home

Republicans Turning Out for Obama in Texas

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:11:46 PM EST
Tags: Texas '08, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Houston Chronicle reports on the increase in Republicans voting in the Democratic primary to ensure Hillary doesn't win. Some examples:

There is scattered evidence across the state that some Republicans may be voting Democratic, at least for a day. In one precinct in the suburban Houston neighborhood of Kingwood, where 82 percent of voters cast ballots for President Bush in 2004, Democrats were outvoting Republicans 4-to-1 last week in early voting.

....Daron Shaw, a political science professor at University of Texas, said surveys he conducted in two state legislative districts in the Dallas-Fort Worth area revealed that almost a quarter of voters with a history of voting in GOP primaries planned on participating in the Democratic primary.

Here's a Texas pollster:

"The argument I've seen is, 'Let's get rid of Clinton once and for all,' " said Ralph Bordie, who conducts the IVR Poll in Texas.

Bordie's latest statewide poll released last week found that 15 percent of Texas Republicans who said they will support the GOP nominee in November plan nonetheless on voting for Obama next week.

I complained about this last week. I'm still complaining. Democrats, not Republicans and Independents, should pick our party's nominee.

Update: Pamela at the Democratic Daily weighs in on this.

< Appealing To "Values" Voters | The Media Against Hillary Clinton? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans Turning Out for Obama in Texas | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Rush (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    is telling them to vote for Clinton.

    And of course no one takes him (none / 0) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:42:51 PM EST
    seriously, given what he has said about Clinton in the past.

    Parent
    Well his reasoning (none / 0) (#29)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    is that Clinton is doing all the dirty work for the Republican party right now and the longer the primary the better for them.

    Parent
    No thinking people take Rush seriously (none / 0) (#53)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    But plenty of Republicans do.

    Parent
    reps fro Obama (none / 0) (#45)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:15:23 PM EST
    The local San Antonio right wing radio announcers are also asking for Republicans to vote for Obama in the primary.

    Parent
    Independents (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:16:12 PM EST
    While, I would agree in regards to Repub.'s ( I'm not sure the impact of Rep. crossover is that great there was 9% GOP cross in WI and 6% Dem cross), I think that a good argument can be made about allowing independents to vote in the primaries:

    -They are who decide the election
    -Those who vote for a party in the primary are thought to be more likely to vote for that same party in the general
    -It helps with voter self-identification(thus allowing indies not only helps win, its a party building activity).

    National Review wants Clinton to win too (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by zzyzx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    Source.

    However, I don't think it makes that much of a difference either way.  The percentage of people who are so tied into politics that they will vote in the opposition's party to play games is pretty minor compared to those who care about the issues.

    How many people really are going to drive to the polling booths, wait in line, and vote, just for a political prank.  Few are that motivated.

    I disagree with you (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:27:34 PM EST
    If a party has their nominee secured they will cross over and vote for the weakest candidate so their chances of winning the GE will be greater. It is human nature to lessen the competition.

    Parent
    The diehards will (none / 0) (#23)
    by zzyzx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    I'm just saying that the right hand side of the bell curve isn't that large of a population.  

    Sure people will talk about it, but ultimately they can usually find something better to do than that.  That's why we need GOTV organizations in the first place.  

    Factor in that the spoilers can't decide if they should be voting for Clinton to muddle the Democratic picture or to vote for Obama to get rid of someone they hate, and this isn't going to cause the needle to move much either way IMO.

    Parent

    In TX (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:05:26 PM EST
    that right hand side of the bell curve is practically the whole enchilada.  Crossing over by republicans has been used as an effective strategy in TX before, though only in localities.  They know how to get it done.


    Parent
    Again and again . . . (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    It's a GOP bloodsport in Wisconsin, whenever they have their slate set. I keep saying it, but -- do see 1964 primaries in Wisconsin. Is that really where you would expect George Wallace to have done well?

    Parent
    it's a huge number (none / 0) (#48)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:18:55 PM EST
    I saw another poll (can't find it now, sorry) where 20% of Republicans in Texas are voting for a Democrat.  That is a very large number as there are lots of those critters out this way.

