PDA

View Full Version : Elections Rush Limbaugh is winning the Democratic Primary!


jAZ
03-13-2008, 02:54 AM
Not suprising...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909

The GOP is now gaming our primary for Clinton. It's time to end it.
by JedReport
Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

Now that John McCain has won the GOP nomination, Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in increasing numbers, hoping to pick their opponent for the November election, or at least cause more turmoil in our already divisive nomination battle.

Their choice? Hillary Clinton.

Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary Clinton.

There's lots more stuff to read at the link if you care, but these graphs pretty much cut to the chase.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z142/jedreport/gopgaming-morerepublicans.png

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z142/jedreport/gopgaming-moreforclinton.png

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 03:07 AM
The Hillary camp is well aware of this. Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's the day of the Ohio/Texas primaries.

patteeu
03-13-2008, 10:42 AM
The day that Hillary Clinton and Rush Limbaugh are on the same side of something will be the day memyselfi and I start finding some common ground. ;)

Mr. Laz
03-13-2008, 10:44 AM
The Hillary camp is well aware of this. Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's the day of the Ohio/Texas primaries.
the more Hillary Clinton sucks up to the republicans to trash Obama ..... the more i'm pushed to vote Obama.

Brock
03-13-2008, 10:45 AM
We always knew those Clintons would climb into bed with anyone when it suits their purposes.

oldandslow
03-13-2008, 10:45 AM
The Hillary camp is well aware of this. Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's the day of the Ohio/Texas primaries.

Are you telling me that B.Clinton was a guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program???

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 10:49 AM
Are you telling me that B.Clinton was a guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program???

Yeah, he was. Rush called in sick that day and had a substitute host, but he came back to brag about the whole thing the next day.

Brock
03-13-2008, 10:49 AM
Are you telling me that B.Clinton was a guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program???

Yes. Why would that surprise you?

oldandslow
03-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Yeah, he was. Rush called in sick that day and had a substitute host, but he came back to brag about the whole thing the next day.

Good God...if HRC gets the dem nomination, I swear I will burn my dem voter card and reregister as an independent.

oldandslow
03-13-2008, 10:51 AM
Yes. Why would that surprise you?

Brock, I don't guess it does. I cannot believe I voted for that man.

Cochise
03-13-2008, 10:56 AM
Laughable, that people don't think Dems would be over polluting the other side if their race was settled and the Reps' wasn't.

Mr. Laz
03-13-2008, 10:57 AM
Brock, I don't guess it does. I cannot believe I voted for that man.
i would like to HOPE that he is now toeing the line and letting Hillary run the campaign.

let's hope that all this GOP hugging, slash and burn tactics are Hillary and not Bill. :(

patteeu
03-13-2008, 12:54 PM
Laughable, that people don't think Dems would be over polluting the other side if their race was settled and the Reps' wasn't.

Hell, they were busy trying to pollute it in Michigan when they didn't have a real race on their side. jAZ brought it to our attention that one of the lefty bloggers (Josh Marshall or someone from DailyKos, maybe) was encouraging dems to cross over and vote for Romney because they thought he'd be a weaker general election candidate in November.

memyselfI
03-13-2008, 01:00 PM
And where was this type of post bringing this issue to attention when Baaarack was winning the CONS and Indies?

Face it, neither of the two Dems will win without the CONS/Indies 'gaming' the system. However, the Obama folks are under the illusion that those CONS/Indies really like their guy and will show up to support him in Nov...ROFL

I don't think the Hillary folks suffer the same delusion.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:08 PM
And where was this type of post bringing this issue to attention when Baaarack was winning the CONS and Indies?

Face it, neither of the two Dems will win without the CONS/Indies gaming the system. However, the Obama folks are under the illusion that those CONS/Indies really like their guy...

I don't think the Hillary folks suffer the same delusion.

The independents and most of the republicans that have voted for Obama actually support him according to exit polling. A minority of those republicans have been voting against Hillary rather than for Obama.

This is not true for Hillary, and anyone that know Hillary's history with anyone that isn't a democratic can not make your claim without being disingenuous. According to exit polling in Mississippi 24% of Hillary's vote was made up by Republicans.

