Fun with politics and news! Covering Lol Politics and Lol News. Breaking news — lol-style.

 

« Previous | Next »


Universal Dental Care!

Incorrect source or offensive?
  • Share on Facebook
  • Copy & paste this:

» 13 comments

  1. Naomi says:

    Ma’am, I think you have something on your face…

  2. Stu says:

    if you wanted your votes to count, your state’s party leadership shouldn’t have broken the primary rules.

    • Mary O'Grady says:

      Absolutely correct, Stu.

    • Dread Poet Jethro says:

      I hate to quibble
      But Florida’s GOP
      Set primary date

      The state’s Democrats
      Had no choice in the matter
      Nor did the voters

      • Stu says:

        The GOP has nothing whatsoever to do with when the Democratic party holds its primary. The Democratic party can set their primary date for whenever they want. there is nothing stating that the 2 parties have to hold their primaries on the same day.

    • Hamjudo says:

      Michigan’s party leadership didn’t consult with me, before they disenfranchised me.

      I read about a whole bunch of different proposed compromises on how to split the delegates, but none of them mentioned anything about splitting the state party leadership. Splitting them lengthwise seems excessive, I’d like to have my state party leadership split off from their leadership positions.

      45% voted for uncommitted in the Michigan primary, because that was our only not-Hillary choice. Our state party leadership didn’t seem to grok that if we wanted Hillary, we would have marked off her spot on the ballot.

  3. woozled says:

    We shouldn’t have umpteen months of pi$$ing contest for the primary. We should have ONE primary day for the whole nation.. I mean, what if (for example, first names that come to mind) more than half the Republicans in the states that had their primaries scheduled late wanted to vote for Giuliani? Under the current system, teh folks in NH & IO have a better choice of candidates than the Carolinas or Dakotas. How is that fair?
    JMO

    • Brighid says:

      If we’d done that, then only those with name recognition would have won. Which would be Clinton on the Dem side and… I have no idea on the Republican side.

      • LAL says:

        Guiliani if you go from early polls. That makes me shutter a bit… and almost makes me thankful for McCain winning. Could have definitely been worse.

  4. LadyJadys says:

    My main beef about the knock-down-drag-out pi$$sing contest we have now is that the earlier voting states can seriously influence the later voting states. There are a lot of folks who will always vote for the winning side because the not-winning side seems to be a hopeless situation and why should they waste their vote? Or, in the case of a few folks I know personally, if they don’t like the fellow who seems to be winning, they refuse to vote at all. (I really don’t understand that logic.)
    Of course, I’d also ban the nationwide voting night resuls being shown as they roll in as well. And for mostly the same reasons.
    It’s a messed up system. I really wish I could find my magic wand that would make everything work while at the same time make everyone content (or at least not mad).
    JMHO

    • LAL says:

      Yes… this is true. But when all states vote at once, the big states basically decide the vote. Also, a candidate can basically claim that they’ll win in order to win. People may think that “everyone” will vote for someone when it’s actually not the case (Guiliani for example). In some ways, this may be better because it allows candidates to be tested and allows for smaller states to actually meet the candidates. If everyone voted at once, the candidates would go to California, New York, Ohio, Illinois etc. and completely ignore states like Rhode Island, Montana, the Dakotas. I agree that the balance is definitely skewed, but I’m not sure what is the best solution. The DNC tried in this election to make the early states representative of the voting base to try to avoid bias, but that kind of blew up for a lot of reasons. Mostly, that every state wants to be first and some states have traditions that have been written into their laws. Yeah, short of a magic wand I’m not sure that there would be a way to avoid biases associated with the order of voting and the associated anger of groups who feel that they didn’t get their fair say.

  5. trusts says:

    aw, that’s not nice to say about this lady…be nice.

  6. Pretty superb blog post. I just stumbled upon your website and wanted to say that I’ve truly really liked exploring your current blogposts. Regardless I will be opting-in to your feed.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Newsletter Sign-up