Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
It's Rush Wot Won It
In the days running up to these last primaries, Rush Limbaugh told his national audience of conservatives to vote in the Democratic race.
I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know. We're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC, saying we're not going to be critical there. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yeah, I'm asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it -- I know it's a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need. It would be fun, too.
It turned into a pretty hot meme in Texas, and on Monday, while Rush was out, guest host Mark Davis scored an interview with Bill Clinton. Did it work?
Go and check the exit polls. In Wisconsin, Republicans made up 9 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. Just as tellingly, 14 percent of primary voters said they were "conservative," and Obama won them 59-40, a bigger margin than he won with liberals or moderates. Tactical voters who said Obama stood a better chance of winning in November? They went for him 87-13.
Now, look at Ohio. Once again 9 percent of voters were Republicans, but Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49. Once again, 14 percent of voters were "conservatives," and Obama and Clinton split them 48-48. (Obama did better with them than he did with liberals and moderates.) Those tactical voters who thought Obama could win gave him a 80-18 victory, a margin twelve points smaller than the margin in Wisconsin.
It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time since Super Tuesday, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.
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.
What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can't decide if it's better for Hillary or Obama, but it's a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)
UPDATE: The Texas theory is being challenged in the comments, so I'll add one data point. In 2004, Al Sharpton got 3.7 percent of the vote in Texas. Among the Republicans who crossed over to vote in the race, he got 10 percent. He got 2 percent of liberal voters, 4 percent of moderates, and 7 percent of conservatives. There's no way to explain this unless you assume some eventual Bush voters were making mischief for the Democrats.
UPDATE II: An e-mailer to the Corner has the most persuasive evidence yet. An astounding number of voters took Democratic ballots, voted for president, then left the rest of their ballots blank.
The undercount in the D primary was almost 700,000 ballots out of 2.86 million. By contrast, the undercount in the R primary was about 164,000 ballots out of 1.38 million. In the 2004 general election, the dropoff from president to railroad commissioner (the next race on the state ballot) was less than 400,000 out of 7.4 million.
It's reasonable to assume many of these voters were "screw the Dems" Limbaugh listeners.
|3.5.08 @ 11:33AM|#
I don't see a right-wing conspiracy here. Obama has crested, and now hes falling. He had really bad news cycles in the last week. The turban photo, the Farrakhan "endorsement", his wife's gaffes, his middle name, whether he has any real substance or not, etc etc.
shecky|3.5.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Conservatives seem to forget that the Clintons thrive when under fire. This may backfire for them in the long run if Clinton ends up facing McCain.
Abdul|3.5.08 @ 11:50AM|#
I voted for Hillary in VA's open primary because I thought McCain had the best chance of beating her. Obama cleaned her clock here despite my vote, but it's a strategic vote when the GOP nomination is already assured.
|3.5.08 @ 11:52AM|#
Pennsylvania Republicans have until March 24th to re-register for the privilege of voting for either of them. Or, if you can't stand McCain, vote for Ron Paul in the Pa. primary.
Episiarch|3.5.08 @ 11:56AM|#
No Niedermeyer, that was Mjollnir whacking you in the
head.
These election results are the best possible, because it increases
the chances of a Dem convention bloodbath. I can't wait (rubs hands
with glee).
|3.5.08 @ 11:58AM|#
I don't know what's more pathetic: a political pundit so devoted
to carrying water for the RNC that he receives and follows their
campaign memos; or citizens so devoted to obeying a radio DJ that
they follow his instructions to vote for a candidate they don't
like.
Cesar, we know you feel that way, but shouldn't the data Weigal
cites matter at least a little?
Bhh|3.5.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Shorter Republican 2008 campaign:
1) CLINTONS!!!
2) About the last 8 years . . . uh . . .
3) CLINTONS!!!
4) And there's this McCain guy here.
90s nostalgia is something we all can agree on.
|3.5.08 @ 11:59AM|#
And WTF is this?
We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious
that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the
stomach for it,
You know those Republicans. So shy to bloody Democratic candidates.
Think Rush still has any Purple Heart band-aids?
|3.5.08 @ 11:59AM|#
Joe, isn't it quite possible that conservatives voted for Hillary because of hear fear ads. You know, they think Obama will "surrender", that hes a secret Muslim, etc.
|3.5.08 @ 12:04PM|#
They thought that three, seven, and ten weeks ago, too.
When did Fox Nooz run that story about Obama going to a "madrassa?"
When did the HUSSEIN OBAMA email start going around?
My gut tells me that people wouldn't take marching orders from a
DJ, but the hard data seem to suggest otherwise.
|3.5.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Yes joe, but the Republican race was still competitive seven and ten weeks ago. Now that McCain is a fati compli so they were free to vote in the Democratic primary without worry.
alan|3.5.08 @ 12:05PM|#
I've finally read the article Obama wrote for Foreign
Affairs,
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
to see how he perceives an Obama presidency will act on the world
stage ('perceive' as opposed how they 'will act' because weak
presidents often are no more than a contributing factor to how
foreign affairs are conducted during their administrations).
Reserving judgment while I digest this stuff, how many of you
believe that Obama conduct of foreign policy would be superior to
Clinton's?
|3.5.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Or being a "conservative" Dem means different things in WI and
TX. How is that less likely than your undemonstrated Limbaugh
causation?
I know you get paid just to move your fingers, not necessarily to
make sense, but...jeepers.
I'm sure you were up most of the night, and no faulty reasoning is
so seductive as one's own. Your proper penance would be to contact
Andrew Sullivan and calm him down a little.
|3.5.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Yes joe, but the Republican race was still competitive seven
and ten weeks ago.
It wasn't in Wisconsin. Though McCain didn't have the winning
number of delegates, he had the race sewn up, and people who are
political junkies enough to listen to Rush Limbaugh and vote
tactically would have know that.
alan|3.5.08 @ 12:11PM|#
Wegel missed the opportunity to use 'I am the DJ and I am what I
play' for the bump line.
I don't know what's more pathetic: a political pundit so
devoted to carrying water for the RNC that he receives and follows
their campaign memos; or citizens so devoted to obeying a radio DJ
that they follow his instructions to vote for a candidate they
don't like.
Too true.
When you throw principle out the window, all you have are your
enemies to fall back on.
|3.5.08 @ 12:12PM|#
With reagards to Clintons foreign policy, it will be Bush Lite. Though if I were Al Qaeda, I'd be scared of a Hillary Presidency. They seem to know how to always take down their enemies.
Michelle O|3.5.08 @ 12:16PM|#
America is "just downright mean"
New Yorker interview coming March 10th
OOOOPSS was I not suppose to say that? Not again...
|3.5.08 @ 12:18PM|#
On the military/security side of things, Obama and Clinton would
probably be very similar, mabye Hillary would be a little more
"forward engaged," but nothing dramatic.
On the diplomatic front, however, I think there would be a pretty
substantial difference.
I don't quite get Hillary and McCain's fear of holding talks with
hostile countries. What, exactly, makes those two think that
sitting across a bargaining table from them is a REWARD?
|3.5.08 @ 12:20PM|#
"Reserving judgment while I digest this stuff, how many of you
believe that Obama conduct of foreign policy would be superior to
Clinton's?"
Well, given that Clinton's married to a former president, she's
likely to be hampered due to grudges about what her husband did in
places like Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc.
Whether or not what Bill Clinton did was justified, the grudges and
distrust won't help us deal with present-day issues that arise in
the same areas.
|3.5.08 @ 12:21PM|#
I knew the Republicans were going to start going after the wife, but I thought it would be more overtly racial.
alan|3.5.08 @ 12:21PM|#
My opinion of Obama isn't a settled one, there is even a small
chance I'll vote for him (though a Barr run on the LP would be
interesting. I recall his disillusionment with the G-man Hoover as
a moment of great integrity), but I do not like the wife in the
least.
She reminds me of the old Cash&Carter
tune that went, 'oh, you big mouthed woman . . .'
|3.5.08 @ 12:22PM|#
The data does not suggest that Republicans voted for Clinton at the behest of Rush. Obama won among republicans and conservatives.
|3.5.08 @ 12:23PM|#
John H raises a good point, particularly in regards to places that have actual dynasties, and really do conflate the chief executive with the nation.
|3.5.08 @ 12:24PM|#
The Republicans better not go too hard after Michelle unless
they want Cindy "I stole OxyContin from my own charity" McCain to
get it good and hard too.
Democrats have been pretty nice to Laura (and before, Barbara) Bush
but this is the second time in the space of 16 years where
the Republicans attack the wife of their opponent.
I'm too young to remember how the Democrats felt about Nancy
Reagan. Did they try to go after her at all?
|3.5.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Obama won among republicans and conservatives.
True, Pinette, but by a much smaller margin. Obama has been picking
up Republicans and conservatives throughout the race; it's just now
- in both Texas and Ohio - that we started seeing a considerable
number of them vote for Hillary.
Rico|3.5.08 @ 12:25PM|#
"For the first time, they were Clinton's best ideological group:
She won them 53-43."
Except that in California, HRC won among self-described
conservatives by 50%-42%.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM
Rush Limbaugh effect. meh.
alan|3.5.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Jon H,
that is very much true and also tends to get underplayed in the
annuals of history. Also, there is the possibility that a Clinton
administration can be extorted by those whom the first Clinton's
administration played some peculiar
footsy.
|3.5.08 @ 12:27PM|#
If Republicans and/or conservatives really did cross over to vote for Hillary because they think she would be easier to beat, their strategy may very well backfire on them. This morning she was already hinting at offering the vice-presidency to Obama. A Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable. And don't be too sure that Obama wouldn't accept the vp slot - it's a great position from which to launch a campaign for president in 2012 or later. He's young enough that he can bide his time.
|3.5.08 @ 12:28PM|#
joe,
We do a good job of that here, particularly our media. Kennedy got
us to the Moon, Reagan ended the Cold War, etc. Of course, those
are entirely ridiculous statements given the distribution of power
in the federal government. It's the CEO = the company phenomenon
all over again. False, but beloved by many reporters none the less
(it makes better narrative). And accepted by most
consumers/voters.
Cesar,
It's one of the reasons I ignore the idea that Hillary Hate is some
uniquely awful Republican plot. The hate piled on Nancy Reagan by
the left was at least as bad. Although the whole astrology thing
was distressing ☺
|3.5.08 @ 12:28PM|#
If Rushbaugh keeps bragging about this, and Hillary wins the nomination and then beats McCain, that might cause some unpleasant scenes at the 2009 CPAC convention.
deron|3.5.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Reserving judgment while I digest this stuff, how many of
you believe that Obama conduct of foreign policy would be superior
to Clinton's?
Thanks for the link.
I can't answer your question regarding Obama. So reading the
article might be helpful to me.
Right now I don't expect Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy to be
particularly intelligent. Forceful, poll driven to appear strong,
erratic , irresponsible, constantly supported by fear tactics, big
on photo ops, and very active, all seem likely predictive
descriptions for a HRC foreign policy.
In this regard I don't know the substance of Obama's policy. It
could be worse than Hillary's.
McCain, for me, will beat Hillary, for the sole reason that I don't
feel he'll calibrate a dumb move to appear strong on security. I
also feel like he be pretty status quo. If you're happy with
that.
|3.5.08 @ 12:29PM|#
can the exit polls be trusted? wouldn't a republican strategic enough to vote in the dem primary for the candidate they perceive to be weaker also be cunning enough to try to hide their efforts by not participating in exit polls, or lying? which would make obama look weaker or worse, conservatives voting against him, or liberals, or independents? maybe i am overthinking it.
|3.5.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Pro Lib,
To a certain extent, that's human nature, but in a country with an
actual monarchy or president-for-life, the whole "L'etat c'est moi"
thing is going to be even stronger.
