absent voters

I'm not sure if it's due to the "vote early" campaigns, but when I went to vote an hour ago, almost no-one was there.

I really expected there to at least be a small queue, but I was the only person there. I saw two electioneers rearranging their "she isn't trying to destroy the party, honest" signs out by the road, but apart from that, it was me and eight poll workers. The guy asking for IDs was very quiet about it, almost like he was asking me for change.

Of course, it might not be the "vote early" thing. It could always be that Indiana voters aren't quite sure what the fuck's going on. I mean, this is the first Indiana general primary that's made a difference ... ever? I know I was confused. Or I would have been if I hadn't had three months to get used to the idea that this primary means something for once. What, I wonder, would it take to move the Indiana primary to Super Tuesday?

I suppose it doesn't matter that much. I say this primary means something, but it only means as much as all the other primaries, which is something on the level of nothing. Honestly, the fact that there's a Republican ticket ... I was pretty sure they had McCain locked up (well, he should be locked up, but that's something else). But no, Ron Paul's still going for it. Not sure why, Libertarians will never win anything as long as they keep pimping 1) letting people live as they will, and 2) marijuana legalisation (which is a derivative of the first). They'll never win the Republican vote with those positions, and the rest of their positions won't win any Democrats. They'll win Libertarians, people who want to be left alone, and people in favour of marijuana decriminalisation. That's ALL.

While I'm on the topic, I'm not sure why Hillary's still going for it. I'll admit, I would've supported her if she'd won the primaries and then the nomination, but I can't support her now. The only way she can win is by the Superdelegates staging a coup and ignoring the voters' will, which according to the current delegate count, is Obama08. This isn't political bias, this is basic maths. Anyone who graduated secondary school can figure this out, and I can prove it on an Etch-a-Sketch. The other reason I don't support her is her consistency with John McSame - promoting the same things, voting the same way on things ... honestly, if I wanted Hillary, I could just vote for McCain, who's GOT his party's nomination already.

Of course, I'd never do such a thing, because McCain is not the same McCain he used to be either. In their desire to be president, McCain and Clinton have changed positions so much that they are unrecognisable from the candidates they originally were. Clinton used to support Universal Health Care (which she says she supports again), but then she took a big sack of money from health care companies. McCain used to be a "Maverick" who was against his party and against Bush on several things. Now he's running on Four More Years. I'm not saying Obama is the best candidate ever, but godsdammit, he's consistent. Isn't that what Kerry's problem was? Consistency?