    Parent
    Here come (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    the excuses.

    This is only the latest excuse. Others include: (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    --caucusesd don't really count
    --red states don't really count
    --small states don't really count
    --winning heavily Af-Am states=Jesse Jackson
    --latte liberals who support Obama don't 'need a president'
    --working class men who don't vote for Clinton are sexist
    --appealing to independents is a bad trait for a Democratic nominee

    They just can't wrap their head around the idea that maybe the better candidate and VASTLY superior campaign is winning.

    Parent

    Well (3.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:05:23 PM EST
    I'm sure this got a good reception when posted at Kos.

    Parent
    geekesque (none / 0) (#88)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:39:39 PM EST
    please dont gloat until the GE. as for now, you are denying valid concerns--you should argue against them, not mock them.

    just curious: do you know the democratic track record in general elections since 1964? this election looks like 1972 to me. mcgovern had the so-called youth vote then too. oh yeah--he was anti-war--truly antiwar, not i was antiwar back in the day, as obama so often claims to be.

    Parent

    Obama is no McGovern. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    And, this is not 1972.

    Parent
    Closer to '88 (none / 0) (#97)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:55:14 PM EST
    and Obama is Dukakis.  maybe McMondukakerry?

    Parent
    No, actually Obama=Obama. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    Comparing him to the charisma-free Dukakis, whose message of "it's not about ideology, it's about competence" bears a striking resemblence to Hillary "The Solutions Business" Clinton, is just idiotic.

    Parent
    that's your forte! (none / 0) (#15)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:51 PM EST


    Parent
    One of my cousins (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:28 PM EST
    is a republican, and is voting for Obama, because he likes him.  I'm sure there are some doing it because they want to vote against Clinton, and some will vote for her because they want our nomination to go on.

    Texas has an open primacacuas.  Thats life.

    Parent

    Out of curiosity... (none / 0) (#54)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    You have Republican family? Ouch. (Kidding, we all do, unfortunately.)

    Who is your cousing voting for in November?

    Parent

    Same with my GF's mom (none / 0) (#57)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    She's a Republican (in OH) but doesn't like McCain, and is leaning Obama for both the primary and the general.

    Parent
    Theres been a full scale (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    demonization campaign waged by the Right noise machine against Mrs Clinton since the early ninties, yet people here seem shocked to find out that, (Im guessing primarily males) in Shrub/Roves hang-em-high state, will do just about anything rather than run the risk of the liberal she-devil.

    This has always been about electability, and Hillary's been damaged goods from the start.

    Parent

    and who was the leader in (none / 0) (#75)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:40:04 PM EST
    the idea that hillary is damaged good? huh?

    Parent
    Crossover Voting (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Niffari on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:27:47 PM EST
    My husband is a registered Independent in NJ and he voted for Obama. He will do so again in the GE if Obama wins the Dem nomination. I think that some people are way too wrapped up in conspiracy theories without providing any evidence of how such a plan would work. Certainly the conservative establishment would have blocked McCain if it could have done so. How in the world did/could they arrange for Republicans to vote over and over for Obama in a primary where other Republican candidates needed their votes.

    texas (none / 0) (#52)
    by wasabi on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    I'm specifically talking about Texas here.

    Parent
    When is "Cross-Over Voting" a Misnomer? (none / 0) (#74)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:36:07 PM EST
    ******************

    Niffari, you may be sincere when you said: "I think that some people are way too wrapped up in conspiracy theories without providing any evidence of how such a plan would work".

    If you want to see "evidence" of a real conspiracy-in-the-works, go upstream and read my post: GOPers for Obama - for a Day.

    It includes the full text from a 2/16 post at the 'Republicans for Obama' website.

    Here's a small sample: "Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

    Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side."

    Hey, with conspiracies like this, you don't need "theories".

    Parent

    In New Hampshire it made a difference (none / 0) (#104)
    by lily15 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:53:50 PM EST
    when McCain needed their vote.  With Texas, you have those who will vote McCain in the general and don't need to in the primary...and those who voted for another Republican who are also crossing over to vote Obama.  

