Elections are about more than winning, they are about deciding who wins AND how the winner

[Kber]

Might govern.

This is yet another post about "red state" voters influencing the eventual outcome of the democratic primary and therefore the presidency, but please stay with me.

There has been an argument back and forth about whether voters in deep red states like Alabama and Utah should have a say in choosing the democratic nominee, and if so, how big a say.

After all, why should it matter if Utah prefers Bernie Sanders or Alabama prefers Hillary when both states have gone for the GOP candidate in the general for decades?

Same question goes for NY and the GOP. Who cares if Trump carries the state when the chances of either him or Cruz carrying NY are slimmer than a snowballs chance in hell?

However, the question ignores the national nature of the presidency. We are engaged in a nation-wide contest to elect the president of ALL of the United States. If voters in Alabama or Utah had absolutely no say in the presidency at all, it would be far too easy, too tempting, for the democrats to ignore their needs completely since he / she wouldn't "need" them. The only chance some voters get to weigh in in a meaningful way is during the primary process. Republicans in NY, democrats in Utah and Alabama deserve that chance, deserve to be considered, deserve to be served by the national government, no matter who wins, no matter what party prevails in the end.

[geek tragedy]

1. Clinton leads Trump and Cruz--in Georgia.

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/LRPmemo.GeorgiaDemocraticParty.F.041116.pdf

Virginia was a safe red state as late as 2004.

[Kber]

2. Also true points

Add a competitive North Carolina to the list in recent elections.

And Trump as the nominee puts states in play for us that we would never have imagined 6 months ago.

Primaries can also function as party building activities. Yet another reason to respect voters everywhere.

[geek tragedy]

3. Yes, voters everywhere count. nt