Ohio Flooding: Some Polling Places Moved, Lots of Cross-Over Voters

Flooding is such a problem in Southern Ohio that at the request of the Secretary of State, the courts have issued orders allowing voters to cast provisional ballots at their county board of elections. Here is the order for Perry County (pdf)and here is the one for Adams County. (pdf)

Buckeye State Blog is tracking the orders. I agree that this could result in lower voter turnout which would hurt Hillary who is favored in Southeast Ohio. (Bill Clinton carried these counties in the 1992 and 1996 general election, which resulted in his winning Ohio, while Gore and Kerry did not and lost Ohio in the general election.

Obama could be adversely affected by such an order in Athens county, home to Ohio University and it's tens of thousands of students.

Hopefully the candidates' ground operations are prepared for this and have volunteers with vehicles to get people to the polls.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports lots of Republicans are voting in the Democratic primary.

< The Problem With The Dem Nominee Selection Process | Dirty Tricks in Texas and Ohio? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Too late to whine about it now, but (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Jim J on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    is anyone else as heartsick and troubled as I am about this meddling in our primary by Republicans? It seems most unseemly. The fact that a certain candidate encourages this stuff if only "for a day" is doubly discouraging.

    I know, I hate it. nt (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    Ehh... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sweetthings on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:08:09 PM EST
    Based on the linked article, Hillary is winning the vast bulk of the crossover crowd. If Obama is encouraging it, then karma may well play itself out.

    It's a cost of an open primary, but in my mind, well worth it.


    I see your point but (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jim J on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    I would also prefer that the dittoheads not vote for Hillary either.

    Though I do understand all this is a direct byproduct of the lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side this year, which clearly is an absolute good.


    I agree (none / 0) (#49)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 05:06:21 PM EST
    I don't like republicans putting Hillary over the top any more than I like Obamas republican for a day stuff helping him win.

    I hope the Democratic part fixes this.


    PS. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    Too late to whine about it now

    This is the blogosphere.  It's never too late to whine.


    But is it too early for ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:25:10 PM EST

    maybe for wine (none / 0) (#18)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:41:44 PM EST
    but never tequila

    Yes - I hate it (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by PlayInPeoria on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM EST
    But I remember a popular blog that urged Dems to cross over in Mich to vote for Romney.

    I didn't like that one either.


    Republicans genuinely interested. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    in voting for the Democrat ought to be encouraged (or at least allowed) -- it encourages them to vote Democratic in the general election and is a legitimate measure of the candidate's crossover appeal.

    Actual Republicans voting to game the system (much as Kos advised Democrats to do in Michigan) ought to be discouraged.

    How to tell the difference isn't clear to me.


    Make them Dems for a year, anyway (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    and not Dems for a day. They vote one way in the primary, they can't change before the GE. Of course, I think we can see the perils in that -- what if they actually see the light and turn Dem in between? :-) And of course, states like mine never would go for this, since we're all officially Independents, with no party registration required. But Dems for a year, at least every four years, is done in some states that ban party-switching between primaries and the GE. Very few, though, I think.

    Many states register voters by parties (nt) (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:08:45 PM EST
    sure... (none / 0) (#37)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:10:07 PM EST
    ... but it doesn't matter.

    Why do you care if someone is a "Democrat for a year?"

    It does nothing to help the party, and they can still vote for whomever they please in the general elections.


    It's worth noting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:35:28 PM EST
    that Ohio is a state that was totally Republican on the state level until a couple years ago, and now is almost totally Democratic.  It's likely that at least some of the crossover voters are genuinely disgusted with the GOP and will support a Democrat in November.

    Rush LImbaugh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    is telling his listeners to vote for H. Clinton.

    And this is how George Wallace (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    came close to winning Wisconsin in 1964, with Republican crossover -- I grew up in a very GOP town that he actually won. (Although he certainly was assisted in winning second-place by too many racist Dems.)

    I don't like the crossover (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ineedalife on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    But at least in that article half the Hillary crossovers were actually voting FOR her. Not against Obama or to get the weaker candidate.

    this is a key point (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    Obama's Democrats for a day are voting simply to "get rid of Hillary Clinton once and for all", and have no intention of voting for the Democrat in November.

    But Clinton's "Democrats for a Day" seem to be voting for her for positive reasons, and while there is no guarantee that they will vote for the Obama if he is the nominee, there is a good chance that they will vote for Clinton.

    Clinton scares the bejesus out of GOP males especially, because they know that lots of Republican women will voter for her in November.


    Now that you mention it... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:52:50 PM EST
    ...I have a little firsthand knowledge of that phenomenon. One of my hobbies is collecting pottery and many of the friends I've made through the years are Republican women. After 9/11 and the Iraq war, we sort of agreed to disagree and not talk about politics...but a couple of them have sent me emails saying things like "you'll never believe who I'm voting for." I just thought it was my friends coming to their senses, but maybe its more widespread than that.

    my Bush-Limbaugh luvin sister & family (none / 0) (#42)
    by Josey on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    have totally switched gears and voted for Hillary.

    and the evidence for your opinions (none / 0) (#26)
    by po on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:53:39 PM EST
    re: HRC's crossovers are "real" supporters of the Democratic cause v. Obama's are just HRC-haters is what?  

    well... (none / 0) (#33)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:03:13 PM EST
    ... he probably found the evidence in the same place he found out that all white Obama supporters are closet racists.  

    Hmm (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    Perhaps it would be stuff like Obama's flier in Nevada that encouraged people to become a "Democrat for one day" if they "didn't want Hillary."

    sorry... (none / 0) (#47)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:31:37 PM EST
    ... but that is hardly evidence that Obama's independent/Republican voters are voting for him as a vote against Hillary rather than a vote for Obama.

    Nor is it evidence that Hillary's ind/rep voters are voting for her instead of against Obama.


    What is that based on? (none / 0) (#46)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    Republicans like Limbaugh are urging Rs to vote for Hillary so they can have the easier candidate to beat.  Whether they are in fact right about that is irrelevant to your point.  If that is their motivation they will not vote for her in November.

    What evidence to you have that the republicans voting for Obama are not doing so because they are inspired by his message, which is aimed in part at just such crossover votes.  (Again, you may or may not think such an appeal is a good idea but if Rs are motivated by it there is reason to think they will vote for him in November)

    Anecdote is not evidence.


    Just got an email from the Texas Dem Party (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:46:32 PM EST
    telling us about the phony sign-in sheet business happening.  Goes into the rules and says the votes will not count towards delegate portioning, etc.  

    I just posted the Texas Dems warning (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    here. (pdf)

    Do you know who is attempting #2 (none / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    from your PDF?

    well (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:05:19 PM EST
    According to various reports, the Obama campaign.

    Both (none / 0) (#34)
    by po on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    1 and 2 appear to be being attempted by the "Presidential Campaigns" -- plural.  

    Iowa reports (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    by participants -- see the Des Moines Register, for example -- said this was done by Obama supporters from across the river, i.e., Illinois. No reports at all of it being done by Clinton backers. And I know Iowans who told me of this, too -- so from the start of this campaign, I have disgusted by this and consider much of the process to be highly suspect.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:30:17 PM EST
    Could be one doing one thing and the other doing the second thing.

    For map geeks - (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by liminal on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:55:15 PM EST
    The Ohio DOT maintains an online map with traffic restrictions, which includes flags for roads that are closed or restricted because water is on the road.

    You can access it right here.  

    Who made that quip (none / 0) (#5)
    by po on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    about clouds parting and the magic wand . . .

    Make of this what you will.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:34:51 PM EST
    Just heard on MSNBC that the Obama campaign has complained in Ohio that Republicans and Independents have reported to them that they have been denied Democratic ballots in various polling places!

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jen on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    they're setting it to contest the election if Hillary wins.

    I think every state she's won so far, the O supporters have claimed some sort of election fraud, voter intimidation, gaming the system, etc. Why would they stop now?


    every state? (none / 0) (#22)
    by mindfulmission on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:47:09 PM EST
    got any examples?

    this happens all the time (none / 0) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:52:16 PM EST
    its not like every polling station is staff with trained professional who are fully familiar with the rules -- and you get this kind of stuff happening.  But unless there is evidence that this is widespread and deliberate, its meaningless.

    The "uncertified poll watcher" thing is much more disturbing to me, because there is a very strong possibility that the Obama campaign knew it was giving out letters to people who weren't certified.


    yeah, and there is an equally strong possiblity (none / 0) (#30)
    by po on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    that you're 100% wrong and it's a simple mistake.  but that wouldn't play into the storyline, would it.

    ONVPC (none / 0) (#48)
    by eric on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:40:35 PM EST
    Obama National Voter Protection Center

    He has his own voter protection center?


    LOL (none / 0) (#15)
    by americanincanada on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    How can they have been denied ballots if they are voting for Hillary? These stories are getting silly.

    I heard about a fair amt of snow in Texas (none / 0) (#27)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    Does anyone know how that is affecting things?

    (and my husband heard about the snow on the news at the same time  I did and said, "the 'ice princess' must be in town!".  He's a Hillary guy, but still has a sense of humor.)

    Cross Overs (none / 0) (#39)
    by Joike on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the dangers of voting in the other party's primary is that you end up on all their mailing lists?

    Imagine getting requests to support McCain every two weeks for the rest of the year or notices from the RNC on how the DemocRATS are destroying our liberty and murdering unborn babies.

    Back in '92, I was a Harkin supporter, but he dropped out just before the SC primary leaving me up in the air about which Dem to vote for.

    I was seriously considering switching over to the GOP and voting for Buchanan.

    I approached the GOP room, but couldn't bring myself to go in and vote for that hate-monger.

    I have no numbers on how many people switch to vote against a candidate of another party, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

    Hey, all I had to do was live in a GOP area (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:17:49 PM EST
    and although I was a Dem donor, I kept getting GOP mailings just because of my zip code. I even got Christmas cards from Ron and Nancy Reagan. (I was very glad to move back to a Dem town, I'll tell ya.)

    Depends on your state (none / 0) (#44)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 04, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST
    the parties don't necessarily get a notice of which party you've chosen.  There was a big controversy this year in Michigan because the early primary provided for exactly that, and people felt it was nobody's business.