It's called "Saudi Arabia" fer chrissakes!
|3.5.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Well, yes, we still have divided government here. I'd just like to keep it that way, though I feel increasingly alone in that desire.
|3.5.08 @ 12:35PM|#
I'd like a divided government but reversed. Democratic President, Republican Congress. Why? Because the Democrats in Congress seem to have no spine.
|3.5.08 @ 12:37PM|#
When it gets close to thirty years of a Bush/Clinton in power (as it would if Hildog serves two terms) I think we can safely say we're not a Republic anymore.
Bingo|3.5.08 @ 12:44PM|#
If joe is saying the modern American political establishment and system are fucking stupid then I agree with him.
Charles|3.5.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Cesar,
Worse, there's no reason to think it would end there. Jeb?
Chelsea?!?
|3.5.08 @ 12:49PM|#
Skimming through the top half of the comments, I see no mention of "da yoonyun vote." I suspect Hillary's use of NAFTA (and the post-debate Obama's Secret Wink-wink Nudge-nudge story) as a tool to rally the UAW, Steelworkers, and their faithful ilk, was pretty successful, in Ohio.
|3.5.08 @ 12:54PM|#
A Clinton-Obama ticket would be unstoppable.
Your deluted. An Obama ticket would be unstoppable. Clinton is
poision to too many voters, which is why the Republicans are so
desperate to keep Clinton is the race.
Hillary is only a "dream" to die hard Democrats. She is highly
likely to alienate the middle. Lets see how much those rural
gun-owning democrats in the middle love Hillary "Gun Control"
Clinton. Or how much the Cuban population in Florida love Hillary
"Send Elan back to Cuba" Clinton. Or how much the democratic union
workers with really good health insurance want to give it up for
Hillarycare.
|3.5.08 @ 12:59PM|#
David Weigel,
I think you're conflating conservatives and Repulicans to make your
argument but in Texas the two don't strongly overlap. For example,
you will find many older African American's who identify themselves
as conservatives based on their social conservatism. Many whites
also do the same thing even though they have been democrats for 40
years. Prior to the 80's, Republicans didn't exist in Texas and all
conservatives were democrats. Many people have never caught
up.
Based on that information, the exist polling would seem to indicate
that Republicans voting Democrat helped Obama more than they helped
Hillary. I listened to local talk radio yesterday to track the
election and Republican callers who said they voted democrat seemed
to divide evenly between those who went with Obama and those who
went with Hillary.
Republicans do near universally hate Hillary (the see her as the
Democrat Nixon) but that hatred generates two different voting
strategies. Some people see her as the weakest candidate and vote
for her but others see her as so dangerous that they would rather
see Obama win the Presidency.
|3.5.08 @ 1:02PM|#
On the Limbaugh Koolaid: I think what Limbaugh suggested to his followers is one of the most unpatriotic, and reprehensible, acts that I've seen. To suggest that our right to vote should be carelessly thrown around to subvert the will of the people is disgusting. I'm pretty sure that's not what our founding fathers had in mind, nor what millions have fought and died for in defending this right
|3.5.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Your deluted.
I believe the word you are looking for is deluded. I drink
alot of coffee, but not enough to dilute myself. And no,
I'm not deluded either - wait and see.
Chris Blask|3.5.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Hi folks,
Sen. Clinton won last night, in large part, due to Republicans
following Rush's advice to insincerely vote for Sen. Clinton
"because she will be easier to beat in November." Sen. Clinton got
~10% of her vote Tuesday from Republicans, and while many of us
right-wingers are supporting Obama based on actual support for him,
I dare say there are few (if any) to right of center who are
supporting Clinton.
Within a ten-minute period on the Sean Hannity show last night
(around 7:10pm ET), two out of three callers bragged about
switching and voting for Clinton to help bring Obama down and
thereby win the general election for Sen. McCain (one in Ohio, one
in Texas). The third caller was debating it.
Tiffany in Austin, after laughing at Democrats about it, went on to
say that she was going to go out and caucus as well. She noted that
her firefighter husband said he "couldn't bring himself to do it",
for which I give him points for moral character.
Even Sean Hannity spent a good bit of time voicing his discomfort
with the idea. "Ask yourself how you would feel if the Democrats
were doing that to our primary," he asked the undecided election
subverter in Ohio.
I think the entire episode is sordid. On the part of
democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you. This is the
antithesis of what core conservative political values are about. On
the part of Sen. Clinton in supporting the action (and recommending
McCain over Obama), the whole implication of turning on your party
to serve your own ends is perhaps the lowest form of betrayal of
trust.
I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest
makes me feel soiled and disappointed.
-chris
|3.5.08 @ 1:07PM|#
joe,
I don't quite get Hillary and McCain's fear of holding talks
with hostile countries. What, exactly, makes those two think that
sitting across a bargaining table from them is a REWARD?
Because culturally, Americans talk or we fight. Doing both at the
same time seems dishonest. Saying that one will base one's strategy
on diplomacy signals to that one has taken coercive action off the
table.
That is in fact how we do behave and our enemies always seek to
engage in long drawn out negotiations precisely to delay any action
that we might take.
When Obama says that he will talk, he is simultaneously declaring
that he won't employ direct or indirect coercion. A lot of people
think that is a bad idea based on the character of the people we
would be talking to.
SIV|3.5.08 @ 1:12PM|#
I'm too young to remember how the Democrats felt about Nancy
Reagan. Did they try to go after her at all?
Viciously,the Dems portrayal of Nancy Reagan made Marie Antoinette
look like Mother Theresa.
Going after the wife is an old tradition in American
politics.
Who was the last Presidential Candidate elected with a junkie wife?
There might be a curse there,Betty, Kitty, now Cindy?
Neil B.|3.5.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Cesar | March 5, 2008, 11:33am [at the top]
I don't see a right-wing conspiracy here.
...
That comment is silly on its face given the context we know: Rush
specifically told listeners to vote for Hillary! Of course it had
an effect, he has influence and they love tactical gamesmanship.
That's pretty much a given, argue over the details of how much
difference it made.
|3.5.08 @ 1:19PM|#
For Limbaugh the loyalty to the GOP is
patriotism.
That must be why he has refused to endorse McCain.
Jesus I hope deron is not really with Reason.com.
That was almost as dumb as what joe has been vomiting up on this
thread.
|3.5.08 @ 1:19PM|#
If this is true, it's no worse than Democrats and independents flooding into the GOP primaries to vote for McCain, is it? Open primaries are the problem -- the system is set up to encourage this type of behavior.
|3.5.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Shannon Love, you are making really insightful, thoughtful
points today.
On the "conservative Democrats" in Texas: would that not also have
been true in South Carolina and other Southern states, which did
not have the same conservative Clinton vote?
On talking and fighting: I suspect that what you describe does
describe the mindset of McCain and many Americans, but I will point
you to Bill Clinton's diplomatic offensive towards Milosevic, and
Reagan's initial diplomatic thrusts towards Gorbachev.
So, out of curiosity, are you a girl or an Irish guy?
|3.5.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Charles its not Jeb whose next. Its Jeb's son, George P. Bush. Hes even partly hispanic, which would help a lot especially in 2024 or so.
|3.5.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Going after the wife is an old tradition in American politics.
Why didn't they go after Barbara and Laura Bush? You think with all
the vitriol the last eight years they would've tried it.
|3.5.08 @ 1:30PM|#
I don't recall the "vicious" treatment of Nancy Reagan. The worst I can remember was the astrology thing, which seemed like a fair point, and the stories about her and Raisa Gorbachev not getting along.
|3.5.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Charles its not Jeb whose next. Its Jeb's son, George P.
Bush. Hes even partly hispanic, which would help a lot especially
in 2024 or so.
Don't the Kennedys have any spawn? Or the Rosevelts?
|3.5.08 @ 1:32PM|#
To suggest that our right to vote should be carelessly
thrown around to subvert the will of the people is
disgusting.
I'm a little foggy on how casting a vote = subverting the will of
teh peepul.
More anecdotal evidence: I know lots of Republicans who voted in
the Dem primary. Not one could bring themselves to vote for
Hillary, even while acknowledging the strategic value of such a
vote to the Republicans.
Shannon Love, you are making really insightful, thoughtful
points today.
Shannon makes insightful, thoughtful posts most days.
I don't quite get Hillary and McCain's fear of holding talks
with hostile countries. What, exactly, makes those two think that
sitting across a bargaining table from them is a REWARD?
I doubt its fear. Its more a recognition that talking with a regime
legitimizes it, and creates expectations that we will give it some
of what it wants. History shows that this tends to be a one-way
street.
The question shouldn't be, why won't we talk with country X? The
question should be, why should we? How, exactly will these talks
advance our national interest? What concessions will country X
make, what promises will it make and keep?
|3.5.08 @ 1:32PM|#
So let me get this straight: for Republicans like Rush, the
point is really that "your side" wins- even if you don't like what
your candidate stands for, as Rush as said he feels re
McCain.
I agree with poster who said :
"I think the entire episode is sordid. On the part of
democracy-subverting Republicans - I'm ashamed of you. This is the
antithesis of what core conservative political values are
about.
I don't mind losing a fair fight, but this aspect of the contest
makes me feel soiled and disappointed. "
If some (note use of word, some) feel they can't win fairly, why
must they cheat?
Are you so happy with the way your party has run things the last 8
years?
|3.5.08 @ 1:36PM|#
joe,
You were probably too young to catch all of it, but the Nancy stuff
was heavy duty. I used to more or less accept her evil genius label
myself back then, assuming in my young adulthood that where there's
smoke, there's fire. Her behavior since seems to negate much of
that. To me, anyway.
In any case, there's no dirty trick that either party is completely
innocent of. Though dead people voting seems to be a more likely
occurrence with the Democrats, for some reason.
Pendulum|3.5.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Ohio here. My roommate's whole family, McCain voters, took to
the polls for Clinton.
Plus, when I was in the Mansfield area, I heard that the rumor
about Obama swearing only on the Koran, and turning his back to the
flag and slouching during the Pledge of Allegiance was making the
rounds.
|3.5.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Hillary is now up +4 nationally in the new gallup polls. Seems Obama crested WAY too early.
deron|3.5.08 @ 1:38PM|#
Sorry Joshua, don't want to upset. But, if you feel I'm trolling
don't be so dumb as to egg me on.
I'm not a Rush fan. I don't trust that his anti-McCain take will
last.
I don't believe he wanted people to crossover to vote for Hillary,
because he wants Hillary to be President. He wanted people to
crossover, because McCain will beat Hillary. Who cares if he
refuses to endorse McCain, if his actions are meant to help McCain
get elected?
If he doesn't want McCain elected, then why would he encourage the
crossovers?
alan|3.5.08 @ 1:41PM|#
his back to the flag and slouching during the Pledge of
Allegiance was making the rounds.
Why I would never make it in politics. I don't do the flag worship
thing, nor the pledge thing. The only words that come out of my
mouth are my own.
|3.5.08 @ 1:41PM|#
R C,
The question should be, why should we?
In general,
1) To get stuff from them,
2) To gain the upper hand over them by engaging and winning in a PR
battle.
It's interesting that you just assume we would always come out the
worse in such endeavors - sort of the opposite of the assumption at
the beginning of the Iraq War that of course we would accomplish an
impressive and glorious victory that would enhance our image and
power.
The diplomatic arena, like the military arena, can be a space for
competition as well as cooperation. Conservatives - with Reagan as
a notable exception - have a tendency to lose there by forfeit, and
that's not good for our interests.
