If you're new here and enjoyed what you read, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed so you don't miss a thing. Thanks for visiting!

You know, it just makes me grumpy when I see the title of an article, think that the article is going to say one thing, and then when I click on it to read it, I end up finding something else completely different. It tends to make me a bit…testy, to say the least.

That happened today when I saw the article title, “Massachusetts GOP Rebuffs Mitt on Delegate Policy.” I clicked on the article and found out that the Republican party in Massachusetts used to delegate the votes in the primary based on the percentage of votes that the candidate won (so if Mitt gets 40% of the votes of Republicans in Mass., then he would get 40% of the delegate votes). Then in 1995, they changed that to a winner-takes-all method, and now they have finally changed it back to proportional voting again.

Why does this relate to Mitt? Well, you finally find out this, five paragraphs in:

“While several Romney supporters on the committee pushed for the winner-take-all policy, Torkildsen said that the Romney campaign did not press for the winner-take-all vote, and that at least two members backing Romney voted against it.”

So you have several Romney supporters for the winner-take-all policy, several against, and the Romney campaign neutral on the subject. And yet when the winner-take-all policy was rolled back, somehow this was a defeat (or “rebuff”) of Mitt Romney?

How do these journalists sleep at night, honestly? I just don’t get it.

Havs

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!