He's just a boy with a crush on Hillary

[Puppycow]

Unlike Pennsylvania, the North Carolina and Indiana primaries are both open. Will Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos be able to deliver a victory for Hillary Clinton? Or will real democrats end the drama by voting for Obama?

 

[T.A.M.]

Given CNN is analyzing Hillary's "Move to the Right", you really have to wonder, if she and Rush are not truly smitten with each other.

TAM

 

[dudalb]

I think the Obamaniacs hate Hilary supporters more then they do McCain supporters.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I think the Obamaniacs hate Hilary supporters more then they do McCain supporters.

Whatever gets you through the night. Personally my fantasies tend to involve more hot eager women and less hatred and mania, but then we are obviously two very different people.

 

[Puppycow]

I think the Obamaniacs hate Hilary supporters more then they do McCain supporters.

No hating. That's the old politics you see (boo, hiss).

Obama's supporters are all about togetherness and happy thoughts.

I'm merely pointing out that if Hillary wins, it will also be a victory for Rush Limbaugh, John McCain and the Republican party.

 

[Damien Evans]

I thought this thread would be about Conspiraider for some reason...

 

[T.A.M.]

I think the Obamaniacs hate Hilary supporters more then they do McCain supporters.

relevance to OP????

Come on, if you wanna pick a fight like that (which I know you do), get your own thread for it.

TAM

 

[BPSCG]

Unlike Pennsylvania, the North Carolina and Indiana primaries are both open. Will Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos be able to deliver a victory for Hillary Clinton? Or will real democrats end the drama by voting for Obama?

If Clinton wins NC, will it be because Repubs voted for her, or will it be because the accumulated weight of Obama's associations pulled him down? Or because people honestly prefer her positions on the issues? Or a combination these and a dozen other factors?

And how can anyone possibly know for sure?

As entertaining as crossover voting is... ... I just don't understand why states allow it. Why on Earth should Republicans get a say in who the Democrats nominate? And conversely, if, say, last winter's received wisdom had prevailed and Hillary had wrapped up the nomination in February, while McCain and Mitt Romney were still duking it out, why would any sane Republican want Democrats sticking their spoons into the pot?

Maybe next year's Super Bowl, New York Giants fans can vote on who the New England Patriots start at quarterback.

 

[Rob Lister]

If Clinton wins NC, will it be because Repubs voted for her, or will it be because the accumulated weight of Obama's associations pulled him down? Or because people honestly prefer her positions on the issues? Or a combination these and a dozen other factors?

And how can anyone possibly know for sure?

As entertaining as crossover voting is... ... I just don't understand why states allow it. Why on Earth should Republicans get a say in who the Democrats nominate? And conversely, if, say, last winter's received wisdom had prevailed and Hillary had wrapped up the nomination in February, while McCain and Mitt Romney were still duking it out, why would any sane Republican want Democrats sticking their spoons into the pot?

Maybe next year's Super Bowl, New York Giants fans can vote on who the New England Patriots start at quarterback.

More to the point, why let them vote at all? Or better yet, let them vote and then just let the party leaders pick who they want anyway!

 

[Darth Rotor]

As entertaining as crossover voting is... ... I just don't understand why states allow it. Why on Earth should Republicans get a say in who the Democrats nominate? And conversely, if, say, last winter's received wisdom had prevailed and Hillary had wrapped up the nomination in February, while McCain and Mitt Romney were still duking it out, why would any sane Republican want Democrats sticking their spoons into the pot?

As an independent, where do I fit into this black and white world of yours, Grandpa Beeps?

 

[Nitpick]

Unlike Pennsylvania, the North Carolina and Indiana primaries are both open. Will Rush Limbaugh and his Operation Chaos be able to deliver a victory for Hillary Clinton? Or will real democrats end the drama by voting for Obama?

Are these the only two possibilities?
What about real democrats delivering a victory for Hillary Clinton? Not possible? Real democrats don't vote for Hillary?
How did she win the closed Pennsylvania primary then? A miracle, I guess...

 

[Rob Lister]

As an independent, where do I fit into this black and white world of yours, Grandpa Beeps?

As an independent, you wouldnt, at least not in the primaries.

 

[BPSCG]

As an independent, where do I fit into this black and white world of yours, Grandpa Beeps?

What Rob said. If you don't care to affiliate with a group, why should you have any say in the decisions that group makes? That's true of every other organization, be it a trade union, a bowling league, a church, a Jaycees chapter. What is the case for the position that political parties should be any different?

 

[chipmunk stew]

What Rob said. If you don't care to affiliate with a group, why should you have any say in the decisions that group makes? That's true of every other organization, be it a trade union, a bowling league, a church, a Jaycees chapter. What is the case for the position that political parties should be any different?