And, unfortunately, like so many other aspects of government
(emergency management comes to mind), their lack of appreciation
for its importance leads them to put little effort into getting
good at it, so when they do enter that arena (say, the negotiations
with India about nuclear technology), the other side ends up eating
our lunch.
|3.5.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Joe, other Republicans besides Reagan have engaged with
America's enemies.
Nixon talked to China (who only a few years before said they would
defeat us in a nuclear war one day), Eisenhower engaged Khruschev
even though he said he would "bury" us.
deron|3.5.08 @ 1:47PM|#
The Republican's ability to engage with enemies is one of the
greatest strengths the GOP has, and one of the reasons I fear a HRC
foreign policy.
McCain will be able to talk without being permanently hurt and
called weak. Hillary or Obama will never be able to talk without
ever being able to live down the soft angle.
If it makes sense: I don't think Hillary will ever risk it, I can't
decide if Obama would, and I feel fairly certain McCain will.
What would China be like today if we had treated it like we have
Cuba?
|3.5.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Its going to be kind of amusing to watch MoveOn, Kos, et al. come crawling back to Hillary in a few months.
deron|3.5.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Its going to be kind of amusing to watch MoveOn, Kos, et al.
come crawling back to Hillary in a few months.
To be fair an balanced. Their patriotism extends as far beyond the
Democrat Party as Rush's extends beyond the GOP.
|3.5.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Al Sharpton .... Among the Republicans who crossed over to vote in the race, he got 10 percent .... 7 percent of conservatives. There's no way to explain this unless you assume some eventual Bush voters were making mischief for the Democrats.
That's "Reverend" Al Sharpton. It's just the Conservative
Evangelicals going for one of their own.
Right?
|3.5.08 @ 1:54PM|#
I don't think Hillary Clinton is nearly as weak of a national
candidate as people think. She does really well with working class
voters and no one gets more out of the old Democratic turnout
machine than the Clintons. Also, she is such a known commodity.
That works against her in the sense that she will never get her
negaitives down. But it helps her in the sense that there really
isn't an effective way to attack her. Everyone knows who she is and
already has an opinion of her. If Hillary wins the nomination,
people will vote on the issues rather than the person, especially
with the election being between two very known commodities in
Hillary and McCain.
The other big advantage she has is that her husband was President
and the world didn't end. Clinton wasn't the greatest President but
he wasn't Jimmmy Carter either. As much as I dislike the Clintons,
I wouldn't lose much sleep over the safety and future of the
country if she were President. I doubt I am alone in that feeling.
Obama in contrast is a total wildcard who seems to have a
dangerously inflated view of himself. When it comes down to voting,
a lot of people are going to take the devil they know in McCain
over Obama.
alan|3.5.08 @ 1:58PM|#
What would China be like today if we had treated it like we
have Cuba?
What it is today, a force to be reckon with. I imagine though a few
caveats there, for instance those diplomats who put their personal
stakes into ties with the US if we had turned our backs on China,
they, who also tended to be the market reformers, would have
suffered politically at the hands of the hard liners.
However, my point is, there is nothing preventing either Cuba or
China from being an Nations above the par in terms of economic and
political power beyond the decrepit
nature of Communism.
|3.5.08 @ 1:58PM|#
I'm a Houston resident and stood outside the polling place
yesterday watching Republican after Republican enter the Democratic
polling place. It was happening throughout the state.
Next to Hillary, the happiest person on earth today is Rush
Limbaugh.
|3.5.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Next to Hillary, the happiest person on earth today is Rush Limbaugh.
And whoever started the Obama "Muslim" rumor. It seems to have
worked quite well.
|3.5.08 @ 2:01PM|#
With McCain as the GOP's choice, I now view my political affiliation as Anti-Democratic instead of Republican. I'm voting for Hillary in the general election because she'll be hell on the Democratic party, just like her husband. I want to watch Democratic congressmen embarassing themselves defending the classless Clintons again. I crave scandal and coverup, and I don't think Bill and Hillary can help but get into trouble.
|3.5.08 @ 2:02PM|#
If Hillary wins the nomination, people will vote on the
issues rather than the person, especially with the election being
between two very known commodities in Hillary and
McCain.
Didn't we used to know that Hillary was pro-NAFTA and McCain
supported medical marijuana? In an age when politicians are
allowed, and even expected, to change their minds on issues to win
elections, is there anyone who's a known commodity?
I mean, as Matt Welch has documented extensively, newspaper
editorial boards don't seem to know anything about John McCain's
past...
|3.5.08 @ 2:03PM|#
"However, my point is, there is nothing preventing either Cuba
or China from being an Nations above the par in terms of economic
and political power beyond the decrepit
nature of Communism."
No there is not. A lot more countries refused to trade with
Apartheid South Africa than refuse to trade with Cuba. Yet, the
poorest South African black wasn't much worse off than your average
Cuban and overall South Africa was about a hundred times richer
than Cuba. I hate Castro but I get tired of the Cubans whining all
of the time like none of this was their fault. It is Cuba's
business who runs their country and if they as a society are not
willing to do the right thing and rise up and hang the dumb bastard
and his toadies, at some point they bear some responsibility for
how things are.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.5.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Allen:
On the Limbaugh Koolaid: I think what Limbaugh suggested to his followers is one of the most unpatriotic, and reprehensible, acts that I've seen.
Then maybe you don't remember the time in the '90s he suggested
that his listeners should wear dollar bills on their lapels to take
them out of circulation and damage the economy because
it would hurt Clinton.
|3.5.08 @ 2:04PM|#
"13% voted for Hillary despite thinking Obama is the most
electable."
That doesn't mean those 13% are conservatards.
I am a democrat. I think Hillary is teh better president. I think
Obama is the most electable. I voted for Hillary.
I vote for you being an idiot.
alan|3.5.08 @ 2:04PM|#
If Hillary wins the nomination, people will vote on the
issues rather than the person, especially with the election being
between two very known commodities in Hillary and
McCain.
I have a feeling, Clinton would be the tougher opponent to match
McCain in a race as well. Obama did not fair so well in the news
conference the other day. I hate to resort to anecdotal evidence,
but that, the items on his website, and the article in foreign
affairs are pretty much all I have to make an assessment.
|3.5.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Or, to echo Mitt Romney, neither Hillary nor McCain has ever held an executive office, nor run a business. We have no idea of how they would perform as administrators, and since both have changed their positions on issues over and over again, there's precious little we know for sure what would happen after one of them takes office.
|3.5.08 @ 2:07PM|#
"Didn't we used to know that Hillary was pro-NAFTA and McCain
supported medical marijuana? In an age when politicians are
allowed, and even expected, to change their minds on issues to win
elections, is there anyone who's a known commodity?"
True, but when I say known commodity, I don't just mean the issues.
Everyone expects politicians to pander and say what they think
people want to hear. But with someone who has been on the national
scene as much as McCain and Clinton have, there really isn't much
else to say about the person. You either love them or hate them but
I doubt your opinion is going to change between now and November.
So people will basically vote on the platform each candidate is
running on more than their personal affinity for them.
|3.5.08 @ 2:08PM|#
I hate Castro but I get tired of the Cubans whining all of
the time like none of this was their fault.
So, if the Cuban economy would be in terrible shape even without
the embargo, lifting it wouldn't help Castro or his successors,
would it? So why don't we just end the embargo and take away that
excuse?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.5.08 @ 2:08PM|#
John:
I don't think Hillary Clinton is nearly as weak of a national candidate as people think. She does really well with working class voters and no one gets more out of the old Democratic turnout machine than the Clintons. Also, she is such a known commodity. That works against her in the sense that she will never get her negaitives down. But it helps her in the sense that there really isn't an effective way to attack her.
Her negatives will go up every time she gives a speech. That voice.
She's her own worst enemy as far as that goes.
Apart from Rex Rhino's regrettable typo, I agree with his thinking
that Hillary Clinton is poison in the general election, regardless
of where her position on the ticket. I could be wrong, but I think
it's not just Republicans who hate her (and they do), but
independents as well.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.5.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Cesar, I don't know if it will hurt her, but it should.
I fear that you're right in the future being some combination of
Jeb, George P, and Chelsea. This is embarrassing. It's like Hazzard
County politics.
|3.5.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Chris,
Niether one of them have been an exectutive but by McCain being in
Congress for so long and Clinton being whatever the hell she was
during her husband's administration they understand the
bureaucracy. Running the federal government is like running nothing
else on earth. It is totally different from anything in the private
sector. I think Romney would have gotten a bigger surprise had he
been elected President than either McCain or Clinton. Romeny would
have come in there thinking he was King/CEO and the bureaucracy
would have ate him alive.
|3.5.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job-
I never thought I'd see politics in the USA turn into Mexico under
the PRI or India shortly after independence, but it seems headed
that way.
|3.5.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Does anyone here think the dynasty issue will hurt Hillary
in the general?
I think it could. We're seeing that voters 1)want change and 2)want
a brass-balled commander in chief. In the Democratic primary
Clinton loses one of those arguments. In the general election she
loses both.
|3.5.08 @ 2:13PM|#
"So, if the Cuban economy would be in terrible shape even
without the embargo, lifting it wouldn't help Castro or his
successors, would it? So why don't we just end the embargo and take
away that excuse?"
I don't have a problem with ending the embargo. I really don't care
about Cuba one way or another anymore. They can sit down there and
live in their own shit for all I care. Go ahead and trade with them
and hope that someone on that shithole of an island gets some sense
and does away with the Castros.
|3.5.08 @ 2:16PM|#
OK, John, I guess I was assuming you were an embargo supporter for some reason. Fair enough.
deron|3.5.08 @ 2:16PM|#
It is Cuba's business who runs their country and if they as
a society are not willing to do the right thing and rise up and
hang the dumb bastard and his toadies, at some point they bear some
responsibility for how things are.
At the risk of asking a question I don't know the answer
to...
When was the last time that our restriction on trade, and policy of
non-communication resulted in the people rising up and hanging the
the dumb bastards and toadies?
|3.5.08 @ 2:17PM|#
When was the last time that our restriction on trade, and policy of non-communication resulted in the people rising up and hanging the the dumb bastards and toadies?
The only time I can think where it worked was against Slobidan
Milosevic when the Serbians finally had enough of being
international pariahs and kicked him out.
I'd say the 1989 revolutions too but we actually talked and engaged
with the eastern block.
|3.5.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Remember that Texas has a huge hispanic population that has a
positive history with Hillary. They are loyal and came out to vote
for her in numbers. Her policy of allowing illegal but honest
mexican immigrants living and working here to pay a fee and become
a citizen is very popular in that community. Barack's policy is
similar but says they must go to the back of the line. I saw very
few hispanics at his rally in Dallas but many hispanic families in
the Hillary section during the caucus last night. So I'd say Rush
didn't have such a significant impact in Texas as suggested.
Either that or Diebold did it again! Hillary would be easier to
defeat as far as Republican strategy goes.
==================
End Corporate Rule!
|3.5.08 @ 2:20PM|#
I would like to know why the Democartic Clintosn have all of a
sudden become buddy-buddy with Rush, Karl Rove, etc? They are
selling the Democratis down the river. I have never voted for a
republican in my life, but I will if Hillary Clinton gets the
nomination. I defended her for years and now I see her for what she
is and I can't stand her. Everyone I have spoken with today feels
the same way.
WAKE UP people..they want her out so the party rallies around
McCain. They will rally just to defeat her.
|3.5.08 @ 2:21PM|#
Question to those who doubt the Limbaugh effect: Please explain
why, in a heavily GOP district of San Antonio, the large majority
of primary voters voted for Hillary Clinton, not John McCain. In
their caucus, Obama was the clear winner.
