TX Primary vs. Caucus Vote Validity

Email Print posted by Verified1 03/06/2008 03:52:41 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
What Was the Role of Dittoheads Here?

I wonder how much of this Texas caucus result reflects the developing phenomenon of Republicans who are voting for Sen. Clinton in open primaries, because they think she will lose against McCain?

I suspect that these folks might be less likely to spend time in long caucus lines, having felt they "did their part" for the right wing by casting their primary vote for HRC.


Here's a link to link to Limbaugh on Fox News (I promise it's short - just hold your breath to avoid the smell).

http://youtube.com/watch?v= IWZEC_yt-wM
< Howard Dean's Latest Statement Re: Ghost Delegates | Clinton drives another bus into another ditch >
 Display:
TX Primary vs. Caucus Vote Validity | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
We're just trying to help. (none / 0)
You guys seem to be having problems when it comes to deciding upon a candidate, so GOP voters are participating in the democratic process, just to make things more interesting. When Barack gets a lead, we help Hillary. When Hillary retakes the lead, we help Barack.

We want you guys spending $70 million of hard-earned Democrat money every month, all the way to September.

Rush Limbaugh calls this the "We Got Screwed!" primary, because at the end of the process, a major Democrat Party constituency will be left feeling disenfranchised.

You want to run a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket after the two candidates spent a year beating the hell out of each other? Be my guest.

Hey, by the way. Where the hell is BIG WALKIN', BIG TALKIN', Zippy these days? I want to hear some more of his big talk!

by KenTX on 03/06/2008 08:59:18 PM EST

Screwed vs. Choice (none / 0)
Not quite sure where you were going with that post, KenTX. Perhaps the Dems are having trouble because they feel they have 2 good candidates, whereas the Repubs saw early on that most of their candidates were not worth a vote. There are always a couple of ways to see these things. I don't see the Dems staying home in November if their favored candidate doesn't head the ticket. There is after all, a greater good.

by Verified1 on 03/07/2008 03:00:56 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Greater good (none / 0)
Have you been reading some of the postings here? The hatred for Clinton is unbelievable and this is a "liberal" site.

The best part is no one can me why

by LORD FOUL on 03/07/2008 06:19:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Larry David can tell you why (none / 1)
Here is a post by Larry David on the Huffington Post

" Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones."

--------------------------- ----

The only difference between Hillary and Joseph Lieberman is that she hasn't actually kissed Bush yet.

by Chinese Democracy on 03/07/2008 09:39:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks (none / 0)
Thanks for proving my point

she's sybil, diagnosis by an avowed Hillary hater! That proves it. How could I have been so blind. Question: When and where did he get his doctorate in psychology.

People like him said similar things about Gore. Our wonderful liberal media at work

How about YOU tell me why you hate Clinton? You tell me how Obama's policies differ from Clinton's?

by LORD FOUL on 03/07/2008 05:25:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yea its evident he doesnt like Hillary... sue him (none / 1)
Why does he need a doctorate in psychology to formulate an opinion on her based on what he has seen?

by Chinese Democracy on 03/07/2008 07:59:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Just like the NFL. (none / 0)
Whenever a team says "We've got two good quarterbacks", it really means they don't have a good QB. Otherwise, there would be no controversy. The starter would be obvious to all.

by KenTX on 03/07/2008 06:53:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
NFL (none / 0)
KenTx - some of us were having a good time on the last primary night taking a vodka shot each time one of the Turks made a sports analogy. Neeedless to say, there were ample opportunities. Thanks for encouraging me to revive that tonight.

by Verified1 on 03/09/2008 04:41:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Repub % of Dem vote (none / 0)
There have been some excellent arguments on the other blog on this topic (sorry I didn't see it before I started this thread) that demonstrate why the dittohead vote likely didn't play a significant role in HRC's slim TX primary win.
 
