Dear Editor,
I really don’t want to get bogged down in a protracted debate about who won the popular votes in the just concluded American Democratic presidential nominating contest. However, I just couldn’t let Mr Vishnu Bisram’s analysis in his letter titled ‘The New York Times says Clinton did win the popular vote’ (SN, 8.6.08) go uncontested.
Mr Bisram relies on the fallacious assertion that because the New York Times says so, then it must be so. Well, I can cite many more credible news agencies which would argue that Hillary’s claim is untrue. But I wouldn’t, instead I would rely on objective critical analysis. Looking back at what took place during the contest and in particular the problems with Michigan and Florida and the difficulties of estimating popular votes of caucus states, any reasonable tabulation of a “popular” vote would be imprecise. Therefore, for one to say that one or the other won the popular vote matrix would do so disingenuously.
Before concluding, I also want to address Mr Bisram’s claim that “analysis” shows, “Clinton beating Republican John McCain for the presidency by a landslide” and “McCain beats Obama comfortably for the presidency.” I would like to issue a challenge to Mr Bisram to cite the polls which show a McCain “landslide” over Obama. Is it Rasmussen, Zogby, CNN, Time, etc? Please tell the readers, because virtually every major poll I’ve seen shows Obama slightly ahead or tied with McCain.
The ’90s are over, dynasties are kaput and Americans (and the world) are fed up with the policies of George Bush (just look at his dreadful 33% approval ratings). Tell me why Mr Bisram, would Americans favour an extension of Bush’s rule by electing McCain? You are not so naïve as to believe that, are you?
There will be a landslide come November, but with an opposite result to what Bisram has in his mind.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