The talk of the neighborhood was Limbaugh's idea to cross lines for
HRC.
deron|3.5.08 @ 2:24PM|#
WAKE UP people..they want her out so the party rallies
around McCain. They will rally just to defeat her.
There's nothing wrong with that. Of course they want to win.
My complaint is that many of these people, Rush included, have
already said McCain would be terrible. So why now make moves to
help him win? Maybe he's not as bad as all that?
|3.5.08 @ 2:28PM|#
John does an excellent job laying out why, on paper, Hillary is
a stronger candidate than Obama.
Sort of like how Bush the Elder was a stonger candidate on paper
than Bill Clinton.
Obama got game. Hillary got no game. Hillary will win over everyone
that finds her impressive on paper, and that's it. Obama's charisma
and magnetism, like Reagan's or Clinton's, can win over people who
aren't like him ideologically, or who aren't won over by his record
in office.
|3.5.08 @ 2:29PM|#
"My complaint is that many of these people, Rush included, have
already said McCain would be terrible. So why now make moves to
help him win? Maybe he's not as bad as all that?"
He isn't and there is no reason for Rush and his like to have such
issues with McCain other than the fact that he didn't kiss their
ass enough.
|3.5.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Joe-
"On paper" seems to be helping her a lot recently.
Or at least, shes been extremely effective in raising Obama's
negatives. The Clintons know how to play dirty, how to take a race
into the gutter and come out on top.
Obama just gives a pretty speech and then ends up getting
swiftboated on everything from his middle name, to his religious
background, to his wife.
|3.5.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Joe,
On the "conservative Democrats" in Texas: would that not also have
been true in South Carolina and other Southern states, which did
not have the same conservative Clinton vote?
I can't say without seeing the data. I can say that since,
conservative does not equal Republican in this context, arguing
that Rush's urging of Republicans to vote for Hillary in the
democrat primary lead to victory is not supported by the numbers.
Indeed, it appears that Republicans broke for Obama.
In general, I would say that the national data shows that
conservative democrats go strongly for Hillary. I don't see
anything in the Texas data to contradict that general trend.
I think that in the end, the fear that Hillary is the second coming
of Nixon overwhelmed the hope she would be easier to defeat in the
general election.
On talking and fighting: I suspect that what you describe does
describe the mindset of McCain and many Americans, but I will point
you to Bill Clinton's diplomatic offensive towards Milosevic, and
Reagan's initial diplomatic thrusts towards Gorbachev.
Like most things, this is largely a matter of emphasis and
wariness. After all, Bush is talking to all the governments in the
region right now and always has. On that basis, how would Obama be
any different. For his statement to be meaningful, it must mean
that he intends to put down Bush's big stick and just rely on the
good faith of those who declared themselves our enemies.
History suggest that they will take him for a ride and play for
time just like they did Nixon, Carter and Clinton. People who
maintain their position in their positions within their own
societies by violence are not to be trusted in negotiations, even
nominal allies unless one holds a credible threat over them.
So, out of curiosity, are you a girl or an Irish
guy?
My spouse's name is Michaelynne and my children are named Ripleigh
and Rylant, so the answer should be obvious.
|3.5.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Joe,
Reagan and Clinton could win with average people. Reagan and
Clinton could both connect with working people from places like oh
I don't know Ohio. Obama has shown no ability to do that. He has
charisma if you only count black voters and elite white liberals.
Hillary is killing him with the white working class vote. Obama
hasn't shown one lick of charisma with that group. Since he is so
charismatic with a certain group of people, educated liberals, and
that group is very influential in the media, it is easy to believe
that he has all of this charisma with everyone else. But that
doesn't appear to be happening. If it were, he wouldn't have gotten
killed in Ohio and he would have won Texas, Republicans or no.
|3.5.08 @ 2:43PM|#
It's not just Rush. It's Coulter and Hannity (Rush's echo
chamber/cheering squad).
As Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Atlantic blog:
"History gets funnier, doesn't it? Who would have thought back in
the 1990s that the Clintons would finally join forces with
talk-radio hate? But it seems so fitting now, in retrospect. They
are just two sides of the same polarizing coin. They need each
other; they feed off each other; they sustain each other. Breaking
their stranglehold on American politics is partly what this
election is about. It's good to flush them out."
http://obamastraws.blogspot.com/2008/03/rogues-gallery.html
Bonded|3.5.08 @ 2:47PM|#
It was either Fox or CNN that had polling data that showed
Republicans did cross over, but more crossed over for Obama than
Hilary. The logistics of this opportunity were too tempting to pass
up. But obviously this was not a well organized event that leads to
no net gain effect.
In regards to the fairness argument: Are we now going to bring back
the old debates about gerrymandering that goes much farther in
nullifying voter blocks in the general election than party jumping
in the primaries?
deron|3.5.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Is Bush's big stick convincing anyone of anything right
now?
Honest question. Korea, Iran, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuela...
I see two wars that ought to have given them all the willies, but
things don't appear to be much different then the status quo from
eight years ago. Sure, the bad guys may have ducked, but when they
looked around they appear to have all come out of their holes and
gone on about their business. The world looks as much like a
prairie dog town as ever.
|3.5.08 @ 2:49PM|#
"Breaking their stranglehold on American politics is partly what
this election is about. It's good to flush them out."
It looks as if politics as usual may be winning out. Rush may have
the Clintons around for the next 4 or 8 years to keep his ratings
up or McCain may be able to keep the failed foreign policy of Bush,
Cheney, and the neocons alive for the next 4 or 8 years.
|3.5.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Cesar,
"On paper" seems to be helping her a lot recently.
I think you're vastly overstating the significance of yesterday.
Don't you remember, Texas and Ohio were the "firewall" states that
were stacked in her favor, the way that the past 11 contests were
stacked in Obama's favor.
She's going to have to pull off an upset, or at least a victory
where she isn't picked to win, before we can start talking about
what she's done that worked.
Obama's victories since Super Tuesday didn't justify all the hype
about the race being over - they were all in states where he has
natural advantages due to demography - and Hillary's victories in
Texas and Ohio, ditto.
|3.5.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Joe, Obama HAD to put Hillary away yesterday. Because he didn't,
this campaign will go on for eight more weeks, ending in a state
extremely favorable to Hillary (Pennsylvania). The longer the race
lasts, the more Hillary's institutional/establishment credentials
help her push Obama down.
She went dirty on him, and its been effective. Hes crested. The
only way he stops this is if he wins Pennsylvania by a big margin.
Otherwise the superdelegates go to Hillary and its over for
him.
|3.5.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Elise,
It is funny that Sullivan calls out Limbaugh and the Clintons for
being nasty and hate filled when Sullivan is one the nastiest most
hate filled writers around. He is just the sober gay man's
Hitchens.
|3.5.08 @ 2:55PM|#
All these comments, and only ONE person mentions that the
Democrats cross over and vote in open Republican primaries,
too?
Back in 2000, most of McCain's primary wins came in open primary
states, and the general feeling was that support from Democrats
gave him those wins.
Just a few months ago, Kos was suggesting that his readers in
Michigan cross party lines and vote for Romney, specifically to
muddy the GOP waters.
It never fails to amaze me how Democrats can do anything they want,
but if/when the GOP does the same thing, it suddenly becomes a
crime against democracy.
If/when a GOP candidate petitions to keep the polls open later in a
friendly district, we'll suddenly hear how THAT's dirty gutter
politics. The Dems have done it the last few elections, but, you
know, that's different.
|3.5.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Shannon,
Again, Republican crossovers have always broken for Obama, but they
did so by much smaller margins this time, indicating that
for one reason or another, some significantly larger number of
Republicans turned out for her than had done so in the past. Maybe
they did so for another reason, but they did.
Like most things, this is largely a matter of emphasis and
wariness. Yes.
After all, Bush is talking to all the governments in the region
right now and always has. WHAT?!? Are you kidding me? Have you
already forgotten about the flap over Pelosi's Syria trip? The
refusal to meet with the Iranians? This is like the posters coming
down in 1984! Are you pulling my leg, or do you actually mean
this?
My spouse's name is Michaelynne and my children are named
Ripleigh and Rylant, so the answer should be obvious. Lol.
|3.5.08 @ 2:56PM|#
It is weird how a couple of moments can change things a lot. I think the SNL skit, the first funny one in years, and Obama's abysmal performance in the press conference where the Chicago media actually asked him some tough questions about his past relationship to lobbyists really hurt him. The SNL skit finally embarrassed the media enough to get them to be a little harder on him and the press conference gave people the impression he is not ready for prime time. That is the one thing about being a teen idol, which is what Obama is in political terms, once someone knocks you down you can fall just as fast as you rose.
|3.5.08 @ 3:00PM|#
"he intends to put down Bush's big stick and just rely on the
good faith of those who declared themselves our enemies."
They have only declared themselves to be our enemies because of our
meddling foreign policy.
|3.5.08 @ 3:03PM|#
http://www.state.gov/secretary/trvl/c20717.htm
"After all, Bush is talking to all the governments in the region
right now and always has. WHAT?!? Are you kidding me? Have you
already forgotten about the flap over Pelosi's Syria trip? The
refusal to meet with the Iranians? This is like the posters coming
down in 1984! Are you pulling my leg, or do you actually mean
this?"
I don't why I feed the troll but here goes. Joe look at Secretary
Rice's 2007 travel itinerary linked above. Bush is in dialog with
all of these people. As far as Iran goes, he has done exactly what
the Dems say he should do, which is work China and Russia and the
UN and try to get bilateral commitment to sanctions. Every
President Democrat or Republican engages in Diplomacy and talks to
these people If talking worked, North Korea and Iran and their ilk
wouldn't be a problem. Not that I expect you to understand that
since you are lunatic about these things.
|3.5.08 @ 3:04PM|#
John,
Reagan and Clinton could win with average people. Reagan and
Clinton could both connect with working people from places like oh
I don't know Ohio. Obama has shown no ability to do
that.
I guess they don't have working people in South Carolina, Colorado,
Maine, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Missouri, Mississippi, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Iowa...
Do you know what Reagan and Clinton both had? Crossover appeal.
Hillary, to put it mildly, lacks crossover appeal.
He has charisma if you only count black voters and elite white
liberals. I guess not, since he has been pulling large numbers
of Republicans throughout the contest (and not as part of a prank),
and has been leading in matchups with McCain, a popular centrist,
for months.
If it were, he wouldn't have gotten killed in Ohio and he would
have won Texas, Republicans or no. Yeah, right. I don't think
anybody has actually forgotten that Ohio and Texas have long been
known to be strongholds for Hillary Clinton. It's interesting that
the only people claiming to do so have a rooting interest in seeing
Hillary win.
You're spouting talking points, John. Just like when you repeated
the silly Wall Street Journal editoral about Obama's "relentlessly
negative message."
|3.5.08 @ 3:04PM|#
"They have only declared themselves to be our enemies because of
our meddling foreign policy."
Yeah, if we would just let the North Koreans invade and enslave the
South they would love us. If we would just let the Arabs kill every
Jew in Israel they would love us. The whole thing is clearly our
fault.
|3.5.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Joe, in Virginia Obama didn't win a single county in the Shennandoah Valley or Southwest. Those are the whitest, poorest parts of the state.
|3.5.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Cesar | March 5, 2008, 2:51pm | #
Joe, Obama HAD to put Hillary away yesterday.
Uh huh. Texas and Ohio have been described as safe Hillary states
for a month, but suddenly they're must-wins for Obama. Tell us
another one, pappy.
The only way he stops this is if he wins Pennsylvania by a big
margin. Oh, look, another state that has long been described
as safe for Clinton is a "must-win" for the candidate that is
leading her late in the race. It's funny how the states that he's
actually supposed to perform well in are not "must-wins," but only
the ones that have built-ih advantages for Hillary. You know what,
New York was totally a must-win for Obama, too.
Are you getting this crap directly from Terry McAulliff?
|3.5.08 @ 3:08PM|#
"I guess they don't have working people in South Carolina,
Colorado, Maine, Louisiana, Minnesota, Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, Missouri, Mississippi, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Iowa..."
They do and they generally voted for Hillary. What South Carolina,
Virginia and Mississippi have is black votes by the bunches.
Wisconsin and Iowa and Maryland have rich white liberals by the bus
loads. Look Joe, everyone who acts and thinks like you has a
schoolgirl crush on Obama. But not everyone is like you. Why were
Texas and Ohio Clinton strongholds? Because both states are full of
working class white and Hispanic voters that Clinton does well
with. If Obama did well with those voters, he would have the
nomination right now. Do you honestly believe that every Clinton
voter is an evil Republican causing mischief? Are you really that
crazy?
|3.5.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Meanwhile, of course, Oregon and Mississippi are meaningless.
Wisconsin in meaningless.
It's funny how the Obama must-wins can only been recognized in
hindsight, after Hillary wins them.
|3.5.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Joe if you're the challenger running against the insider candidate its not good enough to win small states or big states by close margins. You have to have a big enough victory that the party apparatus comes around, particularly in a close race.
|3.5.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Whatever she says, according to the delegate allocation rules in the 12 remaining Dem primaries (or at least according to the Slate.com calculator), Hillary needs to win every single one by fifteen percentage points (e.g. 58-42) OR MORE to surpass BO's pledged total. That's a tall order and is surely weighing on her and Bill at this stage...
|3.5.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Joe,
Somebody is voting for Hillary besides Republicans following Rush
Limbaugh's orders. We know it is not blacks, whom Obama wins by a
huge margin and we know it is not affluent whites. So just who the
hell is voting for Clinton if not Hispanics and working class
whites?
|3.5.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Speaking of hispanics and the election, the Republicans may not
realize it yet but nominating McCain really saved their bacon. Had
they nominated some "no amnesty" candidate who ranted about the
impending Reconquista hispanics would have ended up voting
for Democrats for the next 40 years.
Since they have a Southwesterner who believes in immigration reform
and--since he lives in a state with hispanics--realizes they're not
secret foreign agents Republicans now have the chance to make
inroads.
|3.5.08 @ 3:19PM|#
Joe look at Secretary Rice's 2007 travel itinerary linked
above.
The debate, of course, has been about presidential meetings with
the foreign head of state.
As far as Iran goes, he has done exactly what the Dems say he
should do, which is work China and Russia and the UN and try to get
bilateral commitment to sanctions.
The debate, of course, has been about presidential meetings with
the head of state.
Every President Democrat or Republican engages in Diplomacy and
talks to these people If talking worked, Even you, John,
typtically include at least a punctuation mark between
contradicting yourself. Bush has been like every president and
carried out extensive diplomacy but diplomacy doesn't work.
North Korea and Iran and their ilk wouldn't be a problem.
Ah, thank you for bringing up North Korea - the state we didn't
have any talks with, the state that the lack of talks demonstrated
Bush's superior grasp of the realities of foreign poilicy, the
state that developed a functional nuclear weapon during the period
that Bush was not talking to them, the state that ceased it nuclear
weapons program after we reoped negotiations.
Not that I expect you to understand that since you are lunatic
about these things. Yes yes, of course, why can't I just be
nice and sane and realize that we have strong diplomatic ties with
Eurasia and we have always had strong diplomatic ties with Eurasia,
and why can't I just be sane and realize you're right.
Shall I go back and start pulling up your quotes about how smart is
for not engaging hostile states diplomatically? Because you've
written literally hundreds of them since you started commenting
here.
|3.5.08 @ 3:24PM|#
Look at it this way, joe. Barack Obama has had two oppourtunnities to knock Hillary out of the race and he failed both times. He didn't win New Hampshire which could have secured the nomination early, and he didn't win last night which would have made him the presumptive nominee. Whats behind his inability to close to deal?
|3.5.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Look Joe, everyone who acts and thinks like you has a
schoolgirl crush on Obama.
Actually, he was my third choice, but do go on.
Why were Texas and Ohio Clinton strongholds? Because both
states are full of working class white and Hispanic voters that
Clinton does well with. That's a fair point, but you overstate
it. Obama has won white men, working class voters, and other
elements of Hlllary's base in numerous states. Really, it's only
Hispanics and old voters who have been dependable for
Clinton.
Do you honestly believe that every Clinton voter is an evil
Republican causing mischief? Oh, look everybody, it's a
magical "every." Gee, when you add an absolute into a statement you
can make it look irrational. That IS impressive, John.
BTW, did anybody else notice John lauding Hillary Clinton's
strength, and how reasonable it is for Republicans to cross over
and support her, before Rush Limbaugh told his ditto-heads it was a
good idea? I sure didn't.
|3.5.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Joe if you're the challenger running against the insider
candidate its not good enough to win small states or big states by
close margins.
Apparently it is, since he's winning the race by over a hundred
delegates, even after her latest "firewall," and it's getting late
in the game.
|3.5.08 @ 3:31PM|#
John,
So just who the hell is voting for Clinton if not Hispanics and
working class whites?
Hispanics, yes, in most states. Older voters. Women of a certain
age. And a respectable, but not overwhelming or even dependable,
chunk of working class white men.
And no, you're not going to change the argument from "Republican
crossover provided a margin for Clinton" to "Only Republicans vote
for Clinton."
|3.5.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Apparently it is, since he's winning the race by over a hundred delegates, even after her latest "firewall," and it's getting late in the game.
When does Obama close the deal, joe? After what state?
|3.5.08 @ 3:36PM|#
"Apparently it is, since he's winning the race by over a hundred
delegates, even after her latest "firewall," and it's getting late
in the game."
I have read the argument that if she maintains the momentum and
goes ahead in the popular vote, that she will have a moral case for
getting enough super delegates to vote for her and put her over the
top.
|3.5.08 @ 3:37PM|#
Cesar,
Barack Obama has had two oppourtunnities to knock Hillary out
of the race and he failed both times. He didn't win New Hampshire
which could have secured the nomination early, and he didn't win
last night which would have made him the presumptive nominee. Whats
behind his inability to close to deal?
It's a close race, and each candidate has states that are strong
for them. As everyone realized for a month (and some managed to
suddenly forget last night), Texas and Ohio are particularly strong
states for Clinton.
Using my psychic powers, I predict that Cesar will have absolutely
no problem remembering that Mississippi and Oregon are very strong
states for Obama that he is expected to win, but will come down
with amnesia about Pennsylvania being a strong state for
Clinton.
|3.5.08 @ 3:38PM|#
"When does Obama close the deal, joe? After what state?"
I'm not joe, but my answer would be he could never close the deal.
It will only be decided by super delegates.
|3.5.08 @ 3:38PM|#
"BTW, did anybody else notice John lauding Hillary Clinton's
strength, and how reasonable it is for Republicans to cross over
and support her, before Rush Limbaugh told his ditto-heads it was a
good idea? I sure didn't."
I have never had Clinton derrangement syndrome and frankly don't
think Hillary Clinton is that bad as Democrats go. Like I said, I
think she is wrong about a lot of things but I wouldn't lose any
sleep over her being President. I don't know that she is a weaker
candidate than Obama. A lot of people like her and I think she is
stronger than people think. Republicans are fools to think she
would be a pushover in the fall. The fact is the Democrats might
win in November and the prospect of Obama being President scares
the hell out me. He would be worse than Jimmy Carter at a worse
time to have another Carter. For that reason, I would greatly
prefer Hillary Clinton win the nomination.
My only selfish reason for rooting for Clinton is to see rich white
liberals and media especially lose. Also, it will be funny as hell
to see you on here explaining why Hillary's wars, wiretaping and
such are really different than Bush's version. Even if she doesn't
win, watching you do a 180 this summer and start saying how great
Hillary is after she does in Obama would be just too much fun to
miss.
|3.5.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Personally, for me the best thing about a Hillary Presidency would be the reaction of the Unions and protectionists when she not only forgets about her anti-NAFTA pandering, but even scores further trade deals with Latin American nations.
|3.5.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Cesar,
1. You are absolutely right about the McCain nomination saving the
Republicans from their own xenophobic rhetoric. Rove realized this
years ago, and Bush tried very hard, against the wishes of his
base, to get that bill through.
2. I don't think the deal will be closed until shortly before the
convention. I don't think either candidate can win enough pledged
delegates at this point.
You ask, why didn't Obama "close the deal" last night? Because he
was fighting on Clinton's turf. A better question is, why didn't
Clinton close the deal in the money race before the campaign even
began? In Iowa? In South Carolina? On Super Tuesday? Unlike Obama
trying to win Ohio and Texas, those were actually contests she was
supposed to win.
|3.5.08 @ 3:42PM|#
Cesar,
If Hillary Clinton as President could give us some trade deals, a
few non entities like Ginsburg on the Supreme Court and a gradual
reduction of forces in Iraq, I wouldn't complain unless she managed
to socialize medicine in this country which I don't think she could
do.
|3.5.08 @ 3:45PM|#
Joe if it goes to the convention its Hillary's to lose. Shes not as good a speaker as he is but she sure knows how to play an insiders game way better than Obama ever could. Thats why Obama had to put her away last night, to prevent it from going to the convention. Not to mention a big win on his part would have made Florida and Michigan completely irrelevant.
|3.5.08 @ 3:48PM|#
bookworm,
I have read the argument that if she maintains the momentum and
goes ahead in the popular vote, that she will have a moral case for
getting enough super delegates to vote for her and put her over the
top.
That might be true, but it is extremely unlikely. What happened
last night was not her gaining momentum, but a reversion to the
norm. Once again, and please, somebody show me where I'm wrong,
Texas and Ohio were Clinton strongholds that she was long expected
to win. Everybody has been saying this since Super Tuesday. Her own
campaign was putting out statements to that effect throughout her
0-11 streak since Super Tuesday, and they were right.
An argument can be made that she blunted Obama's momentum last
night, but that only puts things back to even in terms of momentum.
Obama couldn't take two states she was supposed to win - which is a
reasonably big deal, because he has taken several states she was
predicted to win throughout this contest.
But now, he is still up by over 150 delegates, it's getting late,
and he has a large financial advantage.
|3.5.08 @ 3:50PM|#
Joe Hillary would have won South Carolina had Bill not opened his big mouth. Its like Barry Goldwater said in '94--Bill is much better off when he shuts up and lets Hillary run things.
|3.5.08 @ 3:53PM|#
You are right Joe. It is still Obama's nomination to lose. I just think if he were that great of a candate, as in another Reagan or even another Bill Clinton, he would have put Hillary Clinton away by now. Ronald Reagan was running against an entrenched insider, George H.W. Bush, in 1980 and had him put away by now. Also, Reagan never got the kind of fawning media coverage Obama gets. Remember Voodo Economics? That was George Bush's line not Jimmy Carter. Bill Clinton was a nobody governor from Arkansas and put away Bill Bradley long before this. It is going to be a coyote ugly fight to convention now. I don't see how that says good things about Obama.
|3.5.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Cesar,
Joe if it goes to the convention its Hillary's to
lose.
Don't you think that depends on HOW they go into the convention?
Don't you think it will be different if he's 20 delegates ahead vs.
50 vs. 100 vs. 200? Of if he's a million popular votes up vs.
100,000 vs. 10,000 vs. even vs. behind?
|3.5.08 @ 3:57PM|#
"Roscoe3000-
Florida and Michigan."
