenched recidivism, the subtle and almost imperceptible voices of Budweiser, Marlboro and the KKK, constantly calling to them. "Come baaak, come baaack home.... We have your sister here and she's lonely........." Obama never stood a chance with these people.
Why? Because party primaries aren't as hard to alter as their undemocratic electoral cousin in November.
Bah! No love for Guam on this thread. As a Navy dude who's been to Guam a few times over the years, I have nothing but respect for the Chamorros and their fine culture. Sure it's a teeny island with only 100,000 people, but they are more American than some of the large urban areas on the Eastern seaboard I've visited.
I prefer the old standby Wrigley's Spearmint myself. Hold on...oh, never mind.
Lmao Rich
You want primaries that are winner take all, but you want to do away with Caucus's because they aren't really Democratic.
You don't see a disconnect there?
The reality is, unless you're arguing that ever primary day be a national holiday, Primaries suffer from most of the same problems caucus's do. I think thats feasible for the general election day, but I doubt it is for 53 individual primaries.
The real question is why have this six month long charade. Each party should elect its candidate in a single day in June and then let the battle for the presidency commence! That way candidates would have to address the whole country at the same time rather than tweeking the message for seperate franchises and minority positions. Also we would have a lame duck president for just half a year rather than the full year as it is now...
You mean places like DC?
I don't see why Guam and Puerto Rico and DC should freeze in the dark now just because they're not represented in the general election. While I'd like to see everyone represented, that's not going to happen because 1. it'd probably require a constitutional amendment and 2. most of the people currently unrepresented aren't white. Party rules, however, are more adaptable and now they happen to give all Americans at least a sliver of recognition. Do you think the Democrats are going to choose the candidate who can't win say Colorado, Missouri, Florida and Michigan because they were too influenced by the candidate who won Guam?
joejoejoe wins the thread. Awesome.
Also we would have a lame duck president for just half a year rather than the full year as it is now...
Posted by Peter Higgins | May 3, 2008 12:45 PM
We've had a lame-ass president for my entire adult life, and I'm 26.
Because the Democratic Party has structured its pledged delegate contest to reflect an aggregation of the will of the members of the Party, not as an attempt to test which candidate is likely to win the general election.
Which is smart, because no matter how you structure the contest, it would never be a decent test of which candidate is likely to win the general election.
Because the Democratic Party has structured its pledged delegate contest to reflect an aggregation of the will of the members of the Party, not as an attempt to test which candidate is likely to win the general election.
Which is smart, because no matter how you structure the contest, it would never be a decent test of which candidate is likely to win the general election.
Posted by DTM | May 3, 2008 1:02 PM
I second.
If you're going to back winner-take-all primaries for the Democratic Party nominee battle, why can't they be IRV?
EVERY state should count...
INCLUDING MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA with their 2+ MILLION voters!!!
Shame on the democrats (particularly Obama and the DNC for barring these states) for alienating these states!!!
steve duncan-
If you had actually ever been to Guam, you would see that they are more fiercely patriotic than any Hoosier or Tarheel I know.
Ditto w/ CNMI (i.e. saipan/rota/tinian).
I find your condescension that the various territories don't know what's best for them (they *all* have had repeated plebiscites re political status) ignorant and annoying.
Territories like Guam have a role so that candidates can have more opportunities to say ludicrously panderific things.
HRC re Guam suffrage in Presidential general elections: "I am in favor of full voting rights for every American and that includes the people on Guam. It seems to me that it is long past time that we remedy this inequity. It doesn't reflect American values; it is out of step with the move toward equality and full citizenship rights, and I will do everything I can to make sure the people of Guam's votes are counted."
Never mind that the President has absolutely NO role in amending the Constitution, and that she cites nothing she has done while in the Congress to advance this pressing cause. Doing everything she can would seem to entail quitting the Presidential race, staying in the Senate, and introducing an amendment on Day One.
Southpaw - I'd flip the question around. Why, from a normative perspective, should territories have no say in selecting the head of their government? It's kind of like how DC deserves some voting representation in the Congress.
That the Constitution that said only States, not territories would have representation in Congress and Electoral votes sure is a pesky thing, isn't it?
Nor are proposed Democratic solutions exactly what the general public wants - like their effort to give territorial and DC Reps a full Congressional vote, even if they would represent 10X less people than the average Congressional District contains (Samoa, VI). Or give a parasitical city (DC - which takes in 8 Federal dollars for every one they give the Feds, handily beating porkmeister Robert Byrds 2:1 ratio) full statehood. DC is left orphaned basically because neither Maryland or Virginia WANT DC folded in to their state's people for elections, given their opinion of who lives in DC.
Of course, any number of miserable high crime cities would love to "opt" for statehood and add two black democratic Senators for live on top of their usual for life black mayor & staff and the House Rep for life. But like DC, and the territories, would have a hard time getting the 3/4s of other states, especially big blue states like NY, California, and Illinois to agree to having their vote and power in Congress diluted.
*******************
"Count Every Vote!!! " was a wonderful simplistic Dem mantra for their wonderful, simplistic followers - until that Party disenfranchised Florida and Michigan voters as "inconvenient rule-breakers".
*****************
The biggest obstacle to small territories becoming states is size. Other posters note that you don't get more American and Patriotic than the people of Guam, but unlike Hawaii, there is no chance given the geography that little island archipelagos like Samoa, Guam, Marshalls, VI will ever have State-level populations and any effort to "give" them House representation would negate the Constitution and make follow-up demands for 2 Senators as inevitable as it was for the "DC Statehood" pack of idiots that said back in the 80s the logical two would be Jesse Jackson and Marion Barry.
If Samoa had 2 Senators, it would then make sense for California to fragment into units Samoa's size and demand, being 450 times as many people as Samoa, an extra 898 Senators represent California in DC.
Puerto Rico is an interesting exception, so to are the Jews wanting Israel to be the 51st State. Both are large enough. But if both began demanding to be let in as States, would it make sense from the standpoint of the stability and common culture of the Union of States extant? No. Accepting Puerto Rico as a state with it's adament insistance that Spanish is the lingua franca, as with the Zionists and Hebrew - would make the US an "official" bilingual nation. Neither would be likely at all to be accepted by American people for statehood. Obviously Israel would be an extreme long shot. DC will never get it. But Puerto Rico could if things change...but it would be like Utah and some of the States admitted only after the slavery question was settled - they could join, but only on condition of doing certain things - outlawing slavery, or polygamy. The price of PR's admission, if ever, would be that Spanish gets dropped so every Fed document, meeting, road sign, employee, contractor is not required to be bilingual. Puerto Rico knows that, and that is one reason they vote against statehood.
Poor cute, tiny Guam. I love the word Guam, it's like gum but with more. I have actually been there. It's weird and great.
Of course, Ambinder is currently reporting that it's a tie in Guam, even though Obama is leading the popular vote there, but did not report that Texas was a "win" for Obama though he won the delegate count there. If there's a way to spin it for HRC he definitely will do that.
I went from thinking, ok, well Ambinder is just trying to be objective to . . . you know what, what's objectively true about this race is that Hillary has already lost it. Journalists who aren't talking about the math are scared babies.
steve duncan's oedipal issues surface once again
"..you know what, what's objectively true about this race is that Hillary has already lost it. Journalists who aren't talking about the math are scared babies."
If it were "objectively" true, Obama wouldn't be spending millions.
And, yes, there are definitely scared babies out there, they write 3 posts a day now about the gas tax.
Couldn't resist.
I agree. U.S. soldiers who represent their country on the battlefield but call Guam home shouldn't have any representation in choosing the Commander-in-Chief. Its fine that Guam residents are subject to the draft but don't have federal representation as well. If you live in France, fine, you can vote, but not if you live in Guam.
U.S. soldiers who represent their country on the battlefield but call Guam home shouldn't have any representation in choosing the Commander-in-Chief.
U.S. soldiers can vote by mail in their home state from anywhere on the planet. They also vote by absentee ballot for their home state in the same way. My guess is you know this and and the day has lacked better opportunities for your hobby of manufactured outrage so you had to really, really, reach for one.
One idea I've heard kicked around to deal with the anomalous status of our Pacific possessions is to annex them to Hawaii. I have no idea how people in Hawaii, Guam, and American Samoa feel about that, but from this mainlander's point of view that seems functional.
I agree with southpaw. The problem is that U.S. citizens are denied the right to vote for President in the general election, not that the parties give their members from the territories a voice at the conventions. On the other hand, no U.S. citizens actually vote for president, rather they vote for their state's electors in a system that has thwarted the popular will more than once. Why not do away with the electoral college and permit all qualified citizens, including those in the territories, to vote directly for president?
Political self-determination in Guam is an issue that should have addressed decades ago.
Appropriate Congressional representation is a tough one.
Chris Ford is wrong when he says DC takes in 8 dollars for every dollar we send back in taxes. That's only true if you count money paid to federal employees who commute from Maryland and Virginia—salaries which DC is prohibited from taxing. And it's only "parasitical" if you consider the work done by federal employees to be of no value to the rest of the country, which only exceptionally stupid anti-government crackpots believe.
Chris Ford is wrong when he says DC takes in 8 dollars for every dollar we send back in taxes. That's only true if you count money paid to federal employees who commute from Maryland and Virginia—salaries which DC is prohibited from taxing. And it's only "parasitical" if you consider the work done by federal employees to be of no value to the rest of the country, which only exceptionally stupid anti-government crackpots believe.
Posted by Steven desJardins | May 3, 2008 11:19 PM
When he says "parasitical" he means black.
U.S. soldiers who represent their country on the battlefield but call Guam home shouldn't have any representation in choosing the Commander-in-Chief.
U.S. soldiers can vote by mail in their home state from anywhere on the planet. They also vote by absentee ballot for their home state in the same way. My guess is you know this and and the day has lacked better opportunities for your hobby of manufactured outrage so you had to really, really, reach for one
Posted by Ed Marshall | May 3, 2008 8:28 PM
Ed, I think you misinterpreted Guam Vet's post. He's saying that because he lives in Guam (has a home there, and is the state of his residency), he can't vote for president. You perhaps are thinking that soldiers stationed in Guam can vote-- but they can't if they have established residency in Guam.
U.S. soldiers who represent their country on the battlefield but call Guam home shouldn't have any representation in choosing the Commander-in-Chief.
U.S. soldiers can vote by mail in their home state from anywhere on the planet. They also vote by absentee ballot for their home state in the same way. My guess is you know this and and the day has lacked better opportunities for your hobby of manufactured outrage so you had to really, really, reach for one
Posted by Ed Marshall | May 3, 2008 8:28 PM
Ed, I think you misinterpreted Guam Vet's post. He's saying that because he lives in Guam (has a home there, and is the state of his residency), he can't vote for president. You perhaps are thinking that soldiers stationed in Guam can vote-- but they can't if they have established residency in Guam.
Why does Hawaii get votes? Technically, it is still an independent nation.
"In 1993, the U.S. Congress approved, and President Bill Clinton signed, an apology to the people of the Hawaiian islands. The document "acknowledges that the overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum.""
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/04/30/palace.takeover/index.html
MY FELLOW "BITTER", STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE :-)
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of "BITTER"!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith... Working Class :-)
p.s. You Might Be An Idiot! :-)
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...
OBAMA AIDE: "WORKING-CLASS VOTERS NOT KEY FOR DEMOCRATS" :o
DEBATE! DEBATE!! DEBATE!!!...
DEBATE! DEBATE!! DEBATE!!!
It's time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.
Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her Pennsylvania victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources.
But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.
Hillary Clinton say's that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.
Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton's have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.
If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.
Sen. Hillary Clinton: "You know, more people have now voted for me than have voted for my opponent. In fact, I now have more votes than anybody has ever had in a primary contest for a nomination. And it's also clear that we've got nine more important contests to go."
Sincerely
Jacksmith... Working Class :-)
Why not let the territories have a late, small, and meaningless primary contest if it helps build local Democratic party participation? It's not their fault that Clinton's still dragging this thing out and making it meaningful.
If this contest is going to be decided by unelected DNC members anyway, you might as well let unelecting Guamians have a say.
Jack Smith,
Calling people idiots might not be the best way of convincing them of the merits of your argument.
Just saying.
Couldn't territories with U.S. citizens vote for president if it weren't for the electoral college?
It seems to me that if we just implemented a national popular vote (either thru amendment or the NPV initiative), there'd be no bar to ANY U.S. citizen voting for president. The only reason they're excluded is because according to the Constitution, STATES not U.S. citizens, vote for president. It's just that all U.S. states have since authorized popular votes to determine their presidential slates of electors.
Comments closed May 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I love the candidates' Guam-ian campaign stories:
Obama: "I grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii... which are Pacific islands... like Guam!"
Clinton: "A couple times I was on Air Force One when it stopped in Guam on the way to more important places like Japan and China!"
Posted by right | May 3, 2008 10:17 AM