BESTSALVIA.INFO

im not cheating, ive looked everywhere!both of the major parties apportion delegates to each state based ona) its population and the outcome of its most recent pimary electionb)its electorial votes and its ecord in recent electionsc)its population and its record in recent presidential electionsd)the # of its citizens who are who are registered members of the party and its rate of voter turnoutIn 1996, some form of the presidential primary was in place ina) all 50 statesb)42 of states, columbia, and puerto ricoc)16 states and columbiad)states that have hosted national conventionsthe aim of the reforms of the of the democratic party since 1968 has been toa) make the convention system more ecomomicalb) make the convention system more effecient in nominating a winning ticketc) promote greater grassroots involvement in the convention processd) unify the party ideologically so that the plaform can be more specificand lastly: critics of the current primary system say that?

is there any constitutional rule for this? Are there separate rules for Central and state elections?

will they turnout in reccord # to vote this year?

Several states already allow people to register to vote on election day. The benefit is a higher voter turnout. And to date there have been no disadvantages that actually happen in those states. Apparently people are unwilling to risk jail over voting.

Gee, what do you suppose he would do with such a large centrally controlled domestic security force?And to WHOM?Doesn't this sound like Mugabe's personal army which suppressed the voter turnout and inflicted harm against the opposition party in Zimbabwe?How convenient, Obama's own personal domestic army to control the populous?Why would he want to change the directive and structure of The National Guard?http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=728511"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we have set. We have got to have a civilian national security force that is just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."Holy Crap! He wants a domestic centrally controlled army that's as well funded as the current military!

The weekly Billy Poll, which tabulates who you would vote for if the Presidential election were held today, has John McCain winning this week, with a 43% to 35% edge over Barack Obama. But the week before, Barack Obama won by that exact same margin of 43% to 35%! Look out America,we could be in for another photo finish! In the last two weekly polls, an average of 12% of the voters are undecided. Maybe the debates will sway voters one way or another. John McCain enjoyed some summer frolics with 6 straight victories in the June 10th through July 29th polls, sometimes by wide margins of 20-30%, but in a record turnout of 54 votes on August 5th, Obama took back the lead for the first time since early June. A big voter turnout, just like Obama benefitted in the August 5 poll, is exactly what Obama needs come November. There was a two week stretch when the Billy Poll wasn't taken over July 4th and the next weekend after that. This is a non-partisan poll. I just post your voice. 547 votes have been cast in Billy Polls through the weeks. Will we break 1,000 votes cast? :-) Last two Polls...8/5Obama 43%...McCain 35%...Undecided 15%...Bob Barr 2%...Tupac Shakur 2%...Ross Perot 2%...Bill Feldhaus 2%8/12McCain 43%...Obama 35%...Undecided 9%...Sponge Bob 4%... Hillary Clinton 4%...Ron Paul 4%

As it stands now, Clinton will beat Obama 68% to 32%. The trend is for Hispanic voters to support Hillary and black/African voters to support Obama. In fact, it pretty much goes down those lines as we've seen with Obama getting something like 92% of the black vote.According to the CIA Factbook, 80.5% of Puerto Ricans and Hispanic/white while 8% are black and 10.9% are mixed.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html#PeopleEssentially, 81% are white like Hillary and 19% are of colour like Obama.How did this play out? Did people vote along their ethnic lines? Did Obama eat into Hispanic voter rolls, or did he get better turnout from black/mixed-mulatto voters than Hillary did the white Hispanic demographic?Is this something that bodes well for Obama with Hispanic support? Are there any links or reports to demographics and what insight can get gain from these statistics?

Carter, Bill Clinton, even JFK. were somewhat middle of the road moderates. But Obama is very far left leaning. The Republicans have very high voter turnout. The Democrats may have dumped this election by running such a liberal socialist, when they could easily win otherwise.

Since there is record turnout and increased mobilization of African American voters? Have all of the pollsters drastically changed the way they go about collecting the data?McFriend, you're missing the point. The demographic that goes to Obama is being under represented. I can't figure out how you believe that translates into more votes for McCain.

Do you think this is why voter turnout is so low? What has caused us to lose the faith in our leaders?Most detailed answer gets the points!

