I would guess,   though I'm not sure, that the State role has something to do with the necessity of using State funds in an election. For instance (WSJ 10 Mar 2008), even if the Florida Democratic party raises the estimated $6 million a mail-in vote would cost, "Florida's process would still require the Republican-controlled Legislature to commit state resources to counting votes and confirming signatures."




An earlier topic: "Clinton would win more independent votes than Obama".

I don't believe so.

A bit of logic to back up that statement about the independents would be necessary. Right now it is a bald and unconvincing assertion.

McCain will get all the independents for whom national security is the #1 issue--do you really think Hillary has any credibility whatsoever over McCain? And Obama has a far better chance than Hillary in getting independents who either want an end to vicious partisanship or just want "change" She has no credibility here either.

If race is an issue, Hillary is a certified white. Big deal. Racists are likely also sexists--so she loses here also. For what it's worth--probably not much--a recent CNN poll indicated that 34% of adults thought the US was not ready for a woman president--26% thought the US not ready for a black president).

And as I said earlier, many of Obama's supporters--I'm not talking about Mudcatters, by and large---will not vote for her, since the loathsome campaign she has run has thoroughly polluted the river she intended to drink from in the fall. Whereas her supporters would support him, for reasons I cited earlier.