The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on June 24th, 2017 at 01:18 pm
David Weigel on Limbaugh Democrats:
Ohio didn’t wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
Accused of perverting democracy, Limbaugh replies: “If the Democrats and the media can pick our nominee, then why the hell can’t we pick theirs?”
bipartisan voting for Democrat and Republican contenders sounds like a good idea to me.
Posted by daddy dave on 2008 03 06 at 05:43 AM • permalink
- #3
Dems have been voting for Democrat and Republican on a two Dems for one Rep basis for years. Vote early, vote often.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 03 06 at 06:14 AM • permalink
- …that our right to vote should be carelessly thrown around to subvert the will of the people is disgusting…
For shame.
All those GOP voters who checked the box marked Denver Death Match (as was their legal right) should take a good, long, hard, look at themselves for carelessly imposing their will on the people.
A caller to Laura Ingraham from Texas cited the War On Terror. Sometimes, he said, you have to associate with awful people and do icky things. So he went to the Democratic primary and voted for Clinton.
Posted by bugscuffle on 2008 03 06 at 08:26 AM • permalink
I resent the implication by both these parties that we have to associate with one of them and that they can take our votes for granted. The party system should be used to promote political/philosophical ends. The party’s success should not be the end in and of itself.
Why can’t people cross party lines? In fact, I thought the politicians were supposed to welcome the votes of those open-minded independents who claim to “vote for the person, not the party.”
I am somewhat irritated that the east-coast got to pick the Rep nominee long before the Idaho primary, which I think is coming up in May (why bother?), but it was their right to try and get the most liberal republican they could, since that aligns w/their views. And since all of my choices dropped out long ago and turned around and endorsed McCain, I can’t say I think much of their character now anyway.
Why can’t people cross party lines? In fact, I thought the politicians were supposed to welcome the votes of those open-minded independents who claim to “vote for the person, not the party.”
This is precisely why I despise the attempts to shut down cross over voting during the primaries, KK. There’s a lot of dispute over this, with the naysayers mostly saying, “Dammit, don’t screw with our primaries!”
Well, I don’t care. The only reason to exclude voters is to influence the outcome of the elections to the satisfaction of the party officials (i.e., the political class), and I ain’t buying that.
This is a positive example of why primaries should be open…….for conservatives. That could change in 10 years, who knows? And so what? Deal with it. Things can’t always be nice and comfortable. It’s arguable that most of our problems in the US stem from people trying to impose too much control on uncontrollable systems……and the feedback is oscillating out of control.
And, yes, it’s possible that I have some small amount of anarchism in my soul. But that’s more an acceptance of the reality that chaos is always lurking outside the door, and being ready for it, than in causing chaos for the sake of chaos.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 06 at 10:34 AM • permalink
I believe that so many crossovers voting in the Democratic primary served two purposes (at least I hope it did):
(1) to keep Hillary in the fight, and showcase the faults and weaknesses of the Democratic Party; and
(2) to remind the Republican Party that we can vote for whomever we want, and they shouldn’t take people like us for granted.
I must admit, I don’t like open primaries. I believe the party faithful should be able to nominate their own candidate.
I’m also depressed about McCain’s chances. I believe Obamamania will be too much to resist. And if Hillary is the candidate, she’ll be smart enough – and Obama is reasonable enough – to make it a Clinton/Obama ticket. The Dems win either way.
I believe the party faithful should be able to nominate their own candidate.
Which makes me wonder: why the heck don’t American parties have official membership rolls the way parties do in most other countries? “Party faithful” rings a bit hollow to me if everybody can basically re-register at will, even absent the “crossing over” issue for open primaries…
- Crossie #9, I am thinking FL Governor Charlie Crist. FL is absolutely vital to McCain, Crist is enormously popular, and Crist endorsed McCain right before the FL primary, taking the wind out of Giuliani’s sails.
Dave S. #15, I am a little more optimistic. Saint O has had a rough week in the press (for him anyway) and I think he is losing the air of invulnerability. If he is the nominee he is going to look incredibly weak on national security. Because he is. Unless the US has changed beyond recognition, we could be looking at another McGovern-like 1972 debacle.
Wonder how big the fruit baskets were that Hildabeast sent around to Rush, Ingram, and the rest of the VRWC leaders….
Better have a taste tester. Snow White. I’m just saying.
Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 03 06 at 01:48 PM • permalink
#15 Dave: Having come this close to winning the big prize – and being smart enough to recall the Clintons’ relegation of Al Gore to a position of almost complete inconsequence – I would be very surprised if Obama agreed to second place on the ticket. I also suspect that the virulence of the Obamania strain is weakening, so he may well wind up not being the nominee (even if he is currently the favorite).
Encouraging people to vote only perverts democracy when they vote for the wrong person.
I’m going to give this commenter the benefit of assuming he’s being ironic. Otherwise, thank you, President Arafat.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2008 03 06 at 04:02 PM • permalink
- With any luck, a Democrat loss in November will cause alot of activity at the cliff.
I don’t believe in using our vote in such a manner since it is a privilege that has been bought for with blood. Let the Dems play nasty. We shouldn’t sink to their level.Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 03 06 at 05:43 PM • permalink
According to Fox News’ O’Reilly, most conservative votes went to Obama:
In Texas, the Limbaugh factor was in play as well, as the radio commentator encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary in order to create chaos within the Democratic Party. However, even though about nine percent of those voting in the Texas Democratic primary were Republicans, Obama won the majority of those ballots. So it was not a factor in Hillary’s comeback.
I can’t imagine who in their right mind (or even any Democrat) would be Hilary’s running mate, should she beg, borrow and/or steal the nomination. Unless she dumps Bill (which I see as possible, given that he’s become somewhat of a liability), her VP would be so eclipsed by the two of them, they wouldn’t be seen/heard from for four years! I can’t see Obama playing that role.
Posted by Infidel Librarian on 2008 03 06 at 06:36 PM • permalink
I can’t see Obama playing that role.
Why not? The big knock against Obama is his lack of experience. The Vice-Presidency is the traditional stepping-stone to the Presidency. He’s young, so four-to-eight years of learning on the job and a slam-dunk nomination in 2016 would have to look pretty attractive.
Which makes me wonder: why the heck don’t American parties have official membership rolls the way parties do in most other countries?
Well, we do. You register as whatever parties are on the form, or Independent. But you can change that before an election. How is it handled elsewhere? Is there a minimum time you must continue to be in a party before you can switch?
Which makes me wonder: why the heck don’t American parties have official membership rolls the way parties do in most other countries?
Traditionally, and legally, voting is a right in this country. You have to be a convicted felon to lose that right (death does not mean you can’t vote; ask the Democrats in Chicago). This created a culture whereby cutting off anyone from voting is discouraged.
But this is for public elections and referendums. Private elections and such (like a chartered society) are different, it depends upon their by laws.
And that’s where the primaries run into conflict. The political parties are, officially, private organizations. But the primary elections are carried out using public funds, through the state election commissions, as they will eventually decide who is running for a public office (i.e., The President and the Veep).
Therefore, the parties have to at least attempt to appear open handed in regards to voters. This is accomplished by both state laws and state party rules (this is why the primary strategies vary by state….the rules vary wildly).
In some cases, the voting laws and rules allow a person to register (as others have said) as a Democrat, Republican, or (by default if you don’t register) as an Independent up to the day of the election.
But not all; as I said, the primaries are really “private” elections, and the state party official officials tend to view the primaries as “their” elections, even though it’s on the government dime (i.e., taxes). These unsavory characters set it up to close off primaries to prevent cross overs, and avoid exactly this sort of headache.
I can’t blame them for want to do so. But I’d like to see them foot the bill for the elections. Then I would withdraw my objections to their hypocrisy, as it ain’t “their” primary.
As an example, some Democrats are pushing for another primary in Florida; the State governor is OK with that, as I understand, but there is talk of making the Democratic National Committee pay for it.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 03 07 at 02:13 AM • permalink
- #25 – Sorry, had to get back to work.
True, the VP spot is a fine way to gain experience and puts one in a good spot to run for the top job, no question.
However – he’s still the front runner. Why take the #2 job? Plus, things between the two of them are going to get very ugly in the next seven weeks, and/or up until the convention. Hilary is in a corner,despite her recent wins, and I don’t think we’ll see any more “It’s an honor to be here with Mr. Obama tonight” moments. The gloves are off.
And despite claims of 35 years of “experience”, if you really look at her background, their actual hands-on government experience seems pretty comparable. And her first foray into providing universal healthcare was not a resounding success.
Just my two cents. This is opinion, after all. Perhaps, if his star fades, he’d take the #2 spot. We shall see.Posted by Infidel Librarian on 2008 03 07 at 02:00 PM • permalink
Gosh, what could have made them so angry?