Democratic Nom - Order Your Importance

Yes. The GOP has superdelegates. If Huckabee wasn't suck a freak, if Romney wasn't such a flake, and if Guiliani wasn't such a dick then they each could be splitting states leaving the GOP superdelegates to decide the nominee.

I'm surprised you are unaware of this given your need to call out the other side for having a nearly identical system. The only difference being winner-take-all states versus not.

 

As always, I appreciate the mature response.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1984

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_1988

And please do point that out if Obama is the Dem nominee. Because from everything I've read, he's going to try to win as many states as possible, not just Dem strongholds, plus Ohio-Pennsylvania-Florida.

 

Who is Ron Paul?

He's the dude who actually got 400,000 votes as a Libertarian in 1988.

 

Here's another hint: ALL national candidates try to win as many states as possible. They try even harder (and spend more money) trying to win the states that are considered to be contested. Obama will, too.

And your Wikipedia links don't demonstrate anything but that there were landslide elections in 1984 and 1988. I covered both of them. Candidates in both parties focused their attention and spent more money in states that were more contested.

 

The DLC has showed it doesn't care about a number of states; never campaigns in them, never spends money in them.

When I think "swing state," I think Ohio-Pennsylvania-Florida, and to a lesser extent Missouri and Michigan, not just states that are contestable. If that's your metric, Obama puts a lot more states into play than Hillary. Why do you think red-state superdelegates are almost all for Obama? Hillary won't even try to campaign in them.

If you were including all contestable states, not just the big three (or five), then I apologize.