    Parent
    Obama has taken the lead in this election by (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    a) Identifing that change trumps experience right now

    b) Studying the electoral map and moblizing in caucuses

    c) Utilizing grassroots fundraising in a revoultionary way

    d) Using a God given talent to draw 20,000 people to hear a standard stump speech on a daily basis

    Never Fear The Right Will Smear (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Joike on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    It doesn't matter whether Obama or Clinton, the far right will gin up bizarre and baseless attacks on our nominee.

    Take your pick: racism or sexism.  The mindless attacks will only get worse for one or the other.

    Limbaugh has already said far worse about Obama and Clinton than what got Imus fired, yet he's untouchable.

    Forget what the right says they want.  They are so screwed up that they have no idea which candidate they would prefer to lose to.

    I firmly believe that either Obama or Clinton would win against McCain.

    The corruption of the GOP and the Bush administration is an anchor around McCain's less than holy neck.

    Fundraising, demographics and voter enthusiasm will the wind behind our sails in the GE.  Most Americans agree with our candidates.

    McCain will play the fear card again and again.  He will end up like 9ui11iani.  His war mongering flies in the face of public sentiment.  Notice how he tries to say the war will be over soon and it will just be the insurgency left.  Excuse me?  Haven't we been facing these dead-enders for the last 4 years?

    McCain will be like Dole in '96.  He got the GOP nomination because he felt he deserved, and now that he's got the nomination, he'll lose terribly in the GE.  

    The right's power structure is crumbling.  Guys are going to jail and the money is drying up.  They will run their 527 astroturf campaigns and they will be nasty, brutish attempts to smear our nominee.

    They will succeed only in giving money to their political consultants and ad makers.

    This is the reason Clinton needs to say in (4.20 / 5) (#7)
    by mexboy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
    We cannot let Republicans chose our candidate. She needs to stay in the race, especially because the result will be tainted by Republicans.

    This open primary thing is beyond stupid. I became a Democrat so I could have a say in what issues I want my party to pursue.

    If people want to set the agenda they need to commit to a party and work within that system or start a new party.

    And stay in too, heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    But you said basically what I would have. She needs to stay in. If, when she gets to Penna, which does not have open primaries, and she does badly, then we would know if there was a true effect of the GOP crossover. Then I will shut up about it. Who in the world ever decided that open primaries would be good for the Democratic Party. I hope they are gone. Was it Karl Rove?

    Parent
    Yes how (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jgarza on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
    much the democratic party will benefit from having a long hard primary for dems.  That way two dems can fight it out, while they raise money and start defining the two candidates.  Always thinking of the party!

    Parent
    the party can take care of itself (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    since responsibility for this boondoggle lies with it

    Parent
    GOPers for Obama - for a Day (none / 0) (#61)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:57:09 PM EST
    ******************

    Jeralyn, thanks for putting this on the front burner again.

    I was initially amazed by how little traction/support you got when you talked about it on 2/22.

    It is the elephant in the room; the big dirty-little-secret of Obama's ascendancy to the Democratic nomination: THE GOP HAS HIJACKED THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION PROCESS AND IS URGING REPUBLICANS, EN MASSE, TO VOTE FOR OBAMA - FOR ONE DAY.

    The GOP is framing this, rather cleverly, as a vote against Hillary. But really, would the GOP be selecting Obama as the Democratic nominee if they believed that he was the stronger opponent against McCain? I think not. The GOP obviously believes that Clinton is the more unbeatable opponent - why is that so very hard for Obama's real supporters to see.
    --------------------------------------------------

    The following is the full text from the 'Republicans for Obama' website:

    E-mail to send to all your Republican friends
    Sat, 02/16/2008 - 10:41pm -- afnighthawk

    (This post was neither authored nor approved by the leadership of  Republicans for Obama.  It is simply a posting in a public forum.)

    Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

    On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

    Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

    Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

    After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes. I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama.

    Please forward this e-mail to all your Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!



    Parent

    And there is a Youtube training video (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:00:53 PM EST
    on how to be a "Dem for a Day" in Florida, there were calls to do this by conservative media in Wisconsin -- and maybe a Youtube video, too, for all I know. I'll try to find time to go search it for a Texas video. . . .

