It occurs to me that when it comes to nominations, as in many things, the Democrats have got it figured out much more than the GOP. It occurred to me that, as the GOP largely loathes McCain, his victory would have been far less assured had they generally used a proportional awarding of delegates rather than a winner-take-all system for primary elections. McCain wouldn't have nearly the delegates he has now if they had been awarded in a proportional system--it seems bizarre that he's got nearly 80% of the delegates he needs despite breaking 50% in only a very few states. Now, the GOP is stuck with a nominee that many of its members cannot stand.

On a fundamental level, this sort of thing just seems silly to me. Why should a person win all of, say, Texas's electoral votes if, for example, they only squeaked by with a 38-36 victory? With the Democrats, it's all about the ground game, all about how well you do everywhere, and winning 80% is better than 60%, which is better than winning with 38% in a crowded field. How you win matters.