Oh, I don't know. The decisions of bowling leagues don't affect the entire nation, perhaps?

There are only two parties that have any realistic chance at the presidency. If you don't care to be affiliated with either, or if you affiliate with one or the other out of pragmatism (say you live in an area in which one party dominates, for instance, and you'd like to have some say in the representation from that area) why should you be excluded from voting for your preferred candidate to compete in the general election?

Here's an idea. To prevent crossover voting in the states with closed primaries, we should make people sign a loyalty oath when they register for a party. We could even exclude people who were registered with another party in the last election from voting in the primaries. That should do it.

edit: We're voting for the president of the nation, not the president of the party. That's what makes it different.

 

[Darth Rotor]

What Rob said. If you don't care to affiliate with a group, why should you have any say in the decisions that group makes? That's true of every other organization, be it a trade union, a bowling league, a church, a Jaycees chapter. What is the case for the position that political parties should be any different?

I see. Do you advocate mandatory membership in a political party in order to participate in the process? Is that it? I don't seem to recall the Constitution having that limitation to the voting franchise.

Do you?

DR

 

[BPSCG]

I see. Do you advocate mandatory membership in a political party in order to participate in the process? Is that it? I don't seem to recall the Constitution having that limitation to the voting franchise.

Do you?

I would advocate mandatory membership in a political party in order to participate in that party's political process.

If you don't have to be a member of a party to vote in its primary, what rationale would there be in having any restriction at all on voting in both parties' primary on primary day?

You want to vote in the Democratic party's primary, join the Democratic party. You don't like this year's crop of Democrats? Switch parties. It's easy, and free.

Don't want to join a party? Then you don't get a say in who that party nominates. On election day, you get to vote for one of the choices the people who voted in the primaries put up as their candidates.

A primary is a way of saying, "We're the Democrats, and these are the people we want to have run for office as Democrats." Allowing Republicans into the mix muddies the waters. It certainly makes life more entertaining for the rest of us, but it makes the will of the Democratic party more difficult to discern.

Say Clinton wins big in Indiana and scores an upset win in North Carolina. Without Republicans voting, she can tell the superdelegates, "Look, Obama is tanking and I'm coming on strong. You should get behind me."

With Republicans voting, her case is less clear, because you don't know how much of her victory is due to the Limbaugh Effect.

 

[Puppycow]

Are these the only two possibilities?
What about real democrats delivering a victory for Hillary Clinton? Not possible? Real democrats don't vote for Hillary?
How did she win the closed Pennsylvania primary then? A miracle, I guess...

Just talking a little trash.

 

[BPSCG]

Oh, I don't know. The decisions of bowling leagues don't affect the entire nation, perhaps?

So what? Then we should let everyone vote in the Democratic primaries - Democrat, Independent, Republican, Mexican, Albanian...after all, as you point out, the decisions of bowling leagues don't affect the entire world. Look at the intense interest in this election by non-Americans on this forum; when challenged, they point out that the result of our elections will have a major effect on them. So why shouldn't they be allowed to vote in the North Carolina primary, too?

There are only two parties that have any realistic chance at the presidency. If you don't care to be affiliated with either, or if you affiliate with one or the other out of pragmatism (say you live in an area in which one party dominates, for instance, and you'd like to have some say in the representation from that area) why should you be excluded from voting for your preferred candidate to compete in the general election?

Because you're not a member of that party. Why should you get a voice in who Democrats nominate if you aren't yourself a Democrat?

Here's an idea. To prevent crossover voting in the states with closed primaries, we should make people sign a loyalty oath when they register for a party. We could even exclude people who were registered with another party in the last election from voting in the primaries. That should do it.

That would be close. How about putting it on your (now constitutional) voter ID? Bar code on the back of the card would contain info about your affiliation or non-affiliation, card gets swiped when you show up at the polling place and tells the poll worker you're eligible to vote in that party's primary, or tells him you're not registered with the party holding the primary.

edit: We're voting for the president of the nation, not the president of the party. That's what makes it different.

And in November, you can vote for the president of the nation no matter what party you belong to - or don't belong to.

 

[Puppycow]

According to early exit polls:

CROSSOVER VOTING

Indiana's Democratic primary was open to all voters. About one in five said they were independents and one in 10 identified themselves as Republican. North Carolina's Democratic primary was open only to voters registered Democratic or unaffiliated; nearly one in five voters in that contest called themselves independents.

The Drudge Report says exit polls are showing an easy win for Obama in NC.

 

[Puppycow]

Limbaugh Relishes Apparent Indiana “Chaos” (audio of Rush's broadcast available)