Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Isn't It Kind of Problematic...
[Read the article: Super Tuesday showdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that the Democrats are awarding delegates by winners of congressional district when most of the states are gerrymandered? For instance, many states go out of their way to draw majority-black districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act (it's complicated but if you're curious I can elaborate). What this means is that most of the black people in those states are in just a few districts. Instead of their being able to swing a lot of districts to Obama, they'll just win the few districts for him in which they're put; the rest of the districts are overwhelmingly white and Hillary will win those easily. Also, many states draw their districting maps to benefit one party or another. In Texas, if half the voters vote Republican, the Republicans win three fifths of the seats. Now, you might not think that would matter given that this is a race between two Democrats. But if the most reliable Democratic voters are packed in a small number of districts, while moderate Democrats and independents/Republicans are the majority in the rest, that would tend to favor Obama. It would be much fairer if they just took the overall vote in the state and assigned the delegates based on the percentages of that.
-
None Of Which Is A Reason To Vote For The Guy.
[Read the article: Biracial, but not like me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]See heading.
-
You're Sort Of Right, DCLaw1
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Americans are dumb and would like us to run out of Iraq immediately. They're just bright enough to know the Democrats are in power and that we're still in Iraq so they tell Gallup they disapprove of the Democrats' job. But Glenn's post was about capitulating to the Republicans and FISA and telcom immunity. Americans don't have a clue what any of that is. It's not a "capitulating to Republicans" issue, it's an unpopular war issue.
-
That Quotation Doesn't Sound Like Good Writing To Me...
[Read the article: The man who loved money]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]much less beautiful. It sounds like turgid purple schlock. But maybe I'll give it a look.
-
Yes, Obama = Cotton Candy
[Read the article: Super Tuesday showdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Indeed, it's telling that he's getting all these JFK comparisons when JFK had no real substance either. What did Kennedy accomplish? The Peace Corps and getting a man on the moon (and sending more troops to Vietnam). LBJ, on the other hand, got Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act through Congress. You can say that JFK would've gotten a civil rights bill passed, but in fact, he did get one passed, the Civil Rights Act of 1962, and it was worthless. Kennedy's campaign promises were also just a bunch of glittering generalities. His campaign slogan was "getting America moving again," a phrase which he'd repeat ad nauseam in the debates and his stump speeches - as if America wasn't "moving" in the 50s, and as if he had any plans to get us "moving." It's the same with Obama. He talks about this massive change, and his policies are all incremental fixes.
-
Florida's Sort Of One Of The Biggest States In The Country...
[Read the article: Team Clinton: Obama's now the establishment candidate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]so it's only fair that Floridians have some say in who the nominee is. Unless you think they deserve to be punished because the state party leaders decided to move their primary up. If I were Obama, I'd concede this point; if he gets the nomination, I don't think it'll go over really well in Florida and Michigan that his people insisted on disenfranchising their voters, and it'd be pretty hard for him to win if he didn't win either of those states. As for the Hillary campaign strategy, Obama's only in this race because voters believe he'll bring the nation more "change." Yet Hillary's the one actually advocating more radical change (I'm mainly referring to her healthcare policy, but I also understand she's for earlier withdrawals from Iraq). So for her to win, I think she somehow has to convince at least some of the voters that, in spite of all his great rhetoric, an Obama administration would be much more like what we have now than a Clinton administration would. She's tried to do that before but it didn't work because she was too indirect about it and was mainly making the argument that Obama was too inexperienced to succeed in changing things. People didn't like that or buy it. What she needs to do is say that Obama is too moderate to bring real change.
-
A Present Vote's Better Than A No Vote
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, good for Obama for not voting no. What's wrong with not voting against a live-birth abortion ban? That's about the only good thing I've heard about Obama's record yet. Of course, if elected he'll nominate some Roe v. Wade-supporting idiot, but still, a present vote's better than a no vote in this case.
-
Obama's "Valiant And Righteous Victory"
[Read the article: Where the presidential race goes from here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some of you people talk about the guy like he were King Arthur or something. Anyway, the next few contests favor Obama. He seems to do well in southern states (maybe because of the high black populations and the fact that the vast majority of whites in these states are Republicans) and little rural Midwestern states (maybe because farmers are stupid). Unfortunately for him, they're too small to matter much. After Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, I think it'll be tough for him to catch up.