Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 142 Editor's Choice: 23
-
Delegate math
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Iowa's delegates have NOT been pledged yet.
I am basing my statements on this:
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html
The process is so screwed up that a lot of delegates aren't official as of yet.
I think regardless of who gets the nomination, though, that a winner takes all approach to delegates is better than the proportional representation/superdelegate nonsense we have now.
The Republicans are done while the Democrats look like they are running an Italian election.
-
@ MacK
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
If it is the column I think you are referring to here's a quote: "The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters."
He then goes on to compare Obama's supporters (not Obama) to "Nixonland" which is more of a Nixonian gestalt than Nixon himself. All in all, the column is not character assassination. Although I do see his point that Obama supporters are full of venom, as you seem determined to prove...
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman re: The Daily Show
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Meh, I'm not sure that was positive media--Clinton's still lost the 18 to 29 vote pretty solidly. The Daily Show isn't really her demographic.
I'm sure Obama would have also gotten airtime on the show if he'd asked. Look, she was at a disadvantage and did the comedy shows--somewhat risky, so perhaps the candidate with the momentum wouldn't want to do it. Trust me, if Obama wants to do The Daily Show, they'd take him in a New York minute.
-
Fine I concede
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama's always been focused on delegates. I still won't concede that Hillary is mathematically out of the contest as the difference is not (and will not be) beyond the number of superdelegates. Neither candidate can really knock the other one out because of the stupid proportionality (as well as other stupid factors like primacaucuses).
Seriously, if we just did winner take all Obama might be the nominee or Clinton might be the nominee, but at least it'd be much, much clearer and likely not come down to a superdelegate vote.
I mean what's the point of having superdelegates when the only times they count someone's supporters are going to be pissed off in a closely split race?
-
@ L.W.M.
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt's foreign policy "principles"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, my point is Uribe's approval rating (manipulated in your mind of course) is also 70-80% within Colombia.
Hundreds of thousands of people turn out for anti-FARC protests. Really, the FARC may have once been dedicated to something noble, but today are narco-terrorists at best. As, of course, was the AUC--the difference is that the AUC isn't active any more.
-
Perhaps it is time to control "sophisticated" investors a bit more
[Read the article: Twilight of the hedge funds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We had the same issue with individual investors and equities--until, post 1929, margin limits were tightened. Now I'm beginning to doubt whether the more sophisticated investors aren't too smart for their own good too.
It isn't just examples like this--the carry trade, also highly leveraged, and likened to "picking up nickels in front of a steamroller" is also very big. Huge, uncovered, leveraged bets are great when things are going your way but when they don't watch out.
An example--with Carlyle's 32x leverage, if they make 3% real return above borrowing costs in a year they double their capital--of course if the securities lose 3% their capital is gone. Oh well, I'm sure it is a fund raised from investors so it isn't their money anyway.
Oh well, liqidity had to tighten sometime--here's to hoping people learn something from it (which is highly unlikely).
-
The people who board first have status
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Back in the day, i.e. 10 years ago or so, it was true that most airlines wouldn't enforce rows and groups. That made it more frustrating for everyone--I am pleased that they enforce the boarding order much more now.
As I recall United tried the window first boarding and it didn't work--potentially because it was in the period where gate agents didn't enforce boarding rules as stringently as they do now. Perhaps it would work better now.
As for luggage placed up front, I'd like to see more flight attendants get more active with rearranging luggage (as the CO ones did last week on a EWR-SNA flight). That way if you leave your bag up front away from your input it can get twisted, turned, etc, to make space without your input. More incentive to stay near one's bag. It also was pleasant to watch people gasp as their small bags and coats were moved around to accomodate large bags (as I also hate people who put their small carry ons in the overheads instead of under the seat, as requested).
Small bags under the seat, large bags in bins, coats in last--it all works much better that way, people.