    Parent
    I lived in Texas all of my adult life (none / 0) (#87)
    by zyx on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:30:42 PM EST
    until five years ago.  Yes, the primaries are completely open.  I can't really see the Pubs gaming the primary for the weaker candidate, because it's really not clear who the weaker candidate in the November will be--though everyone probably has his or her own opinion.

    Here is my opinion, though, from living in a fairly backwards area in Texas in the nineties.  Texans who aren't Democrats and fairly liberal--and that is all of these Republicans who will be crossing over--they really, really, really (repeat that so many times it's really really annoying!) HATE Hillary Clinton.  Think of the '93 bumpersticker "Impeach the president--and her husband too!".  Think of every other hateful Hillary nineties thing ever said, and I saw it on a pickup truck bumper.  

    Rural Texans would die of choking on their own bile if Clinton became president.  I don't know what will happen if Obama wins, but they couldn't live with a Clinton win.

    Parent

    I've Lived in Texas Too (none / 0) (#92)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    ******************
    To zyz,

    I've lived in Texas too - hell, we've all lived in Texas for the past 8 years.

    In my experience, even Texans don't hate Hillary enough to risk losing the White House in '08.

    In other words, they love their "permanent Republican majority"; and they will, as instructed, cast a vote for Obama in the Democratic Primary. Yes, they may hate Hillary, but they'll vote for Obama because they believe he is the weaker opponent.

    Honey, Texans aren't as crazy, or as dumb, as you make them out to be. Show some respect!

    Parent

    What you fail to realize or point out (none / 0) (#101)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:44:16 PM EST
    is that this group is urging Republicans to vote for Obama IN NOVEMBER AS WELL.

    Parent
    This situation is what superdelegates (4.00 / 4) (#25)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    are intended to remedy.

    what the pollster said (none / 0) (#91)
    by diogenes on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    If the attitude is really "Get the Clintons out", it will apply to the general election as well if Hillary is nominated.  People aren't lining up to "get the Obamas out".

    Parent
    They're not Obama voters. (none / 0) (#105)
    by MarkL on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:54:34 PM EST


    Parent
    the Obama supporters forget that their (4.00 / 4) (#27)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    candidate hasn't hardly received any bad press yet...when he does, all these poll numbers will change to McCain IMO....Obama has won barely in Democratic strongholds over Clinton, with her getting continuous bad press...but add in bad press for him and what happens?? Plus remember that McCain was at one time popular with independents and could be again IMO....

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Claw on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    I'm with you there.  HRC has been savaged by the press since, well, just about forever.  The point has been made, though, that the Obama halo has lost a bit of its sheen.  But, total agreement--this will be a knock down, drag out fight in the GE.  I'm just saying that the idea that republicans have this super-secret canny strategy to nominate Obama and then go after him strikes me as nuts.

    Parent
    in obama land the repubs love him (none / 0) (#76)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:41:57 PM EST
    and the average american will think the real estate deal was just a very smart thing to do. of course, that isn't what will happen, but that is the speel among some.

    Parent
    Republicans have seen the errors of their way (none / 0) (#80)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:03:47 PM EST
    and they've decided to go for a liberal democrat this November. Okey dokey then.

    Parent
    no, they won't! (none / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:27:14 PM EST


    Parent
    agreed (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:28:34 PM EST
    Democrats, not Republicans and Independents, should pick our party's nominee.

    however, this is the fault of the democrats themselves, not the voters or the candidates. it's the state party organizations that set the requirements, they're to blame for this.

    "independents" exist only in their fevered imaginations. the reality is that they tend to vote fairly consistently for one or the other party's candidates. it just makes them feel better to proclaim themselves "independent".

    there are very few true independents. they have negligible effects on national contests, their ego inflating protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

    I don't see how 30% (none / 0) (#34)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    of the population could have a negligible effect on an election.

    I would say that independent does not always mean centrist.

