Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB
They CHOSE not to campaign, they were not prevented. And if so who cares. In most primary years 2/3 of the states never see a single candidate from either party yet the votes counted. In Montana Romney was the only candidate that showed up so I guess thatw as unfair to McCain that Romney got more delgates in that state than McCain? So the results of Montana should not have counted because McCain CHOSE not to show up? This is your logic?
In 2012 you will not see a SINGLE candidate from either party go to Alaska. I guess that state's results shouldn't count since nobody campaigned there. You don't need to go to a state to campaign. Especially today. Are you telling me nobody in Florida heard of Obama by the end of January? And that by going to Florida that would have made him more known? hardly.
|
Sure they chose not to campaign there, but they were basically told by the DNC not to do it and back in August of 07 they signed a pledge to not campaign in those states as part of the punishement. So they had a choice. Defy the leadership of their party and campaign there, or do as they wish and not go there. So should they defy the party which will help them raise money and campaign in the fall? Do you just bite the hand that feeds you?
If a candidate choose not to go to a state that is their choice and if they win or lose that state it is their fault. If, however, they urged not to go there by their party it is a whole different story.