1. What was the result of the lifting of religious and property owner restrictions in America? A. Rebellion B. More people could vote C. The Catholic Church took over power D. Renters could not vote 2. What is distressing about the number of people voting in America? A. Too many people vote B. Not enough registered voters vote C. Too many businessmen vote D. Too many religious groups vote together 3. In what year was the lowest voter turnout in American history? A. 1992 B. 1996 C. 2000 D. 2004 4. Which of the following was not part of the post Civil War civil rights amendments? A. 13th B. 14th C. 15th D. 19th 5. Who is denied the right to vote in modern America? A. Some convicted felons B. Those declared mentally incompetant C. Both of the above D. None of the above 6. What group was barred from voting until 1920? A. American Indians B. African Americans C. Women D. 18 year olds 7. What type of interest groups lobby for a collective good? A. Public Interest Groups B. Religious Interest Groups C. Private Interest Groups D. None of the above 8. What method can be used to contact your local congresspersons? A. Faxes B. E-mail C. Letters D. All of the above 9. Which presidential candidates were the first to debate on network television? A. Eisehower-Stevenson B. Kennedy-Nixon C. Johnson-Goldwater D. Ford-Carter 10. What instrument was George Gallup responsible for creating? A. A poll. B. A thermometer. C. The internet. D. The fax machine. 11. Who lead the Democratic-Republican Party? A. Alexander Hamilton B. Thomas Jefferson C. James Madison D. John Adams 12. Which party was founded in opposition to Andrew Jackson? A. Democrats B. Republicans C. Whigs D. Democratic-Republicans 13. Who won the governship of Minnesota in 1998 as a Reform Party candidate? A. Jesse Ventura B. H. Ross Perot C. Barry Goldwater D. Randy Moss 14. Which political analyst would argue that individuals should align there concerns with the needs of their community? A. H. Ross Perot B. Craig Rimmerman C. Sandy Alderson D. George Washington 15. What is probably the most important form of public servitude? A. Being a politician. B. Being a judge. C. Joining the Peace Corp. D. Serving in the military. 16. Which amendment was created with the rationale,"If you're old enough to fight for your country, you should be old enough to vote."? A. 23rd B. 24th C. 25th D. 26th 17. What law required the Department of Justice to monitor southern elections? A. Voting Rights Act of 1965 B. 14th Amendment C. Civil Rights Act of 1964 D. 16th Amendment 18. What amendment banned poll taxes? A. 14th B. 15th C. 18th D. 24th

Please tell me the name of the group or organization, or refer me to their website, etc. I am trying to get some ideas about what my church might be able to do as far as voter registration, turnout, etc.Come on, people, I know my church has the right to hand out voter registration forms, I don't need all these warnings, just answer if you know a good role model please.

If John McCain wins, and he will, what will be their excuse this time ?After all, the economy was bad in 2004, gas prices were starting to go up, the war was raging and there was a record voter turnout that voted for Bush, a second time.

Do the polls assume equal turnout on both sides?

Looking for realistic, intelligent, non partisan answers. I admit that its a bit of a long shot. Here's what I think. I would say that Sen. Obama has a 55%-60% chance right now. I say that because it is clearly a Democratic year, dissatisfaction with President Bush, high turnout in the Democratic primaries, etc. I still think that he is very vulnerable. For one thing, he's done and said a number of things to get painted into the same corner that Dukakis and Kerry were painted into in 1988 and 2004. Being cast as an out of touch, urban liberal elitist. And you have to remember that the Republican machine has been very effective at this in years past, and really didn't start to hammer Dukakis and Kerry until late summer going into the fall, August going on. However, 1988 and 2004 were far more favorable poltically to Republicans than 2008. In 1988, outgoing President Reagan was overall popular, despite a number of scandals and the fact that Vice President Bush, was not as popular as Reagan. In 2004, the country was basically split 50-50 on President Bush and the Iraq War. In 2008, you have a very unpopular President Bush, and the majority of voters overall dissatisfied with the course of the country. People try to say "well, Congress' approval rating is lower, so people must think Democrats are worse." You're fooling yourselves. Congress' approval rating is usually never as high as any Presidents', weigthed, its about the same and shows dissatisfaction with Washington overall. You have Democrats winning Congressional special elections in highly Republican districts. The other thing that makes him vulnerable is the Bradley effect. The scenario where you have a stastically significant amount white voters telling pollsters that they will vote for the black candidate and then not following through. Its pretty much unmeasureable but its something that the Obama campaign should be concerned about. You have to wonder if that is going to be counteracted by Obama bringing out historic turnout by black voters. Hard to say, and again, completely unmeasureable until you have the returns to look at. That being said, I think Obama is nearly guaranteed 259 electoral votes, Kerry's states plus Iowa. And I think its not going to be all that difficult for him to pick up the 11 more he needs to get to 270. A lot can change, but in the words of Bob Dylan, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows

Well, not me. But I am working on the campaign of two individuals running for School Board in my city. As the election is in August, there is usually low voter turnout, but I am honestly worried that the best might not win.The two individuals who are being challenged have a huge money advantage. One is a lawyer and businesswoman who has given herself a massive amount of money and is being funded by attorneys and developers. So far she has almost $100k compared to less than $45k for her opponent.In the other race, the man has given himself over $30k (more than teachers here make in a year!) while my candidate is just under $25kObviously we are going door to door and making calls. But it's not enough to compete with the ads, the mailers, and the absentee ballots that have been sent out WITH $0.42 CENT STAMPS!With the election only two weeks away, what more can we do to get elected? The media is against us here...our paper always seems to support those who don't support the community and constantly write dirty articles. It's tough. Any suggestions?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economyi am sorry, it is a record "jump""That was the biggest one-month jump in the rate since February 1986."

Not kidding. Hazel Blears (bless) has suggested offering prizes as an incentive to get people to vote. You couldn't really make it up...What prizes should be on offer?http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7496705.stmVoters in English local elections could be entered into a "prize draw" in an effort to increase turnout, says communities secretary Hazel Blears. She told MPs proposals to give people more of a say in local services, such as letting councils offer "incentives" to encourage voter registration. For the Conservatives, Eric Pickles suggested the "booby prize" would be a Labour councillor.

Im talkin these groups:Young VotersAfrican American VotersNewly-registered Voters

The US already is handing out $$ for stimulating the economy..why not $$ to improve the low voter turnout...maybe this would get more people to the polls..bucks for ballots?Legality is not an issue..I said IF..it is a hypothetical question....we PAY people something for nothing..to stimulate the economy..why not enact a law and pay the voters..for their trouble?? as 70% DON'T VOTE NOW/

I know she won Puerto Rico by a large margin but she had to be hoping for much higher turnout. I heard the campaign was thinking 15% win on 2m voters. Instead they got a 37% win on 400k voters. This must be really disappointing because there is still an enormous asterisk next to her popular vote claim. It comes only if you count the disputed Michigan primary with zero votes to him from uncommitteds and you don't count 4 caucus states (3 of which he won overwhelmingly). If Hillary had slightly higher turnout in Puerto Rico, she could have said I won the undisputed popular vote. The media would have reported it without caveats. Arguably that might have signalled something to superdelegates. Her current claim makes no sense to anyone that isn't already in her camp.Obama will win the fairest measure of popular vote by about 0.1%. Not a landslide, but still a large symbolic victory.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

because he is mixed, which means that he is just as much black as he is white. So saying that he is black means that white people are black as well, since he is partially white and I just came to the realization that all that ****** color thing is so irrelevant, but Americans are actually dumb enough to increase their voter turnout just because they have two crazy characters running for presidency and this whole election is not more than a frican American Idol on a bigger scale where the contestents are only interesting as long as they compete, but dramatically lose interest as one of them wins. Politics have become irrelevant and even if Barrack was a dictator, black people would probably vote for him, just as much as feminists would vote for Hillary even if she was a communist.

a) Today's politicians frequently ascend to their positions with the support of only a relatively small minority of citizens.b) Voter turnout in the united States regularly exceeds 60 percent of registered voters.c) Voter turnout in the United States has never fallen below 40 percent of registered voters.d) Approximately 72 percent of the voting age population cast its vote for George W. Bush in 2004.e) It would be impossible for someone to be elected president while only capturing 27 percent of the voting age population.

