Primary Details

[yesthattom]

The New York Times has a good calendar of Dem primaries. It makes the count of delegates a lot more clear.

I haven't done the math, but some blogs are starting to speculate that it might have to be decided at the convention.  That would suck.  However, there are a lot of states to go!

I'd rather have a big winner now!

Comments

[rwgill.livejournal.com]

FYI - something is up with your href.

[stitchinthyme.livejournal.com]

I disagree. If there were a big winner now, nearly half the states would have no say in who gets nominated. I am personally glad that my primary vote (next week) actually has the potential to mean something for a change. I really wish all the primaries were the same day -- that way a few states wouldn't have such a huge effect on who's left for everyone else to vote for. Why should 3 or 4 states get to determine the nominations all on their own?

[yesthattom.livejournal.com]

Politically and theoretically I agree. I'm just being impatient.

[etler.livejournal.com]

dude why would it suck? Real politics for once! How is this a bad thing? Sit back and watch the fun.

[lillilah]

While I doubt that things will still be undecided by the time Oregon's primary comes up (in May), I'm glad that at least some states not on super Tuesday get to have their votes count. I, of course, wish everyone voted on the same day.

[geeksdoitbetter.livejournal.com]

why would it suck?

isn't that what the conventions were for, back in the day?

tho, the thought of delegates being swayed by who had the best speech on convention day is a bit woozy making

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

There are many worse things they could be swayed by in a real convention.