Letters to the Editor
mdlewis
Published Letters: 64 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Worth noting that correlation does not imply causation...
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's get some stuff out there...
Firstly, the '84 election... They were running against Reagan. Realistically, how many people thought that ANYONE was going to beat Reagan while the economy was strong, and the U.S. was (well, for appearances sake) back on top of the world. (And by the way, if Hart couldn't beat Mondale, he sure as hell wasn't going to beat Reagan.) The guy the Republicans are running this year is not exactly Teflon.
'88? Dukakis was a poor candidate. Plain and simple. Good positions. Poor campaign. Obama has run a stellar campaign thus far.
2000 and 2004 don't have much parallels to the current year as they were both fairly noncompetitive and yielded dull candidates. (Say what you will, Clinton and Obama are not dull.)
1968- Razor thin race. One of the closest in history. Lots of votes lost to the Wallace folks in the south , which may have been the key factor in throwing the election to Nixon. It would not have been easy to get around that.
1972- Hmm maybe an argument here, but I still think it's a stretch. Obama has been on the national scene longer than McGovern had (since 2004) and is far more skilled at campaigning than McGovern was. He has also brilliantly handled issues regarding Rezko, Wright, and bitterness. And quite frankly, John McCain is no Richard Nixon.
1976- Ford wasn't just dealing with Reagan's challenge, he was dealing with the Nixon legacy. And even with all that he still brought the race to within a percentage point of Carter. (More of a statement on Carter's weaknesses than Ford's stengths as politicians, in my opinion.)
1980- In a similar fashion, Carter was dealing with Iranian hostages and a weak economy. He was also trashed in the debates by Reagan. While Kennedy might have done slightly better (and I of course like his liberalism), he still would have had to answer for these issues and wouldn't have been able to do it any better than Carter.
Lessons here? A heated primary does not mean a defeat in the general election. Elections are complicated processes that can't really be explained simply. So let's hold off on the apocalyptic talk at least until Obama gets photographed windsurfing or riding the Dukakis tank.
-
Hey guys what do you think about this?
[Read the article: McCain "glad" to have radical preacher's support]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama v. McCain in a debate.
"I will not bring up religion as an issue in this campaign. I will not exploit my opponent's courting of anti-Catholic extremists for political purposes."
Not the most zing to it, but that's why Obama's a politician and I'm a schmuck on a message board.
-
Black... not a huge problem... Weird sounding Middle Eastern name?
[Read the article: The painful task of measuring racism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Firstly a digression. The issue isn't the percentage of African Americans who will vote Obama, it's how many voters will come out to vote, period! I think that is Obama's skill, and I'm thinking that'll close the margins on McCain in some of those deep southern states. I think if Obama plays his cards right in Mississippi, and I mean heavy duty voter registration, and if McCain lags in those conservative areas, he could surprise us all with a win in the deep south.
That may be wishful thinking. Here's my main point, though. I agree with most people. Racism is not dead, but it is more or less the province of the Republican Party. We can do our best to change the minds of those with a "vague uneasiness", but they should not be the base of our coalition. Fear of all things Muslim, though, is what is really scary here, because I'll safely bet that fear crosses party lines in a stronger way than fear of blacks.
Now granted, I would like to think that Obama has batted all that aside, but there's no reason that Republican surrogates (not officially tied to McCain of course) won't start up the whisper campaigns come November. We shouldn't run scared from that, but we have to be ready to attack it.
-
Wow vitriol is out in force today!
[Read the article: Krugman asks "what's gone wrong" with Obama campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since there seem to be a lot of apocalyptic talk about Obama's chances, I figure I'll post this:
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/04/26/D909IJ1G0_road_to_270/index.html
Since I doubt many will read it, I'll just summarize it. Obama is set as of now to take the major Democratic strongholds, and will likely extend the base to several states that Republicans have taken the last few elections, namely Colorado, Virginia, Nevada, and New Mexico. He also has a chance of driving up turnout for Democrats in the south, and even grab a few states in the process. A few states are in contention with McCain, but considering Obama's superior campaign organization, I doubt we'll lose any states from the ones we had in 2004. We will also pick up Ohio.
So uh... let's drop the doomsday routine, shall we? It's worn out and not consistent with the facts.
-
Guessing we won't see much of this in the future
[Read the article: John McCain's "I care about poverty" tour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With the low letters count, I can only guess that Joan will be back to the Clinton schtick by next post.
Shame on us, guys.
Still, on the right track. We have to start changing McCain's image. It's not going to be easy but it is absolutely necessary. McCain's image is that of a moderate maverick, when in fact he's a duplicitous flip flopper on some issues and then downright crazy on others. (And you think the moderate family values types will be very eager to celebrate McCain when that public spat with his wife starts making the rounds?)
The perception must be shifted.