Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 40
-
I have to agree with you, Proud Texas Girl
[Read the article: Whose fault is the Clinton-Obama stalemate?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because he's clearly alienated almost everyone. That's how he's won the majority of popular and caucus votes. By just dismissing nearly everyone. That's why votes don't matter. Only women-haters, blacks, and idiots vote in large numbers. Most other people stay at home, accepting that only a small portion of their kind will bother to enter a voting booth.
That's why votes don't matter. That's why Hillary is really winning. She represents all those people who didn't vote for her. So why are we bothering with this nonsense. Clearly she's winning. Clearly the people who vote for her are the kind you wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.
I mean, he can't win. It's not the majority votes that get you a win. Some people just don't understand government by representation.
-
You're both right.
[Read the article: Whose fault is the Clinton-Obama stalemate?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Or rather, all three of you are right. Because I have to include Jonathan Versen
Benbart is right that the system is screwed up and activists won the election. Kate TX is right that it's survival of the fittest. But Jonathan Versen is most right because he acknowledged how hard the Obama camp worked and how vigorously they reminded exiting voters to caucus.
Now what does it say about Hillary that her supporters, greater in number, didn't care to caucus? I don't doubt that some of them simply couldn't, because they had to work or because they had families to take care of, or any number valid reasons. I voted for Obama, and I didn't make it back to caucus. In fact, I feel like my vote was thrown away. But Obama's group had a larger number of people who cared enough to come back and stick it out through the cacausing. Hillary's didn't.
Both sides knew the rules. Hillary's team surely knew the rules as well as Obama's. Hillary has been playing this game a lot longer than Obama, and she's famous for assembling a team that is exhaustingly thorough, meticulous with detail. So how did her team fumble? She seems to have lost because her team did not make the same effort to push for caucusing, and enough Democrats who supported her didn't feel strongly enough to attend the caucussing.
Which suggests a lack of real support. They cared, but only so much. It reminds me of Florida, which she won but which had its results barred. The Democratic party there asked the voters if they would vote again in a re-election. And they said no. Even though it meant forfeiting a state win and important caucus votes, they refused. Not the leaders, mind you. Not mean Republicans who wanted to control the election. But the voters. The people who chose her. They didn't care enough about her winning to come out again. This is not the behavior of people inspired with strong confidence in their candidate.
I agree at all with the criticism of the Texas system. It's a terrible system and should be changed, should have been changed before this nomination occurred. But it is in place, both campaigns knew it. One team made a better effort, and had more people inspired by the candidate they voted for.