But that still doesn't explain the caucus vote for Obama. Yes he has an energized and devoted grassroots organization, but HRC folks seemed just as eager. Do you think her primary vote was higher just because she got that much more name recognition, and her voters were not so much willing to wait in caucus lines as Obama die-hards were? Seems like a pretty big discrepancy in Primary vs. Caucus votes is lining up here.

by Verified1 on 03/07/2008 04:48:51 AM EST

Caucuses are closed (none / 0)

In most cases, participants must declare their support for a candidate in public, but not always. That's the way it has been done, although secret ballots could be the method of choice if decided when the caucus rules are set for each state.

In Texas there's a law that requires employers to allow/encourage their employees to participate in caucuses. The claim that working people couldn't leave work to vote is bogus. Also, the lines at voting precincts are long, so long lines for caucuses is also a bogus excuse.

The main reason Obama did better than Clinton is that his campaign was more organized and enthusiastic with a positive attitude, and he doesn't have to depend on crossover mischief to get votes. His crossover votes are mostly from people who are switching parties for good.

by zenie on 03/07/2008 12:37:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks Zenie (none / 0)
Interesting response, thanks.

by Verified1 on 03/09/2008 01:41:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
How to determine Republican mischief (none / 0)

In one area near Dallas there were over 12,000 ballots with undervotes, meaning that crossover voters only voted for Hillary and not for anyone else in local contests. In one Ohio county, over 40% of the Republicans crossed over to vote in the Democratic primary.

What those voters did was probably perfectly legal in those states. Party primaries must be closed so that only party members can vote. Those who want to vote in a primary must declare their party choice ahead of time. When they change parties, they shouldn't be allowed to change again for a year. 

by zenie on 03/07/2008 12:28:09 PM EST

I voted in the Democrat Primary (none / 0)
So did several of my friends and family members. It was perfectly legal and fun for everyone! When the Supreme Court rules that Voter I.D is constitutional, liberals will flip out. They want to restrict legal voting, not fraudulant voting.

by KenTX on 03/08/2008 02:04:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The War on Dumbass (none / 0)

You often use "legal" as a euphemism for "wrong but not punishable."  How about restricting uneducated voting?  That would be a step in the right direction.

by OneHitKill on 03/08/2008 04:37:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't be fair (none / 0)
"How about restricting uneducated voting?"

That law would strongly favor the liberals, as the'd be just about the only people left allowed to vote.  Hardly fair to the herds out there.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 03/08/2008 12:15:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Average Democrat IQ = 85 (none / 0)
“That law would strongly favor the liberals, as they'd be just about the only people left allowed to vote.”

Here’s a clip from 60 Minutes, featuring one of those intelligent, educated liberals to which you refer.

The left side of this curve is made up of Democrat voters. They cast votes with the singular goal of forcing the government to shift wealth from the right side of the curve to the left side.
dumbass dems 

by KenTX on 03/09/2008 12:22:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You fall for a common fallacy (none / 0)
I didn't say all liberals were intelligent, only that all intelligent people are liberals.  Think about it; if the concept bends your brain, well, of course it does.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 03/09/2008 12:21:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Second Sight (none / 0)
I am always amused by extraordinary superhuman claims, such as:
 
1. Being able to read minds (more often than not the minds of those with whom the mindreader disagrees),
 
2. Being able to declare how dead heros would view curent evdents (all hail the fallen Gipper), and
 
3. Being able to predict how others will act given such and such an event (ie. voter IDs).

by Verified1 on 03/09/2008 01:47:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Closed Party Primaries (none / 0)
Zenie, On the surface, closed primaries would seem to solve the problem of "jamming" a viable candidate. But there are a few problems with them, as I see it. One is that last minute developments could prevent members of an opposing party from crossing over and supporting a candidate they sincerely wanted to support.  Another problem is that there are scheming people (we all know we are out there for sale to the highest bidder) who will change their party affiliation well  in advance, just to be "sleepers" for the eventual goal of jamming a candidate their original party fears.  I don't see an easy solution here to the crossover, except to find an extraordinary candidate who is willing to put up with the horros of political smear in order to attainthe higher good. There aren't many of them out there., Hope we have one this year who will continue to take the high road away from the mud.

by Verified1 on 03/09/2008 04:27:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
TX Primary vs. Caucus Vote Validity | 19 comments (19 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: