<p>The votes for Clinton cast by Republicans inspired by the likes of Rush Limbaugh can’t be counted as votes for Clinton. The ability of one party’s voters to “game” the results of another party’s Primary should be expressly disallowed.</p>
<p>But poet, I looked at it like this. I plan to vote for McCain. But if he doesn’t win, I would be more comfortable with Hillary than Obama. (Didn’t feel this way until last week when I started setting aside the ‘likability factor’ and really began examining the issues.) I voted in the Democratic Primary to do MY part to make sure there were two candidates with whom I could live in the end. I think that’s my right…and I think everyone should have that right.</p>
<p>The cross overs seemed to split 50-50. Half wanted Clinton as the “easier” Dem to defeat (according to them), a few wanted the extended Dem blood-bath and about half wanted to make sure the Dem candidate was one “they could live with” if elected.</p>
<p>In Texas, its called hedging your bet. Honorable tradition. That’s why some $$$$$$$$$$ people donate to both candidates in a race. Ah, ugly pragmatism.</p>
<p>So, you’re saying Rush Limbaugh’s plan to keep the Democrats embroiled and contentious for months to come did not figure into your decision to cast a vote in the Democratic Primary?</p>
<p>^ME? No…I’m no Rush fan. (understatement…lol!) But I understand the strategy factor on several levels… Whether it be keeping the race protracted and costly to the opponent, or even if it allows John McCain to avoid being the bad guy who goes after someone with an ‘off the chart’ likability factor like Obama.</p>
<p>My issues with Obama are to do with Iraq. I like that John McCain is not 'bs’ing me on that one. And I think Hillary seems more in touch with cold hard reality on the issue than Obama. Thus my vote.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only “somebodies” who can donate enough to expect “influence” for their money.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>There are plenty of those still around.</p>
<p>Here, crossover voting is allowed as well. Last month there were Republicans who voted Democratic to vote for Hillary (as described above) but there were also Democrats who voted Republican to vote for Huckaby, in an attempt to keep McCain out. So, I believe it does go both ways, even within one election. The other thing people have said is that the vote Democratic because the lines are shorter :(</p>
<p>I actually am not absolutely sure who I’ll be voting for in the fall. I am adamantly independent, and never vote along party lines. In the Primary, I voted for Obama because I like what he appears to stand for, and because I have serious qualms about seeing Bill Clinton back in the White House. If it were just Hillary, I’d see her candidacy in an entirely different light, as I believe her to be a formidable and capable woman. And I believe America is well pass ready for a woman President.</p>
<p>But I also very much respect John McCain. So, I’ll be seriously studying his stand on the issues as well. So yes, I voted in the Democratic Primary, but would not rule out voting for the Republican candidate in the fall. At this point, the prospect of Bill and Hillary Redeux fills me with dread. I believe that, as a combined entity, they are a toxic, and I still have a vivid recollection of their last 8 yr. tenure in the White House. But my participation in the Democratic Primary was not with a view toward “gaming” the system. I honestly might vote for the Democratic candidate, or the Republican candidate in the fall, because I don’t drink anybody’s koolaid and refuse to be pigeionholed.</p>
<p>“I believe that, as a combined entity, they are a toxic, and I still have a vivid recollection of their last 8 yr. tenure in the White House.”</p>
<p>Poetsheart- this very well articulated statement sums up my feelings exactly. A 1st term for HRC would mean a 3rd term for Bill, thus skirting our Constitution. And if anybody thinks for a minute that Bill won’t have a desk right next to hers in the Oval Office, they are kidding themselves. Let’s get a fresh face and hope for real change. To heck with going back to the future!</p>
<p>ldmom06- please take a look at this article regarding HRC being ‘the one’ to carry big states. It’s a fallacy and this writer lays it all out. [Robert</a> Creamer: Clinton’s “Big State” Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Clinton's "Big State" Myth: Why Barack Obama Remains the Most Electable Democrat This Fall | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ummm yes she can? What math are you looking at?</p>