Exit polling in Mississippi showed that these republicans were overwhelmingly in support of McCain and overwhelmingly not in support of Hillary. It was strategic voting and because of it Obama went from winning 15 votes to 5 votes.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 01:08 PM
Face it, neither of the two Dems will win without the CONS/Indies 'gaming' the system. However, the Obama folks are under the illusion that those CONS/Indies really like their guy and will show up to support him in Nov...ROFL

I don't think the Hillary folks suffer the same delusion.

So Hillary expects to lose in the Fall? Do you even bother to read what you post?

Obama clearly has more appeal among conservatives and independents. It's not even debatable. And if you think that's what is going to win the election, I don't know why you're backing Hillary after Edwards(the two war supporters!).

Cochise
03-13-2008, 01:11 PM
Hell, they were busy trying to pollute it in Michigan when they didn't have a real race on their side. jAZ brought it to our attention that one of the lefty bloggers (Josh Marshall or someone from DailyKos, maybe) was encouraging dems to cross over and vote for Romney because they thought he'd be a weaker general election candidate in November.

L'impossible... none of us would do that... our guys wear white hats, their guys wear black hats.

memyselfI
03-13-2008, 01:25 PM
Exit polling in Mississippi showed that these republicans were overwhelmingly in support of McCain and overwhelmingly not in support of Hillary. It was strategic voting and because of it Obama went from winning 15 votes to 5 votes.

You are looking at MS, I am looking at the entire picture. To date, they support him as the candidate in the Democratic election. That does not mean they will support him as the Democratic candidate in the General election.

It is delusional to count on these people as a base of your support. They have consistently shown up for Baaarack in the primary and I don't believe they will in the General. Some will but not in the numbers we've seen him and that is why the entire idea of a 'coalition' is a joke.

For two months and one week those people supported Obamessiah. Now, they are supporting Clinton and we are to assume those who supported BO did so because they actually wanted him to win while now they are supporting Clinton it's to sabotage the process? ROFL Nice.

beer bacon
03-13-2008, 01:27 PM
You are looking at MS, I am looking at the entire picture. To date, they support him as the candidate in the Democratic election. That does not mean they will support him as the Democratic candidate in the General election.

It is delusional to count on these people as a base of your support. They have consistently shown up for Baaarack in the primary and I don't believe they will in the General. Some will but not in the numbers we've seen him and that is why the entire idea of a 'coalition' is a joke.

The entire idea of the politics of 51%, which you seem to subscribe to, is a joke.

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 01:30 PM
You are looking at MS, I am looking at the entire picture. To date, they support him as the candidate in the Democratic election. That does not mean they will support him as the Democratic candidate in the General election.

It is delusional to count on these people as a base of your support. They have consistently shown up for Baaarack in the primary and I don't believe they will in the General. Some will but not in the numbers we've seen him and that is why the entire idea of a 'coalition' is a joke.

For two months and one week those people supported Obamessiah. Now, they are supporting Clinton and we are to assume those who supported BO did so because they actually wanted him to win while now they are supporting Clinton it's to sabotage the process? ROFL Nice.

Barack has still been winning the independent and republican vote in most of these states. His margin has just been cut into because Hillary now has Limbaugh and company on her side. By your retarded theory, he should be losing those demos and losing them badly.

memyselfI
03-13-2008, 01:32 PM
The entire idea of the politics of 51%, which you seem to subscribe to, is a joke.

All I'm saying is that Clinton's Indie/CON support is no more a coalition than Obama's is/was. I'm sure they both have Indies/CONS in their camps who are truly supporting them but they are a minority. The rest want to vote against the other person or otherwise try to get a certain person as the candidate for a perceived advantage in the general.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 03:01 PM
Laughable, that people don't think Dems would be over polluting the other side if their race was settled and the Reps' wasn't.
I've never suggested such a thing. This isn't about blaming Reps, but pointing (yet again) that Clinton's support is inflated by political gaming lead by Rush to some noteworthy extent.

jAZ
03-13-2008, 03:08 PM
All I'm saying is that Clinton's Indie/CON support is no more a coalition than Obama's is/was. I'm sure they both have Indies/CONS in their camps who are truly supporting them but they are a minority. The rest want to vote against the other person or otherwise try to get a certain person as the candidate for a perceived advantage in the general.

That's laughable.

All you have to do is look at the tone of this board back in December to see that Obama has genuine respect and support from Republicans and indys. Ask guys like Go Bo, Logical, Kotter, etc.

Also, there is no campaign to get free'ed up Republicans to cross over and support Obama to ensure he wins.

He wins over a very real component of the swing voters.

Clinton had NO observable support from those cross-over voters UNTIL Limbaugh put out the call. Then her GOP/Indy numbers lapped Obama's.

It's an unavoidable reality that you've chosen to sit on both sides of (blaming Obama for being owned by his Republican supporters and now claiming that those supporters weren't a notable portion of his swing support anyway).

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:28 PM
The independents and most of the republicans that have voted for Obama actually support him according to exit polling. A minority of those republicans have been voting against Hillary rather than for Obama.

This is not true for Hillary, and anyone that know Hillary's history with anyone that isn't a democratic can not make your claim without being disingenuous. According to exit polling in Mississippi 24% of Hillary's vote was made up by Republicans.

Exit polling in Mississippi showed that these republicans were overwhelmingly in support of McCain and overwhelmingly not in support of Hillary. It was strategic voting and because of it Obama went from winning 15 votes to 5 votes.

Maybe Republicans aren't as stupid as you think they are and when they game the system, they game the exit polling as well. How does exit polling indicate that Obama's crossovers are for real anyway? Did they actually ask Republican Obama voters if they were really under his spell?

Calcountry
03-13-2008, 04:32 PM
I can't wait until the Supreme court justice tells Barack to put his hand on the 400 year old Bible and repeat after him,

"I, Barack HUSSEIN Obama...." Or will they omit his middle name when they are taking the oath of office?

patteeu
03-13-2008, 04:32 PM
The entire idea of the politics of 51%, which you seem to subscribe to, is a joke.

There hasn't been a democrat who's achieved 51% in a presidential race since Lyndon Johnson trounced some neocon guy. That's more than a lifetime ago for you, isn't it? Maybe you shouldn't be too critical of a fellow dem who just wants to take things one step at a time.

memyselfI
03-13-2008, 04:32 PM
Maybe Republicans aren't as stupid as you think they are and when they game the system, they game the exit polling as well. How does exit polling indicate that Obama's crossovers are for real anyway? Did they actually ask Republican Obama voters if they were really under his spell?

Well there are a few hundred legit ones from the looks of it. :D

http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=og/all

HolmeZz
03-13-2008, 04:37 PM
Maybe Republicans aren't as stupid as you think they are

I can't wait until the Supreme court justice tells Barack to put his hand on the 400 year old Bible and repeat after him,

"I, Barack HUSSEIN Obama...." Or will they omit his middle name when they are taking the oath of office?.

StcChief
03-13-2008, 05:00 PM
whatever works

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2008, 05:00 PM
Unfortunately, partisan mischief like this has happened before. It's nothing new.

It may not be right, but it's within the current rules. If you don't like the rules, we should change 'em. Good luck.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-13-2008, 05:46 PM
I can't wait until the Supreme court justice tells Barack to put his hand on the 400 year old Bible and repeat after him,

"I, Barack HUSSEIN Obama...." Or will they omit his middle name when they are taking the oath of office?

He'll probably just say, "I, the Magic Negro", since that's his only real appeal :drool:

recxjake
03-14-2008, 09:02 PM
Rasmussen Ohio General Election

John McCain 46% (42%)
Barack Obama 40% (41%)

John McCain 46% (46%)
Hillary Clinton 40% (43%)

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted March 13. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted February 17 are in parentheses.

alanm
03-14-2008, 10:24 PM
Barack has still been winning the independent and republican vote in most of these states. His margin has just been cut into because Hillary now has Limbaugh and company on her side. By your retarded theory, he should be losing those demos and losing them badly.
Your giving Limbaugh waaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. :eek:

whoman69
03-15-2008, 10:37 AM
There hasn't been a democrat who's achieved 51% in a presidential race since Lyndon Johnson trounced some neocon guy. That's more than a lifetime ago for you, isn't it? Maybe you shouldn't be too critical of a fellow dem who just wants to take things one step at a time.

