<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sunday 5/11/2008 DAILY NEWS DIGEST</title>
	<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/05/11/sunday-5112008-daily-news-digest/</link>
	<description>&#038; Home of Lawn Mower Repair</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:30:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Onelife</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/05/11/sunday-5112008-daily-news-digest/#comment-24532</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 May 2008 02:16:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/05/11/sunday-5112008-daily-news-digest/#comment-24532</guid>
					<description>&#62;&#62;Obama trounced Clinton in the popular vote, but because of the way Democrats proportionally award delegates, he wound up with only a 29-28 lead in the number of pledged delegates. 

The deal is, Dimocrat insiders get to select the nominee in any reasonably close race.  20% of the delegates are party big-wigs.  They can go 100% for one candidate or the other.  80% are selected by the public, but are guaranteed to be closely split in any real race due to proportionality.  The 80% chosen by thew public is almost assured to be within the range where the party hacks can choose either one.

The 800 party hacks have more say-so in selecting the nominee than the 100,000,000 voting Dims.  Not very democratic...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;&gt;Obama trounced Clinton in the popular vote, but because of the way Democrats proportionally award delegates, he wound up with only a 29-28 lead in the number of pledged delegates. </p>
<p>The deal is, Dimocrat insiders get to select the nominee in any reasonably close race.  20% of the delegates are party big-wigs.  They can go 100% for one candidate or the other.  80% are selected by the public, but are guaranteed to be closely split in any real race due to proportionality.  The 80% chosen by thew public is almost assured to be within the range where the party hacks can choose either one.</p>
<p>The 800 party hacks have more say-so in selecting the nominee than the 100,000,000 voting Dims.  Not very democratic&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/05/11/sunday-5112008-daily-news-digest/#comment-24489</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 May 2008 16:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2008/05/11/sunday-5112008-daily-news-digest/#comment-24489</guid>
					<description>Turnham's biased views towards Clinton are clear in that article. Surprisingly, Worley had the most thougful answers.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Turnham&#8217;s biased views towards Clinton are clear in that article. Surprisingly, Worley had the most thougful answers.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.365 seconds -->
