>>And this why Obama better take a long hard look at offering Hillary the VP if she wants it<<
What are you going to do about it other than make threats?
Learn how it happened.
We've been through this on this site, and the DNC site might explain it, too.
In Nevada, and maybe similarly in other caucus states, the state and the DNC decided that it costs a lot per voter to campaign in the rural areas where there are fewer voters. To encourage the candidates to campaign throughout a state, and to build a national party with a 50-state strategy, they decided that rural area votes would count 5 times urban area votes.
With that "adjustment", campaigns could put money into areas they might otherwise have ignored.
Without that weighting, candidates might campaign only in the big, populous areas.
When you get to the GE, the campaigning is largely by television and nationally broadcast messages, so it is more efficient to reach throughout Nevada, and similarly in other caucus states.
To me the allocation rules, weighted also by the turnout in each Congressional District in the prior Presidential election, builds into the system an incentive to get out the vote and rewards it, which is in the Party's interest.
For a Republican or non-Democrat to complain that the DNC allocation rules are not fair to Hillary, without knowing why the rules were established, and, as Chinu pointed out, ignoring that they were agreed to by the candidates, is trying to rewrite a primary campaign that will be over on Tuesday.
A sore loser is a sore loser.
It is for Hillary to come to the Party and say she relied on others who didn't pay attention to the rules or that she didn't pay attention, either of which will disqualify her for Party leadership. Or, she needs to be magnanimous and praise Obama and the Obama campaign for a well-run primary campaign that holds promise not just for the Party this fall, but for the nation starting in January. |
