Comments:Attorney John Wolfe wins 42% against President Obama in Arkansas primary

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Start a new discussion


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Comments from feedback form - "Bizarre headline. He didn't "w..."100:56, 28 May 2012
Comments from feedback form - "Seriously? Obama wins Arkansas..."023:13, 27 May 2012
I have to ask.315:45, 26 May 2012

Comments from feedback form - "Bizarre headline. He didn't "w..."

Bizarre headline. He didn't "win" 42%, he received 42% of the votes, yet still lost the primary. I didn't read the rest of the article and don't know about his story, so can't judge further, but this is a basic clarity issue that should be fixed. (talk)00:30, 28 May 2012

He won 42% (of the votes); that use of win as a transitive verb is ordinary in English. Had the headline said "wins with 42%", that would be totally different — the verb would be intransitive, and the headline would be simply false.

Pi zero (talk)00:56, 28 May 2012

Comments from feedback form - "Seriously? Obama wins Arkansas..."

Seriously? Obama wins Arkansas, but you decide to do an article filled with speculation about the loser, and treat this as news? Hell, you even use a misleading headline "wins 42%" as opposed to "loses with 42%" (talk)22:39, 27 May 2012

I have to ask.

Edited by author.
Last edit: 15:45, 26 May 2012

Where is this ultra-liberal perception coming from? I spend much of my time browsing websites and forums that very well could be described as ultra-liberal and they certainly don't view the president that way. Though many of them think he will become more liberal if he wins a second-term, there seems to be 50/50 split between them and the real socialists (and I'm not using that as an isult it just seems many of them actually identify as such) who plan on voting for him because they see the alternative as so much worse.

Also, I like how racism isn't pointed out as the ONLY factor for why Obama isn't doing as well as you would think the Democratic nominee should. Of course racism is a factor, it's a factor in every state really, but I hate how some on the left just feel the need to just label everything and everyone in the South (and midwest, and Arizona) as racists that the president shouldn't waste time on. It's one of the few things that really bother me about the left. If they stopped that they probably would do better in states like Arkansas and West Virginia (probably still wouldn't win, but would do better than usually expected). What does everyone else think about this? (talk)17:09, 25 May 2012

The Democrats have essentially made themselves into the party of minorities. They can't afford to be too friendly to white people. (talk)17:31, 25 May 2012

As a rule they're not friendly toward white bigots. As Tom Lehrer observed, "there are people in this world who do not love their fellow human beings, and I hate people like that!"

Pi zero (talk)17:50, 25 May 2012

I don't the the party as a whole has so much so that a fridge that feels that the growing minority population would better help them get their policies past. Yet, another thing I don't like about certain aspects of the left, you should try pursading people to your point-of-view not wait until some other democraphic basically outbreeds what you feel is your oposisition. I'm the original poster. (talk)19:02, 25 May 2012