Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NAG1 who wrote (56394)	3/27/2008 12:17:22 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 545000

I may be wrong about this but I am thinking that the republicans proposed this penalty well before the voting took place. As, I think, did the Dems. It was a part of the same process of states trying to move their primaries ahead of the Iowa/New Hampshire lock on first votes. I liked the idea of getting bigger states into the play early and never understood why the two parties penalized states. But, once done, and with the participation of all the candidates, and done well before the primaries began, I think each party faced roughly the same problem, independent of how strong the penalties were. If the primary campaign went on for some time, the votes of the penalized states would be a focus. My concern about Clinton's approach is that she is acting as if she didn't agree to the same conditions everyone else did, then left her name on the ballot when everyone else took theirs off. So Obama's name was simply not on the Michigan ballot.