Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 385 Editor's Choice: 7
-
@ Karenn22
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Karen22, no delegate actually votes until the convention.
You've said before that SD's don't vote until a second ballot and that isn't true. SD's vote in the same way that pledged delgates vote, with their state delegations.
They're technically different in that they aren't pledged to a candidate by caucus or primary. But they can come out and publicly declare for one candidate or another and make their voting intentions known. In that way, a fight at the convention can be avoided.
Going back at least 40 years, a fight at the convention has meant a loss in November. Reagan went to the convention in 76. Ford lost. Kennedy went all the way in 80. Carter lost. It's the reason the party wants the fight over well before the convention. Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee this year. Her supporters have a decision to make. They can either support the Democratic nominee who's platform is almost identical to Mrs. Clinton's, they can not vote at all, or they can vote for John McCain. Frankly, I don't care what they do anymore. I'm a financially secure older white man in America. I have health care for life. I'm not liable to need an abortion anytime soon. I past the years of educating my children. I'm not a victim of sexism or racism. Frankly I'm just tired of arguing with people who are hell bent on voting against there own interests.
You want to vote for McCain, go right ahead.
It's funny, Clinton supporters were supposed to be the mature ones.
They're the voters who put issues above personality.
And now they say if they don't get the person they want they're taking the ball and going home.
-
Delegates won't vote for Clinton at the convention
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]because to do so would mean the end of the Democratic party.
Since the civil rights era, no Democrat has won the white vote. Not even Bill Clinton. He never received 40% in 92 or 96.
Democrats don't have a chance in hell of winning without 90+% of the black vote. If a Democrat can't get near 90% of the black vote, they might as well not even try.
So, regardless of her numbers in the primaries, Mrs. Clinton will do no better (probably worse) than her husband did with white voters. But if somehow SD's hand her the nomination, do you really think 90% of black voters will support her?
Remember this, if Kerry had done as well as Clinton or Gore with the black vote, he would be President right now. His black numbers were done in states like Ohio (were he actually did better with whites than Gore) and he lost the state.
-
@ karenn22
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I blame the DNC for this mess. They set up a stupid system. Each state should have been winner take all.
The majority of the rules committee who punished MI and FL are Clinton supporters. No one complained about the rules going in. It's a complete load of crap to complain after the game is over. Obama's campaign ran on the rules as written. If it were winner take all, they would have run a completely different campaign. And you'd be here complaining that winner take all is un-democratic.
You think the Republicans are going to change the rules in November to let Dems win? There's no mulligan's in politics. You run a campaign according to the laws of each state.
How is it unfair that no one in the Clinton campaign seemed to understand the election laws in the states she was running?
She blew a ton of money on these people! Thank God the Obama campaign exposed the complete incompetence of her campaign before she could run against the Republicans.
-
If issues matter most
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why risk losing in November on a convention fight?
What is the over-riding issue that Hillary supports that Obama does not?
Clinton supporters say it is important because only Hillary can win in Nov. Bullshit! No party who goes to a convention fight wins the general. A convention fight would destroy the core of the party; with just three months before the general.
So it isn't about electability. It isn't about issues. It's about personality, pure and simple. It's about having a woman at the top of the ticket, and damn her chances in November.
There will be a woman President, but it won't be Hillary. And that's sad, because she's made it easier for a women to get there. But to say there won't be a woman President relatively soon sells short the female Governors and Senators who have worked so hard to get where they are.
Hillary's a little like Moses. She's brought women to the edge of the Promised Land but she herself will never get there.
-
@ indigo218
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Technically, Hillary could get the nomination still. But what it would take is the complete division of the party that would doom her chances in November.
Barring the ol' "live boy or dead girl" scandal, something tragic would have to happen.
Party leader will not let this get to a convention. She could stay in it, not endorse Obama and go to a vote. If somehow she convinced enough delegates to switch (and she'd have to convince a lot of them) she'd then have to somehow get Obama to ENDORSE HER. Since she's broke, she'd also need him to help fund her campaign because she's tapped her donors.
Why would Obama donors send her money after a convention fight?
Will blacks come out for her in Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, NJ etc?
Not to mention, she still has a disapproval rating of near 60% with WHITES.
There's simply no way party leaders will destroy the Democratic party for generation in order to give Clinton the nomination, even IF they felt Obama would lose in November.