to the editor: re <u+201c> dear republican voters <u+2026> ,<u+201d> by david leonhardt (column, oct. 25): moderate republicans can vote for hillary clinton because they can genuinely agree with her on many issues. unless their primary purpose in life is to make sure that women never have access to abortion, there is absolutely nothing about mrs. clinton that should scare republicans. her tax structure mimics that in place during some of the most prosperous times for our country. a true moderate has been a long time coming in recent presidential races. in fact, i believe that is why americans have been so unhappy. it<u+2019>s about time. deborah moran houston to the editor: we progressive democrats are in the same quandary as david leonhardt<u+2019>s lifelong republican grandparents. we cannot vote for our candidate just as they couldn<u+2019>t bring themselves to vote for barry goldwater in 1964. hillary clinton<u+2019>s allegiance to wall street, her hawkish stance on war, and other unacceptable personal and political flaws make it almost impossible for us to do so. like george h. w. bush and his like-minded peers, we would probably have to hold our noses if we have to cave in and give her our vote in order to keep the monster at bay. what do we do? third parties are out of the question. staying home is equally impossible <u+2014> most of us have never missed an election. what a lousy situation american voters are caught in, when performing one<u+2019>s civic duty becomes a nightmare. joan wile new york to the editor: re <u+201c> it<u+2019>s trump<u+2019>s party <u+201d> (column, oct. 24): paul krugman writes, <u+201c>it may be hard to think of any way republicans could be even more obstructionist and destructive than they were during the obama years, but they<u+2019>ll find a way, believe me.<u+201d> given the republican party<u+2019>s record of attacks on hillary clinton so far, it isn<u+2019>t hard to speculate on the form this obstruction is likely to take: endless congressional investigations of her emails and the clinton foundation, launched with the ultimate goal of impeaching her. if democrats like me want our chosen president to be able to govern, we had better elect a democratic senate, too, and, if at all possible, a democratic house, or we can look forward to having our hopes for the next four years buried in a mudslide of partisan hearings, allegations and, most chilling of all, indictments. anna cypra oliver guilford, conn. to the editor: re <u+201c> why hillary wins ,<u+201d> by paul krugman (column, oct. 21): let me tell you why hillary does not win. for starters, she does not have any voter enthusiasm from her base. the only reason she was made the democratic nominee is that bernie sanders was cheated and she had no other real competition. she lost to barack obama in 2008 because democrats did not want another four years of the scandals that tend to plague the clintons. furthermore, mrs. clinton is not fit to be president. she is dishonest and swings her beliefs toward the popular opinion of the moment. not to mention that she is incapable of handling classified information. most important, electing hillary clinton as our president will be another four years of president obama<u+2019>s failed policies, which america cannot afford. the bottom line is that donald trump, even on his worst days, blows hillary clinton out of the water when it comes to being fit for the presidency of the united states. madelyn vaughan st. louis a version of this letter appears in print on october 26, 2016, on page a30 of the new york edition with the headline: voter attitudes toward clinton. today's paper | subscribe
voter attitudes toward hillary clinton
noauthor