digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at dailykos.com

PROOF that the Republicans are gaming the Democratic primary

dailykos.com — Not only has the number of Republicans voting in Democratic races spiked since John McCain secured his nomination, but so has the number of them voting for Clinton. And get this -- a large part of her GOP base rated her unfavorably in exit polls, saying they'd be dissatisfied if she won the Presidency. Look inside for the full statistical analysis.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CryRightardCry, on 03/13/2008, -77/+110What, you thought they wouldn't be that unethical?
    LOL
    I didn't think so either, but there you go.
    Just when you think the GOP can't sink any lower, they do.
    Can't win fairly? Just ***** up the other guy's campaign worse than yours.
    It's why "GOP" is synonymous with "Failure".
    And so they'll act like scumbags, and when they get called on it they'll pretend they don't understand why people are upset.
    • jdh24, on 03/13/2008, -34/+21All anti-GOP vitriol aside, how is voting in an election unethical?
      I don't care if you're a Republican, Democrat or other party: voting in an election is never unethical.
      • Zarokima, on 03/13/2008, -19/+17It is when it it's for the other party's nominee. Republicans should have no say in the Democratic nominee, just like Democrats should have no say in the Republican nominee.
        • unpolloloco, on 03/13/2008, -9/+20so the people should have no say in who becomes the next president?
          what about independents? or people who are declared one party, but agree with the other party more?
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -7/+21But the point is that they are not voting for who they want to be president. When you vote for someone you don't actually want to win you are being unethical and going against the point of elections. It's not illegal, but it is immoral.
          • Enasni1212, on 03/13/2008, -2/+9I have no problem with a Republican or an Independent that WANTS Hillary to win voting for Hillary... I have a problem with one voting for Hillary because they want a different candidate to win. Same goes for any permutation.
          • onwardknave, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1@Mejari: It is not the voter who is unethical, though. The system enables its voters to vote. An imperfect system leads to imperfect results. Plenty of other voting models exist, each weighing the voters' preferences differently, each with their advantages and drawbacks. The one-person, one-vote (in the general election) method is simple, but ignores how votes can be for a candidate, or against them. MVP balloting in baseball is done by awarding more points to the voters' first-choice candidates, and fewer votes to lesser-tier candidates, allowing voters to create a better picture of their preference. Lani Guinier wrote about the Tyrrany of the Majority, but I don't think anyone would come away from reading her work thinking that voting in a democratic society is a bad thing. We do, however, need to build systematic safeguards into our process to minimize the drawbacks of whichever method we choose.
          • masterm1nd, on 03/13/2008, -5/+2Mejari, It is immoral? By your logic it's the only moral choice to make since they are doing it to get who they actually want to be president elected.

            Ensansi1212, I have a problem with you having a problem how other people choose vote.
          • jaznova, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The rules are the rules. As long as everyone knows them in advance its a fair playing field. If I didn't need to vote for Obama in my area to help him earn his delegates, I may have voted for some candidate in the republican race. My reason would be to try to give the neo republican establishment followers a wake up call, in the form of new material in debates. Yeah, republicans are doing this, but I think we will still win.
          • omgwhereami, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Like onwardknave said, its the system thats ***** up. I personally don't like political parties. It creates the kind of tension in the government that we are experiencing right now. I guarantee you if there were nothing but independents running the show right now there would be less corruption and more cooperation. And don't give me that, "but you need a party for cooperation," *****. You need a party to gang up on other groups and push special interest bills that are unpopular.
          • Y2JCrisis, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1What's messed up is they don't even necessarily want Hillary to win, they just want to prolong the democratic primaries to drain both of their campaign coffers and beat each other up while McCain stays above the fray.

            And it's not an election, it's a primary, and it is unethical to vote in the opposing party's primary if your only interest is to damage that party.
        • SRSco, on 03/13/2008, -4/+10Not really. My state is run by Republicans...for local politics the only election that matters is the primary, since the party's nominee will always win the general election. Before the GOP closed the primaries here I'd always vote in primaries to try to make sure the most moderate, least right wing whacko would get the nod. Then I could vote against them in the general election.

          There is nothing wrong with Republicans doing this now.
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -4/+8Like I said above, in your case you were voting for the person on the ballot that you most wanted to win. That's not at all what the Republicans are doing, they are going against the idea of an election (voting for who you want to win).
          • Enasni1212, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5I suppose that's gaming the system a little, but you're still voting for who you want to win. The Republicans voting for Hilary now are only doing so because they think it will make their candidate more likely to win.
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1That's not voting for who you want to win, that's voting for who you think you can beat. Yes it is attempting to achieve the same goals but you have to admit that it's pretty despicable. I was saddened when I saw that the dailykos had advocated doing this exact same thing earlier in the race.
      • arbouler, on 03/13/2008, -11/+26it's unethical when you vote just to stir conflict in the opposite parties. most of the republican voters voted in the democratic primaries because limbaugh told them to do so to cause more havoc in the democratic party.

        legal? yes, ethical? no.
      • cliffzdude, on 03/13/2008, -5/+12Voting across party lines isn't new people, its old hat. Democrats and Republicans have both gamed the system this way for years. Quit acting like one party has a monopoly on being full of *****, its pretty even-up when it comes to this type of ***** game play.
        • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -9/+7Not really. The conservatives are like a herd of sheep with Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as their talk-show shepherds. The democrats are more like a herd of cats. Where is our zionist master talk-show host that tells us to "game" the primaries for Republican's? NPR? Oh wait, Air America? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... hahahahahaha.... riiiight.
          • Monk22, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3dailykos advocated doing this earlier for the republican primaries. please die
          • CryRightardCry, on 03/13/2008, -5/+1@Monk
            And I was disgusted by it then, too.
            This isn't a shot at right wingers, this is a shot at ANYONE who does this.
          • Monk22, on 03/14/2008, -0/+4funny how you didnt mention your outrage until someone else brought it up.
    • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -18/+40what is unethical about it?

