Here's how I see it

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

The person who can't win the Democratic nomination with the most votes can't win the general election. In order to win the general election, one needs to at least have your own party vote for you.

Therefore, whoever CAN win the Democratic nomination given how divided our party is of late..is the person who has a better shot than any other candidate.

[jsw_81]

1. That isn't always true

We could have nominated much stronger candidates in 1984 and 1988, for example. But as far as 2004 goes, I think you're correct.

[On the Road]

2. Not True

Voters in Democratic primaries aren't just unrepresentative of all voters in November, they're not even representative of all Democratic voters in November.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. IF a stronger candidate appears in the field..a sign of their strength

would be getting votes. No?

[THUNDER HANDS]

3. why that almost sounds like logic

Are you sure you're in the right forum?

:D

[windansea]

4. sorry..the two are mutually exclusive

apples and cantelopes

[CWebster]

6. Depends on the tactics one uses to win

and the power players on your side pulling all the strings...

Why, why, why...they could convince you to send your children to war if the have the mouthpiece to twist their lies into truth.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. Well I guess the voters were more approving of his tactics than the myriad

of sixty second ads they watched on the other guy..who knows..maybe those ads were so long they talked people OUT of voting for him.

[KFC]

7. The one with the most votes is the most popular candidate?

How can that be?

I thought the second and third place vote-getters had more support.