Letters to the Editor
-
@XH
We've been through this before as you have with countless others and yet still, you ignore all evidence and reason and keep saying the same things. I'll try one more time but I really can't save anyone from themselves.
First of all Obama does not have enough delegates to win and neither does Hillary. Even after Hillary smokes him in Penn it will be a split. So that's what the superdels are for, right?
I also don't see the point of discrediting the delegates gained as a result of caucuses. Where were you the past several elections, that also used caucuses?
I'm not so much discrediting them as pointing out that they are no more democratic than the superdels. Obviously they represent well under 10% of the primary voters and are skewed to affluent lefties who can sit out a day of work (or to unemployed persons such as college students) versus say, moms and blue-collar workers. In this case of course they are thus going to be skewed to Obama, but whatever the case the POINT, the OBVIOUS POINT, is that it stinks more than a little of hypocrisy to state that the superdel process is undemocratic while whole-heartedly endorsing the caucus process.
Did you object then? Or are you only objecting now that your preferred candidate is doing badly because of poor caucus performance compared to her competititor?
Er. Did you? That's the real question since I'm objecting to neither. My issue is with the people who argue that superdels are somehow undemocratic and to be thrown bricks at and have riots incited over while happily accepting results of at least equally (and probably more so) undemocratic caucuses.
I merely ask persons practice what they preach.
Not sure how you can say that voters are being disenfranchised, when every Democratic candidate -- not just Obama -- accepted the Democratic Party's declaration that those states' delegates would not count.
That is so untrue your nose may be growing. First of all the Democratic people of Florida never did get to vote on it. Secondly the measure was sealed in the Florida legislature which is controlled by the looniest rightwing Republicans who no doubt did it deliberately seeing this coming.
The majority of them weren't even on the ballot in Michigan! Sounds like you're just picking and choosing which rules you want to follow, and discarding those that do not favor your candidate.
Obama had his name removed from Michigan's ballot by choice. His name was in fact on the Florida ballot and in fact he also is the ONLY candidate to advertise there. (I know I know - he just happened to buy cable advertisements for the date of Florida's primary but is innocent because he didn't specifically buy time on Florida specific networks.).
You forgot to mention Independents, who are even more important than Republicans. The reason for registering them is because Pennsylvania has a much more rigid cut-off date for party registration before the vote.
As if. the reason for registering them is to count on them to offset the votes of Pennsylvania Democrats who overwhelmingly are voting for Hillary.
I could have stomached Obama however reluctantly up to this point. But this was it for me. Anyone who would rather win the primary just to lose the election for his own ego and pocketbook is no "Democrat" I want any part of.
The fact that Obama has broad crossover appeal among Independents and some Republicans is a GOOD thing for the Democratic party, not a bad thing.
Actually the evidence shows the opposite - at best he's gotten 3% of the Republican vote that intends to vote for him in November, whereas it is true that a good chunk of his primary voters were GOP. There are reasons for that too: 1) by that time McCain had the GOP nomination locked up and they decided to play mischief with the Dem primary.
It indicates that Obama has a better chance of beating McCain (as numerous polls show) and it also indicates the party stands to gain in winning converts.
Actually the ONE at all reliable poll that showed that was well within the 2% margin of error and is at least 3 months old. It was probably put out there specifically to be misleading considering it was a GOP owned poll.
As for projecting the election, you should listen to people like Mary S. They've been around more and they have seen this before. This is hardly the first time that a super-lib candidate that has been promoted by the left wing of the party got the nomination only to go down in flames : and it is precisely why the superdels you so complain of are there.
-
Shoot Shawn,
Just come out of the shadows. Everybody knows you're no democrat - you're a McCainiac. A McCainiac on crack I might add.
-
Hutman
You are a person of immense fortitude to give any heed to the hatefilled ramblings of some misguided individuals. Not suggestin' that Clinton supporters are loony. Some are quite coherent, only I have not found any over here. They either replay over and over again or engage in name calling and ridicule.
In any case Hutman, thanks for taking the time and energy to refute baseless blather. At least the dog had left after being exposed as a former stuck in the mud Salon troll.
-
Numbers
Every time shawnnie spews a six paragraph flurry of turds, notice the grade school parsing of reality. If you close your eyes, real, real tight, whatever's in front of you goes away. Poof. Hillary's down better than 130 delegates, and will not- not close- ever get that figure under a three digit deficit. By the time the primaries are over, she'll be down by close to a million votes. She's three quarters of the way there now. Shhhh. don't tell the Hillbots. They think it's still Valentine's Day. A pity, since Ms. Clinton is a good candidate and deserves to be better served than by the dull rusty tools who show up here to defecate.
-
I agree
Clnton deserves better representation than this dim lot of defamers, blamers, and flamers.