      And do you really think that if the democrats wrapped up their nominee early that they wouldn't do the same thing? It is not like there have been coodinated efforts to do this.
      • badqat, on 03/13/2008, -7/+22Dems made sure we were stuck with McCain quickly!
        • brufleth, on 03/13/2008, -4/+1The republicans took care of that. They were sick of asshat right wing loons and they had such a weak field of candidates anyway they went with the only guy who actually seemed to have a clue. Even if he is a grumpy old man, McCain is who the majority of the republicans wanted.
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -18/+11Yes, I do believe that Democrats would not do this, or at least prominent Democrats would not condone this, like Rush Limbaugh has done. That also answers your second point, because prominent Republican personalities like Rush are indeed telling Republicans to do this.
        • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -11/+19That is because you are delusional.
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -8/+10good comeback!
          • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -4/+4That is all that is needed when someone says something as ridiculous as you did.
          • DarkShroud, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4Seriously, some of the "prominent Democrats" would have been all over this with their own dubious pasts. And the press actually did do something similar to this early on tearing into the conservative Republican nominees while pushing McCain. Before New York Times printed that BS about McCain they actually endorsed him over the other candidates. So in short you are delusional as can be.
          • brufleth, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1@DarkShroud
            What other GOP candidate had a snowball's chance in hell of taking the nomination?

            Romney? He's a Mormon ex-governor of Massachusetts. Never going to happen. Huck? He's crazy and too Christian-crazy to capture moderates or independents. Don't even try to claim Paul was a legit candidate. Rudy? The guy was so full of it that pretty much everyone saw through him from the start based on voting numbers.

            The GOP fielded a lot of weak candidates. The conservative voters picked the one with a pretty solid senatorial career, who is a war hero, and who is in some ways a bit more moderate than some crazy right wingers (like Rush) prefer.
        • turpenine, on 03/13/2008, -6/+7obama's cmpaign tactics have proven he is a good guy, ie: not smashing hilary for crying.
        • metric7, on 03/13/2008, -4/+9So naive
          • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Why? What prominent Democrat has advocated this? The closest I've found is the Dailykos, which cant really be said to be representative of the majority of democrats, or of the Democratic party's leaders.
          • gwolf, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4I would rather be naive than a fascist bent on subverting the democratic process. How is it the right can do these kinds of things and still think of them selves as good Americans. They believe in nothing, stand for nothing and fight for nothing but their own petty selfish interest. They claim to be patriots and they are the furthest thing from it. They speak of Christian values while doing things Christ would be appalled by. I hope I never come to understand them; I hope I am never that afraid.
          • DarkShroud, on 03/13/2008, -3/+3gwolf, the law is that any US citizen can vote for anyone they want for any reason. Changing this would be impeding upon democratic rights. Not that it matters to me since I'm an independent and vote for a variety of parties.
          • Mejari, on 03/14/2008, -0/+1@darkshroud:
            Who the hell is saying that people shouldn't be able to vote for whomever they want? We are saying that it is against the essence of voting to intentionally 'sabotage' another party's election. Yes, it is legal, does that make it right?
      • starphish, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3Good point. I don't think it's unethical either. However, it does make it more difficult for a party to determine who it's members want as the nominee. I can see the argument for a party only allowing only voters registered with them to choose their nominee. It's a more accurate depiction of who a Democrat or a Republican wants as their nominee.
      • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -3/+7You apparen't haven't been listening to your zionist overlords lately. Rush and Glenn say: vote for Hillary in the primaries. Don't believe me? Straight for your very favorite news source, I'm sure: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334669,00.html
        • Monk22, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1i listen do glenn everyday while driving for my job, and he isnt doing this. i dont listen to rush so i wouldnt know.
      • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -3/+4It's unethical because it's undermining the spirit if democracy. And just because both sides do it doesn't mean it's okay. Neither side should do it. Why should we have such low standards for our country?
        • dggeek, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure how that undermines democracy. Say I want McCain to win, but should he not win, my second choice is Hillary. If McCain already has the nomination locked, I want to try to get Hillary the nomination.
          Disclaimer: I am for Obama.
      • themonkman, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3The Dems, for the most part, couldn't do this to the Republican party because a grand majority of states have closed primaries. That means that you can't vote for a republican if your not registered as one prior to the cutoff date.
        • breezytrees, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Yea. The democratic party does it to keep people voting for their party line instead of the candidate they really believe in (a republican for example).

          I made the mistake of registering republican in utah, luckily I could switch parties on the spot and vote democrat (and I did).
          • breezytrees, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1bleh just bury me. I can't remember the details and may be wrong. All I can remember is that I was registered republican, but I could switch and vote democrat on the spot. If i was registered democrat I could not switch and vote for any other party, I would have been stuck voting democrat.

            Romney was a shoe in for utah anyway (he won by over a 90% margin). I'm sure a lot of repubs did what i did and voted democrat. Kind of a shame that democrats in utah couldn't vote for paul.
      • PxCxG, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Exactly what I was going to say. No way it is unethical, and I wouldn't expect any less than the same thing from democrats.
        That said, I don't believe it at all and I think all these crazy obama psychos need to just chill with all the conspiracy theories.
    • masamunecyrus, on 03/13/2008, -23/+7Are you really so up into conspiracy theories that you believe that the Republican Party could come up with a plan involving tens of thousands or more people to vote for Hillary en masse, and yet no one would know and no word would get out?
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -5/+26Um... it's not a conspiracy, and it's not a theory. Rush Limbaugh is on tape as telling Republicans across the country to do exactly this. And yes, word is out and people know, it's still a dick move.
      • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -2/+18Not officially. But take a look at this:

        "I don't know if the audience is mobilizing or not. I am urging people — I am using a phrase — the Republicans — our nominee is chosen. It's John McCain.

        Texas is open. And 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.

        This is the presidency of the United States you'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 yes, I'm asking 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."

        That was Rush Limbaugh. No lightweight in the rightwing media. And it's evident that his listeners are obeying him in ever greater numbers.
      • designer, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1It's real. I'm changing my party affiliation from independent to democrat just so I can vote for Hillary. And yes I do listen to Rush Limbaugh and it's a great idea. Liberals crossed over to vote for McCain, so conservatives can do the same.
    • MaxPayne3476, on 03/13/2008, -19/+33The Presidential Election is a game and the Republicans are playing to win. So what's so wrong with that?

      People vote to get their candidate elected, and if that means voting for the runt then so be it.
      • pintomp3, on 03/13/2008, -5/+18the outcome of a presidential election should be treated as a little bit more serious and important than a mere game. we wouldn't tolerate kneecapping opponents in sports, why is it ok here? it's pathetic that we expect more ethics from our professional athletes than our leaders.
        • jlafleur, on 03/13/2008, -9/+31. This is not an election. Remember that. This is a process to decide who will be nominated to run in the election. If the Dems decided that they wanted Dennis Kucinich to be the nominee, they could--regardless of any of the primary "votes." This is not an election, it is only a popularity contest! This is a focus group writ large! To call the nominating process democratic is a farce. The only thing that is stopping the Dems from making a declaration at the convention (as was done for a large percentage of this country's history) is that today there is too much media coverage and the Dems would tick-off so many of their supporters that they would not be able to recover in time. By the way, watch out for the super-delegates...this might all be part of a super sinister plan on the part of the GOP: If we make enough noise about voting for Clinton, the Super Delegates will think the GOP wants the Dems to think that they want to face Obama. But we're smarter than they, so we'll vote for Obama anyway...unless that's what the GOP really wants.

          2. This is by no means a new tactic. Newspapers have been endorsing the weaker candidate in from the opposite side for decades, if not centuries. Example? Why would a single newspaper endorse both a Dem and a Rep (e.g. Boston Globe), especially when it is a paper avowedly leaning one way or the other? The Boston Globe (liberal!) endorsed McCain back when no one thought he had a snowball's chance. The Las Vegas Review Journal endorsed Obama right after HRC wins in NH and regains her momentum, etc.

          3. Let's assume that we're all rational creatures here. (OK, OK stop laughing, this is just a thought experiment). Let's assume that GOP people believe that either of the potential Dem nominees would be a train wreck for the country (not that thing could get worse...) then they'll want to ensure that the weaker of the two is the nominee. Is this "gaming" the system? Yes, it is not playing the way one would hope, but it is well within the rules.

          4. What would you do about it? Make it a restricted primary? If I were denied the right to choose which candidate I wanted to vote for AND the primary were paid for out of public coffers, I would raise a stink to high heaven; that would be tantamount to the government telling me whom to vote for. On the other hand, if the election were entirely paid for by the parties, go for it.

          So relax everyone
        • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7I disagree with the last statement. Don't relax. Don't give them an inch. Anyone who condones this type of action truly does not love America, nor wishes us to have a better America. Just an America where their own personal candidate wins. And that's *****. Stay vigilant. Don't believe them when they tell you everything's going to be all right. Bitch and bitch loudly.

          PS Nice post otherwise. =)
          • PolishLogic, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3Not for nothing, but I certainly hope my personal choice for president wins. I'd hope that you feel the same about your personal choice. Although, based on that statement of yours, maybe you don't want your candidate to win.

            Edit: Nevermind, I just saw a comment of yours where you used the term "zionist overlords". Why didn't you just say you were a wack job to begin with?
          • jlafleur, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Thanks for the PS...the truth is that I just forgot to take out the "So relax everyone" which was part of an earlier thought that actually became #1.
      • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Ugh. What a low slimeball standard we've fallen to. And I'm not referring to either party: I'm referring to the fact that people here are actually condoning behavior that undermines the spirit of democracy. Even if it's inevitable, even if both parties do it, it's still a crappy way to select our leader.
    • Picaroon, on 03/13/2008, -4/+7I'm always wary of people whose comments seem to be somewhat rambling and very eccentric, and whose usernames are stupid things like "CryRightardCry"
      This is how they look in my head:
      http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors ...
    • RepubOperative, on 03/13/2008, -27/+3And all of my family and relatives voted for Baracka Obama in Chicago....the twenty-five of us, and none of us plan to vote for him in the actual election. All of our friends did the same. Literally hundreds of people.

      We just luv Brackakaka Obama.
    • metric7, on 03/13/2008, -11/+17Enough w/this retarded spam. The Dems can do the same thing in the states where it's allowed. They've done it in the past to gimp Republicans they thought were a threat.
      • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2Link me, plz.
      • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Right on! You know what else? People shoplift and get away with it, so I guess it's alright. And since one sports guy uses steroids, I guess they all should. And if someone fouls someone else in a game, rather than a penalty, everyone should get a free foul.

        Ignoring party affiliation: this is a lousy thing to do. The Dems shouldn't do it. The Reps shouldn't do it. It's trash democracy. And just because there's a lot of trash democracy players out there doesn't mean we should all lower our standards to that level.
    • PolishLogic, on 03/13/2008, -10/+14Oh *****, so the exercising of one's basic right of voting is now unethical? And people wonder how the Democrats managed to grab a hold of Congress and ***** that up, too?

      Wow, just wow.
      • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3Woosh.
      • bruce86, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Just because its legal, doesn't make it moral. Gambling, drinking, prostitution(nevada) are all legal, but consider immoral
    • bocaJWho, on 03/13/2008, -4/+16Democrats did the same in Michigan to keep Romney in the race and split the republican vote 3 ways/cause confusion. I got an email from young democrats asking for voters to do exactly that.
      • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2Link me, plz.
      • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -5/+2And two wrongs make a right?

