Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 399 Editor's Choice: 6
-
There you go again KStone...
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Back to reading comprehension again. The estimates from the four caucus states you mention are NOT BASED ON OFFICIAL VOTE TOTALS because those states didn't submit any such totals. Those totals are based on RCP's estimates. In the case, of I think, WA, since they used later primary data that's fair, but in the case of the others it's suspect.
So the caucus states don't count because they're just estimates, but the results of an illegitimate vote in Michigan with lower turnout than many other less populous states are legitimate. Right?
The bottom line is that Clinton only leads in the popular vote if you exclude votes.
Also, there you go again. I never said the popular vote was part of the nomination process. All I ever said was the fact that it was so close indicated that it was very close race. You seem to have a problem with that fact but you'll live.
And once again, I never said the race wasn't close. I said that Obama won it by any measure. Which he did.
Just like I said, you're very disingeuosly cherrypicking polls and points in time. For example, of course Obama's leading in the polls now and why are you comparing to Jan and why aren't you pointing out the polls since then that had her in lead? You really think people can't go to RCP and read the polls which illustrate the ebb and flow of the race over time and will instead rely on your selective spin. Well, perhaps your comrades here might.
Here's a simple graph: http://www.slate.com/id/2192970/
Do you see that blue line that starts really low on the left, gradually gets higher over time and now hovers around 50%? That's support for Obama. See that green line that stays relatively fixed around 40%? That's support for Clinton. The "natural ebb and flow" looks more like a trend, bub.
Course, we won't have any more of these polls to go on since the primary is now over.
There you go again. Please point the post out where I doubted the legitimacy Of Obama's victory. The reality is that you are so attack dog defensive about the popular vote metric that YOU think if someone brings it up, it up casts doubt on Obama's "legitimacy". It doesn't.
YOU are the one quibbling. All I did was point out those factors above meant that is was a close race and then you starting in with the quibbling and whining.
But I can't blame you, attacks dogs do what attack dogs do. You can't help yourself.
Like I said, it was not a blowout win by any stretch but I have a hard time calling the race "close" since Obama took an insurmountable 150+ delegate lead months ago. Can a race really be "close" if the outcome isn't in doubt?
-
Put down your swords, or don't
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to the rules as decided by the party and agreed to by both candidates, Obama has won the nomination. He won the most states, delegates, supers and yes, the most raw votes by any inclusive measure. He's also led Clinton by double-digits in national polls of Democrats, which leads me to believe he speaks for an even greater majority of the party now than is reflected in the results. In short: the man won and his win was legitimate.
As an Obama supporter, I don't feel it's my job to convince anyone to back my candidate. I'm not even sure Obama owes Clinton supporters any particular concessions beyond what he's already done: Treat Clinton and her team with respect and offer a platform that's far closer to hers than the other realistic alternative. In return, Clinton owes it to her party to endorse its nominee. The Democratic party went to bat for the Clintons when they needed support. It's time for Hillary and Bill to gracefully pass the torch.
Come the fall, most voters are going to make a clear-eyed calculation as to which realistic candidate most represents their beliefs. The overwhelming majority of "the other 18 million" are going to vote Obama, not just because he's a democrat but also because he'll be better for the country than McCain.
-
5designers5
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One thing I've learned over the years:
If you're a customer having issues with a business, regardless of how poorly you feel you've been treated, don't ever start a conversation with the manager by saying, "I'm never shopping here again!" That immediately signals to the manager that you're already lost and there's no point in trying to woo you back, so he might as well let your rant go in one ear and out the other until you finally get tired of it and go home.
I am sorry to hear you'll never vote for Obama. If you change your mind between now and November, his name will be on the ballot. If not, good luck to you sir.
-
Let's get real here, James65
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Come the fall I will be knocking on doors in my city trying to get people registered and get out the vote for Obama. But the Clinton supporters raving about how they will never in a million years vote for Obama! are way beyond reason, at least right now. These folks are smarting with disappointment and they're not interested in being woo'd over. They're interested in venting.
-
5designers5
[Read the article: Democrats, put down your swords]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mike--I'm not sure what your analogy has to do with anything
Put simply, if there's no way in a million years you'd ever vote for Obama, why should I try to convince you otherwise? Clearly, your mind is made up and nothing Obama could do will change it, short of ceding the nomination to Hillary Clinton.