tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post5996310718377893950..comments2023-11-05T02:58:27.295-05:00Comments on Campaign Diaries: Tonight: Two debates and one caucusTanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17333289018970623022noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-87688106874609399602008-01-06T03:57:00.000-05:002008-01-06T03:57:00.000-05:00Actually, Taniel, they pitched out three: Gravel,...Actually, Taniel, they pitched out three: Gravel, Hunter, and Kucinich. But given the way the debates seemed to flow tonight, I'm actually glad of the exclusions. It made for a better atmosphere, while not excluding anyone who was viable either nationally or in New Hampshire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-16263891580131225772008-01-05T15:06:00.000-05:002008-01-05T15:06:00.000-05:00Mr. Rational, Indeed I didn't put in much time to ...Mr. Rational, <BR/>Indeed I didn't put in much time to research it apparently given how much there is to cover today. Thanks for updates. I still think the exclusion is pretty arbitrary especially when they are basically just throwing out one person at this point. And someone who represents the sensibilities of a whole wing of the party in a way other excluded candidates don't (since it seems Biden and Dodd would also have been excluded).Tanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333289018970623022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-83015702908223310672008-01-05T14:48:00.000-05:002008-01-05T14:48:00.000-05:00Also, ABC's debate mandated them to take: the top...Also, ABC's debate mandated them to take: the top four from Iowa, regardless of percentage; anyone who was polling above 5% nationally (which lets in Giuliani); and anyone who was polling above 5% in New Hampshire (which lets in Paul). It wasn't that hard for me to find the answer to your question.<BR/><BR/>http://mashable.com/2008/01/03/facebook-abc-debates-controversy/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-37473420714740137982008-01-05T14:41:00.000-05:002008-01-05T14:41:00.000-05:00Well, if you don't understand, ask Mr. Rational, I...Well, if you don't understand, ask Mr. Rational, I always say. In the normal course of things, Wyoming would have 28 delegates and New Hampshire 24 in the Republican nominating process. (Both totals have been halved through party sanctions because their contests are held ahead of the earliest acceptable date, so Wyoming now gets 14--12 of which will be selected tonight--and New Hampshire 12, all of whom will be apportioned through the primary.)<BR/><BR/>So why does Wyoming have more delegates? Easy...they're a more Republican state. In the Republican process, each state gets three automatic delegates--their national committeepeople and their state party chair. They also get ten at-large delegates regardless of size. They get three more for each congressional district they have. Finally, they get bonus delegates for having Republican U.S. Senators, governors, a majority-GOP congressional delegation, a GOP-controlled state legislature (partial or total), and having voted for GWB in 2004.<BR/><BR/>As you can see, Wyoming has a base of 16 delegates (three party delegates, ten at-large, and three for their sole congressional district) and New Hampshire a base of 19 (they have two congressional districts). But Wyoming gets far more bonus delegates than New Hampshire does, thus elevating its delegate count higher. It's a system designed to maximize influence from two groups...large states that have more people, and Republican states that are more in-tune with the party. So if you ever wondered why Texas seems to have such a stranglehold on the GOP, wonder no longer--it fits in both groups.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com