        I guess most people really have no honest standards any more. Let's see just how low we can go, I suppose.
        • masterm1nd, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Does one person doing one wrong and then blaming another for the same wrong in the name of politics make a right? Does pointing it out add perspective? And it's not even wrong in the first place to vote how you choose, that's what a vote is....
        • PolishLogic, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Um, not for nothing, but can you think of any time in our nation's history where an election battle has been fought in an upstanding and clean way? That...THAT...would be a ***** first for our history books.
    • RevJonathan, on 03/13/2008, -5/+8Of course we are. Both parties do it for every election.

      The Dems have done it in several states too. It's called American Politics. If you try to suppress this, you suppress one's right to vote.
      • breezytrees, on 03/13/2008, -1/+8I don't know why you are being dugg down. You speak the truth.
    • TheTSArt, on 03/13/2008, -6/+12It's unethical for Republicans to vote for HIllary?! Well, how did the Republican party end up with McCain!? I have yet to speak to one Republican who wanted the man as the nominee, yet there he is. So is it ethical that newspapers like the New York Times endorsed him, purposely, knowing he had no chance of winning?

      Don't tell me Democrats weren't voting and using other means to get McCain selected as the Republican nominee.

      I know there will be a Democrat President in 2009, but seeing how Obama and his supporters react to little things like using his middle name, I think I'd vote for Hillary too if I had to do the primary over again.
    • biseorsmadness, on 03/13/2008, -6/+9My question is, "yeah, so?"

      The leftist democrats would be out doing the same thing. As a matter of fact I seem to remember them doing them doing the same thing, trying to get McCain nominated over Bush for the 2000 election. Unfortunately for them, Bush won, and their Lord and Savior Albert W.K. Gore lost like the pathetic sack of human flesh that he is.
      • shauncorleone, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3There's no "would" about it. Do the research and look at how many moderates and democrats voted for McCain in the early primaries that, like Texas and Ohio, didn't require you to be a long-registered member of the party to vote in that party's primary. It's exactly how McCain started building his momentum, via the votes of so-called "Independents" and moderates.
        Did you even see how the mainstream media treated every GOP candidate BUT McCain up until he won the nomination? The NY Times was completely scorching themselves with McCain overexposure. Now that they (libs) got the candidate they want a few weeks ago, the attack pieces have begun.
    • More4, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4this explains the Monster's latest hate campaign
    • NoStoppingUs, on 03/13/2008, -7/+7awwwww. poor little demokkkRATS are pissed that the republicans have beaten them at their own game.

      i love living in ohio. and yes, i voted democrat for the first time in my life just so i could support the people who would be easier to beat. mccain had the nod. why waste a vote?

      mwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha. (youre welcome)

      p.s. i thought conservative talk radio didn't matter?
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -6/+4It's people like you that give the Republicans a moral black eye. Isn't it time to outgrow the schoolyard habit of taunting someone you kneecapped with a crowbar?
        • NoStoppingUs, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3LOL.

          boooo hoooo hooooo. if you cant take the eat, get out of the kitchen. it's called 'politics', and liberals play it 24/7. now that we're actually fighting back, you guys go *****. i love it!
      • Rsulliv1, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1troll; no need for any comments.
    • iceman219, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3no one ever said that Republicans were dumb
      • MeMongo, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Actually, people say that all the time
    • robthom, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5the democrats are much closer to the definition of "Failure". The only reason we ended up with 8 years of Dubya is because the Dems cant sleep at night without discovering new ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
    • JonGalt, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Whats it matter when ever canidate is the same scumbag in different packaging?

      www.DONTVOTE.org
      • shauncorleone, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I look forward to your sister site, CantBitch.net.
  • bitfreak, on 03/13/2008, -22/+110I hope hope hope the mainstream media picks this up.

    In the Sunday paper here in Madison, WI, there was an editorial about local people admitting they did this very thing. Of the people I know personally, 4 voted for Clinton, but will be voting GOP in the fall. They are confident that McCain can beat her, so they threw their votes behind her.
    • tlenker, on 03/13/2008, -3/+19Fox News and the conservative talk shows have been talking about it a lot. It's only the liberal media that is embarrassed about admitting Rush Limbaugh's effectiveness at recommending republicans do this.

      Didn't Hillary bus in people from New York for the New Hampshire primary? What about all those buses with NY license plates parked at voting centers. Hmmmm.
    • spookyttws, on 03/13/2008, -2/+6Wouldn't it be a bad thing if this gets on the news, giving millions of normally dumb people the idea to vote for Hillary because McCain doen't need their vote?
      • tlenker, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Let me guess, only geniuses listen to Air America.

        Oh wait, no one listens to Air America.
    • ralphthemagi, on 03/13/2008, -9/+0Or maybe they just like Clinton over Obama?

      Think about it. You're a Republican. You support McCain. If McCain loses, who do you want to win, Hillary or Obama? Probably Hillary.
      • anonymit, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Hillary is perceived by republicans as being extremely liberal (and is simultaneously perceived by liberals as being way too conservative). They definitely don't want her as second choice. What Limbaugh (correctly) thinks is that she will probably lose in the fall to McCain (despite otherwise favorable conditions for democrats) because she has a sub-50% ceiling and her being in the race will motivate conservatives to vote and liberals to vote 3rd party.
    • thcobbs, on 03/13/2008, -4/+6I think you are missing the point bitfreak... The state that they are using over and over again is Mississippi. I grew up in the state. They have one of the largest legally-gerrymandered congressional districts in the Union. And its there specifically to get an African American as a Congressional Representative.

      All that aside, there are MANY elections on the state and local level where ONLY democrats are on the ticket.... therefore, if you want to have a voice in your local and state politics, you have to vote as a democrat. Hell, you can't even hope to win an election in some areas if you have the (R) next to your name because there are so many Yellow-Dog Democrats. So while you scream foul play, know that in some places people just don't have anyone to vote for except democrats.
    • W00DR0W, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4Bill Handel, the guy who does the #1 morning AM station news in L.A., un-ashamedly said he voted for Hilary because he thought Barack had a better chance of beating McCain, pretty despicable I thought but I guess not everyone thinks that way.