Obama predicts black voter increase, Southern wins By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press WriterWed Jul 16, 6:06 PM ETIf Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black president boosts black turnout as drastically as he predicts, he could crack decades of Republican dominance across the South.That's a big "if."Still, an Associated Press analysis of U.S. Census and voting data from the past four presidential elections shows a potentially dramatic impact should Obama fulfill his pledge to elevate black participation by 30 percent.That would add nearly 1.8 million votes in 11 Southern states, the analysis shows, enough to tip the balance in several that have been Republican strongholds.Besides the likely increase in black turnout, the Illinois senator also expects a surge of young voters to help him compete in states that have been reliably red since the once solidly Democratic South flipped to the Republicans in 1964."I can tell you that North Carolina

I just read an article and it seems very possible."Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins than Bush’s in 2004 and ekes out narrow victories in places such as North Carolina, which Bush won by 12 points but Rasmussen presently shows as a tossup, and Indiana, which Bush won by 21 points but McCain presently leads by just 11""Recalling the impact of Ralph Nader’s third-party run in 2000, Devine also wonders if Bob Barr’s Libertarian run might play out differently, costing McCain popular — but not electoral — votes, while producing another popular-electoral split."Your thoughts?http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080619/pl_politico/11182;_ylt=Aklwkm09wuXe0992vGSQ9Mys0NUESjean, me too!McCain 08.

In America, you are either a democrat or a republican. During election season, each of those nominate one person as the president. I noticed that even the best independents/3rd raters don't stand a chance against a nominee from one of the two official parties. Do you guys think that this lack of choice discourages some people from going to the polls? For example, in many European countries, there are active (and rather successful) communist and fascist parties. Those nations have much higher voter turnouts. Does the lack of extremist candidates discourage some people from voting?But perhaps the reason why many Americans don't care is that they don't have a leader they like. If there were more options (and more extremists) more people would be motivated to get involved in the political process.

Political scientists do not believe that the level of nonvoting in America is a serious social problem because:a. voting is open to every citizen who has attainted the age of 18 and it is a voluntary activity.b elections are held on Tuesdays when most people are working.c. high voter turnouts would cause long lines and discourage new voters from returning.d. most people who decline to vote are affluent and have other ways to influence government decisions.

In order for McCain to win in November he would have to win ALL of the states Bush won in 2004. That means, as we all know, McCain cannot win without high turnout of Bush's evangelical base.Several red states are poised to turn blue.So McCain is running on (surprize!) NOT the economy"I dont know much about the economy"NOT getting out of the mess in Iraq"Another hundred years.Fine with me"He's running on being ANTI-ABORTION.Bush's evangelical base finds John "This is the party of Abraham Lincoln, not Pat Robertson" McCain tepid at best. McCain admits he doesnt go to church much, yet he promises to pick an anti-choice running mate to shore up the evngelical base vote that is yawning at him.How is that going to appeal to independent voters who are overwhelmingly pro-choice?So HOW can he pretend to be a moderate or a maverick when he's chasing the anti-choice vote? Doesnt this account for the blistering political lies against the fresh Barack Obama?Rick 87 Not so fast. Obama got more primary votes in Georgia that McCain and Hucklabee COMBINED. The more voters see Bush in McCain the less they like it.Read the first paragraph again.MBush40: Well thats what Im saying!Bush supporters are not a concensus voting block for McCain.

His audience member appears to made up of senior citizens. Where are the youth, the diveristy and the huge turnouts to hear him speak????Could it be that no one under the age of 65 really cares about what Mccain has to say?He's a Republican, for starters. He describes himself as ''older than dirt.'' And he makes no apology for an Iraq war that is especially unpopular on college campuses.Doesn't sound like a recipe for winning the hearts of young voters. And yet John McCain has vowed to make a serious play for the 18- to 29-year-old crowd that's often identified with ''Obama-mania.''Could the 71-year-old grandfather possibly have a shot?

I know many young people such as myself (especially guys) who are going to vote for McCain...this "younger voter turnout" could work the other way too.I would be interested to know if so many "young people" will vote Democrat in November like the news say they will do.

shouldn't they be on the same ticket to ensure a 100 percent Democrat voter turnout?cincity: That's right. Do what you Democrats do best. Censor all those who disagree with you and criticize your great god Obama.

Was looking at the news on yahoo front page...always love to look at their biased healines. So I see another article on how their man Obama could loose the electoral college, and this first part just made me laugh: "Here’s the scenario: Obama racks up huge margins among the increasingly affluent, highly educated and liberal coastal states, while a significant increase in turnout among black voters allows him to compete — but not to win — in the South. Meanwhile, McCain wins solidly Republican states such as Texas and Georgia by significantly smaller margins....""increasingly affluent, HIGHLY EDUCATED, and liberal coastal states.."What does that say to you? (I know what it says to me)

They asked if Hillary as VP would make voters more or less likely to vote for Obama.22% more likely21% less likely55% no differenceFinally someone is getting closer to polling the right question. Really what needs to be asked is "Will you vote for Obama" then "If hillary was Obama's VP would you vote for Obama" and it should be a follow up only asked to people who say they are not "solidly" behind McCain --- ie. potential Obama voters.I think you will see that a lot of the angry Hillary supporters think that is not good enough and won't vote for it anyway and a lot of Obama supporters won't vote for any ticket with Hillary on it.I think it is, as the polls suggest, a measure that would lose as much support as it gains (and maybe more once you count the surge in evangelical turnout that Hillary would create for the GOP).There really is no way to escape the fact that she has very high negatives, IMO.... but this is about asking for your opinion, so dazzle me.Poll results were given on MSNBC's Countdown.

8 days after the Obama / Hillary primary in Puerto Rico (primary that got the worst turnout of voters in the history of Puerto Rico, where voter turnout traditionally is 80%, only 15% showed up)PUERTO RICO goes to the United Nations and denounces USA colonialism, you agree?The governor of Puerto Rico denounced ''US colonialism'' at the United Nations. Puerto Rico is asking for it's sovereignty and self determination as a spanish speaking latin american nation.Some facts:Puerto Rico was invaded by the US in 1898 (along with Cuba and Phillipines) but annexation plans failed due to cultural and political resistance.Puerto Rico remained under a US military colonial regime for about 50 years, during that time puerto rican nationalists had many revolts.Since 1952, Puerto Rico is a self governing country (without sovereignty), with it's own constitution, national flag and anthem but it's sovereignty is still being held by the US congress as a commonwealth/unincorporated territoryBBC news 'Puerto Rico in Independence bid' ( june 10th)http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7445615.stmUnited Nations resolution on Puerto Rico - June 10th 2008http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2008/gacol3176.doc.htm

Saw the speech on CNN yesterday.After she thanked them for voting for her (even though only about 20% showed up at the polls, the LOWEST voter turnout in P.R. history) she told them that they'd be able to vote in the next Presidential general election.In order for that to happen, Puerto Rico would have to become a State. There's a lot of politics involved to make that happen. Most of which she has no control over.Why would she go out on a limb to make such a promise?What did she hope to gain by doing so.Thoughts?

voter turnout peaked in _______ with a turnout of a more than 65 percent of those eligible to vote.a 1952b 1960c 1992d 2000PLEASE HELP... i neeeed the correct answer. TEN points

Contrary to popular belief, the 'black vote' has never been the deciding factor in a Presidential election. History has shown this in the past, and it's no different this time.African Americans make up a VERY SMALL percentage of the population. And from that group, a large percentage do not show up at the polls. So that makes even FEWER African Americans voters that make up the entire voting population. And even if there was 100% African American voter turnout, it STILL wouldn't have a huge impact on the overall count.Having said that, why do people insist that the 'black vote' will have so much influence this time around? Are they using Obama defeating Hillary as the reason?Thoughts?patriot yankee: One could say the same about those who are only voting for McCain because he's white. Are they disgusting too?

are obama's poll numbers in swing states being underperformed because polls don't include newly registered voters?

I read all the time that Obama is popular with the majority of people under 40, with most African-Americans, with an increasing number of Hispanics and with the majority of women. But the polls show him running almost even with McCain, who's supposed to be popular only with middle-aged and older white voters! Do the various polling bureaus only get ahold of old white people? Are old white folks (and, please note, I'm a middle-aged white folk) the only people who have time to take part in the polls? Or is it because the bureaus still can't get ahold of most cell phone lines? If the polling bureaus can still only reach people by landline phones, I think we can pretty much assume they are worthless in predicting voter turnout for future elections!

Given the primary turnout totals on the Dem side, it's possible that with significant added voter registrants, and the need to 'change' that there will be significantly higher turnout than the 50% in past presidential elections.