    Parent

    let me explain again, simply (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by cpinva on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:47:17 PM EST
    this time:

    there are few real "independent" voters, period. not 30%, not 29%, not 20%, not 15% of the voting population are truly "independent". maybe, on a really, really, really good day, 5%.

    much like being an actor, anyone can call themselves "independent", it requires no rigorous licensing examination; all you do is put your lips together and............., oh, wait, sorry, wrong movie! my point: upwards of 95% of all self-proclaimed "independents" have voted for the candidate of the same party, consistently, over the years. i'd bet money on it.

    they might not even realize they're doing it; they vote "the person, not the party". oddly enough, the "person" seems to consistently be of the same "party" election after election.

    "independent voter" is more a grandiose self-perception than a reality. were these folks honest with themselves, they'd admit they're actually a republican or democrat, with the rare foray into other territory.

    Parent

    It's not, really. (none / 0) (#56)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    My understanding is that primaries are the business of the state governments, and they're the ones that set the rules.

    Though the state parties do have some leeway--in California the govt tried to have open primaries, only to be sued by both state parties. A judge agreed that the parties had a right to set some rules themselves.

    Parent

    2000, 2004, 2008? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:17:25 PM EST
    Please not again. I don't have the stomach to suffer another democratic presidential loss. I believe Hillary is our best chance, but alas, the country likely does not agree. I just sure hope Obama supporters/endorsers know what they're talking about and can fight off the Republican machine. I think I'm going to go throw up now.

    i don't think so. denial is more than (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by hellothere on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    just a river in egypt. i just had a poster on here actually write that the american people will admire obama for the real estate deal on his house. with many people losing their homes and their jobs, some actually think they'll admire obama for that? oh well, the idea of taking the presidency was a nice thought.

    Parent
    Hillary will mobilize the GOP base (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:34:00 PM EST
    in a way that Obama won't.  The GOP hates Hillary with an insane frothing passion that they hold for no other candidate.  A lot of the same people are lukewarm (at best) on McCain, and may stay home if it's Obama v. McCain, but Hillary v. McCain will draw the GOP nutters to the polls like flies to honey.

    Parent
    Buying into the media story (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST
    doesn't make it true.  

    Parent
    Calling it a media story (none / 0) (#70)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:28:19 PM EST
    Doesn't make it false.  Do you have an argument, or just snark?

    Parent
    If you were a Republican... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Chimster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:09:00 PM EST
    and you wanted one candidate to go up against in the fall, how would you get that accomplished? Throw everything you have at them? No, you would leave them alone and allow the in-fighting to take its normal course in hopes your lackey becomes the nominee. This same thing happened when KOS wanted people to vote for Romney. They new he was the easiest to beat, so he asked folks to vote for Romney. The same thing is going on here. If you think things are ugly now, just wait till Obama gets it in November.

    Parent
    I don't argue with people (none / 0) (#84)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:14:45 PM EST
    who can't change their mind.  

    Parent
    Not what I see right now on CNN (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:04:32 PM EST
    -- amazing video of McCain backer in Ohio at an event, laying out the whole Barack Hussein-kumbayah-Rezko-kitchen sink shtick. Stunning vitriol. Oh, and McCain is very sad that it happened at his rally.

    Parent
    I said rally the GOP base (none / 0) (#72)
    by JJE on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    Not "cause one guy to unleash an unhinged rant".

    Parent
    I agree chimster that this is bad news (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:20:03 PM EST


    Parent
    And so (none / 0) (#30)
    by tek on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    begins the MSM promotion of Obama.  Several headline stories today claiming that Obama is surging in all the upcoming primaries and Clinton's campaign is unraveling.  

    The media and the Old Dinosaurs will have their way.

    Parent

    so begins? Begins? heh (none / 0) (#33)
    by diplomatic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:52:07 PM EST


    Parent
    1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004 (none / 0) (#89)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    not to pile on.

    i forget who won in '92 and '96. carter won '76 b/c of watergate (and b/c he was a white southern male). arguably, the '92 winner was because of perot.

    i'll remember who won '96 in a second or two.  

    Parent

    Rush just started that this week tho (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:18:31 PM EST
    before that they were saying the opposite...

    I don't understand this.... (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:27:26 PM EST
    Bordie's latest statewide poll released last week found that 15 percent of Texas Republicans who said they will support the GOP nominee in November plan nonetheless on voting for Obama next week.

    Does this mean that 85% of Republicans voting for Obama in the primary might vote for Obama in November?

    It means that (none / 0) (#17)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    the 85% are voting for the Republican in November.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#22)
    by sumac on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    It appears to mean that of the Republicans they polled who said they would vote for the Republican candidate in the GE, 15% are going to vote for Obama in the primary. So that 15% (of those persons polled) which will help win the nomination will not help him in the GE.

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#24)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:44:02 PM EST
    It means that of those in Texas who have said will vote Republican in November, 15% are voting for Obama in the primary.

    Parent
    That's what I meant actually (none / 0) (#59)
    by Shawn on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:54:22 PM EST
    I think the first poster was confused.

    Parent
    My guess (none / 0) (#37)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    I'm guessing that the actual number will be even higher than 85%.

    The Republicans are having a hissy fit over McCain right now, but long before November they'll come back to the fold.

    Parent

    Funny, (none / 0) (#12)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:27:58 PM EST
    I didn't read much from Dems complaining about those who crossed over to vote for McCain instead of Romney/Huckabee.

    Ahhhhh, the Democratic Party firing squad: form a circle and shoot!

    In Ohio, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    as I understand it, there is same-day party registration. You can show up at the polls and they'll hand you the ballot you want.

    If that's so, shouldn't there be a complaint about Ohio?

    While I find arguments for and against closed primaries interesting, the rules aren't going to change between now and next week. All candidates came into this campaign with the same rules. If people are motivated to change the rules for 2012, all the more power to them.

    Parent

    That's my point (none / 0) (#41)
    by HeadScratcher on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    Instead of complaining and whining, why not accept the fact that it's messed up and vow to fix it in the near future.

    Can you imagine the uproar on the left if this stuff (between Obama and Clinton) was between Repubs and Dems instead. Crossover voting, racist/sexist language, strange ways of selecting delegates, superdelegates, Michigan/Florida...

    Stop whining and do something instead of shooting yourself in the foot!

    Parent

    I'm of the opinion that (none / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:17:17 PM EST
    unless this gets brought up and hammered on in the national convention, nothing will be done about it and it will just continue apace.  That's why I favor a brokered convention as the best chance to start down the road to reforming this mess.


    Parent
    changes in party? (none / 0) (#16)
    by jd142 on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    almost a quarter of voters with a history of voting in GOP primaries planned on participating in the Democratic primary.
    [quoted from the original article in the Chronicle]

    Democrats, not Republicans and Independents, should pick our party's nominee.
    [quoted from Jeralyn]

    Yes, Democrats should pick the nominee, but you can't know for sure that those people who had previously voted in Republican primaries haven't switched their affiliation.  If they've switched affiliation, then they have just as much right to vote as anyone else.

    This cycle I'd be willing to bet that there are more people switching to the Democratic party than there are Republicans trying to game the system.

    Yes but at least it would take an action on their (none / 0) (#19)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    in advance of the primary in most states.  As is a lot of places all I would have to do is just walk over the polling place or caucus state that I am going to participate in the Democratic primary or caucus and that's it.  Too easy.  But then the Democrats have always been so accommodating just look at Congress.

    Parent
    No party registration? (none / 0) (#71)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:28:43 PM EST
    What about states that don't require you to select a party affiliation when you register to vote? In those states, a party can't hold a closed primary because there's no good way to identify the party you're affiliated with.

    Parent
    Don't buy it (none / 0) (#20)
    by Claw on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    I don't buy it.  First of all, with as bad a record as the pollsters have had this season, I don't think we should rely on "scattered evidence" as proof that repubs will pick our nominee.  Second, if the GOP is that organized (i.e. they could swing a nomination) we're already dead as far as the GE goes.  I think we are giving way too much credit to the republican voter.  Third, why on Earth would they work to nominate the candidate who's polling stronger against their nominee?  Is there a vast polling conspiracy too?

    The frustrating thing is (none / 0) (#40)
    by jen on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    there's nothing we can do about it.  

    If O wins the nomination thanks to Repubs help, even if a minority of them plan to support him in the GE, once the radical regressives and their corpress allies are done with him he'll go down in flames in Nov. And all the righteous liberal O supporters will wonder WTF happened... :/

     

    Exactly Jen and the rest of us are hopeless to (none / 0) (#42)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:12:15 PM EST
    stop it....I would just like to vote for the nominee that the registered Democrats supported the most and right now that is Hillary Clinton...

    Parent
    Some polled seem to be smart, since (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    there has been no "Wisconsin bounce." Maybe other factors as press started to go a teensy bit bad for both Obamas . . . but maybe some people polled know that the results of Wisconsin's open primary were so weird, maybe they saw some of the analyses of the crossover vote, etc.

    Parent
    Poll about registered Democrats..... (none / 0) (#50)
    by athyrio on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll released February 21, Hillary Clinton leads among registered Democrats by 11% in Texas and 16% in Ohio. Obama in contrast leads among non-Democrats in Ohio by 14% and in Texas by 13%.

    Self-identifed, not registered Democrats (none / 0) (#69)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    See my post below. You can't tell from a poll if someone is a REGISTERED Democrat or not. People don't correctly self-identify their party affiliation.

    And the write up of the poll in the Washington Post clearly identifies that these are self identified Democrats. I'm not sure about ABC.

    Does this impact your analysis. Yes! Since most of these self-identified independents and Republicans say they are going to vote for Obama, and a significant fraction of these people are in fact REGISTERED Democrats, then you are underestimating REGISTERED Democract support for Obama.

    Unfortunately, there's no accurate way to calculate by how much because you would have to make assumptions on the percent of REGISTERED Democrats that are making a mistake in self-identification (it's around 20% but not constant from state to state), how their vote splits between the two candidates (again, not constant from state to state) and the sampling errors as the number of people in each subgroup become less and less. So at the end of the day, you just don't know.

    Parent

    Republicans I talk to (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 03:21:03 PM EST
    are as split on which candidate will be easier to beat as we are on which will find it easier to win.

    You can't tell who is a registered Democrat! (none / 0) (#63)
    by kjblair on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    You can't tell from exit polls or opinion surveys who is a REGISTERED Democrat. Polls and surveys all ask the respondents to self-identify their party affiliation. In closed primaries, where only REGISTERED Democrats were allowed to vote, approximately 20% of the voters didn't identify themselves as a Democrat. In Oklahoma, 7% of REGISTERED Democrats identified themselves as a Republican!!! Look at the exit poll data on CNN for any of the closed primaries to see what I mean.

    As a result, it is folly to try and calculate the number of REGISTERED Democrats (or REGISTERED Republicans) that have voted, or plan to vote, for a partcular candidate. The data just doesn't allow you to do so.

    I've been wondering... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fultron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:35:28 PM EST
    ...how it is that with the turnout for the Dems in these primaries supposedly 2-to-1 better than the Repubs on the strength of Obama bringing in the "Independent" vote, can they still be essentially tied with McCain in national opinion polls?

    This tells me that not only is independent support soft, it may not even exist. Could it be there are a lot of Republicans with nothing better to do now that McCain has it locked up?

    Nomination Tampering (none / 0) (#81)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    In all probability, the GOP has been tampering with the Democratic Nomination process in all of the open primaries.

    That is now an incontestable fact in Texas - go look at the 'Republicans for Obama' link that Jeralyn included in her 2/22 post.

    Or go upstream and read the whole thing in my post: GOPers for Obama - for a Day.

    Question: has there been any direct comment here on that actual text from the 'Republicans for Obama' website?.

    Parent

    Maybe one way to use this... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    Whats done is done, its much too late to change this now, but what can be done is if she loses Texas close, or wins close she can highlight this either as the reason for the loss, or trumpet her victory in spite of organized election rigging.

    Open primaries and caucuses, what a disaster.

    oops I forgot- (none / 0) (#78)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:50:30 PM EST
    Plus it would give her a reason to keep going in spite of all the "if she loses shes out" talk, going out on a rigged election isnt fair to her voters.