      Funny thing though, his vote probably wasn't counted do to the state ***** up Independent voters' ballots.
    • sylvanis, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3Life isn't fair princess. Stop your crying. Wisconsin has an OPEN primary. if you don't like it, get all your lefty friends in the capitol to change the election rules. It shouldn't be so hard since the Doyle and the Democratic party in Wisconsin has been cheating at elections for years....using some of the oldest tricks on the books like not requiring people to have a photo ID when voting. Hell, when I voted in 04 in Milwaukee my neighbor said that he voted twice and the people at the polls allowed it.

      And before you in your all high and mighty Madison ways jump down my throat...I voted libertarian.
    • PatNolan, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4I crossed party lines to vote for Obama in MO. C'mon my choice is McCain or ... Yup come November, I'm voting for Obama or Mickey Mouse.
    • maddhopps, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1At first I read your comment thinking it was another "Buffalo buffalo" sentence.
    • Sephaa, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2***** corrupt politics.
    • IJstickI, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1you hope they pick up on it...ha maybe cuz its the world of politics, strategy, they figure it would be a waste of money to report it, all you crazy digg liberals please stop digging the stupidest sh*t
  • DiggLive, on 03/13/2008, -16/+144More reason for Clinton to just drop out now.
    • gypsi, on 03/13/2008, -5/+53tainted win, stolen win, she'll take it.
      • buhbyebot, on 03/13/2008, -0/+12She won't win. She would have to win each and all of the remaining states by over 60 precent. She will not. The popular vote is another thing, which is why the Republicans are involved in this by voting for her in the open primaries. If they can succeed in garnering her the popular vote, there is still a chance that she can get the DNC to give her the nomination. If and that is a big if, she can manage to pull herself up with regard to the delegates.


    • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -10/+4How does htis hurt her? She isn't asking them to do it.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -3/+6No, Bill is. He was on Limbaugh not long ago telling people to go vote for her.
      • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -3/+6It means that a significant part of her already dwindling support is disingenuous, coming from Republicans aiming to further divide the Democratic Party.
        • tlenker, on 03/13/2008, -0/+9That's right. Very good.
          At least conservatives are up-front about their intentions.
    • 22pages, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8At this point, it is up to Hillary's campaign to acknowledge they are perpetrating a needless farce. Will it happen? Probably not. She seems like a power-mad bitch. But hopefully there's a shred of dignity in there somewhere and she'll step down.
  • 0rion16, on 03/13/2008, -32/+2If Co$ can get a restraining order against Anonymous (who is by their own nature, and creative name, anonymous), why can't we get a cease and desist against this blowhard.
    I'd like to see him infront of a firing squad, or maybe drawn and quartered, but I'd settle for a cease and desist.
    • MadKennyP, on 03/13/2008, -1/+10Feel free to file a suit.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/13/2008, -2/+18Why? Do you have something against freedom of speech?
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/13/2008, -4/+7So out of curiosity, why'd you pick an upside-down US flag for an icon? You have a Republican running the White House, and he's got a veto-proof congress... Wouldn't someone like you be happy?
      • root1657, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I believe he is using it in the military sense. To the US military, the flag flown up side down is a distress call, same as SOS, only stronger and more immidiate call for some serious heavy metal toting help.

        Ever see the movie 'The Last Castle'?
  • strafefire, on 03/13/2008, -33/+313Wait, wait, wait a minute!

    Didn't in January, the DailyKos and other "left wing" blogs advocate crossing party lines for Romney?

    Wait for it.....bam:
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/2713/87225 ...

    And now, people are bitching that the Republicans are doing it for Hillary?

    Isn't that hypocrisy?

    Face it. It is legal -- 100% percent allowed.

    So, if you REALLY want your candidate to win, mobilize your people and vote EN MASSE.

    Stop bitching about this. IF you can do it, they can do it, STFU and live with it, or get your parties to change the GAWDDAMN rules!
    • PATSCRU, on 03/13/2008, -8/+64it's legal it's allowed, and it's done all the time. States that don't want this happening have closed primaries.
      I don't think this is cheating by any means, but it does go to show that clinton is not winning because democrats want her to win.
      • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -11/+7So, you have proof that she is getting most of the votes from the republicans? Are you saying that you are privvy to the voting records now? Aren't they supposed to be secret?
        • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -3/+11they're called exit polls
          • PopcornDave, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2Exit poll are about as reliable as the rhythm method for birth control.
        • rdoger6424, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5Not most.
          12% of dem primary voters were republican
          75% of those in MS voted clinton
          Clinton had 37.2% of the vote
          so Republicans consisted of 24% of Clinton's vote.
        • davewashere, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The only true secret is who an individual voted for. Your party affiliation and whether or not you voted in a particular election are all on the public record. That's how Al Franken was able to call out Bill O'Reilly's claim that he was a registered independent, and how someone was able to expose the fact that most of the celebrities who participated in the "Vote or Die" campaign (P. Diddy, Paris Hilton, etc) had never voted in an election.
      • wezman2, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7Clinton ISN'T winning
      • Bravesguy18, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Another person that can easily surrender their morality for legality.
    • Peko, on 03/13/2008, -16/+28Can I bitch about your excessive use of line feed?
      • buhbyebot, on 03/13/2008, -2/+24Yes, yes you can. It is within the rules and it's done all the time.
    • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -21/+25It was unethical then, it's unethical now.
      • cliffzdude, on 03/13/2008, -2/+8True, however singling out one party and implying said party plays in this type of mud more than the other party is silly and inaccurate. Or as Bush would say: "inaccrrit".
      • Spudster, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4It's called strategic voting and everyone does it whether you like it or not.
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/13/2008, -2/+12For all the "lack of choice" we seem to have over out candidates, the means by which they're chosen seems incredibly over-complicated, doesn't it?

      Not to mentoin drawn out, childish, and the debates are nigh meaningless. I'd love to see at least one Oxford style debate complete with scoring and actual friggin' policy questions instead of that "raise your hand if you X" *****.
    • Pillage, on 03/13/2008, -9/+4Yea but it's ok for them to do it!
    • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -14/+6Romney was the Republicans' best candidate.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Even if that were so, he screwed up by trying to pander to the entire damn party. He wound up contradicting himself over and over again depending on who he was talking to. Bad move, Mitt.
        • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1No, bad move REPUBLICANS. Romney will do just fine sitting on his piles of money and continuing to live a charmed life. Republicans meanwhile are stuck with the unfortunate prospects of either getting steamrolled by Dems or getting saddled with a crotchety, cancerous old RINO who's biggest claim to fame is getting his ass shot down by gooks. I guess that's what happens when your party becomes dominated by demagogues who openly court the "ain't so bright" vote.
          • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but what are the voters left to assume when he does that? I probably would've voted for Romney as I like his history of financial success and some of his viewpoints (historically, anyway), but when people see him saying different things on abortion when he's talking to different people, they get turned off, and you can't blame them for that. Mitt screwed up by stuffing his suit. Maybe next time, Romney. Learn from your mistakes and come back again.
    • Nubaulz, on 03/13/2008, -4/+19Since when was it unethical to vote for whoever you want to in a free, open election? If the democrats don't want other parties voting in their primaries, then close the primaries...or you could just bitch about it and not do a thing to change the problem. Very "assish" of the left. Blame everyone else for the problems with your own system.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -7/+2"Since when was it unethical to vote for whoever you want "

        Since when do republicans "want" Shrillary?
        • Nubaulz, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I think you are confusing who "they" want to vote for and who "you" want to vote for. As I implied before, it's an open election so you're free to vote for whoever you want, regardless of political party.

          To answer your question, Republicans have always wanted Shrillary as the Democratic nominee because she is a long shot to get the White House. She is too polarizing to obtain a significant number of swing votes in the general election.
          • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1And yet she's still favored over McCain in most national polls. Why are Republicans working so hard to ensure a Hitlery presidency?
          • Nubaulz, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Concerning Polls...

            At this time in 2004, Kerry was also favored over Bush, but we know how that election turned out. The difference between polls and votes is that polls come to you and are often worded so that there is no affirmative or negative; votes, on the other hand, require you to go to the voting booth and only require a yea/nay response.

            If HRC wins the nomination over BHO, I would wager that the first time democratic voters that are in love with BHO will not show up in November. I'd also wager that the Independents and fence sitters (for lack of a better word) that are disgusted by both the left and the right will not show up in November. However, conservatives and Evangelists in the Republican party that are currently disenfranchised with McCain will flock to the voting booth to vote against another Clinton in the White House, especially a Clinton that is viewed as less savory than her husband.
      • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -4/+5Just because it's not against the rules doesn't make it wrong.
        "I knocked Suzy over, but because Mom didn't see me, it's acceptable."
        It's typical Republican "Innocent until caught" mentality: lie, cheat and steal.
        • sylvanis, on 03/13/2008, -4/+5typical liberal hypocrisy.....I seem to recall in 2004 the words "EVERY VOTE COUNTS" coming from the Democrats over votes for a Republican Candidate. Now all of a sudden if it is a Republican voting Democratic it's wrong and they vote shouldn't count.
          • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -4/+1Why do Republicans hate democracy? No, seriously? Why are you so proud of poisoning the system? Don't tell me that it's justified because "the other side does it too." Even if a few dems voted for Romney here and there, it sure as hell wasn't enough to give him the edge. You're actually proud to be the party of lying, dishonest, hypocritcal assholes, aren't you? I mean, you're practically BRAGGING about it here. What's wrong with you people? Aren't you supposed to be the party of faith? Good works? Morality? Why do you insist on behaving like depraved, miserable apes? Why do you behave less honorably than Moslems?
    • cbuddha42, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13Haha, I'm glad someone posted it cause reading that article I was kinda like wait didn't they encourage people to do this to the Republicans?

      That said, this dailykos article got 1 thing right: this is exactly why the democratic party has super delegates. When the primaries hand the democratic party a useless candidate who can't win the general election the super delegates are supposed to be able to push in favor of who the party wants to run.
      • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2You know, not all dems are the same person. And neither are all repubs the same person. There's no hypocricy involved when I say that SABOTAGE POLITICS SUCKS. No matter who is doing it. Please, hold your party to a higher standard, whichever party you're a part of.
      • loxias44, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0What's the point of even having a primary if you only get a useless candidate and your super delegates will just nominate someone else? Seems like an awful waste of money and much MUCH more complicated then it it needs to be. Oh wait, we're talking about Democrats -- Spend spend spend, tax, tax, tax, make things very complicated...
    • jayhawk, on 03/13/2008, -4/+13here in Michigan i crossed over to vote for Romney since voting in the dem primary wasn't going to count. but i didn't vote for Romney to cause problem; rather, i honestly thought he'd be a better president than McCain or Huckabee. i thought he was the best republican running and if we were going to lose then I'd rather lose to him.
      Hillary isn't getting votes because republicans like her. Big difference.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7Romney was good. Too bad for Republicans they're too retarded and bigoted to appreciate his wisdom and talent.
      • SavageOwnage, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2You are telling us about your personal reasons for voting for Romney. How are you qualified to say the reasons that every other democrat voted in the election had the same reasoning as you?
        • root1657, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Actually, I dont see at all where jayhawk said that...
    • exomni, on 03/13/2008, -11/+8Back then it was fair, as neither party had decided their candidate yet, not to mention democrats actually WANTED Romney to be the Republican nominee because he was the one they most agreed with, not really because they felt he was the most easily beatable.
      • madoc62, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0What? It was fair back then but now it's not? Oh puh-leaze! That's the lamest bit of DailyKos spin I've heard yet!

