Letters to the Editor
-
This Is Amusing
This is so funny it made me smile. So the idea is: The person who is winning by a sizable margin has to win by some kind of nebulous but apparently huge margin.
Exactly how much does this person have to win by?
Is the idea that if Person A doesn't win by enough of a margin then Person B is a better candidate? That seems to be the idea. Clinton is a better candidate because she lost enough that she can't catch up and yet somehow she did not lose at all times, in all places and was not swamped by a total tsunami of votes.
Therefore, she may say: I win because I only lost by a little bit. In the case of Obama v. Clinton, it's not even really a little bit but enough that it is impossible to catch up unless somehow the undecided superdelegates overturn the delegate count and the popular vote.
Given the fact that Person A is ahead and Person B is behind isn't the relevant question: Why is Person B behind? And destined to stay behind? I guess I don't understand why the most relevant question at this point is: Why is Person A not ahead MUCH MUCH MORE than he is already?
The article seems to say: Some people actually voted for the OTHER candidate! What does this say? It must mean the candidate who is ahead is weak. For were that candidate strong, absolutely everyone would vote for him!
A characature of what is behind this utterly crazy notion or what explains why it is taken up by the media this evening is that Clinton is somewhat ahead in the BLUE COLLAR WHITE VOTE. Somehow, if we could figure out how to get rid of that pesky black vote, then Clinton would actually win. So if we count the voters of a particular demographic, then our favored candidate wins. It's like television ratings or something? There's no point in selling to that market? I realize that's only a characature. But I keep reading this same story everywhere and it makes no sense to me at all so this is the only explanation I can come up with.