I just don't see the super delagates seating them. It would be a
case of Hillary stealing the election and would cause resentment
among blacks and other Obama supporters and a split party and riots
in Denver. At the most, the Florida and Michigan primaries would be
rescheduled and Michigan with its large black population might go
for Obama. Hillary would also have to cary Florida by a large
margin to offset Obama's lead in delegates.
|3.5.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Joe Obama needs to be ahead both in the popular vote and the delegates by a very comfortable margin going into the convention. Otherwise, Hillary has the advantage. Obama +120 isn't good enough.
|3.5.08 @ 3:59PM|#
John,
George HW Bush never had Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls, nor
his level of insider advantage, nor his money. Hillary Clinton
spent a solid year being described as "inevitable," while George HW
Bush or Tom Harkin (who I think you meant instead of Bill Bradley)
didn't.
Hillary Clinton was the most dominating frontrunner in modern
history, and it says bad things about Obama that he didn't beat her
early? I don't think that's remotely accurate.
|3.5.08 @ 3:59PM|#
John in all fairness I think Hillary is a much more entrenched, establishment candidate than George H.W. Bush was in 1980. This is more like Reagan running against Gerald Ford in '76.
|3.5.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Cesar | March 5, 2008, 3:58pm | #
Joe Obama needs to be ahead both in the popular vote and the
delegates by a very comfortable margin going into the convention.
Otherwise, Hillary has the advantage. Obama +120 isn't good
enough.
I agree that the tie goes to Hillary. 120 sounds like as good an
over-under as anything else.
|3.5.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Polls? I just sit here and wonder what polls have to do with the primaries? When we're down to the general election, sure, that's easier, but now?
|3.5.08 @ 4:05PM|#
"Hillary Clinton was the most dominating frontrunner in modern
history, and it says bad things about Obama that he didn't beat her
early? I don't think that's remotely accurate."
You are right, she is not George HW Bush. But, Obama won ten in a
row. I know Clinton is like a vampire and is hard to kill but that
should have done it. All that momentum and all he had to do was win
either Texas or Ohio last night and it was over and he couldn't do
it. Either Clinton is a hell of a lot stronger of a candidate than
people think she is or Obama is a lot weaker.
Also, people act like only Obama's supporters will be pissed if
their guy loses the nomination. What if Hillary wins all of the big
states and has a small majority in popular votes? I would think her
supporters would have a pretty good bitch if the party insiders
gave it to Obama.
|3.5.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Also, people act like only Obama's supporters will be pissed if their guy loses the nomination.
John, I think some of that has to do with a kind of coded, racist
"OMG THE BLACKS WILL RIOT!" mindset. Either side could get pissed
off.
|3.5.08 @ 4:11PM|#
"Texas and Ohio were Clinton strongholds that she was long
expected to win."
You're right joe. Hillary had been up by 20 points in each of those
states, then Obama caught up with her until the last week when due
to various circumstances, he slipped. We got spoiled after these 11
wins in a row, particularly winning by large margins. I just hope
that he can someway turn things around again. He needs to win big
and have the momentum leading up to the convention to make the
moral case that most of those super delegates should go to him.
Then, Hillary can get knocked out.
|3.5.08 @ 4:15PM|#
"Also, people act like only Obama's supporters will be pissed if
their guy loses the nomination."
The point I'm making is if the nomination is stolen from Obama. I
don't think Obama supporters, even blacks, would be that pissed if
Hillary won fair and square. In fact, many of them like Hillary and
would be willing to support her whether or not she picked Obama as
her running mate. They just don't want to be cheated as nobody
wants to be cheated out of what is rightly his.
|3.5.08 @ 4:20PM|#
"What if Hillary wins all of the big states and has a small
majority in popular votes? I would think her supporters would have
a pretty good bitch if the party insiders gave it to Obama."
The Obama camp could come back with that if the caucases that he
won had been primaries, he could be in the lead in popular
votes.
Brutus|3.5.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Wow, everyone acts like this is something new. I'm a registered
Republican (a lonely place to be here in the People's Republic of
Massachusetts) and with Romney winning the primary here I held my
nose, put on my surgical gloves and hazmat suit, and took the
Democratic ballot to vote AGAINST a state rep candidate.
Actually, we do it all the time up here; almost all of our 80%
Democrat legislature runs unopposed.
deron|3.5.08 @ 4:22PM|#
John, I think some of that has to do with a kind of coded,
racist "OMG THE BLACKS WILL RIOT!" mindset. Either side could get
pissed off.
Really? That seems to be implying that Obama has been the black
candidate the way Jesse Jackson would be. It seems to me that there
are people who wish to thrust this on him for political gain, but I
don't see much actual proof of this angle in his campaigning.
My guess is the people who will be pissed off are young voters who
will view it as cynical politics winning out.
|3.5.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Joe, about Pennsylvania and your "psychic powers" . I'll save
you the trouble. To be the nominee, Obama must win
Pennsylvania.
Its not going to be good enough to say "Hey, I came back from 20
points behind in a state Hillary was supposed to win!"
He has to win, and by a comfortable amount.
|3.5.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"he has a large financial advantage."
Unfortunately, his financial advantage didn't help him last night.
He spent 4 times what she spent.
|3.5.08 @ 4:29PM|#
"My guess is the people who will be pissed off are young voters
who will view it as cynical politics winning out."
Blacks will also get pissed off and rightly so. I will also get
pissed. Hell, I might even go to Denver myself and riot.
|3.5.08 @ 4:37PM|#
"I wouldn't complain unless she managed to socialize medicine in
this country which I don't think she could do."
John, do you think Obama would succeed in that endeavor?
|3.5.08 @ 4:38PM|#
John,
But, Obama won ten in a row. I know Clinton is like a vampire
and is hard to kill but that should have done it. All that momentum
and all he had to do was win either Texas or Ohio last night and it
was over and he couldn't do it. Either Clinton is a hell of a lot
stronger of a candidate than people think she is or Obama is a lot
weaker. I think a great deal is being attributed to momentum
that is better attributed to the characteristics of the states. As
everybody was saying after Super Tuesday, those 11 were all leaning
towards Obama for one reason or another (they were caucuses, or
they had large black populations, or whatnot), while Texas and Ohio
were leaning towards Hillary. I think Obama's momentum was
overstated Monday morning, and Hillary's is overstated today.
Also, people act like only Obama's supporters will be pissed if
their guy loses the nomination. What if Hillary wins all of the big
states and has a small majority in popular votes? I would think her
supporters would have a pretty good bitch if the party insiders
gave it to Obama. Quite right. I've been pointing that out by
way of arguing that Obama might have to make her his running
mate.
deron|3.5.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Blacks will also get pissed off and rightly so. I will also
get pissed. Hell, I might even go to Denver myself and
riot.
Try to keep your rioting to the North side of town.
|3.5.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Cesar | March 5, 2008, 4:26pm | #
Joe, about Pennsylvania and your "psychic powers" . I'll save you
the trouble. To be the nominee, Obama must win
Pennsylvania.
Why?
He could lose the state and still have well over that 120 delegate
lead you mentioned earlier.
|3.5.08 @ 4:45PM|#
"Quite right. I've been pointing that out by way of arguing that
Obama might have to make her his running mate."
I don't think she would take it. She could be the most important
person in the Senate. I would rather be that than VP any day of the
week. Also, I would be shocked if Obama were willing to run with
her. With Bill as first husband, what exactly would Obama do?
Whoever loses the nomination probably has a better future in the
Senate than as VP. I can't see either of them going for it.
|3.5.08 @ 4:46PM|#
"John, do you think Obama would succeed in that endeavor?"
I hope not. I don't think he would either. My objection to Obama is
purely on foreign policy grounds. Domestically him and Clinton are
about the same and I don't think either one of them could get
anything crazy through Congress.
|3.5.08 @ 4:47PM|#
"I have never had Clinton derrangement syndrome and frankly
don't think Hillary Clinton is that bad as Democrats go. Like I
said, I think she is wrong about a lot of things but I wouldn't
lose any sleep over her being President. I don't know that she is a
weaker candidate than Obama. A lot of people like her and I think
she is stronger than people think."
My main opposition to her is that she's a crook. She doesn't
deserve to be in the White House again, she should be in the "big
house".
I think she would be a weaker candidate than Obama because she is
so hated. The polls show that nearly 50% of the public can't stand
her. Republicans would turn out in droves to vote against her. It
would be the one thing that could unify the Republican Party.
|3.5.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Joe-
He needs to put to rest, once and for all, Hillary's "big state"
argument. He needs an unexpected victory on Hillary's turf in a
state full of white working class union voters.
|3.5.08 @ 4:50PM|#
"I don't think he would either."
What if he had a great coatails effect? The socialized medicine bit
is the main thing that I have against Obama. I prefer his foreign
policy to McCains'. McCain supports the same failed foreign policy
that we've been following for the last 7 years.
deron|3.5.08 @ 4:52PM|#
He needs to put to rest, once and for all, Hillary's "big
state" argument. He needs an unexpected victory on Hillary's turf
in a state full of white working class union voters.
Couldn't he turn it on its head? Democrats are likely to carry the
big states whether it's him or Hillary. Hasn't the problem for
Democrats been, not winning in all the places Obama beat
Hillary?
|3.5.08 @ 4:53PM|#
"He needs an unexpected victory on Hillary's turf in a state
full of white working class union voters."
Isn't that what he got in Wisconsin?
|3.5.08 @ 4:53PM|#
John,
VP isn't what it used to be, back before Gore and Cheney.
And I'm just going to throw this out there: maybe Hillary Clinton
actually wants the Democrats to win, and would take the VP spot if
she thought it would give them the best chance.
|3.5.08 @ 4:58PM|#
"Couldn't he turn it on its head? Democrats are likely to carry
the big states whether it's him or Hillary. Hasn't the problem for
Democrats been, not winning in all the places Obama beat
Hillary?"
Karl Rove on Fox yesterday showed his predicted electoral map of a
Hillary vs. McCain and an Obama vs. McCain race. He showed Hillary
carrying the states the Democrats normally win and ending up losing
to McCain. His map for Obama vs. McCain showed states that normally
are red states going to Obama plus the blue states that Democrats
normally win. In his scenario, Obama would defeat McCain.
|3.5.08 @ 5:00PM|#
"maybe Hillary Clinton actually wants the Democrats to win, and
would take the VP spot if she thought it would give them the best
chance."
You really think Hillary is that noble, joe? Hillary only thinks
about what's best for Hillary.
|3.5.08 @ 5:00PM|#
"And I'm just going to throw this out there: maybe Hillary
Clinton actually wants the Democrats to win, and would take the VP
spot if she thought it would give them the best chance."
She might. She would really be taking one for the team if she did.
It would probably be the Dems best chance. I really think Obama is
a light weight and people in the end won't vote for him because of
national security concerns. Hillary being on the ticket would ease
some of that.
deron|3.5.08 @ 5:04PM|#
I really think Obama is a light weight and people in the end
won't vote for him because of national security concerns. Hillary
being on the ticket would ease some of that.
This coupled with his polling among hispanics in the South West
makes me think he'd be more likely to ask Richardson.
|3.5.08 @ 5:05PM|#
If he really wants to re-assure people about foreign policy he'd choose Joe Biden. No, I'm not kidding.
|3.5.08 @ 5:09PM|#
I'm sticking with my opinion that both Obama and Clinton will
have a serious problem in the general election with their thin
resumes. Combining them won't help. Whichever one wins the
nomination (my money remains on Obama), he/she will need a little
more weight in the VP slot.
