There are a lot of questions surrounding the Democratic primaries. But I have two questions that are more fundamental than the current who should stay and who should drop out or how a race is being funded or why did he/she say that. The first goes to the very heart of the Democratic primaries: Are caucus’s legal?
I always thought that one of the greatest foundations of our republic was the ability to vote in private. To choose a candidate without immediate pressure and in secrecy so that no future action could be taken against you based on your vote. So I honestly don’t understand how a caucus could even be legal. First you must declare for a candidate in front of your friends, employers, co-workers and family. Then if your candidate does not have a certain percentage you need to choose another candidate while those candidate’s followers are publicly urging you to choose their candidate. Excuse me? That sounds like something out of the old Soviet Union or even China whereby you are harassed if you don’t pick “the right” candidate. It sure doesn’t sound like the United States.
It also makes the whole Barrack-Clinton race extremely interesting. Strip away the rhetoric and there really isn’t much difference in their ideology. Yet Barrack wins the caucus’s and Hillary wins the voting booth primaries. Imagine if you are standing in a crowded room filled with people you know and are told if you want to vote for Barrack stand in one corner and Hillary supporters are to stand in another corner. Now imagine that one of your neighbors is black and supporting Barrack and happens to glance your way. No matter your politics, anybody will start to feel self conscious and wonder if their neighbor might think you would be racist if you didn’t vote for Barrack. I know that I would feel very uncomfortable in the above situation and would probably end up voting for Barrack even if I was initially planning to vote for Clinton. Yet if given the secrecy of a voting booth I would feel no pressure to change my vote. Hence Barrack wins the caucus’s and Hillary wins the voting booth primaries.
My second question is: Isn’t the idea of super delegates belittling and condescending? I suppose they are legal but I can’t help but wonder why the rank and file allows their party to think that they can’t correctly choose a candidate. It basically says that the party doesn’t trust the rank and file to pick the right candidate so these old time party hacks can step in and make sure the party does the right thing. Wow. Actually that explains the whole philosophy of Democrats. They don’t think the citizens can pick a candidate, or a doctor or a job or take care of themselves and so the superior Democrat politicians must step in and do it for them. Can you imagine the media attacks if the Republican Party had super delegates of long-time conservative politicians? Yet the media is spending all their time counting super delegate votes to even bother to question the viability of super delegates.
If Barrack becomes the Democratic presidential candidate due to his wins in caucus’s and super delegates then in some ways he is negatively handicapped in the general election where people vote in secrecy and without the added super delegates, And if Barrack loses this November, it will be the fault of the Democrat Party for not running the same kind of race in the primaries that their candidate will face in the general election. On second thought, caucuses and super delegates may not be illegal but they sure are incredibly stupid ideas.
If the goal of your articles is to annoy your readers, you've succeeding with me. For a pro to write caucus's instead of caucuses and use "affect" as a noun when the meaning of "effect" is intended, makes your writing too error-prone to believe you were paid to write for 25 years. Is this a Hillary-esque trumped up claim? Your arcticles' content becomes suspect because you lack credibility.
ReplyDelete