That is one weird poll. But as we all know, a simple majorities does not a president elect. Electoral politics makes everything far dicier. And the combination of Democrats considered the best ticket to beat Bush in November among Democrats and Democratic leaners would be Kerry-Edwards or Kerry-Clark, both at 21 percent, followed by Kerry-Dean (19%). Personally, I think Kerry-Graham would be stronger than any of those mentioned above, if only because of electoral politics. Graham wouldn't guarantee FL for the Democrats, but would make it more likely at any rate--more likely I think than Edwards would make NC, and counts for more electoral votes.
Do people on this board have an opinion as to whether the electoral is still a good thing or a bad thing? Clearly, the intent of the people at the Constitutional Convention and, indeed, that whole generation, was quite different from the way the EC is run today. Then, people were supposed to elect reputable and respected individuals to go to a meeting with a real purpose--that is, the electorals were intended to exercise their individual judgment about who would be the best candidate. It was supposed to be a group that was elected for this one act and then disbanded in order to lessen the possibility of corruption, and instill in the electors a sense of weighty purpose. They were definitely NOT intended to rubber stamp the desires of the people who elected them. Further, they were supposed to be from different states so that the then very different regional differences would be reflected, differences which are far less pronounced today than they were in the late 18th C. |