I'd say that only proves how divided the electorate is. Nixon got 43% in '68, Bush Sr. got 37% in '92, Dole just under 41% in '96, Dubyah lost the popular vote in 2000 and had less than 51% in his reelection. Reagan didn't get 51% in '80.

whoman69
03-15-2008, 10:48 AM
The difference is back in January both parties had competetive races and it was assumed at the time that the Democratic nominee would have a cakewalk to the presidency. Republicans were voting at that time to assure that Hillary Clinton could not become President. Now that the Republicans have no choice to make in their own primaries, they have the luxury of being able to pick their weakest rival. Polls seem to indicate that McCain is not going to be the pushover Republican sacrificial lamb.
Limbaugh and Clinton are just attention whores now. It seems incredible Clinton would go on a show for someone who painted him as the anti-Christ and even went as far to call his daughter ugly. For Limbaugh's part, he is certainly fighting hard now to elect someone he said when that he could not support when there was still a race in the Republican primaries.

jAZ
03-15-2008, 10:53 AM
As always, good observations and analysis from TPM...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/183631.php

Time or Geography?
TPM Reader EM writes ...

I keep hearing people say that Obama's percentage of the white vote is decreasing markedly, including David Brooks on The NewsHour, and Michael Duffy on Washington Week (sorry--old habits). I haven't seen stats on this, but I just did a little non-mathematician math. If, as I've heard reported more than once, 25% of Hillary's MS vote was Limbaugh Republicans, the white vote that would actually support a Democrat looks somewhat different. The total vote was 420,751, and Hillary got 38% or around 160,000 votes. Give her the 10% of the black vote that she won and take away the Limbaugh votes, and that leaves her with around 120,000 white Democratic votes. Give Obama his 25% of the white vote, and that comes to about 65,000 white votes for him. The percentages? about 65% Clinton white, non-Limbaugh votes, 35% Obama white votes. That's not a great number for Obama, but it's considerably better than the one getting play.

Speaking for myself I think this 'Limbaugh Democrat' line is an interpretive rathole which is at best self-serving and mainly a distraction from the reality of all elections which is how many votes each candidate got. But you don't have to get into this Limbaugh stuff to see why this decreasing white vote theory is nonsense. Perhaps there are national polls that show Obama with a decreasing share of the white vote though the aggregate national polls from Gallup and Rasmussen show no sign of it. But to draw this conclusion on the basis of the vote in Mississippi is to show an almost perverse ignorance of the country's history.

Mississippi is arguably the most racially polarized state in the US. Two or three other Deep South states certainly give it a run for its money. But given the state's history and political present it should not surprise anyone that the primary results were as polarized as they were (Whites -- Clinton 70%, Obama 26%; Blacks Clinton 8%, Obama 92%). The difference here isn't one of change over time; it's change over geography. When Hillary and Obama go up against each other in the most racially polarized state in the country, you're going to get a really racially polarized result.

That's not a mystery. It's a statement of the obvious.

It's true that neighboring Alabama is similar to Mississippi in many ways. So how much did things change between Alabama on Super Tuesday and Mississippi this week?

Not a lot. Among white voters, Clinton did even better than she did in Mississippi, beating Obama 72% to 25%. Figuring in the margin of error in the exit polls themselves, those numbers are identical. But if you want to look at the exact numbers, it's actually Clinton whose numbers among white voters ever so slightly diminished.

Maybe the deterioration will start now. Who knows? But based on the information available to date, the theory is nonsense, a product of reporters who don't bother to come up to speed on the politics in the different states in question.

--Josh Marshall

patteeu
03-15-2008, 12:25 PM
I'd say that only proves how divided the electorate is. Nixon got 43% in '68, Bush Sr. got 37% in '92, Dole just under 41% in '96, Dubyah lost the popular vote in 2000 and had less than 51% in his reelection. Reagan didn't get 51% in '80.

