Hillary Clinton’s political baggage

Re “The polarizing express,” Opinion, Dec. 16

Ezra Klein’s article misses entirely the most important issue regarding Hillary Clinton’s negative numbers -- her effect on the Senate races for seats currently held by Republicans that Democrats have a chance to win. If Clinton is the eventual Democratic nominee for president, I expect she will win in November, as I expect would another Democrat. What sets Clinton apart from the other Democratic presidential candidates is that she provides a reason for some people who would otherwise not vote to go to the polls just to vote against her. I expect most of this cohort leans Republican and, while voting against her, will also vote for a Republican Senate candidate.

The Republican senators have proved that they can stall all significant legislative initiatives. The Democrats have been unable to effectively pin this failure of progress on the Republicans. Consequently, the Democratic Senate and House appear impotent and floundering. It is imperative that Democrats reduce the number of Republicans in the Senate so a Democratic president can move a Democratic agenda into effect. Even if it means forgoing a historic election.

Patrick Johnston

Balboa Island

--

The big omission from Klein’s Op-Ed article dismissing Clinton’s polarization potential is his selective amnesia of the Ross Perot factor. He claims that Bill Clinton had high negatives but won his election and reelection. There probably would not have been a Clinton presidency except for Perot, who stole conservative votes. Hillary Clinton doesn’t have that edge, at least not yet, unless Ron Paul runs as an independent. It is more likely that Ralph Nader will run if Clinton is the nominee, making her chances worse.

Arlene Williams

Sparks, Nev.

--

Klein poses a lot of questions about the polarizing effect of our presidential selection process, but he has no idea how politics works. The wedge issues dividing Republicans from Democrats are less important than the polarization that goes unchecked in our country between voters and nonvoters. More than half of Americans do not vote, yet every political article uses the term “voters” when referring to the electorate. There are millions of nonvoters in this country. Can people like Klein ever come up with answers while ignoring the problem?

Lawrence Gaughan

Hollywood