        If voting in the other party's primaries is unethical now then it was unethical then.
    • iisdev, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4While the legality is not in question it's dividing a party that (at this point) should be united with purpose. I agree with his statement at the end; the super delegates should step in now and endorse. There are more important issues that are being backburned by this drama.
    • PolishLogic, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Reminds me of Hillary bitching about Texas...even though what ***** her was perfectly fine when it benefited her hubby in '92.

      Although, we are talking about dailykos.com, here. Which is basically a blog that managed to get 'street cred'. The same people that champion this site, also bash Fox for being propaganda. Oh the irony.

      @exomni: Your comment on Romney is not quite accurate. Putting Romney in McCain's place would be a huge boost for the Democratic party. Romney would have fractured the GOP rather nicely for the Dems advantage, based on his religion alone. (the Religious Right, a section with huge pull, aren't too keen on Mormons)
      • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1The difference is that Daily Koz doesn't proclaim to be "fair and balanced".
        • madoc62, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1The REAL difference between Daily Kos amd Fox is that Fox doesn't have George Soros bankrolling their lies and propaganda!
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Yeah, but a lot of the religious right would probably swallow the bitter pill and vote for Romney over Hillary or Obama.

        Hell, I figured if it came down to Mitt vs either of those two, the South would take a look at it (Mormon, evil woman, or darkie?) and secede all over again.
    • Thud, on 03/13/2008, -9/+24No no no!! You don't understand. When the democrats do it, it's for the GOOD OF DEMOCRACY. When the republicans do it, it's EVIL. Get it straight next time.
      • tehbishop, on 03/13/2008, -8/+4Sorta like how Vietnam was an evil Democratic party led war, but W's 'liberation' of Iraq was a great choice, right?
        • floorman56, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2One war is over the other isn't...which one worked out best?
        • madoc62, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Vietnam? Oh yeah, didn't the Democrats start that one? And then screw it up to the fare-thee-well? Yeah, I seem to remember them doing that. And then, once they realized they'd so thoroughly screwed the pooch with that war... PRESTO!!... the Democrats instantly became the _ANTI-war_ party. How convenient.
    • VicHislop, on 03/13/2008, -2/+8Um, I think you missed the point. This isn't a diatribe against Republicans for doing what they can legally (and strategically) do, but it's to further drive the point that Clinton needs to just end this now. She seems intent on doing whatever she can to win the nomination, even if it means destroying her party and ignoring the fact that she would not be a viable candidate in the general election.
    • InfiniteNothing, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2It would be the ultimate comeuppance if Clinton won. I would not underestimate her ability to beat McCain.
      • 1310nm, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5Hi, you must live in a left-leaning state. Here in the red states, you hear nothing but drivel about how "scary" Hillary is, and how people "could never vote for her." She is far more disliked than Obama, and in our political atmosphere, the negatives outweigh the positives.
    • incabulos, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3Dailykos isn't quite Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Nor do I have the time, nor do I care for such tactics. I want the only presidential candidate in the history of my voting life that gives me some semblance of hope to win. That's it. I don't want anyone else to lose, I just want him in and fixing the 8 years of el doucherino. Ya dig?
    • sathias, on 03/13/2008, -5/+3One massive difference.

      Democrats gaming the Republican primaries had no effect. Republicans gaming the Democrat primaries could decide the presidency.

      Apart from that, it's exactly the same, morally.
      • SavageOwnage, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5How do you know that the dems had no effect on the gop election?
        • sathias, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Because it has been alleged that Dems voted for Mitt Romney, but McCain won in a landslide?
      • phatt-matt, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2The Dems crossed over in NH to give McCain the win. That set McCain on the road to winning the nomination.
    • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3Legal doesn't mean good for the country. And just because some sleazy dems did it doesn't make it good. Sabbotage oriented politics is common, but it doesn't have to be, and you shouldn't accept it from either party.

      If that's how you like to do things, let's see just how ***** we can make it.

      Personally, I'd prefer to aim a little higher.
    • germ5150, on 03/13/2008, -3/+5I think the real issue is that the Dailykos is a piece of crap hypocritical blog site. This is par for the course for Markos Moulitsas. Ask Democrats to do it in January and criticize Republicans in March. What a piece of *****.
    • terminal157, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Yeah, but Markos is a dick. Doesn't everyone know that?
    • Grummond, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1So manipulating Diebold machines should be legalized and ok, if both parties get to do it?
      Same logic.
    • TripcodeMel, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0Yeah, because it was *totally* okay when everyone on Digg was pushing Dems and Libs to switch Republican to caucus for Ron Paul.
    • IJstickI, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2thank you!!! omg i cant stand all the libs sh*t on here
    • bigphildogg86, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Sure sure, it may be legal. But it's certainly not ethical. The point of voting is that you vote for who you think will do the best with the country. NOT to attempt to engineer a win because you're afraid of who MIGHT get elected from the other party. I don't even pay attention to the Daily KOs so I can't really say one way or another. Dems need to be voting for who they want to win in the dem primaries anyways because it is so close. And as someone else pointed out....does Romney actually have a chance? KOs is stupid for thinking they could even make a dent in McCain's lead.