So you're agreeing with me that 51% is a pretty lofty goal (especially for a democrat), not some less than noble goal of someone who wants to continue to divide the country then, right?

Calcountry
03-15-2008, 07:41 PM
He'll probably just say, "I, the Magic Negro", since that's his only real appeal :drool:The L.A. Times, they called him that....

whoman69
03-16-2008, 09:16 AM
So you're agreeing with me that 51% is a pretty lofty goal (especially for a democrat), not some less than noble goal of someone who wants to continue to divide the country then, right?

I would. The democrats stated goal is to try to compete in all 50 states. That certainly doesn't mean they expect to win every state. They want to improve on the mid 30 percent votes that any candidate besides Clinton got in the South. Hillary made it clear from her campaign she is going to hit the big states in democratic strongholds to tweek out an electoral victory. Since the days of the New Deal democrats have controlled Congress for a large majority of that timeframe yet they do poorly in the national elections. They need a candidate that appeals to independent voters.

Joe Seahawk
03-16-2008, 05:38 PM
I'd say that only proves how divided the electorate is. Nixon got 43% in '68, Bush Sr. got 37% in '92, Dole just under 41% in '96, Dubyah lost the popular vote in 2000 and had less than 51% in his reelection. Reagan didn't get 51% in '80.


Bush Sr. got 53% of the popular vote in 88.

So the last three Republican Presidents got over 50% of the popular vote in an election.

I'm not sure who the last dem was to do that.. john F Kennedy?

King_Chief_Fan
03-17-2008, 10:19 AM
Not suprising...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/12/81339/4516/40/474909
The GOP is now gaming our primary for Clinton. It's time to end it.
by JedReport
Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

Now that John McCain has won the GOP nomination, Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary in increasing numbers, hoping to pick their opponent for the November election, or at least cause more turmoil in our already divisive nomination battle.

Their choice? Hillary Clinton.

Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary Clinton.
There's lots more stuff to read at the link if you care, but these graphs pretty much cut to the chase.

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z142/jedreport/gopgaming-morerepublicans.png

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z142/jedreport/gopgaming-moreforclinton.png
like the Democrats would be above this if the situation was reversed.

jAZ
03-17-2008, 10:22 AM
like the Democrats would be above this if the situation was reversed.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4629330&postcount=22

jAZ
03-17-2008, 10:25 AM
At least one MSM outlet finally picked up on this... I don't expect others to, but they should.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP
Seek to prolong bitter battle
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | March 17, 2008

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.

But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.

Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bÍte noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."

Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.

Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.

"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."

Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."

In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.

"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."

Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.

"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."

Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.

It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."

"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.

"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.

"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.

Cochise
03-17-2008, 10:31 AM
like the Democrats would be above this if the situation was reversed.

Dems would never do this. They wear white hats.

pikesome
03-17-2008, 10:39 AM
Dems would never do this. They wear white hats.

penchief, log off of Cochise's account now.

Calcountry
01-03-2009, 12:35 PM
I can't wait until the Supreme court justice tells Barack to put his hand on the 400 year old Bible and repeat after him,

"I, Barack HUSSEIN Obama...." Or will they omit his middle name when they are taking the oath of office?Well, damn, I was wrong, it is only about a 200 year old bible.

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2009, 12:38 PM
Yeah, it sure was wacky to expect a guy with a middle name like that to become President.

Just like it was wacky to expect Iraq to become a quagmire or that we wouldn't find any WMDs. Silly liebrulls.

petegz28
01-03-2009, 12:45 PM
Yeah, it sure was wacky to expect a guy with a middle name like that to become President.

Just like it was wacky to expect Iraq to become a quagmire or that we wouldn't find any WMDs. Silly liebrulls.

So now none of the Dems\Libs believed there were WMD's? ROFL

Ultra Peanut
01-03-2009, 12:54 PM
I'm referring to his signature, which seems to be trying to ridicule positions that for the most part turned out to be, y'know, valid.

Calcountry
01-03-2009, 01:14 PM
Yeah, it sure was wacky to expect a guy with a middle name like that to become President.