Incidentally, Bill Clinton was smart about his VP choice. He went
with a known Washington player, who could fill in where Clinton's
background was the weakest--in national politics.
|3.5.08 @ 5:13PM|#
"""Or, to echo Mitt Romney, neither Hillary nor McCain has ever
held an executive office, nor run a business. We have no idea of
how they would perform as administrators, and since both have
changed their positions on issues over and over again, there's
precious little we know for sure what would happen after one of
them takes office."""
Romney changed his positions too. Bottom line is we NEVER know how
one will act once they take office. In 2000 I voted for Bush
expecting conservative style small government and strong gun
rights.
|3.5.08 @ 5:18PM|#
"""I'm sticking with my opinion that both Obama and Clinton will
have a serious problem in the general election with their thin
resumes."""
Popularity, not resumes, elect presidents today. That had probably
been true since the first day the people were allowed to vote for a
president. There are reasons why the founding fathers established
the Electorial College.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.5.08 @ 5:34PM|#
John:
She might. She would really be taking one for the team if she did. It would probably be the Dems best chance. I really think Obama is a light weight and people in the end won't vote for him because of national security concerns. Hillary being on the ticket would ease some of that.
I disagree. Hillary Clinton, for all the candidate of
experience business she's claiming, is almost as much of a
lightweight in that department as is Obama, with only six more
years in the senate in actual elected experience behind her. (I
think experience as a Nixon lawyer and as first lady might not
really be anything people would consider to be serious.) If he
wants experience downticket, as other people pointed out, he can do
better with a less polarizing figure (which basically means almost
anyone).
This isn't to say that Clinton might not present him some advantage
with her supporters, but I don't think it'd be that much. Add to
that the fact that she doesn't really get anything out of the VP
nod and I think she wouldn't take it.
Another good point made above is that Obama may be more like Reagan
'76 than Reagan '80. If Clinton beats him, he'll be back stronger
in four years after she loses to McCain, especially if McCain
continues on the Bush path and no longer seems as independent as he
does now.
George W. Bush|3.5.08 @ 5:36PM|#
TrickyVic:
Romney changed his positions too. Bottom line is we NEVER know how one will act once they take office. In 2000 I voted for Bush expecting conservative style small government and strong gun rights.
Wow, Vic. I'm sorry about that.
The Libertarian Guy|3.5.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Some Dem lady called Ingraham's show today and accused Rs of
"voter fraud", knowing damned well Dems engage in strategeric
crossover voting as well.
Meanwhile, Dems threaten legal roadblocks to Nader's bid for
another run at the big house.
What is this... Cuba?
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.5.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Vic,
In all fairness, though politicians all switch positions, Romney
was a bit more shameless about it than any I'd ever seen before,
seemingly switching every position he'd ever held. I mean, I can
imagine how one might believe a "heartfelt conversion" on abortion,
but when it's coupled with conversions on everything else, who buys
that?
|3.5.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Typo.
You wrote "And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama
was the most electable candidate." But the link you selected
indicated that Clinton won 17% of those who thought Obama was most
electable. Perhaps most interesting was that Obama won only 6% of
those who thought Clinton was most electable.
That indicates that at least 6.5% of the total voters (half the
difference) were troublemakers. That is considerably more than the
margin of victory for Sen. Clinton.
If I were Obama, I would have my people pump this information to
superdelegates like there was no tomorrow.
|3.5.08 @ 7:09PM|#
My wife and I crossed over in Maryland to vote for Obama, because we despise Hillary. And we weren't the only ones. Doesn't seem right to selectively complain about crossovers in Texas for Hillary.
|3.5.08 @ 7:30PM|#
I used to be a Democrat, but decided that the Democrats did not have a good handle on foreign policy. Working overseas changed my mind. I voted for Hillary yesterday, and will be voting Republican in November. I do not listen to Rush. The prospect of Obama leading us in foreign policy scares the living daylights out of me. Thus my vote.
dpm|3.5.08 @ 7:39PM|#
The Texas results are here... Took me a few minutes to grok
where the patterns where but they are quite evident.
enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/
Look at the total votes for president on the Dem and Rep sides...
Then compare the totals for President to the totals for statewide
offices on each side and you'll see that the posting to NRO seems
quite correct, as far I can discern it. There exists a gap of
700,00 to almost 1 million between the presidental vote and the
Democratic statewide office seeker vs. nothing near as stark on the
Republican side. Even more interesting, scroll to the bottom of the
Dem totals and look at them by Senate district and comare the
percentage change between early voting and day of voting. Many
instances of a 4 to 8% change in Hillarys favour between the early
votes and the day of votes. Then compare the same % differences for
statewide offices, which match the early voting percentages almost
exactly.
Recall that this is a state that vote 4.5 million to 2.something
million for President Bush in 2004.
|3.5.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Just shows the real dearth values some Ohio Republican have. This is America, folks, save the sloppy deceptiveness for your home and church - keep it out of our country's elections.
|3.5.08 @ 8:26PM|#
I have to love the MSM and other fools that try to spin the
total voters in a primary into "the country is going Democratic
party" or some such nonsense.
Here in Texas the Republican presidential primary was a done deal.
There was no real reason to vote in it unless you had a particular
Ox to gore on the state/congressional/senate level, which many
people did not. However, many people are beginning to see Obama for
exactly who and what he is and know that he would be a disaster as
a president. The Democratic party has not been know for its common
sense for decades needed a bit of a helping hand so we gave them
one.
|3.5.08 @ 8:48PM|#
It's only anecdotal evidence but I was at a private school
sporting event last night in North Dallas where a large number of
the people in the crowd had crossed over and voted for Hillary-
though most did it on their own rather than because Rush
recommended it.
I tried to do it myself (unaware of Rush, I don't listen to him)
but got shut out when it turned out the Democrat polling place was
9 miles away from the usual Republican polling place- if I had
traveled there to vote I would have missed the sporting event.
|3.5.08 @ 9:00PM|#
"save the sloppy deceptiveness for your home and church" -Fellow
Republican.
When did this site become such a playground for Leftards? Is this
quote supposed to sound authentic? It just makes you look stupid,
Mr Fellow Republican.
DailyKos was pushing tactical voting in the R primary, only
difference is that the KosKids are irrelevant.
I laughed and laughed. Hillary is eminently beatable. She has ZERO
red state appeal, and she is going to have to win at least one. She
will also be a drag on the Congressional tickets, as people come
out of the woodwork to vote against her in the marginal seats that
the Dems took in 06. McCain was picked by the centrists basically.
You know why? Because the Dems have gone so far left, the centrists
had no place else to go.
BTW,
I am beginning to see how the Libertarian Party ran a "troofer" for
Pres.
|3.5.08 @ 9:04PM|#
But the crossover voters more than likely didn't bother to caucus, and the numbers now are looking like Obama will actually win more delegates from Texas than Hillary.
|3.5.08 @ 9:05PM|#
All right, now it's 3 out of the 200 comments mentioning the
fact that non-Republicans voting in open primaries were largely
responsible for McCain getting the GOP nomination.
By all means, go for another 70 comments or so before noticing that
donkey shit stinks too.
|3.5.08 @ 9:07PM|#
There is some percentage of Americans who won't vote for a
black. This is changing, but a lot of people are yet to die before
this fact is totally gone.
There is some percentage of Americans who will not vote for a woman
for president.
There is probably a large overlap between these two, but this group
is not exclusively Republican. A Cinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton
ticket is just electoral suicide.
|3.5.08 @ 9:12PM|#
Also, few of the commenters crying foul over Hillary's "Rush
bump" are daring to question the idiotic open primary system that
made this all possible.
I mean, did the Giants let the Patriots call some of their plays in
the Super Bowl? Then why should political parties have their
nominations decided partly by people who aren't of that party?
|3.5.08 @ 9:17PM|#
The Democratic party has not been know for its common sense
for decades needed a bit of a helping hand so we gave them
one.
Whatever, Tex. How's that Bush-Cheney-Delay thing working our for
you?
|3.5.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Chris Potter,
Crossing the aisle to vote for the candidate you support is
somewhat different from voting for a candidate you loathe to
sabotage the other party. Perhaps this was a tad too obvious for
most the commenters.
|3.5.08 @ 9:23PM|#
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 28-March 2, 2008. N=1,126
adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
.
"If the 2008 presidential election were being held today and the
candidates were [see below], the Republican, and [see below], the
Democrat, for whom would you vote?" Options rotated. Includes
leaners.
McCain (R) Clinton (D)
44 50
McCain (R) Obama (D)
40 52
Wow, look at the freak show the far left Democrats picked.
|3.5.08 @ 9:29PM|#
Adults Joe, Adults. That means that McCain is probably beating Clinton right now in Likely Voters.
|3.5.08 @ 9:36PM|#
Matchups by ideology:
Moderates
Obama 57
McCain 36
Clinton 42
McCain 37
You can argue "likely voters" - whatever they are this year - will
skew more towards McCain, but that's a 21 point Obama lead.
|3.5.08 @ 9:37PM|#
If Clinton is maxed out at 50% Adults, she is not going up from
there. Everybody knows her, everybody has decided, and you know as
well as I do that a lot of her support is firewalled by the
electoral college in large blue states. So if she is 80% popular in
California, there are a lot of red states where she is losing, and
could still be at 50 percent. Which number is lower in likely
voters.
She will also energize the R's behind McCain once the reality of
her candidacy emerges.
|3.5.08 @ 9:39PM|#
How's about registered voter?
Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll. Feb. 28-March 2, 2008.
N=802 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.5.
.
"I know the election in November is a long way off, but if Illinois
Senator Barack Obama were the Democratic Party's candidate and
Arizona Senator John McCain were the Republican Party's candidate,
who would you vote for: Barack Obama, the Democrat, or John McCain,
the Republican?" If neither/unsure: "As of today, do you lean more
toward Obama, the Democrat, or McCain, the Republican?" Names
rotated
2/28 - 3/2/08
McCain (R) 38
Obama (D) 47
|3.5.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Likely voters always skew Republican, and always will. A
bloodbath at the convention which leaves one side pissed off will
not help either.
But I am prepared to wait and see. You comfort yourselves with
those polls of "adults", if it makes you feel better.
|3.5.08 @ 9:41PM|#
Registered voters is slightly better than "adults"
How did Hillary do among registered voters?
|3.5.08 @ 9:42PM|#
Most Republicans fear an Obama ticket, not a joint ticket, and certainly not Hillary.
|3.5.08 @ 9:43PM|#
The one with RVs is Obama by 9.
"Comfort?" I'm about to throw out my back dancing, and that's not
comfortable.
|3.5.08 @ 9:44PM|#
@ Ennis
Here in Texas the Republican presidential primary was a done
deal. There was no real reason to vote in it unless you had a
particular Ox to gore on the state/congressional/senate level,
which many people did not.
Tell ya what, Ennis, I live in Texas and I had a very good reason
to vote in the Republican primary. That was to vote for Ron Paul -
because there is literally no one else I am willing to vote for
this election. (Unless Gary Nolan decides to run on the Libertarian
ticket.) Oh, I never figured Paul had any chance to win the primary
or the GOP nomination, but maybe if he got a few votes, it might
send a message to a few assholes in high places.
|3.5.08 @ 9:45PM|#
Oddly enough, Yorick, that Cook poll only asked about Obama. Or at least, pollingreport.com only has that matchup.
|3.5.08 @ 9:47PM|#
If it was only Texas that had such a Democratic blowout, that
would be one thing.
But more people voted in the Democratic contests than the
Republican contests in Georgia, twice as many in Iowa, and a lot
more in Nevada.
|3.5.08 @ 10:00PM|#
Now Smartass SOB, that is an authentic sounding "Reason"
post.
joe,
consider the possibility that there was a large protest vote
against Hillary. Up until this past Tues, Rs have been voting in
the D primary heavily for Obama. I voted for Obama here in Vermont.
