A "safe" blue state?

Basically, it's the economy, stupid, all over again.

If she's not in the GE, then neither Obama nor McCain will be able to speak convincingly about the economy, because it's not their thing.  Then it just comes down to who they like better, and that will be McCain.

If in an ordinary election, a politician takes their name off the ballot, or if, say, he doesn't happen to get enough signatures to put his name on the ballot, we don't count votes for him unless, say, people write in his name. Point is, even if the people might have wanted to have voted for him, they didn't do so in fact, and what they would have done had his name been on the ballot really don't count for anything in those circumstances.

My understanding is that Obama had no obligation at all to remove his name from the ballot, and chose to do so for his own reasons.

If you favor a direct democratic-type nomination process then organize to change the process in the party, but don't go around trying to change the prcess in the middle.

This process isn't just a set of guidelines. It is, in fact a legal process established by the DNC.

Here's a section of a memo from the Democratic Party's lawyers regarding the Rules and Bylaws Committee:

"A Democratic Party rules committee has the authority to seat some delegates from Michigan and Florida but not fully restore the two states as Hillary Rodham Clinton wants, according to party lawyers.

Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates for holding elections too early, the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo.

The memo was sent late Tuesday to the 30 members of the party's Rules and Bylaws Committee, which plans to meet Saturday at a Washington hotel. The committee is considering ways to include the two important general election battlegrounds at the nominating convention in August, and the staff analysis says seating half the delegates is "as far as it legally can" go. [...]"

Note...this is all about delegates and delegate counts. There is a reason for that. The current system does not count popular votes per se.

The Clinton Campaign itself did not begin hammering on the popular vote until it became obvious that they would not have the nomination after Super Tuesday. Then, and only then, did they start talking about it. In fact, when everyone felt that Clinton was surely going to be the nominee, no one, including Clinton, showed any concern of FL or MI.

Don't get me wrong, this situation is seriously FUBAR, and I hope that in future primaries the DNC makes some changes to its process. For starters, it would be nice if all states ran similar elections (eg: primaries)....or at the very least, if caucus states had to take a head count of participants who attended.

There are some things to consider about direct democracy. Not the least of which is the disproportionate power that big urban areas would have over rural areas. Say what you want about delegate/electoral systems, but they do provide a little extra leverage to rural voters. This may not be a bad thing. After all, we all buy food grown in those rural areas. We probably don't want their voice lost in the mass of urban voters.

OK. I'll end this now. Please be nice. I am not trying to convert anyone from their chosen candidate. I simply want to talk about how to improve the process in the future.

How can we reward a guy who removes his name from the ballot, then expects to be given votes anyway? It's ludicrous and un-democratic behavior.

I will be able to go into a bank and demand interest on the account I never opened. Because it is a certainty that if I had opened it, it would have earned interest, right?