Just like it was wacky to expect Iraq to become a quagmire or that we wouldn't find any WMDs. Silly liebrulls.Funny thing, it was tantamount to being a racist, just to mention his given name. But now, he will PROUDLY have it proclaimed to the world when he takes the oath.

Why was he so ashamed of that name when he was running and proud of it now?

orange
01-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Funny thing, it was tantamount to being a racist, just to mention his given name. But now, he will PROUDLY have it proclaimed to the world when he takes the oath.

Why was he so ashamed of that name when he was running and proud of it now?

He was never ashamed of it - no more than McCain was ashamed of "Sydney." The question is "Why were right-wingers so insistent on calling him Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, a name he never went by except on signatures and so forth?"

And we all know the answer to that question.

jAZ
01-03-2009, 11:20 PM
Funny thing, it was tantamount to being a racist, just to mention his given name. But now, he will PROUDLY have it proclaimed to the world when he takes the oath.

Why was he so ashamed of that name when he was running and proud of it now?

You aren't this stupid. Please try to take a wild ass guess as to a possible reason that he might have had. Make a sincere effort to see it from their POV.

penchief
01-04-2009, 12:30 AM
So now none of the Dems\Libs believed there were WMD's? ROFL

You act as if no one was dissenting against the rush to start an elective war. There were a lot of people dissenting against the Bush Doctrine and the deceptive manner with which the administration manipulated the media, the congress, and the public.

If I recall correctly, it was the "unpatriotic" and "disloyal" liberals who were dissenting and it was the God-fearing All-American rightie republicans who were tarring and feathering the pussy liberals and Frenchie-loving democrats for doing so.

I realize that rewriting history is how the fascist right does it these days but usually you have to wait more than a couple of years to get away with it. You know, like BEP when she tries to say that the current neocons are liberals because the moniker was originally coined to identify a few supposed liberals who had a wacky idea back a few decades ago, completely ignoring the reality that true liberals/democrats abhor everything that the neocons stand for and oppose everything they've done while righties/republicans have been their biggest defenders and advocates.

But I have to give you credit for employing the "everybody's equally guilty" tactic that you derided democrats for using in one of your tirades against partisan democrats just a couple of days ago.

patteeu
01-04-2009, 06:57 AM
He was never ashamed of it - no more than McCain was ashamed of "Sydney." The question is "Why were right-wingers so insistent on calling him Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, a name he never went by except on signatures and so forth?"

And we all know the answer to that question.

He may not have been ashamed of it, but his supporters sure seemed to be.

penchief
01-04-2009, 10:33 AM
He may not have been ashamed of it, but his supporters sure seemed to be.

I don't know of anyone who was a ashamed of his middle name. Only ashamed of those who would exploit his middle name because they viewed it as a rallying cry for the xenophobes and bigots among us.

patteeu
01-04-2009, 12:57 PM
I don't know of anyone who was a ashamed of his middle name. Only ashamed of those who would exploit his middle name because they viewed it as a rallying cry for the xenophobes and bigots among us.

You could have fooled me.

jAZ
01-04-2009, 01:31 PM
He may not have been ashamed of it, but his supporters sure seemed to be.

I'll pose the question to you that bunnytrdr has so far left unanswered.

Please try to take a guess as to a possible reason that he might have had. Make a sincere effort to see it from their POV.

patteeu
01-04-2009, 01:53 PM
I'll pose the question to you that bunnytrdr has so far left unanswered.

Please try to take a guess as to a possible reason that he might have had. Make a sincere effort to see it from their POV.

Maybe it was because it would remind people of Saddam Hussein (and of the war we fought to remove him which Obama and fellow democrats were trying to force us to end without victory)?

jAZ
01-04-2009, 02:48 PM
Maybe it was because it would remind people of Saddam Hussein...
Let's restart back here and see if you can try even harder. What other options might exist. Think from *their* POV.

Sully
01-04-2009, 04:01 PM
I don't know of anyone who was a ashamed of his middle name. Only ashamed of those who would exploit his middle name because they viewed it as a rallying cry for the xenophobes and bigots among us.

Enough with this context and intent mumbo jumbo

patteeu
01-04-2009, 04:54 PM
Let's restart back here and see if you can try even harder. What other options might exist. Think from *their* POV.

I don't care enough about what answer you think is right to play your game. If you want us to know what you have in mind, type it yourself.

penchief
01-04-2009, 05:02 PM
You could have fooled me.

That's because you had no problem enabling the politically partisan reasoning behind those who were exploiting his middle name in order to appeal to xenophobia.

penchief
01-04-2009, 05:18 PM
Enough with this context and intent mumbo jumbo

How is it mumbo jumbo when it was seen played out on the capaign trail?

Also, how is it any more "context and intent mumbo jumbo" than implying that some people are ashamed of his middle name?

Sully
01-04-2009, 05:34 PM
How is it mumbo jumbo when it was seen played out on the capaign trail?

Also, how is it any more "context and intent mumbo jumbo" than implying that some people are ashamed of his middle name?

I was sarcastically agreeing with you. My bad for no smiley.

jAZ
01-04-2009, 07:32 PM
I don't care enough about what answer you think is right to play your game. If you want us to know what you have in mind, type it yourself.

I'm just demonstrating how intellectually dishonest like you are being with this line of discussion. We all *know* the issue at hand, you just can't bring yourself to discuss the issue from Obama's POV. It's a testament to where too many people in this forum sit. Don't worry though, you aren't alone.

patteeu
01-04-2009, 07:47 PM
I'm just demonstrating how intellectually dishonest like you are being with this line of discussion. We all *know* the issue at hand, you just can't bring yourself to discuss the issue from Obama's POV. It's a testament to where too many people in this forum sit. Don't worry though, you aren't alone.

I gave you an answer from Obama's pov. You haven't given one though.

jAZ
01-04-2009, 08:14 PM
I gave you an answer from Obama's pov. You haven't given one though.

No, you gave part of an answer from Obamas and the rest from your's.

patteeu
01-04-2009, 09:34 PM
No, you gave part of an answer from Obamas and the rest from your's.

Whatever. You can tell us what you have in mind at any time. Feel free to share. It would be preferable to your tired accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

petegz28
01-04-2009, 09:37 PM
Whatever. You can tell us what you have in mind at any time. Feel free to share. It would be preferable to your tired accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

Don't hold your breath.

penchief
01-05-2009, 08:47 AM
I was sarcastically agreeing with you. My bad for no smiley.

My bad for not having my sarcasm antenna up and running.

jAZ
01-05-2009, 12:55 PM
Whatever. You can tell us what you have in mind at any time. Feel free to share. It would be preferable to your tired accusations of intellectual dishonesty.

I could, but that would defeat the point. It's an obvious answer that you can't even bring yourself to speak as a POSSIBLE thought process from the Obama point of view. You refuse to step outside of your own ideological bubble to allow yourself to see the world from another POV.

My purpose it to demostrate that, and with each post that you refuse, you prove my point futher.

Why would I want to put an end to that?

patteeu
01-05-2009, 01:03 PM
I could, but that would defeat the point. It's an obvious answer that you can't even bring yourself to speak as a POSSIBLE thought process from the Obama point of view. You refuse to step outside of your own ideological bubble to allow yourself to see the world from another POV.

My purpose it to demostrate that, and with each post that you refuse, you prove my point futher.

Why would I want to put an end to that?

I'd just point out that I'm not the one who has refused. I gave you an answer. It is you who refuses to do so. I'm not sure what that says about you, but it certainly doesn't say what you want it to say about me.

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:16 PM
He was never ashamed of it - no more than McCain was ashamed of "Sydney." The question is "Why were right-wingers so insistent on calling him Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, a name he never went by except on signatures and so forth?"

And we all know the answer to that question.Because it was his full name?

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:17 PM
You aren't this stupid. Please try to take a wild ass guess as to a possible reason that he might have had. Make a sincere effort to see it from their POV.:shrug: It was politically expedient?

