pudge's Journal: Daschle: Each State Should Have Equal Number of Delegates

In last week's Meet the Press, former Senator Tom Daschle said that each state's election is equivalent, from Rhode Island to California: "There's no question in my mind that the strongest candidate is the candidate who wins the most elections. Barack Obama has won 29 contests. Hillary Clinton has won 13 contests. That's the bottom line. There is no, no if, ands or buts about it."

If the number of contests won determines who is the strongest candidate, that means each contest is equal, which means each state should have the same number of delegates to national convention.

Of course, if each state should NOT have the same number of delegates, then the states' contests are not equal, which means that the number of states won is irrelevant.

The Democrats crack me up. Another example of stupidity from this week: Senator Schumer blaming President Bush because the Democrats have been successful at convincing people that Bush can't handle the economy. Seriously. He said one of the main problems of the eocnomy is that people don't believe Bush can handle it. It's the old "stop hitting yourself!" line.

I think George W. Bush will most be remembered for making people forget just how dysfunctional and silly the Democratic Party really is.

Also, I think I henceforth will call insipid lines from Democrats "Daschumers." Used in a sentence: "Wow, did you hear that Daschumer from Ron Sims, when he said that the error rate of King County Elections was something any bank would be envious of?"

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Ah, the Democrats

[Zeriel]

I only wish every party on the national level wasn't crazy in their own way these days. I still vote Republican locally, and I like both of my state senators at this point (something I couldn't say when Rick Santorum was still in office). I just want someone to unambiguously step up to not only promise some fiscal responsibility for a change but also actually implement it--I'd like to see the deficit go away in my lifetime, and that means there's only 80-90 years left. (assuming medical technology keeps g

Re:

[pudge]

... with the economy looking as shaky as it does now, I don't think deficit spending and lower taxes are going to keep helping the country long-term without some reduction in the yearly and total deficits.

Deficit spending is only worthwhile when there is a specific goal in mind. In the 1980s, it was twofold: to stimulate the economy following the Carter years, and in doing so to pump up the military.

We are not in such a situation now, although many Democrats -- who are constantly referring to public works projects to stimulate the economy -- seem to think so. The problem is that the Democrats will either increase deficit spending when it is not needed, or they will raise taxes to fund their programs, whi