Letters to the Editor
-
Joan..Ditto
Looking forward to more from you...
-
and why does this benefit democracy?
Frankly, someone who hasn't bothered to vote in the past is, in my mind, not likely to have made investment in time and effort to fully assess the platforms of the candidates and make an informed choice.
-
The answer is simple...
All we ever had to do to improve voter turnout was endure 8 long years of the most incompetent and rapacious administration in the history of our country...
Who knew that was all it would take?
-
@pubius maximus
"All we ever had to do to improve voter turnout was endure 8 long years of the most incompetent and rapacious administration in the history of our country..."
And all it's gonna take to drive turnout back into the cellar is more of the same after so many voters participated. We might get a fresh new president, but we'll still have the same old rotten corrupt congress to make sure nothing really changes.
-
Something obvious but unmentioned
Nowhere have I heard this mentioned, though it seems obvious to me. Hillary led most of the way by high single digits or double digits, then Obama got a bump form Iowa. I'd expect a close win for Hillary, and that's what it was. Yes, there was a big move to Hillary after the big move to Obama, but the result is nearly a tie and Hilary's big win is being overplayed. Same with Obama's win in Iowa. If support for non-viable candidates was counted, I bet the results would look like New Hampshire, or if New Hampshire voters had to pick a second choice when there's didn't get enough support, I bet it would have looked like Iowa. We don't have any real momentum here, just a two-way tie for first, with a third place candidate hoping the top two implode. Of course, it seems unlikely either front runner will go on camera and say "Say hello to Macaca!"
-
A child journalist in 1984?
Hmmm... I guess Joan is just being funny here, because if she was a child in 1984, that would mean she's in her early 30s now, which means she probably grew up watching "Saved by the Bell" and that one Fran Drescher show where she talks funny. Awesome.
Anyway, I think Joan's statement is right on. I'm glad people are making a point of voting. Since I am not registered Democrat, I can't even vote for my favorite candidate, but I will definitely be voting in the main election. (Not that my vote will mean much in my state.)
One technical issue I want to mention: Salon needs new background music for its videos! The music in this piece would be fine if you only spoke for 30 seconds. But mid-way through Joan's comments, the music -- which probably comes from some sort of filler-music catalog -- starts letting rip with rock guitar! It gives some serious OOMPH to Joan's commentary even though Joan isn't saying anything OOMPH-ey at that time.
It's a case of misplaced rockin' background oomph, if you ask me.
-
Vote fraud? I see no vote fraud.
No vote fraud here. Nope. Not a whiff of it. Those darn pollsters were just plain wrong, that's all there is to it.
-
If for any reason -- Obama is not the nominee, will his supporters support the Democratic candidate?
Personally, I'm doubtful. Obama better stay healthy. Clinton better lose. In fact, everyone seems awful anxious to throw Clinton under the bus, out of the way, as soon as possible. Forget about the other primaries, we've got our candidate!
It's going to be a long nine long months.
-
I'm a bit cynical after New Hampshire
When a presidential candidate's staff doesn't know what the Supreme Court has been up to in the last three months, that worries me.
Of course maybe they're not completely to blame. Maybe they get their Supreme Court news from Salon.
-
Frankly my dear..
If you *aren't* cynical you haven't been paying attention for the last fifty years.
Wasn't it Bismarck who said something about sausage, politics and weak stomachs?
-
If not Obama, then Bloomberg
Yes, really. I am an independent. Why? Because for the past two decades that I have been able to vote, I have only had one chance where I actually wanted to vote for someone for president. All the other times it has been the lesser of two evils.
That said, Barack Obama is the only candidate who has ever convinced me to give him some of my money, not much, but at least I've given something. Plus, I have decided to be a precinct captain for him. I must say, it feels weird to be so enthusiastic about a politician. But, after researching his experience and positions, and what I believe is a call to action to Americans, I want to get involved.
However, if the Democratic Party chooses to nominate Hillary Clinton as its candidate, I will be lobbying hard for Michael Bloomberg to get in the race. Other than Obama, Bloomberg is a person who I think transcends politics as usual. Clinton, on the other hand, is too secretive (why won't she release her White House papers?), and carries the baggage of divisive politics on her back. I am tired of all the fighting. I want to see politics change in America. If it means I have to step up and get involved, then I will. And, you can thank Obama for my change in attitude.
-
More people voting is generally a good thing
Since in order not to end in a statistical which will be 'broken' by the state court or the supreme court, the margin of Dem victory needs to be 3-5% minimum. Anything less than that and the freakazoids will rule the day. Just don't go all nuts Joan if it turns out that young people vote as their parents do and turn out to not all be flag waving communists.
And Gordon? All NH ballots are paper ballots. I'm guessing you figure the Jewish Mole Men from the center of the earth stole them?
-
@Gordon
Two things:
1. Clinton did better than Obama in municipalities that use electronic voting machines ( to count paper ballots). These municipalities also TEND TO BE LARGER. Occam's Razor says that the results show that "cities like Hillary."
2. If the Obama campaign thought the books had been cooked, why aren't they demanding a recount? The paper ballots are there, they could be hand counted, if anyone wanted to go to the trouble. The fact that the people who, in your theory, are being defrauded, aren't objecting to the "fraud," leads me to believe that they think #1 is the answer.