That's the change we need.

jAZ
01-05-2009, 02:18 PM
I'd just point out that I'm not the one who has refused. I gave you an answer. It is you who refuses to do so. I'm not sure what that says about you, but it certainly doesn't say what you want it to say about me.

I'm the one asking the Cons to do something. I'm not a Con.

It says that you can't bring yourself to even speak the possible reasoning of a foe.

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:19 PM
Let's restart back here and see if you can try even harder. What other options might exist. Think from *their* POV.Why don't you answer the question I posed you smart guy?

From my point of view?

Since you have the power to divine the intent of my heart?

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:22 PM
I'm just demonstrating how intellectually dishonest like you are being with this line of discussion. We all *know* the issue at hand, you just can't bring yourself to discuss the issue from Obama's POV. It's a testament to where too many people in this forum sit. Don't worry though, you aren't alone.Still waiting for you to enlighten us, since "we all know".

What a crock of shit.

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:24 PM
I could, but that would defeat the point. It's an obvious answer that you can't even bring yourself to speak as a POSSIBLE thought process from the Obama point of view. You refuse to step outside of your own ideological bubble to allow yourself to see the world from another POV.

My purpose it to demostrate that, and with each post that you refuse, you prove my point futher.

Why would I want to put an end to that?ROFLROFLROFL

The fact that you obfuscate your own answer to MY original question, by carrying on this diatribe only further illustrates you NOT wanting to answer it, by putting yourself in OUR shoes?

WTF man, you are an elitist. Plain and simple.

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:25 PM
I'd just point out that I'm not the one who has refused. I gave you an answer. It is you who refuses to do so. I'm not sure what that says about you, but it certainly doesn't say what you want it to say about me.All the while pontificating from some self perceived moral high ground.

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:26 PM
I'm the one asking the Cons to do something. I'm not a Con.

It says that you can't bring yourself to even speak the possible reasoning of a foe.You are worse than a con, you are an attorney.

jAZ
01-05-2009, 02:33 PM
Why don't you answer the question I posed you smart guy?

From my point of view?

Since you have the power to divine the intent of my heart?

I'm not exactly clear what you are asking me to do. Try to see the issue from your point of view without any loaded, self serving spin? Sure, I can do that. It might not be what you are asking for, but it's a try.

You object to what you see as a double standard where if Obama's middle name is used by his political oppoenents (motivation aside) it's treated as a bad thing, but when he's being sworn in, and it's used by judge or the candidate or whoever in the process, it's not a bad thing.

Is that what you were asking?

If so, are you going to do the same on this issue from Obama's team's POV?

Calcountry
01-05-2009, 02:41 PM
I'm not exactly clear what you are asking me to do. Try to see the issue from your point of view without any loaded, self serving spin? Sure, I can do that. It might not be what you are asking for, but it's a try.

You object to what you see as a double standard where if Obama's middle name is used by his political oppoenents (motivation aside) it's treated as a bad thing, but when he's being sworn in, and it's used by judge or the candidate or whoever in the process, it's not a bad thing.

Is that what you were asking?

If so, are you going to do the same on this issue from Obama's team's POV?I believe I did, they did it for political expediency. You are going to see one of the most expedient Presidencies in history, with no principles whatsoever. After all, he ran a vapid campaign, which was far and away plenty for all the Bush Haters, and the President Idolaters who think one man is the difference to all of the problems in their lives.

petegz28
01-05-2009, 02:41 PM
You are worse than a con, you are an attorney.

That explains a lot.

patteeu
01-05-2009, 03:21 PM
That explains a lot.

Except that it's not the case. jAZ isn't an attorney.

jAZ
01-05-2009, 03:23 PM
I believe I did, they did it for political expediency. You are going to see one of the most expedient Presidencies in history, with no principles whatsoever. After all, he ran a vapid campaign, which was far and away plenty for all the Bush Haters, and the President Idolaters who think one man is the difference to all of the problems in their lives.

I'm not sure that qualifies as "without all the self serving spin". Care to try again? I left my own "analysis" out and just tried to offer your POV cleanly.

petegz28
01-05-2009, 03:26 PM
Except that it's not the case. jAZ isn't an attorney.

Ok, now I am worried....:)