Hillary energizes voters against her.
Anyway, I can wait for the result. Time to take the dog for a
walk.
Neil B.|3.5.08 @ 10:13PM|#
BTW, it is quite fallacious for Limbaugh and some commenters here to say that Democrats and independents voting for McCain is the same as dittoheads voting for Hillary. Yes, it is the same structural act of voting for someone in another party. However, non-Republicans (as I did in 2000) who voted for McCain in a primary did so because they either really admired him in some way, or preferred a Democrat but would rather at least have McCain get the win than some other Republican. It was not because McCain was considered easy to beat, in fact I consider him the hardest to beat of the 2008 crop of contenders.
|3.5.08 @ 10:16PM|#
Gosh, what a pile of sloppy thinking. My high school government class has a better handle on the democratic process than most of the posters here.
|3.5.08 @ 10:19PM|#
My high school government class has a better handle on the
democratic process than most of the posters here
You're still in high school?
|3.5.08 @ 10:33PM|#
Yeah, Smartass. And at least I'll graduate.
Well I certainly hope so - good for you.
Michael|3.5.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Count me in the number of Texas primary voters who would normally not vote in a Democratic primary, but did so this time solely to contribute to the chaos. I'm not a Rush listener though, he annoys the crap out of me even though I probably hold many of the same positions.
TallDave|3.6.08 @ 12:06AM|#
Obama has already won. The only question is how much more time
and money they waste on the primary.
Obama and McCain are about even in most polls. The exception is
polls that for some reason assume the percentage of Dems is 10%
higher.
Also, Dukakis led by 17 in June.
Also, American elections are won in the middle and Obama is just
too far left. He hasn't been attacked from his right much at all in
the primary, so he seems stronger than he is (just like Dukakis
did). Once moderates hear more about the massive spending
increases, nationalized health care, and feckless foreign policy
his numbers will fall.
|3.6.08 @ 12:08AM|#
@cesar re: divided government
I completely agree with you. I'd like nothing better than to see
Hillary try to make use of some of W's userped powers, only to run
headlong into a GOP congress dedicated to stopping her no matter
what the cost. HRC (and a republican congress) may be what's
required to undo many of the executive power grabs of
Bush/Cheney
|3.6.08 @ 12:13AM|#
"Also, American elections are won in the middle and Obama is
just too far left. He hasn't been attacked from his right much at
all in the primary, so he seems stronger than he is (just like
Dukakis did). Once moderates hear more about the massive spending
increases, nationalized health care, and feckless foreign policy
his numbers will fall."
@talldave
Obama isn't as lefty as many seem to think he is. The National
Journal rankings are always pure bullshit. Obama is less lefty than
HRC on Health Care (he eschews mandates and the penalties that go
with them). Bush was a complete moron in the foreign policy arena,
and he was competative. And newsflash, voters seem to want more
spending on domestic programs and less on the military. At least
that's what the polls say. Obama speaks to that. He's got far more
charisma than Dukkakis did.
TallDave|3.6.08 @ 12:14AM|#
Rasmussen has had McCain over Obama for a couple weeks
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
Here's all the polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
Why the disparity? Because some polling outfits do something weird
with the numbers: they toss out a certain number or GOP votes and
add more Dems. This is one reason why Dems keep thinking they've
won on election day.
TallDave|3.6.08 @ 12:17AM|#
Obama isn't as lefty as many seem to think he is.
Even disregarding the NJ ratings, he's anti-free trade, he'll pull
out of Iraq in 60 days, he'll nationalize health care, and he
proposes massive new spending besides. And of course we'll need
massive tax hikes to pay for all that.
He's given a lot of lip service to "compromise" but on most issues
he ran to the left of Hillary.
Mad Max|3.6.08 @ 1:16AM|#
"I think the SNL skit, the first funny one in years . . ."
Uh-oh, this is what the book of Revelations warned us about:
"And when the angel opened the seventh seal, the heavens opened up
like a scroll, Rush Limbaugh endorsed Hillary Clinton, and SNL
stopped sucking . . ."
|3.6.08 @ 6:45AM|#
I only skimmed the mass of comments, but as far as I can see I
was surprised no one made the (to me) obvious observation that
:
Until last week most Republican crossovers were voting for Obama
because they wanted to see Clinton lose.
Not because they were going to vote for Obama in the general
election, not because he has "cross-over" appeal or anything else.
Simply because their dislike of Hillary was stronger than their
desire to vote FOR any particular Republican in the primary.
Thompson was the last candidate left in the field who really
appealed to conservatives, and he left after Florida.
If the Democrats ran exclusively closed primaries, Hillary would be
in a stronger position today, not a weaker one - as she would have
been in a much better position going into Texas in the first
place.
|3.6.08 @ 10:13AM|#
TallDave,
Sample normalizing isn't something "some polling outfits" do. It's
something all polling outfits do.
Let's say you're taking a poll in a city with a 14% Latino
population, and at the end of the day, 40% of your respondants are
Latino. That's not an accurate sample of the city's population.
|3.6.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Welp I voted for HRC in the Texas primary and I am a hardcore
republican conservative.
To say we are doing mischeif, but that democrats and "independents"
in New hampshire and South Carolina were really just voting for who
they would support in November, is frankly crap.
KOS also called for dem's to vote in the Michigan primary for
Romney etc.
Stop acting like you folks on the left did not start this, you did.
You ressurected McCain not conservatives. We have the greater gripe
because a silly little state that will go democrat in the fall,
allowed the media to push McCain through the early contests and
bring him back to life.
The conservative wing of the republican party is still not happy,
next round look for some southern states to try to force their
primaries up in the schedule like Florida and Mich democrats did
this time. The RNC can not continue to allow democrats and the
media pick our canidates. I dont care if they do call themselves
"independents".
Xanthippas|3.6.08 @ 11:21AM|#
It's reasonable to assume many of these voters were "screw
the Dems" Limbaugh listeners.
I don't know why it's more reasonable to assume that than it is to
assume that many of the Democratic voters were voting for the first
time in the primary, and were not interested or were uninformed
about candidates further down the ballot. Here's Charles Kuffner,
who has analyzed things a little more carefully:
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/011316.html#011316
|3.6.08 @ 11:54AM|#
I have a problem wit the following part of the article
"Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus
reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close."
I'm sorry but but the dems crossing over in the early primaries
gave us McCain, so it's BOTH parties that need to tighten the rules
to make sure that republicans nominate THEIR nominee and dems
nominate THEIR nominee
|3.6.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Your artical hit it on the head,have a family member in Texas and he said for days and days the right wing radio there was urging all thier listeners to cross over and vote for Hillay because McCain could beat her but not Obama.Its a fact live with it Hillary didn't win Texas the republicans won in the Democratic race by voting for Hillary and of course McCain was a shoo in to win for the Republicans Which means my goodness Hillary couldn't carry Texas ...
|3.6.08 @ 6:56PM|#
I don't know about having tax increase's Tall Dave the trillion dollars spent in Iraq would have paid for alot of health care..
|3.6.08 @ 7:09PM|#
OMG The posters that say what we need is another Clinton and a Republican congress to offset Bushs excess's.Where have you been,just fall off the turnip truck the Clintons have always,always been closet Republicans doubt it look at NAFTA created by Bush the first implemented by Clinton,GATT, all the trade deals he cut with China and every damn one gutted the American worker.You think the Clintons came out of the White House worth 50 million on his salary as president when he came out of Ark. a vitual carpetbagger,think again...
|3.7.08 @ 12:12AM|#
What I find disturbing is that the newspaper and television
coverage I have seen so far ignores both the impact of the Limbaugh
strategy and the caucus results. Sort of as if they are reporting
from an alternate universe where those things didn't happen.
The caucuses: The last time I checked the caucus results online
Obama had trounced Clinton in 20 out of 31 precincts
reporting.
The primary: Precinct workers are reporting that droves of voters
in red precincts chose to vote on a Democratic ticket. Since the
likelihood of Republicans actually wanting Hilary for President is
extremely low(near zero), it follows logically that they either
voted for Obama which makes him more electable or they voted for
Hilary to make trouble, which makes a joke out of her "win." in
Texas.
Fichetank|3.7.08 @ 1:13PM|#
This is nothing to be proud of. It took ten years to develop the moment when we could have exited from the scene a political personality that is unhealthy for America. And Rush is bragging about this? Just more audience for him I guess. No wonder Newsweek says the conservative movement is falling apart. It's lost its soul. Give me the dignity of Buckley conservatism any day. I'm on the edge of giving up on Limbaugh after this trick. Don't let him con you into thinking this is some kind of legitimate tactic. It should go down in history as one of the dirtiest and least principled political tricks recorded in electoral history. Me? Buckley would never have done this. His ego was in check.
|3.7.08 @ 2:36PM|#
But some dittoheads got faked out because they were too dumb to realize if they voted on a Democrat ballot they couldn't vote for their Republican favorites in all the other races.
|3.7.08 @ 10:57PM|#
I hadn't heard that Limbaugh was urging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary. I arrived at that decision all on my own. First time I ever voted Democrat...
|3.7.08 @ 11:05PM|#
I am in the minority here since I am an Obama democrat but I must say this whole thread makes me sick. How can anyone put up with this subversion of democracy and the rule of law? I am not only appalled but sad for our system of government when ego maniacs like Limbaugh choose to use their bully propaganda microphone to screw people into giving up their vote for his ego.
Carlo|3.8.08 @ 8:14AM|#
Hillary is a globalist shill. She is a DLC democrat, which basically is a republican in democrats clothing.She is anti NAFTA? Thats like a vegatarian lion. She is PRO outsourcing. If you dont believe me, just google "Hillary outsourcing", There are some good articles, one about where she addressed a business delegation in India, assuring them that under her presidency, "Outsourcing will continue" Lets not forget her board membership for several years on that most employee freindly of companies, Wal-Mart. If she is elected its going to be more of the same, the middle class gets screwed, the rich get richer. The Clintons are NO friends of the working class.
|3.9.08 @ 12:37AM|#
We need a president who can inspire Americans across all
divides, whether republican or democrat, black, brown, or white,
woman or man, young or old. We do not need one who appeals to our
fears and fuels mutual distrust. We need a president who can ask
all Americans to make the sacrifices necessary to change the course
of this country. We do not need one who asks us to go shopping
while we send our young soldiers off to make those sacrifices for
us. We need a president who understands that the government is not
about politicians, corporations, or lobbyists; it is about we the
people. We need a president who requires us to think, inspires us
to dream, and challenges us to take action. We do not need one who
asks us to trust blindly, to consume thoughtlessly, to follow the
status quo without question.
Do not underestimate the power of hope, of words that inspire. We
are at a pivotal crossroads in this country. We can choose to
continue down a path that will leave a legacy for our children and
grandchildren of insurmountable debt, endless wars, and
environmental collapse, or we can create change. Only one candidate
seems to get that it is not about him or her, it is about us.
"Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some
other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the
change that we seek." For these reasons, the choice for the next
president of our United States of America is clear.
|3.9.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Maybe Rush really likes Clinton over Obama. Remember his comments about Donovan McNabb? The guy is a closet racist, so the idea of a black President is probably making him wet his bed.
|3.15.08 @ 12:37PM|#
As I watched the results in Mississippi, I knew this is exactly
what was going on.
My counted has voted Rep by margins of over 70%. Most of these
people voted in the Dem primary where Clinton won by 63%.
Most counties where Clinton had a large lead were heavy right-wing
counties that cast most of their votes on the Dem ballot.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245