Spew as Obamamaniacs might as this article is nonsense, Wilentz isn't the only one pointing this out. So much for this being just an opinion piece.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_wesley_little/what_if_democrats_used_winner_take_all

Poor Little Obamabots. The truth hurts. But you go ahead and fool yourselves, believing that if you argue the opposite long enough, loud enough, abrasive enough, that somehow that truth will change.

Or really, poor us, the Democrats, because if Obama wins by such pretense, strongarms the system and disenfranchises by abuse Clinton supporters in the process, the real truth will blow us out of the water in November.

Time to grow some reality.

I love all of the "if's" and "would have's"

in this article. The fact, Mr. Wilentz, is that the Obama campaign has played by the rules THAT EXIST, not by the fantasy Democrat League you are talking about. On the other hand, the Clinton campaign consistently tries to usurp and ignore the rules for its own purposes.

Stop with the what if's and what should be. As the old saying goes: "IF my grandmother had balls, she WOULD HAVE BEEN my grandfather."

Wow! This is the most common sense, articulate and persuasive article I've read to date on this mess of an election system. If Clinton is not nominated, I am joining the majority of Americans who are so disgusted they do not vote. Thanks for your clarity and insight.

A. Can we please get over this "If we only held elections X way my guy would win" silliness. This is a great argument for a six year old not a registered voter: "If we change the rules then I will win"

B. Winner take all gave us George W. Bush.

Nothwithstanding how Hillary would be faring under different rules, it is increasingly clear that she will not be the nominee under the actual rules. It appears she will win Pennsylvania by a fairly small margin and lose North Carolina handily. She may win Indiana, but, again, by a small margin. She will lose Oregon. The superdelegates will support Obama if this scenario plays out, and they will put him over the top. Hillary’s only chance at this point is huge wins in Pennsylvania and Indiana and close outcomes in Oregon and North Carolina. Realistically, this isn’t going to happen.

30% of Hillary supporters say they won’t vote for Obama. I figure 10% of those people are just pissed off right now. But that leaves 20%. And the Democrats need that 20%. The Country needs that 20%. Hell, it’s not an overstatement to say the world needs that 20%.

So I ask Hillary supporters:

Will you really vote for John McCain, knowing that (1) he will perpetuate the war in Iraq, and, (2) he will appoint the Supreme Court Justice that votes to overturn Roe v. Wade when Justice Stevens retires – he’s 87 and he’s obviously just holding out through this term.

Will you really do that because a small group of fervent Obama supporters have said some things that you find offensive? Does NYShooter, who made the odious and unfortunate comparison between Obama supporters and lynch mobs, really speak for 1/3 of you? And when Roe is overturned, and 30 or so states make abortion illegal, and McCain is sending more troops to Iraq to die, are any of you going to come back here to the letters section of Salon and explain to us how we’re actually better off because you decided to sit the election out, or to vote for McCain?

Is it being suggested that the rules - both campaigns were aware of them - should be changed because one campaign was more skilled at using them?

If there was no electoral college Al Gore and Samuel Tilden would have held the office, but there was and is an electoral college. The ascension of Rutherford Hayes and George Bush the Younger involved post-election rule changes.

Makes as much sense as the article. Umm... that's none.

On an unrelated note, I am now convinced that Salon runs this puerile trash to inflame the trolls and get a big hit count to impress advertisers.

If the system "made sense", it's likely that no other campaign would've been able to overcome Hillary's name recognition and the media's widespread assumptions that she was simply unbeatable. I'm not sure how that kind of system makes any "more sense" than the one we currently have.

'nuff said!

The truth of the matter is that Obama has run a better campaign than Hillary has, and that, more than anything else, is why he is winning. If the system had been "winner take all", there is no way of knowing whether or not Hillary would have benefited, or whether she would have simply lost in a different way. Obama might STILL have run a better campaign. One thing seems certain: "If she had run a better campaign, Clinton would be ahead."

'nuff said!!

If this election had been winner-take-all, each campaign would have run things differently. Perhaps the Obama campaign would've struggled more, but they certainly would have employed a different set of strategies, as would ANY campaign. But you can't just retroactively change the rules and pretend that the results of all those caucuses and primaries would've turned out the same.

I'm serious, that's too many good points; the article doesn't deserve it!

You better be truth-telling about:

I guess it was not as important to note that one can be in favor of the practice of mail-in voting but not be crazy about the idea of just quickly throwing together a system at the last minute that might be vulnerable to fraud. Oregon has mail-in voting today that is widely praised as a good system, but it didn't happen overnight. It took a long time. Would YOU trust a Florida mail-in system devised in a MONTH

Maybe Salon will publish your comments?

'nuff said...

good stuff

Dear Mr. Editor,

Draped in the eloquence of nice-sounding words and sophistic rationalization, it is articles such as this one that clogs the discourse. It is pointless, unnecessary and counterproductive. All the initial 8 candidates knew and understood the rules of the Democratic nomination process. Not a single one of them saw the rules as undemocratic. Until now, those rules have been the Party's definition of democratic. Are they perfect? Of course not. Should we change them in the middle of the campaign because they suddenly became inconvenient for one candidate?

How does one get a job like the author's? Seriously?