Posted on 03/07/2008 6:08:22 AM PST by fightinJAG
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh led a campaign to have his Republican followers in Texas cross party lines and vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state’s open primary last Tuesday. Why? Because Limbaugh thinks Republicans can defeat Clinton in a general election. Plus, watching Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama bloody each other in a nomination fight is pure sport for Limbaugh conservatives.
According to exit polls, Clinton won a notably higher number of Republican voters than she has in past open primary contests. Of the 9% of voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the Democratic Primary, Obama still edged Clinton 53%-46%. However, that margin is significantly slimmer than earlier contests. In Wisconsin’s open primary, for instance, Republicans broke 72%-28% for Obama. Similarly, in Virginia’s open primary, Obama was favored 72%-23%.
Clinton unquestionably secured a Texas victory, but some locals are convinced it was a false win bolstered by dirty politics. Laura Jean Kreissl, an accounting professor at West Texas A&M University, served as an election official in Canyon, Texas on Tuesday. She contacted the Wall Street Journal to report the hijinks she observed at the four precincts that voted at her polling location.
Of the 181 voters she personally dealt with, 70 offered that they were “Rush Limbaugh voters” who were there to cast ballots for Clinton. “I’m here to vote for Hillary Clinton, I want to see the Democratic Party implode,” one voter told Kreissl, she recounted in an interview. “I was just stunned,” she said. “As an election official we can’t say anything. We just jot them down and let them vote.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Neither! I could not vote for either of them. I suppose Obama would be somewhat less corrupt and would not bring the Clinton sleaze into the White House.
I agree with that as an ideal concept, but when the parties open their primaries and let any registered voter vote regardless of party affiliation I think the arguement can be made that this is no longer a private club type situation. I’m not saying this would prevail at a hearing in front of a judge, just that they could tie up the mess and fight the fight!!
The republican candidate was NOT chosen by the republicans, but by cross-over voting and “independents” that voted for McCain in New Hampshire. That, and the fact that too many candidates watered down the pool and let McCain in.
The Rat party will neither fracture nor destroy itself.
True. Your explanation makes it clearer. Thanks.
However, at least for me, it makes no difference to my evaluation of the act if it was done because Rush said to do it or done independently of Rush.
P.S. Assuming the person who voted for Hildy did so only to “continue the chaos” or whatever, not because they sincerely want Hildy to be President.
Except the only reason there is any “chaos” to continue in the Rat party (e.g., by this GOTV effort for Hildy) is that they have proportional award of delegates.
Want the same chaos in the Republican party? Use the same system.
There are other ways to impact who gets the R nomination.
In the end, it really doesn’t matter how many crossovers voted for Hildy.
EVERY crossover vote helped her, because it increased her margin of victory and that increased the number of delegates she won and, more importantly, increased her power at the convention.
In our system, if you don’t vote for the R, you’re helping the D get elected.
Just the way it is.
Doesn’t mean you have to vote one way or the other or vote at all. But that’s still the way it is.
Surely we aren’t down to basing our conduct on what the Rats do.
Actually, some of the callers to his show on the day of the election, and afterwards, seemed so proud of the fact that they could and did vote for her. EEUUU!! I never could even if the Maha said so just for his entertainment and delight.
Made me think perhaps some of these callers were Hillary Supporter Seminar Callers.
“I find the relationship between the Chicoms and the Clintons far more insidious.”
X2
This "chaos" is part of the democratic process [small d]. It didn't seem to have an adverse impact upon Gore's or Kerry's nomination. We have an unusual situation this election cycle because for the first time since 1928 we don't have an incumbent President or VP of either party running for the Presidency. It is a wide open race. Everyone expected the Dem race would just be a coronation of Hillary. No one predicted that Obama would be such a strong challenger.
Want the same chaos in the Republican party? Use the same system.
The winner take all system [used in most Rep primaries], open primaries, and compressing the primary schedule have combined to give us a very flawed candidate who is a self-described maverick who sided with the Dems on many important issues against his own party. He received 31% of the primary vote and was able to become the presumptive nominee. In sum, yes I would like a little more "chaos" in our primary system so we can wind up with a nominee who has the support of most of the party.
There are other ways to impact who gets the R nomination.
So how would you reform the system? What are the other ways to impact the Rep nomination?
It’s dirty politics when Republicans cross over and vote in the Democrat primary, but it was all good fun when the Democrats voted for McCain in New Hampshire and Florida. If they are going to let Florida and Michigan have a redo on their primary, they should not allow anyone to switch their registration before the revote. If you voted Republican in the first primary, you don’t get to vote Democrat in the re-vote.
You’re such an optimist. :)
Opinion Poll
(3/5) If it’s McCain vs Hillary in the general, how do you vote?
McCain
69.1%
Write-in
8.9%
Third Party
8.8%
Stay home
4.3%
Hillary
4.0%
Leave blank
3.2%
Pass
1.7%
[ Details · Polls ]
Why, thank you! :)
My idea is to jus seat the delegates as super-delegates, not pledged delegates. This saves the states the cost of an election, and forces the candidates to fight over the delegates from now until the convention.
The question then is, would the DNC allow a few hundred "average joes" into their elite super-delegate club? The concern about the super-delegates today is that they are mostly elected party officials of some sort, and could be influenced by what their constituents do. Not so the newly appointed super-delegates. Perhaps.
Are the states delegates already named? If the DNC decides to seat them as super-delegates to be won at the convention, would the states then have a new round of selecting super-delegates?
-PJ
That’s an interesting idea.
I can only imagine the (equivalent of) “walking around money” that would be floated in this situation.
P.S. Your idea also plays into something I’ve been thinking-—that is, that a re-do actually is a big risk for Hildy.
That, of course, is why she is arguing for the delegation-—as pledged now-—be seated.
Any re-do could go against her just as easily as for her.
Also she may even be better off just being able to talk about this issue, rather than have it resolved. That way she maintains her victim status, gets to claim she WOULD HAVE had enough delegates, gets to pander to her supporters in MI and FL and so on-—all the while not risking a new result that goes against her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.