OT: U.S. primaries & interesting times.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

Personally, I am amazed Romney won. Or didn't any one else campaign there?

SNIP

Moxie is rather tart and be a little medicine like. Try and imagine an unsweetened Dr. Pepper and you'll be close.

I know folks that mix it with milk (like half and half).

Supposedly it is very good for you...

I see (perhaps I haven't the right to see anything) the primaries as divisive. The fight rages on between Obama and Hillary when they should be batting on the same side. I see that as unfortunate. I gather they must too because they said this morning it was their supporters (which I don't believe) that got that ole race card going, not them.

In our system (which I hasten to add has it's own set of flaws) when a party looks for a person to lead them, it is done at a weekend convention and then supposedly all the party folk fall in rank behind the winner without taking them down so publicly.

I'll definitely pass that one, must be likely Buckleys Cough Medicine here, their ad for years has been "It tastes horrible - but it works!"

Eh, I think it's six one way, half dozen the other. Yes, the primary fights can get divisive. On the other hand, (sadly) the mud is going to get slung eventually and the primary process does tend to ensure that whoever makes it through can withstand it. Oddly, the public does generally seem to rally behind whoever wins, regardless of how they felt during the primaries. And really, this year the primaries on the Democratic side have actually been startlingly polite compared to some years! I should say I do agree that there are issues with the system, and that clearly divisive primary fights do have some negative impacts. I just think in the grand scheme of things, everything else being the same, it ends up not being that big a deal.

Best wishes, Ericka

Pretty much. There might be some secondary effects just from someone getting momentum in other states from the "win," but given that many candidates weren't on the ballot, even that will be very much mitigated. I was actually surprised at the turnout numbers. A lot of people sure turned out to cast a vote that wasn't going to be counted.

Yep. Way back when it happened, the press was referring to it as the "death penalty." On the other hand, the state party knew what was going to happen if they moved the primary forward but they did it anyway.

Yep ;-) However, even if the primary counted, the uncommitted votes wouldn't factor in. The delegates would be apportioned among those who got affirmative votes.

Best wishes, Ericka

Cheryl Isaak wrote in news:C3B23D6C.87910% snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net:

I love Moxie.

It is hard to find around here, but there is one place that carries it.

-- Keith Barber anerien@ comcast.net I am the housing fairy.

Which is why I ALWAYS have Fisherman's Friend cough drops around. Work a charm even if they taste nasty!

I wonder if all of the people who voted are aware that their votes won't count? >

I'd think the state party can expect to suffer some fallout for that move since it seems to have more or less rendered Michigan delegates irrelevant if I understand the process correctly. >

Who foots the bill for primaries?

Thanks for clarifying things Ericka, I appreciate it! I find US politics hard to follow but also interesting. During the course of the primaries we do see how candidates present themselves, truthfully or otherwise! :)

After my initial post I did listen to further discussion of the Michigan situation. They did indicate that at the final convention Michigan state might still somehow have some input.

Mavia

McCain campained there quite heavily. But Romney grew up there and his father was governor for something like three terms.

Elizabeth

I don't disagree that the primaries are divisive, but you have to remember that our system was originally designed to discourage the develpment of parties (permanent factions). One of the advantages is that anyone can run. Of course, the disadvantage is that anyone can run.

Party systems such as in Canada and much of Europe force candidates to pay their dues to the party, so that by they time they emerge as national candidates, they are quite experienced. I see that as an advantage, but many Americans see that as a lack of independence and a kind of unacceptable party rule. They think that means that the candidate is responsible to the party instead of to the voters rather than seeing that the candidate is responsible to the voters through the party.

Elizabeth

Talk me off line if you get desperate! I don't want it all the time, but when you crave it...

Cheryl, where do you buy them? I can't find them anywhere lately...am I'm *dying* for one right now, with a trickly nose and a tickly cough.

Sue (I won't cough on you guys, though)

Want me to mail you some ?

I get them at Brooks/Rite Aid

It can be. I remember a few primaries where their own side dug up some dirt on the winners that came back to haunt them during the general election. Things that the other side might not have been able to find (e.g., known only to a few party higher-ups, who were willing to speak to a fellow party member's campaign but would not have breathed a word to the other party).

Ronald Reagan said the 11th commandment was Thou Shalt Not speak ill of a fellow Republican. I think more candidates need to take that to heart.

And I think that's what most people dislike most about politics: the mudslinging. Some races, we can't tell you what Smith's stand is on the issues, because he's spent so much time telling us what a stinker Jones is.