Monday, April 7, 2008

If things were different, they'd be different

The latest spin from Hillaryland: Her (actually Mark Penn's) strategy didn't work, therefore the system is flawed. A GOP-like winner-take-all system would be better because under that system she'd be winning right now.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections.
And both candidates were well aware of that system, or could have been, well before the election campaign started. But at this stage, it appears to be just another attempt to provide the GOP with Obama's-not-legitimate talking points.

Is the Democratic nominating process convoluted, perhaps too much so? There's evidence supporting that contention. Perhaps it should be changed. But for the next election cycle, not this one. You don't change the rules halfway through because the current ones aren't producing the outcome you want.

No comments: