Advertisement

A Trump voter's rationale: 'What do we have to lose?'

A Trump voter's rationale: 'What do we have to lose?'
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks Saturday in Portsmouth, N.H. (Mary Schwalm / AFP/Getty Images)

To the editor: James Kirchick’s opening statement, “That Hillary Clinton would make a better president than Donald Trump should be evident to any mammal,” is the very type of condescending remark that has driven so many into the Trump camp. It’s the liberal notion that the unwashed multitude isn’t intelligent enough make a rational decision on its own. (“#NeverTrumpers need to get over themselves and vote for Hillary Clinton,” Opinion, Oct. 14)

Trump is a less than ideal candidate, and just about any mammal outside the political establishment would be just as appealing. And that is the point being missed by these so-called experts.

Advertisement

The average citizen is so sick of the elitist, above-the-law, self-serving insiders running this country that a blowhard like Trump can win. It's not Trump the person that is appealing; it's the concept that the status quo must change. As Trump would say, what do we have to lose?

P.G. Harvey, Mission Viejo

..

To the editor: The #NeverTrump movement is totally bankrupt unless its adherents vote for Clinton.

With only two serious candidates, the math is clear: If you don't vote for Trump and do vote for Clinton, your choice can make an impact. If you withhold your vote from Trump but give it to a third-party candidate, you have only half as much impact.

Kirchick also makes the point that political opinion writers have a responsibility to inform voters as to which candidate is better. OK, but how? I doubt that anyone who doesn't understand the necessity of voting for Clinton to defeat Trump will ever read a thoughtful op-ed article in a quality liberal-leaning newspaper.

Reading this article made me nod and smile, but I doubt it will have Kirchick's intended effect.

Peter Vincent, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: As one of the millions of Americans who cannot justify a vote for either Trump or Clinton, I found Kirchick's piece misguided and a little insulting. That Clinton is arguably more "presidential" than Trump is not nearly enough to justify his lecture on why #NeverTrumpers should support her.

A candidate needs to deserve the votes he or she gets. While Trump is most of the negative labels that have been attached to him, Clinton is proven to be dishonest and in serious lack of sound judgment on several occasions.

If I choose to withhold my vote from both candidates, as a registered Republican I've essentially cast half a vote for her by default. But my choice not to give her the same level of support I would normally give to the Republican nominee has every bit as much legitimacy as those who opt to hold their nose and choose one of the two.

Bob Cunningham, Riverside

..

Advertisement

To the editor: As President Obama once said, "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms nor the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals."

By any measure, Trump does not have the insight or the dignity to embrace such a thought. #NeverTrumpers do indeed need to vote for Clinton or explain to their children and grandchildren just why they did not.

Marcia Herman, Los Angeles

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook

Advertisement
Advertisement