Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 406 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@kenkapkk re:Lincoln
[Read the article: Does Obama's baritone give him an edge?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's true, historians say that Lincoln's voice was like a high pitched trumpet.
The interesting part of this history is the electrified microphone. Prior to its invention, the higher pitched voice was able to carry farther. So, the speaker whose voice carried further had a natural advantage. It's also why tenors were more popular singers before electric amplification.
Once baritones were able to project their voices as far as tenors, the advantage seemed to change; in politics and entertainment.
Bing Crosby was one beneficiary of amped mics.
There seemed to be something calming and reassuring about the lower voice. A sort of paternal protecting quality.
This isn't just Americans.
It is a shame that we give such superficial qualities (height, build, hair are others) so much weight in our deliberations. But humans do take these physical traits into account, and that's a simple fact of our species.
-
Doesn't matter if it's true or not
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's out there. And like everything else in this campaign, facts mean nothing.
Folks who want to believe the worst about the other side will believe it.
Obama is a Muslim resonates with the bible belt.
The Clinton campaign uses race bating tactics resonates with African-Americans.
What this means in the end, what this does; is build more mistrust between core factions within the Democratic coalition.
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I dunno jebldmm. Why is it when Obama wins, somebody says its all about gender?
-
Obama will be the nominee
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to Real Clear Politics Senator Clinton currently has 242 Superdelegates to Obama's 207. That means of the 796 Superdelegates only 345 have not declared who they are supporting. Currently Senator Clinton has 1222 "ELECTED" delegates to Obama's 1366 "ELECTED" Delegates. According to my count there are 12 contests remaining. Assuming that Senator Clinton wins the remaining "rust-belt" states PA, IN, KY, WV, Guam, and Puerto Rico and Obama wins the caucus in WY and primaries in MS, NC, OR, SD, and MT (Note like IA, IN is a neighbor to Obama's homestate). And less assume that each wins there contests by 55-45 or 10 percentage points. Using Slates.com delegate calculator to estimate "ELECTED" delegate allocations here is what you come up with:
Delegates Clinton Obama
Wyoming 12 5 7
Mississippi 33 15 18
Pennsylvania 158 87 71
Guam 4 2 2
Indiana 72 40 32
North Carolina 115 52 63
West Virginia 28 15 13
Kentucky 51 28 23
Oregon 52 23 29
Montana 16 7 9
South Dakota 15 7 8
Puerto Rico 55 30 25
Subtotal 611 311 300
Current "Elected" Delegates 1222 1366
Current Superdelegates 242 207
Total Delegates 1765 1873
Additional SDs needed 260 152
In short Hillary would need 260 of remaining 345 (75%) Superdelegates to break her way to get the nomination. Obama would 152 of the remaining 345 (44%) Superdelegates to break his way for the nomination at the end of this process. Which brings us back to why Hillary needs the FL and MI in the discussion because it going to be difficult to get 75 percent of the supers to break her way. It's also why you are starting to hear some in the Clinton campaign warming up to a doover. They won't need as many supers under any distribution of FL and MI delegates. Even a 50/50 split make it easier to reach the target. Problem is It also makes it easier for Obama to reach it also.
-
How does the Clinton campaign expect ot take on McCain?
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On national security?
On experience?
No, and that's why this whole campaign is bull. She has no intention of going toe-to-toe with McCain on national security.
Go back to 1992. The wall fell, we had a war in Iraq; the world was going through a realignment.
How did Bill Clinton, a youngman with limited foreign policy or national security experience defeat a President with one of the most impeccable resumes in modern history?
It's the economy, stupid.
The economy currently trumps all other issues with Democrats AND Republicans.
And John McCain has professed he knows nothing about the economy. People can be frightened with external boogy-men; but nothing trumps pocketbook issues.
Even a fresh attack doesn't necessarily help the Republican since the attack would occur with a cowboy Republican in the White House.
As in 1992, its the economy stupid.
-
Obama nets more delegates from WY and MS than Clinton does with TX, OH, and RI
[Read the article: Fox News calls Mississippi for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two congressional districts switch from Clinton to Obama after official count netting Obama additional delegates.
Two ditricts in Ohio will go over to Obama after official vote count, netting Obama a net of 10 votes.
Obama wins more delegates out of Texas than Clinton.
In order to catch Obama in delegates AND cumulative popular vote, Clinton must win every single remaining state with 60% of the vote. In order to do this in PA, she must get over 50% of black vote.
Obama will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone who doubts this is truly deluding themselves.
-
The two con distr that switched were in CA
[Read the article: Fox News calls Mississippi for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I forgot to add that to orginal post
-
Older women don't ALWAYS vote Democratic
[Read the article: Fox News calls Mississippi for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bill Clinton won without them in 1996.
Black voters are the most consistent Democratic demographic.
No Democratic nominee can win without the high vote turnout of African-Americans in PA, MO, OH, IL etc.
-
Lucky to be a black man in America?
[Read the article: Fox News calls Mississippi for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ain't a White man in this room who'd trade places with me, and I'm rich! ...
Chris Rock
-
Chance of unified ticket fading fast
[Read the article: Clinton campaign manager congratulates Obama on Mississippi win]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't see how Obama and Hillary will be able to join each other on the same ticket.
I have no doubt that it is the Clinton campaign that has pushed race to the fore. The black vote Obama is getting is not anti-white or even anti-Clinton. It is a vote made for positive reasons; much different than voting AGAINST someone.
Obama will get a huge majority of the black vote, even if neither side even mentioned race. Obama will not lose the black vote. But what he DOES need is a certain portion of the white vote. There is zero benefit for Obama in this campaign being drwan on racial lines.
So who needs the wedge issues?
Hillary Clinton. She absolutely must deprive Obama of a huge majority of the white vote. She isn't going to win the black vote. So turning this campaign racial doesn't really hurt her like it would Obama. If she can paint Obama as a "black' candidate she hopes to get Obama's white vote down to around 30%-25%.
And the Clinton campaign banks on the black vote in the general election coming home to the Democratic candidate; after all where are they going to go?
So when I want to know who is responsible for using wedge issues to negatively influence the white vote, I ask myself who benefits?