<p>I’m not sure it is a valid argument (by Hillary) either, Celtic…but I’m not the one who can or will be convinced; rather it is her own party who will feel the pressure. And integral to her argument in those big states are those huge numbers of Hispanic voters who will come out for her. When it comes down to a McCain-Obama fight for Hispanic voters, McCain makes more inroads against Obama than against Hillary.</p>
<p>“it doens’t really work both ways- there was no call by left wing pundits to go in and vote for huckabee”</p>
<p>Yes, it does work both ways. Rush did not originate the idea of cross-over voting to keep the bloodletting going. This is what Kos said in the dailykos:
</p>
<p>“Ummm yes she can? What math are you looking at?”</p>
<p>[Hillary?s</a> New Math Problem | Newsweek Voices - Jonathan Alter | Newsweek.com](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1]Hillary?s”>http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010/page/1)</p>
<p>That article talks about pledged delegates…it’s almost impossible for her to get the required # but the same holds true for Obama. What that article doesn’t take into account is the superdelegates who can vote for whoever they want and will probably vote for clinton if she wins the popular vote (even if she lags in delegates). </p>
<p>Technically she can deff “mathematically” become the nominee</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably. Technically. Mathematically.</p>
<p>The overall assumptions here are that delegates matter little, that Florida and Michigan will be seated, that superdelegates will switch their votes “en masse” and support Clinton. </p>
<p>Fwiw, have you checked the super delegates roll calls lately? Curbing the tide is not exactly the same as reversing a pattern.</p>
<p>Xiggi: Is your support for Obama genuine (all the way to November)? or because of your genuine hatred for Hillary?</p>
<p>There are several angles from which to view the rules of this competition/primary season. There are various (and complex) state delegate selection procedures, and each benefits a particular candidate and/or constituency…many have an element of unfairness, for instance the relative delegate distribution based on prior election populations, rather than actual proportional allocations of this election. It is easy to look at the process and its fairness from the tinted lense of preference, to advocate for the point of view which favors, in this situation, BO or HRC. </p>
<p>A basic issue is whether the ultimate nomination process is meant to represent the Democratic party (1) as it is, (2) as new voters wish it to be, or (3) as non-Democrats would like to define it. The rules of the party for the inclusion of super-delegates would seem to provide a body of “elders” who can best balance the issues of (1) and (2) in such a way as to select a nominee who will both represent the party and be viable in the general election, and perhaps influence (3). </p>
<p>The whole concept of super-delegates is to provide for this, unless we assume that they simply exist to award power to party members who have paid their dues. Either way, they get to have a say, and they get to decide what drives their judgement. Neither candidate can win the nomination during the primary season with delegates awarded directly from the primaries and caucus. It WILL be according to the reasoning and judgement of the SD. </p>
<p>Advocating for either candidate to drop out and make life easy for the other ignores the realities. Casting aspersions on their motives for not doing so is negative campaigning and amateur psycho-babble. It is what it is…</p>
<p>poetsheart:
Obama’s arrogance:
- At age 33, writes his autobiography “Dreams From my Father”
- Tells Hillary, “You are likeable enough” in NH debate
- Runs for US President after being in U.S. Senate for less than 1/2 of the term. LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, just 3 years out of the Illinoins Senate.
- Essential message to those of us who were actually alive and listened to JFK,RFK, and MLK: “Your time has passed. You are too old and your way of doing things is irrelevant. Moreover, it’s my turn.”
- Recent interview on ABC “Nightline” with Jake Tapper…demeaning and patronizing tone of voice when asked about Rezko. Irritation at the audacity of a reporter challenging the “Chosen One”. </p>
<p>How many other examples do you need? The longer this campaign goes on, and he has to face the fact that the nomination is not his entitlement,the clearer it will be that he is very full of himself.</p>
<p>Yes, the fact that you didn’t like his tone of voice is persuasive proof of his arrogance. Personally, I would need a lot more evidence of his arrogance. Your list might prove that he’s ambitious, I suppose.
I actually worry that Obama might not be arrogant enough.</p>