Letters to the Editor
-
Do even national polls now mean anything - or is it too early?
I'm voting for whoever gets the Democtratic nomination, so really, I just want them to pick someone so I can get to November and vote against McCain. However...please recall that some national polls had Kerry up by about 11 points in early July of 2004 (I actually went back and found the exact number).
By the time the Republican convention was over the lead was down to a few points and by the time they were done swift-boating Kerry they were tied or Kerry was behind. Sorry, but I'm not sure the polls right now, even if they show one of the Democrats or both of them ahead, mean anything come November. We simply don't know what will happen between now and November...whoever gets the nomination. Or, has someone here been to the future, seen what will happen and can tell us the outcome, and, if so, can you please provide the following info so I can place some bets: Stanley Cup, NBA Finals & NCAA tournament winners, please.
-
Bill Richardson
To all the posters who believe Bill Richardson is an over the top opportunist who will say "I owe
my career and am still friends with the Clintons," BRAVO!!!
-
joeho
Saying the least is what you do best.
-
@Be_a_Citizen_for_a_change
How to fix your problem (2 options)
1) Put a Republican in charge of creating the rules for primary elections of Democrat presidential hopefuls. The democrats have obviously failed to create fair rules, you might as well try a Republican.
2) Vote Nader, if you really want change. On the other hand, if you like the way that democrats have abandoned hard working, blue collar, union members, by enacting NAFTA and giving Permanent Normalized Trade Relations to china, stick with billary or obama. WalMart loves the cheap products (formerly made by Americans) for their shelves.
Billary shafted middle and lower-middle class workers with NAFTA and PNTR. . . .
-
Iowa is given too much weight!
I think the long Democratic primary race actually shows how dissatisfied the voters are with their candidates. Many of us are not happy with Obama being the nominee and even though we don't want to see a fracture, we are very adamant that Obama is a poor choice for the nomination. We do not believe he can win in November over McCain; hence, we continue the struggle to get Hillary who has a longstanding relationship with Democratic voters.
It is not right that Iowa has so much say by being first...that is why Michigan and Florida rebelled. Iowa which is likely to vote for McCain has given us Kerry and Obama. Moreover, the caucus system is deficient because it usually means going to the polls on only one day, is attended by party insiders, and is little understood by the public at large creating a climate where voters are reluctant to participate because they don't understand the system. On the other hand, a primary is participated in by many more voters because of early voting and the voter can cast his vote in privacy. In my view, the more Democrats who vote in the nominee selection process, the more likely they are to be satisfied with the outcome.
-
Hillary Pushing for McCain Victory?
Jeffrey St Clair has an interesting article at Counterpunch that asserts that Hillary is continuing her campaign despite it being impossible for her to attain the Dem Party nomination in order to damage Obama and help elect McCain.
She wants to be able to run against McCain in 2012. If Obama wins she'd have to wait until 2016 and may be too old -- or too impatient.
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html
-
@lj, Factcheck confirming not debuking numbers from globle
lj,
Thanks for the link. Always like those links. Factcheck confirms the number from the Boston globe, not debunks it.
I finally found at least one site with lots of exit poll numbers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890
These numbers seem to agree with Factcheck and the Globe, at least for TX. I don't know if there are multiple exit polls or not.
However, according to factcheck.org, there are always a certain number of crossover votes in states where you can switch parties. And they've pretty much debunked the numbers reported in The Boston Globe
What factcheck is disputing is that conclusion that Republicans voted Hillary because Rush told them to. Which really had nothing to do with my post. I was more pointing out that purists like billcap would like to ignore non-democratic votes. It does seem that more republicans voted for Hillary in TX and MS than in IA, percentage wise. Someone with lots of time on their hands could put getter an interesting graph, I would imagine.
-
riff raff nadir, anti-christ
this shriveled megalomaniac is twenty years, at least, past his relevant date. Isn't dry humping America in 2000 enough for raff's bloated ego? And you other Einsteins want a primary just like the Republikans have: winner take all, by one vote or a million. And exactly how is that democratic, either upper or lower case "d"? Finally, I wouldn't put it past the Klinton Klingons to kneecap Obama to give billary a shot at 2012. That would mean another four years of middle eastern bloodbath, another four years of bushit economics (and very possibly a depression), but, hey, it's all about billary.
-
Too long
It was state parties that upped their voting dates not the DNC.
Maybe we just allow to much Democracy in the Democratic party, Kind of ironic.
We just have a very good candidate in Obama and Hillary can no longer use the "vetted" argument. I think the Rev. White situation has "vetted Obama and he has proven his leadership skills in the process.
Obama is clearly has a more well organized camapaign and is bringing in more new voters. He represents the "future" of our party and Hillary the past. The Democrats need this new leadership and new voters. Obama will do much better agnist McCain.
Rev. white is a blip and he may come back in the general, but then those racists who care about Rev White are not voting for Obama anyway, and he still has the popular vote. As far as MI and FL. had there been a re vote Obama would have maybe won or done much better. Unless Hillary wins all teh next states by 64% someting she has NOT done to date, she cannot even catch up with Obama. He is still popular among his supporters. Hillary may be ahead in PA right now by 14% but typiclly Obama has cut her leads in the thel ast 2 weeks in every state. In OH she only won by less that 10 Pts. They wre even in TX with Obama getting more delegates. Obama is winning in the high population areas, so Hillary's new "electoral college" argument has no meaning.
Hillary should drop out, and let Obama get on with winning in Nov.