Create a frequency distribution from the following data on voter turnout rates (in percentages) for Presidential elections. Use 5 classes:11.6 6.3 20.1 32.2 23.8 36.8 40.4 16.9 10.7 26.9 57.3 57.056.5 80.3 79.2 72.8 69.5 79.4 81.8 76.3 80.9 72.1 82.6 80.575.8 79.6 73.7 65.5 65.7 59.0 61.8 49.2 48.9 56.9 56.9 61.062.4 55.9 53.3 63.8 61.6 65.4 63.3 62.3 57.0 55.2 54.3 54.952.2 56.8 50.8

Obama does have a problem with White voters. I would also like to had he should have a problem with black ones too but they are not concerned with the facts. Here are the facts:Clinton has won more primaries than Obama.IowaNorth Dakota WyomingMinnesota ColoradoMaineAlaskaIdahoNebraskaAll these are Caucus state and if you look at the numbers they had and turnouts around 3 or 4 thousand people. I have consistently said there have been a lot of complaints about Obama Bulling and cheating at the Caucuses. A few hundred people in most cases do not represent a state, these were caucuses not primaries. The lies just keep coming from Obama supporters. Even the primaries that he did win there were a lot of Republicans voting for Obama to keep Hillary out the general election and now you know why: Obama is nothing but a liar and fakeYou, got it Low they dont... the general election is primaries only so you can not use causcus there... How the hell can you claim he has the white vote in those state when you are lucky to get a thousand people to attend a caucus.Thomas please listen and please read: Hillary has won more primaries than Obama and they are what will count in the general election. She has also won the popular vote, hey son there is no kink in this chain I only speak the truth. Believe it.

Especially in the maritimes, I can't believe how poorly the Liberal Party is doing. Also why are Canadians no longer backing the NDPs?Do you really like Harper that much? When Obama gets in the USA it will be more rightwing in Canada than in the states.* On a last note if it's a lame dead heat between the NDPs-Liberals and the PCs, the voter turnout will decrease and the Federal Quebec party will WIN over the seats!And then it's a victory for Quebec

Well, not me. But I am working on the campaign of two individuals running for School Board in my city. As the election is in August, there is usually low voter turnout, but I am honestly worried that the best might not win.The two individuals who are being challenged have a huge money advantage. One is a lawyer and businesswoman who has given herself a massive amount of money and is being funded by attorneys and developers. So far she has almost $100k compared to less than $45k for her opponent.In the other race, the man has given himself over $30k (more than teachers here make in a year!) while my candidate is just under $25kObviously we are going door to door and making calls. But it's not enough to compete with the ads, the mailers, and the absentee ballots that have been sent out WITH $0.42 CENT STAMPS!With the election only two weeks away, what more can we do to get elected? The media is against us here...our paper always seems to support those who don't support the community and constantly write dirty articles. It's tough. Any suggestions?Unfortunately, one of the opponents is lying and bashing us himself!

I cant find these in the book... both of the major parties apportion delegates to each state based ona) its population and the outcome of its most recent pimary electionb)its electorial votes and its ecord in recent electionsc)its population and its record in recent presidential electionsd)the # of its citizens who are who are registered members of the party and its rate of voter turnoutIn 1996, some form of the presidential primary was in place ina) all 50 statesb)42 of states, columbia, and puerto ricoc)16 states and columbiad)states that have hosted national conventionsthe aim of the reforms of the of the democratic party since 1968 has been toa) make the convention system more ecomomicalb) make the convention system more effecient in nominating a winning ticketc) promote greater grassroots involvement in the convention processd) unify the party ideologically so that the plaform can be more specificand lastly: critics of the current primary system say that.Any help for any of the questions would be appreciated... even if u only know the answer for one of them...

What's going on with those two.A spokesman for Obama said Thursday that Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick would be a distraction if he goes to the convention as a superdelegate.Kilpatrick faces eight felony charges in a perjury case and two felony charges in an assault case. A Michigan judge told Kilpatrick on Thursday that he could attend the convention. His lawyer, James Thomas, said high-ranking Democrats want Kilpatrick to attend.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_el_pr/detroit_mayor_convention;_ylt=An19Y_WE3zY6Q70iwnMDTgPCw5R4In a city where more than 80 percent of its 900,000 residents is black, Kilpatrick could be key in pushing voter turnout for the black presidential candidate. The black mayor acknowledged as much Friday and repeated his support for Obama.“I’ve had numerous conversations with Senator Obama,” he said. “We have a very good relationship.”http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080613/NEWS01/306130014/1002