Letters to the Editor
HP
Published Letters: 479 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Reagan Dems
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I need to clarify one point here - I feel like this term is being applied incorrectly to mid-state PA voters.
These people are NOT Reagan Democrats. That term applies to people who generally vote Democrat, but lean more conservative and will side with the GOP over a left-leaning Democratic candidate.
If you look at our state legislature and our Senators and Congressmen, you'll be surprised to see how conservative they are. This group of Dems keep their party affiliation because of the union tradition in the towns and family, but they vote Republican more oftern than not. They care about abortion - a lot. They care about the flag and flag pins.
These are the Democrats that repeatedly voted for Rick Santorum. These are not moderates. In fact, to beat Santorum we needed to run a "pro-life" Senator that had name recognition with this group - Bob Casey Jr.
In sum, Hillary is relying on people who will never vote Democrat in November. Abortion, taxes, and the fact that McCain is a vet will sway them. I think a lot of this has to do with race. This state is far more openlt polarized on racial lines than others I've lived in (MA, RI, NY, IL). Maybe Illinois comes close.
This is not a reliable voting block, and claiming to "win" this group now is meaningless. It will have no carry-over in the general. They are likely McCain voters.
Reagan Dems are located in the SE burbs, around Philly. Places like Bucks county. And these are the areas that skew in favor of Obama.
It's a weird state we have here, so I think sometimes the cover-all labels don't apply here. I'm not sure any Dem could convert these people.
-
What is the impact of cell phone-exclusive users
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My wife and I only use cell phones, we have no landline. Our neighbors tell us they get called all day every day, but we have received zero. And all these people are on the Do not Call list.
Do some polls omit cell users? Typically younger and thus more likely to vote for Obama? Not sure how that is done.
It was interesting that Chaka Fattah was on last night's Hardball. When asked about the margin of victory he said "less than five". That is TOTALLY off the talking points, the party line is to inflate it so that a lower tally makes it look like a loss for Clinton. It was almost like he knew something.
Either that, or Fattah is clueless. And he usually is.
-
Go pound on the table
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Again, C, you offer nothing. My turtle offers more compelling points than you do. All noise, nothing of value. One wonders why you bother posting at all.
I'm actually quite content, since my choice will be winning.
But whatever makes you feel better - since Hillary has no shot to win.
Don't the Republicans have a tradition of calling Democrats "angry"?
Tell me how she wins, or beat it.
Or justy be like Wes and quit on the argument if you cannot make it.
-
Clinton's win in NH
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Was because she cried.
Try crying at your office when you lose out on the promotion and see how far that gets you.
But you have to have pride, right?
And here is the best part...Hillary is still going to lose!
-
I definitely will
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In fact, I will be happy to vote for Hillary against McCain if she can get the nomination without doing it exclusively through Super Delegates (meaning an overwhelming number that clearly tips it for her big-time, a minimal push is OK with me if she trails very slightly).
But you cannot accept that I am anything other than "vermin" that just hates women in general and the Clintons specifically, because this is now the bunker mentality of the campaign. You discredit yourself by that remark.
I have, for the last 16 years of my life (about 45% of it!) consistently defended Hillary against her critics - and she has many in my family, which is comprised of the Dems that I cited in the earlier email (working class white Catholics who
always vote for the GOP because of abortion). But now it appears that some of what they said was correct.
My point has always been that Hillary cannot win - sorry, I think getting 65% from here on out is absurdly unlikely. I do not question that she'd be a good President - a B to Obama's B+...and he has more upside IMO. I just think we need something different. Is that OK, or am I "vermin" because I don't agree with you.
No one has been able to tell me how Hillary - who would be a fine President - can win with the scenario being what it is today. Please tell me, I'd love to hear.
-
And I predicted a 7% win in PA for her
[Read the article: The epic battle for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But since she needs 65% that is not going to cut it. It's simple math, what am I missing?
Even a 10% win means the bar is raised in states that are far less favorable demographic fits for her.
It is meaningless, unless you like moral victories. But this is not about moral victories. It will just get her additional funds to squeek out a victory in IN and lose by 6% in NC. Then the bar is raised on KY and the next set, where she'll need to win by 75%. And by the last set she'll need 90%.
It's a numbers game at this point. If we did this here in PA back in December it would matter that she won by 7% or even 10%, but this is March.
And when people like Cythera change the argument constantly to fit the scenario that best suits them at the moment, I have to call bullshit on it.
You can go back to trashing me personally now because I disagree with you.