Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
mickey kovars
[Read the article: Clinton backer McGovern now wants her to drop out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Truth is, the experts are the Clintons. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to win the presidency since LBJ except Carter, who got elected on a fluke, was a disaster and got defeated on reelection. The Clintons know how to take it to the Republicans and beat them."
Um, of course you realize that Bill Clinton got elected in the first place largely because Ross Perot siphoned votes from the Republicans, right?
Bill Clinton's share of the popular vote in 1992 was 43%. Of the 32 states that Clinton won, eleven were decided by margins of less than 5% (which means that the Perot factor arguably tilted them in his direction).
As an incumbent president, Bill Clinton did do somewhat better in 1996, winning 49% of the popular vote. And of the 31 states Clinton won in that election, only four were decided by margins of less than 5%.
Here's a couple of interesting facts about the Democratic losers you cite:
Micheal Dukakkis, for all his abysmal performance in the electoral college, actually received a larger percentage of the popular vote in 1988 (45%) than Bill Clinton did in 1992 (43%).
John Kerry in 2004 received 48% of the popular vote, which is 5% more than Bill Clinton received in 1992 and only 1% less than Bill Clinton received in 1996.
My theory is that, notwithstanding Bill Clinton's considerable political talents, his rise resulted from shifts in the electoral map that were favorable to Democratic presidential candidates.
The losing maps of 2000 and 2004 look a lot more like 1992 and 1996 than either 1972 or 1984.
-
Reality Counts
[Read the article: Clinton backer McGovern now wants her to drop out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An interesting question would be to know what percentage of respondents knew what the words "conservative," "liberal" and "moderate" actually mean.
In many people's minds, the word "liberal" has degenerated into a generic slur, so it's not surprising that people wouldn't self-identify as "liberal," even if they hold views that qualify them as such. That's why liberals have lately taken to calling themselves "progressives" since it makes them sound less objectionable.
I imagine quite a few liberals call themselves "moderates" because it has a more pleasant connotation. I'm an Obama supporter, and I would probably call myself a moderate if asked. But if you asked me what Hillary Clinton is, I would probably say "center right" - which means I'm probably really a liberal.
Also, what do these terms mean when Bill Clinton was habitually referred to as a "socialist" or "liberal" by his political opponents? I think we can all probably agree that Bill Clinton was neither.
Further, is it really clear that Obama is a significantly more liberal candidate than Hillary is? Indeed, on some issues Hillary attacks Obama for not being liberal ENOUGH. For instance, witness her newfound economic populism. So what is it--is Hillary a liberal, a conservative, or a moderate? Hillary has taken the novel position of attacking Obama from the left on economic issues, while at the same time taking some of the same stands of John McCain.
I would be interested to see the results of a poll which asked what classification voters ascribed to the respective candidates. Early in the process, Obama was the candidate who supposedly appeals to disaffected Republicans and swing voters. Now he's being painted as the arch-liberal? I begin to think these ideological tags are mainly used for propaganda purposes because of their associative baggage instead of actual descriptions of political ideologies.
What about McCain? Is he a conservative or a moderate? Well, I guess it depends on whether he's trying to suck up to the Republican base (in which case he's a true-blue conservative) or swing voters and the pundit class (in which case he's a moderate).