    Parent
    A Republican (none / 0) (#79)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    crossing over to vote for a candidate would be called an Independent. I would think that they would not call themselves a Democrat (too much of a bad word).

    For this reason ....Actually knowing how many Rupubs are crossing over would be difficult to track. Although, this might explain why Sen Obamaq does so well with Independents.

    Jeralyn's Posts: Today and 2/22 (none / 0) (#83)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    ******************
    Did you read Jeralyn's post today and the earlier one on 2/22?

    Did you link to the 'Republicans for Obama' website and actually read the Texas memo urging Republicans to 'vote for Obama for a day'?

    Parent

    Correction: Jeralyn's Posts - Today and 2/24 (none / 0) (#85)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:18:08 PM EST


    Parent
    There is no (none / 0) (#86)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 05:20:55 PM EST
    doubt they are crossing over to vote...BUT you cannot track the numbers due to the term "Independent voters".

    Parent
    Here's The GOP Texas Memo (again) (none / 0) (#93)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    To PlayInPeoria,

    Is this what you call "crossing over to vote"? What do you think of the GOP subverting the Dem Nomination in this way?

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

    The following is the full text from the 'Republicans for Obama' website:

    E-mail to send to all your Republican friends
    Sat, 02/16/2008 - 10:41pm -- afnighthawk

    (This post was neither authored nor approved by the leadership of  Republicans for Obama.  It is simply a posting in a public forum.)

    Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

    On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

    Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

    Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

    After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes. I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama.

    Please forward this e-mail to all your Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

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

    Parent

    AGAIN (none / 0) (#94)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:40:29 PM EST
    I agree... but there is NO WAY TO TRACK THIS!

    I know it is happening. The present system has no way to track when this is happening.... and least of all... a way to prevent this. Voters can HIDE behind the Independent name.

    I think it is TERRIBLE that Repubs can invade the Dem primary.

    Parent

    That is NOT TRUE (none / 0) (#102)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    The site specifically urges people to vote for OBama in the primary AND IN NOVEMBER

    Parent
    Texas doesn't matter anymore? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Aaron on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 06:49:28 PM EST
    I'm not surprised to see Jeralyn picking up the Clinton campaign meme that Texas doesn't matter, and when it looks like they're going to lose Ohio, Ohio won't matter anymore either.  Truly pathetic.

    Or the belief that the independents and Republicans who are crossing over to vote for Obama are part of some vast right wing conspiracy to undermine Hillary Clinton, a candidate that by any measure today is the weaker candidate against John McCain.  Even more pathetic.

    Why would Democrats want to exclude independents and Republicans in a country where you can't win the White House or govern without the support of independents and Republicans?  It seems that such folks are living in some kind of fantasy land, where it's the Democrats turned to rule, and get payback for all the Republicans have put us through.

    Bill Cunningham endorses Hillary Clinton, apropos.

    Clinton can't say that TX doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Geekesque on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:04:37 PM EST
    Impossible.  If she loses TX, she will be forced to drop out--one way or the other.

    Parent
    The Link: Texas GOP Obama Memo (none / 0) (#98)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    ******************
    Here's the link - for anyone who wants to go directly to the site and read the original in all it's Rovian splendor. What a way to win.

    http://www.republicansforobama.org/?q=node/358

    Yes PLEASE CLICK THE LINK (none / 0) (#103)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:51:18 PM EST
    Something FoxholeAthiest apparantly has not done.

    The site is for Republicans who will vote for Obama IN NOVEMBER.

    Hint; that is a good thing.

    Parent

    Stop, uh, fibbing: It says, as we can see (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 08:23:41 PM EST
    "Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November." Just because you say something over and over here, Tano, you just can't make them true. And you do a disservice to your candidate, as it suggests everything you say he says.

    Parent
    fibbing? how dare you! (none / 0) (#109)
    by Tano on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 11:48:26 PM EST
    Click the link Cream. Read the "About" statement. Read the other posts on the site.
    Then come back and apoligize. I will be gracious.

    Parent
    Republicans Turning Out for Obama in Texas | 104 comments (104 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment