home
When Is "Disenfranchisement" Not "Disenfranchisement?" | 131 comments (131 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Weak ending, as my freshman (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:58:22 PM EST
English teaching fellow sd.:

Christopher Beam added, "So if Clinton had sealed the deal on Super Tuesday, that would have disenfranchised half the nation? Also, the idea that Obama wants to "stop voting" in North Carolina -- a place where he's all but guaranteed to win -- is just ... I'm not sure there's a word for it."

I don't know, "dumb" keeps coming to mind.

 

Major difference: Obama hasn't sealed the deal (5.00 / 3) (#92)
by KevinInNYC on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:41:05 PM EST
We wouldn't be having this conversation if he had closed the deal in New Hampshire, or on Super Tuesday,  or on March 4.  

The race continues because voters haven't reached a consensus, so yes, it would be ridiculous to not hear from the final few states.  It's also ridiculous for only 48 states to have a say, when the other two have already voted and could conceivably re-vote if necessary.  

[ Parent ]

When Is "Disenfranchisement" Not "Disenfranchisement?" | 131 comments (131 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft