Letters to the Editor
-
Yes, there was nothing
to show that Obama has expanded his support except for the huge increase in support he now has from when he was 20 and even 30 points down.
In a sane world, Clinton going from 20 (or 30, earlier) points up to 8 would be reported as a "huge loss, bleeding support, dropping like a stone".
Of course, this isn't that world. This is Clinton spin land, where Obama's gain of more than 12 points in the past few months is not reported as the huge momentum that it is, but instead as "he hasn't expanded his support."
It only means that this nightmare goes on a few weeks longer, but with the damage being done each week, that's a shame for everyone except McCain.
-
"Obama can't close the deal"
True... as long as fear, ignorance and racism continue to propel the American electorate.
-
Shapiro, you ask why Obama can't close the deal,
why in the hell can't Hillary? This campaign was hers to lose. She has had more money, an established machine, more name recognition, every conceivable advantage, but even now she can't catch up, in delegates, in popular votes, in endorsements, NOTHING.
Many of the groups who vote for her are willing to vote for McCain. Their support for Democratic ideals and for the party are soft at best (nearly 30% will go for McCain if Obama wins). After 8 years of the worst presidency in history, these people are STILL willing to throw their support behind more of the same. These are the people that are voting for Hillary. These are the people who care about innuendo, flag pins, and other bullshit long before they will open a newspaper or research candidate positions online.
Americans are stupider and more racist than I ever imagined (the worst part is that their ignorance is often WILLFUL). I have to keep learning this lesson every election season.
To paraphrase one commenter on Wonkette, I am sick of having uneducated people from the middle of nowhere ruin this country. When will we get a clue?
/bitter
Sorry if I offend. I'm tired and disheartened.
-
Never thought I'd say this
Uncle.
I'm done. I'm out. Goodbye.
I do not recall these articles when Obama buried favorite Clinton months ago. No talk about why an established insider with 100% name recognition was losing to a newcomer. No talk of the lack of a Clinton "knockout" of Obama.
And if it was bias, I'd be OK. But I sense it is laziness on the part of the editorial staff.
How do I cancel this subscription?
Put an egg in your shoe and beat it.
-
@ Wearedoomed
Dude, MSM chose our candidates
No shit. During the last televised debate pharmaceutical commercials comprised the majority of ads (over 60%). Hillary is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Pharma, having taken more money from drug companies than any presidential candidate in American history.
Two dots; failure to connect. Mission accomplished.
-
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.
-
Good article - good (and fair) analysis.
This is much better than the last couple articles.
-
Hillary's Wins the Battle With Rove Tactics, Obama Channels Reagan to Win the War
If there's one thing Obama's campaign has struck me as good at it, it's the avoidance of excess. That they would push the ads so hard that people actually started complaining surprised me.
Maybe it was just an oversight but I suspect they took a note from the Gipper's approach to ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union by engaging Clinton's campaign in a fierce competition for the most ad time and then outspending them into the stone age.
Intentional or not, Hillary enthusiasts are by and large failing to note one critical thing. 10% is nice but hardly a 25 point mandate and her money is spent.
-
@ozmaofoz
Haha! Great summary of the Clinton strategy to win by losing by less than a landslide.
"I didn't win by only 500,000 votes and a few hundred delegates. I'm number 2! I win!"
-
Why can't Hillary close the Deal?
But watching Obama stumble across the finish line as the presumptive nominee is not a formula to inspire the Democrats with confidence heading into the fall elections.
But Hillary is fighting her way in the lead? She can't make any more inroads into his voting demographic base than he can into hers. Why is this such a huge idea? Could you not argue that Obama is fighting to stay ahead in the race and that when he crosses the finish line he was able to do it by fighting the typical politics of Washington against an establishment candidate?
If Hillary is such a great formidable candidate with name recognition and a powerful political machine, why can't she close the deal?
The answer is neither can and that's why we are where we are now. Neither candidate can deliver that "knock-out" that everyone disparately wants. As a result, we fall into this petty bickering about a statement or a supporter and it is doing nothing for our country. Do I have an answer? No, but it doesn't seem that anyone with a voice in the media does either. Perhaps that's what the story should be.