04-28-2008, 03:36 PM
>>Not at all.
No, you're wrong.
This is about establishing who the party is going to support. Not who people can vote for. There is nothing stopping a candidate from continuing to campaign after the party has selected another as candidate. Candidates running uncontested in local elections is an entirely different matter.
>>I had NO say whatsoever.
Same here, registered as an independent in NY.
Arguing that the Dems shouldn't hold a strong line on this issue is also arguing that states should be able to independently select their primary dates. I don't think anyone wants that chaos. The Dems said to those states "don't do it" and they did it and now they can suffer the consequences. Very simple. Not to mention that they weren't taken seriously by the candidates because they had broken party rules.
If this is truly the wrong action for the Dems to take, then let them run their party into the ground and sit back and laugh. However, that doesn't seem to be happening.
No, you're wrong.
This is about establishing who the party is going to support. Not who people can vote for. There is nothing stopping a candidate from continuing to campaign after the party has selected another as candidate. Candidates running uncontested in local elections is an entirely different matter.
>>I had NO say whatsoever.
Same here, registered as an independent in NY.
Arguing that the Dems shouldn't hold a strong line on this issue is also arguing that states should be able to independently select their primary dates. I don't think anyone wants that chaos. The Dems said to those states "don't do it" and they did it and now they can suffer the consequences. Very simple. Not to mention that they weren't taken seriously by the candidates because they had broken party rules.
If this is truly the wrong action for the Dems to take, then let them run their party into the ground and sit back and laugh. However, that doesn't seem to be happening.