Letters to the Editor
-
OOH! OOH!
I can answer this one!!
" They will be convinced in Denver on the basis of WHO can take the big, electoral vote rich states. Now, I wonder who that is, exactly?"
that would be EITHER of them!
(remember these big states are referred to as "Democratic" States, not "Clinton" States.)
-
@ Reality-Based Liberal 3/10 5:35 (I think)
I think, but am not sure, that RBL's dislike of "A and B" language was directed at me; it looks like I was the first to use it on this thread. So I'd like to clarify.
I did NOT say or imply that there was no difference between the Dems on quality, ability, relative honesty, or relative negativity. I find significant differences, and you and I, RBL, are on the same page with who we support.
However, I used the variables because I was trying to direct attention to another issue, and getting into the relative merits of the candidates tends to cloud that issue: to wit, intra-Democratic disagreements do not necessarily indicate anything about the general electorate.
In a nutshell, I thought that Madden's article, like many, acts as if everyone is either a Democrat or a Republican. This is not true, and millions of people with weak or no party affiliation do vote in the GE. The party bases are imporant to winning the nominations, but much less so with the voter pool in the general. And this is true independent of the merits or demerits of our remaining options in the primary.
This is the main reason why I don't think Clinton's argument that she does better with the basic blue-collar white Dem voter has much bearing on her electability in the general -- just to name a name and specify one of the applications of these facts to the current situation.
But it does seem to me that party membership means you vote for the party, no matter who its nominee is -- and even if you thought, however so correctly, the other nominee was better. The party member subordinates his or her own preferences to the good of the party.
And yes, I wish HRC were better at that than she is.
But I'm lousy at it -- so I'm a liberal independent who has had it with voting the lesser of two evils instead of my own conscience. Now I'm waiting to find out if I have to go third-party or write-in if the Dems fail to grasp a golden opportunity to bring people in.
-
Obama ALL TALK...NO EXPERIENCE
Watch the movie Tribulations and you'll think twice about voting for
Obama. Besides his MASSIVE lack of experience ( I DO NOT want a
rookie answering that phone call at 3am), he is a former
Muslim....former? According to that religion the only thing that is
former are the SOULS that use to be in places like the Twin Towers.
How can we possible be voting for a man with HUSSAN in his
name...Obama-Osama....There's just toooooo many signs here pointing
in the wrong direction. He has NO resume, all he's done is TALK.
People are voting on words alone. Anyone can say anything.....after
all aren't we in a war because someone SAID "no, I have no weapons of
mass destruction" Watch Tribulations tonight WITH your
children.....then decide.... A strong, experienced, American,
NON-muslim (ever) candidate with a resume OR a play on names with
MAJOR terrorists no experienced former muslim. After all these flag
waving songs, "be an American" forwarded e-mails and yellow ribbons
on trees, it's hard to believe we'd even consider him.
-
@ Diotima
I was not referring to you; if you were the first to use the language "A or B" that is pure chance.
It's odd that you picked out a response to me because I recall reading your post and thinking "right on."
I am not so loyal to the Dems that I will vote for whoever they put up. I am independent like you for the reasons you stated so eloquently. If you construed something else it was only because I took Clinton to be a party member (which I think is fair) and she has vaunted the other party's candidate over her own, at the expense of issues her party claims to matter.
-
@ droogy
So let me get back to you point by point:
Junior Senator: so you opposed Kerry (junior senator) and currently oppose Clinton (junior senator).
Big states: you think because Clinton won New York and California that this proves that Obama would lose those states to an entirely different candidate -- a right-winger?
If the Democratic primary was "winner take all" like the GOP's: yes, Clinton would be in the lead. Go ahead, join the GOP if you prefer that system.
-
Is droogoy still hawking his wares?
HRC has won CA, NY, TX, OH and other states that tally 263 electoral votes in all. Obie has won in states that total 193. And most of those are hard core red reep states, that will not go his way in the fall. They will go to McCain, because the white conservatives in those states will outnumber the blacks that went for Obie in the primaries. THAT is your basic math!
California and New York haven't elected a Republican in decades. Are you claiming they'll go for McCain if Obama takes the Democratic nod, just because Hillary won the primary? On what basis do you make this claim?
Texas hasn't elected a Democrat in decades, and it's not about to start now. Furthermore, it's an open primary state, and it's well known that various right wingers urged Texans to vote for HILLARY in the primary. Why? Because she'll be the easiest to beat?
Your silly little game of trying to extrapolate general election results from primary results has absolutely no basis in facts or logic. Why do you persist?
-
Why I'm not participating here.
The same old shrill energy creatures making the same tired shrill arguments that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the electoral math to win an election, which should have been the ONLY thing we were talking about for the past year.
-
Obama Logic
I notice that according to Obama's supporters, if a lot of Republicans vote for Obama in any given primary, it's because he's changed their minds and they're ready to vote for him in the General Election. But if a lot of Republicans vote for Hillary in any given primary, it's because they're trying to affect the outcome of the primary in order to get a weaker Democrat on the ticket in November.
Similarly, if the Democratic Party decided to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan, that would be "changing the rules in the middle of the game." Never mind that the rules are grossly unfair in that it they give a weird amount of power to tiny, unrepresentative states; Michigan and Florida broke the sacred Iowa rule, so their voters have no say.
Fair enough. But the same Obama activists want to forbid Superdelegates from exercising their right to overturn the decision of pledged delegates. "The will of the people," they splutter. "If Hillary forces herself down the voters' throats it will be a bloodbath. The rules that allow the superdelegates to go against the will of the people are unfair!"
Wait a minute, though! How come it's okay to "change the rules in the middle of the game" if it helps your guy?
The same reason the exact same evidence of Republicans voting for a Democrat means something different depending on which Democrat. Because they just want their guy win, and they don't care how.