Family blogging, and Democratic Mess

If you want a good read on the primaries go to Cousin Wayne's blog where he answers my question from the other day:

My preference of course is Clinton, and while she did not win in Alabama, look at the difference between Alabama and Georgia. Obama won by 34% in Georgia, but only by 14% in Alabama. Are we that different than Georgia?

Well, he comes close to answering it anyway. But he did a great analysis of the results in Georgia, Alabama, Illinois, New York, California, Missouri and Tennessee. You will have to scroll down past (or preferably look at) the post about the turkey vultures...the Primary Analysis post is from Sunday February 10.

I want comments on the following (actually I want comments everyday but it seems most people only comment when they can insult someone). On this blog, and in my column in the Western Tribune this week, I write about the problem the Democratic Party will have if they allow the super delegates to vote and change what looks like is the will of the voters in selecting a presidential nominee. But a caller on a talk show this morning said something that might make a little sense. She said that for the most part states where Obama is winning big are open primary and caucus states,where Republicans and Independents are allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary or caucus.

This is not a national election, she said, It is a political party, determining who they want their candidate to be. By allowing Republicans and Independents to vote, the choice is being taken from the Democrats. So the Super delegates, all being members of the party, could provide a better idea of who the party wants than the primaries that allow non-party members to vote. Allowing the Super Delegates to vote (sort of) balances out the effect of the non-democrats who voted.

Twisted Logic? or Good Point?