[TonyInOhio]

It would be far more damaging to have taken her completely out, destroyed her political viability and the whole rotten machine surrounding her.

How would "we" have done that, exactly? Even in Texas, only 9% of primary voters were Republicans, and Obama won the majority of them, 52%.

Assume that he had increased his winning percentage to that he achieved in Leftie-friendly Vermont, approximately 66%. He would have garnered another 40,000 votes or so, and Hillary would have still won the popular vote in Texas.

You're blaming Rush for something that made no difference. Look at the numbers. This result was going to happen, Rush or no.

[nyconse]

I have seen and heard countless places that Rush made the difference. He made a difference. He called for this...even if what you say is true. I don’t think it is though. Hillary was smirking and so was Rove. I was disgusted. Even rush has no honor anymore.

[fightinJAG]

I don’t think in politics you can EVER say for sure what is going to happen or what would have happened.

Without that, your argument that Rush definitely had no effect cannot stand.

I agree with you that it may have had little effect. My view, however, is that, regardless of its actual effect, it was too risky and therefore stupid.

[info_scout]

Obama won the majority of them, 52%.

Where on the primary ballot did voters mark the fact they were Republican? You're not relying on exit polling are you? Like a crossover voter is going to tell the truth to an exit poller.