Letters to the Editor
HP
Published Letters: 479 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Zenhead
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think a big factor in every Hillary number is this - virtual 100% name recognition and a close correlation between her and Bill Clinton in the eyes of the voters. No one has to "get to know" Hillary the way they need to get to know Obama and his positions. That's a big leg up, something every corporation in America pays handsomely for in the form of advertising.
Name recognition frequently equals preference. That is why I always thought the early Hillary defeats were SO striking, and why every loss she takes now is still amazing.
You and I and these other posters are political junkies, or at least very interested. But most people are not this way (look at national news ratings), they make up their minds right before the election based on little info. This is why "undecided" people had a tough time deciding between W and Gore - when their platforms were polar opposites! With these people, name recognition = comfort = preference. They voted for Bush cuz they liked his daddy.
This is NOT to say that Hillary supporters are all mindless automotons reacting to a strong brand, any more than the Obama supporter is someone who likes pretty speeches.
My point is this - with such name recognition Hillary should be, and usually is, competitive no matter where the vote happens.
Then again, I lack any understanding of Guam or its political dynamics...
-
Huh?
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She runs a series of negative ads and wins OH, PA. She picks up some momentum in IN and NC.
She then starts running positive ads and then loses traction in NC, IN.
Figure it out. Break the code, genius.
-
All you have
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is an argument about 'electability' - which is soley based on your personal opinion. No discussion about the dynamics of this party and its core voting blocks, no insight into past trends. Just some vague mention of winning over white males who the party has never relied upon at the expsnse of its core blocks. This is all just your opinion and some national polls that you cherry-pick on the days when they favor you.
Not sure why you are so sensitive about this. You have to admit that Clinton does better when she goes into negative attack mode. It's just a fact - as her, her and her husband will tell you all about how she's "a fighter".
Am I just not supposed to mention all of this?
-
But Kate
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You never talk about the issues, or any of the things that make you candidate superior - 99% of it is this "electability" argument.
When you come at me with that, the proposition is: "I know you like you candidate, but he can't win and you should get behind the one with a better chance."
I am not seeing that argument made with anything real behind it. Hillary is my #2 choice, so I can see why people like and believe in her. My only complaint with her campaign is that it has gone into pandering over-drive and it is being run like a GOP attack-machine. That, and the fact that a win for her is beyond reach and serves no purpose.
When I talk about the dynamics of race it is never to call Hillary a racist. I believe she knows that keeping Rev. wright alive and well in the dialogue she plays on the fears of rural white voters that she has a shot at getting NOW (not in Nov, though). But that is politics, you use whay you got.
My main points about racial dynamics in this party deal with this - having SD's overturn a pledged delegate / pop vote win for Obama WILL have implications in terms of getting the black vote out for Hillary in November. It will not be there. You can choose to ignore that if you like.
Blacks stay home, and the rural white mean you sold them out for vote for McCain. Because they always do.
Now, how is the candidate that employs that strategy 'electable'? Unless his name is McCain?
-
On 2nd Thought
[Read the article: Tight race in Guam caucuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Either of them will win against McCain if they get the nomination without Super Delegates deciding it. This is the tough part, McCain is a weak candidate and he campaigns terribly. He plays on TV terribly. His policies will - upon any kind of scrutiny, play terribly with most of America. If the GOP thought they had any shot this year, the GOP would have had Romney in there. They would've found a way.
Obama or Hiullary will easily win NJ, it is safely in the blue and the party machine there is strong. The party machione that Hill benefitted from is going to help Obama in the general, so that will still be there.
Philadelphia basically carries the state if there is a motivated African American base, which is why it is so dangerous to get into taklk of oveeturning a legit Obama win. But if they stay home, forget it. Those white working class Catholics go with McCain as he goes to the right with his stance on curtailing abortion rights.
My cat could win NY or CA or New England if it ran as a dem. So many of Hill's big state wins are safe for Obama.
Face it, OH and FL will be tough no matter who runs, but McCain is a poor choice to win in those places. So we have an honest shot.