      Just because one side does it does mean you should do it too (At dems and Repubs)
      Anyways, two party system FTL. They should just put a bunch of candidates onto a list and make people do the research to make a decision and vote for the person they like the best NOT, "Well he's republican so I'm going to support Republican again this year." or "He's a dem, I'm going to support Dems this year."
    • un1t1y, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Good post. But most commenters are wrong about the legality. In some states, like Ohio, cross-over voters are required to sign a pledge card to the party. Intentional cross-over to affect another party's primary is subject to perjury charges which could land an individual 6-12 months in jail and a $2500. It is clearly ILLEGAL in certain states. Besides, it is moral reprehensible regardless of political party. Sugar-coat the "playing" by the rules" card all you want. Cheating is cheating.
    • fluxion, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1and if it werent for the darned dems, mitt romney wouldnt be the republican nominee...

      wait what?

      it's not about who started what, or who owes who (though the article seems to point at the repubs being the mischievous racals), its about a party being completely oblivious to another party getting pretty damned close to choosing their nominee. this is why this is more worthy of national media attention, because people need to wake up to teh fact that obama didnt just inch out a win in texas, he inched out a win in the face of massive republican "support" for hillary. losing texas was supposed to be the showstopper for hillary, but people are failing to see how handedly she lost, or that she even lost at all.
  • Stevanoski, on 03/13/2008, -38/+13Good for the goose, good for the gander, just mad cause we are better at it than you leftist.
    • buhbyebot, on 03/13/2008, -4/+8Care to back up that claim with some proof? Also, what makes it ok to do again?
    • Zarokima, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5Copy-paste of my previous response to when you said something like this earlier:
      A goose laying eggs is good. A gander laying eggs is...well, ***** up to say the least.
      I hate people stupid enough to use the "If it's [good or bad] for X it's [same] for Y" argument.
      • Stevanoski, on 03/13/2008, -11/+8Waaaahhhh, Waaaaahhh, Republicans are mean. (paraphrasing each comment to my post.)
        • tlenker, on 03/13/2008, -6/+5I concur. Waaaahhhh, Waaaaahhh, Republicans are mean.

          We're whiny liberals that can dish it out but can't take it. Waaaahhhh, Waaaaahhh

          Don't worry libs. She'll find a way to steal it. Don't get your panties in a bunch.
        • SquigglyP, on 03/13/2008, -1/+5since when is this a ***** war? Look, I don't give a ***** about party lines at all. You ***** are turning this country into the ***** middle east and you don't even see it. How much more psychotic do you have to get before you start suicide bombing the democratic primaries? This extremism and irrational hatred of your FELLOW COUNTRYMEN for something like this is disturbing to me beyond belief. We all have to share this country. The sooner both sides calm down a little and start thinking with their ***** brains and not with their zombie political belief systems the better off we'll all be.
          • tlenker, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2Waaaahhh, Waaaahhh.
            Once again, Democrats have been crossing over in republican primaries for years. How do think McCain won the nomination! Republicans are only replying in kind. There's no "suicide bombing going on", just participation in the process.

            Get over it, *****.
          • SquigglyP, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1I am a republican. I know the Dems do it as well. The point is that both sides are ***** everything up in this vain war where winning is the only thing that matters to voters. But winning isn't ***** important. What's important is getting half-way decent, MORAL and intelligent people into office so they can represent us as best they can. The problem with tactics such as this is that they only end up giving us a choice of "bad" or "worse", and that's not the right way to ***** vote. If you vote based on some kind of winning party strategy, then you're retarded. You should vote for the guy you want to win based on their positions and the things they will do once in office.

            The fact that this has been going on for so long makes me wonder why the ***** they don't close the primaries. But this sort of ***** is just the tip of the iceberg of the political douchebaggery that goes on every day of every year. This isn't some game, this is the future of our country at stake here.
    • evil-doer, on 03/13/2008, -4/+2not that i agree with this sort of thing AT ALL. but who is better at it? obama is still going to win no matter what. and who won the rep primary? thats right. THE most liked republican of democratic voters. their favorite got in. and he is one of the most hated by right wingers. so who is better at it again?

      btw, theres a big difference in voting for who you want to win in both sides versus voting for someone you hate, solely to screw things up.
    • shortysmyname, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Better at voter fraud. That's something you should be really proud of.
    • 1310nm, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3I think both sides should start subverting the opposing party's primaries, so we can get the worst 2 candidates in the general election. /sarc
  • gregish, on 03/13/2008, -12/+4Proof!!! *insert inflammatory political statement here*
    • s1mph0ny, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Don't mind if I do. Maybe they're just voting for Hillary because she's closer to McCain. Either one would easily out-growl Obama.
  • jmpeagle, on 03/13/2008, -5/+19or more people lost their candidate in the GOP race and so are now switching to the democratic primary. Clinton is more conservative of the two so it makes sense for the fence sitting GOP to switch their vote to Hillary as they might really really dislike McCain. Coulter for example has publicly stated if the choice came between McCain and Clinton, she would vote for Clinton.
    • swrostmore, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3Coulter is representative of the average Republican's mindset, but mark my words - by November she'll be begging to nibble McCain's taint, just like all the wingers on Digg who used scream about "Juan" McCain being a RINO and a closet liberal.
    • Zarokima, on 03/13/2008, -6/+2Oh, please, the only reason Coulter would do that is because Clinton's female.
      • Mejari, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2Why? We already know Coulter isn't
      • pintomp3, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4coulter doesn't even think women should be able to vote.
    • ntr0p3, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0We seriously need a new Godwin's law specifically for Ann Coulter. The woman is a walking flame-war.
      OTOH, having her agree with your enemy is truly damning praise.
    • Grummond, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1If they really really dislike McCain, wouldn't it make them vote for Obama, the only candidate that can beat McCain?
  • unpolloloco, on 03/13/2008, -13/+23I never knew that there were that many republicans in the US
    Apparently that 8.1% of Republicans resulted in an increase of 44% for Clinton. Thats pretty impressive. Apparently republicans either hold a greater weight than democrats in the democratic primary (Which, i might add, isn't that surprising given the whole superdelegate situation) or there are several times as many republicans as democrats in the US.

    Correlation does not equal causation
    • bigmrpig, on 03/13/2008, -0/+8Three times more Republicans have been voting, Clinton's votes from Republicans have gone up by a factor of 2.5. I think you're misreading the graph if you think there's anything impressive about that (her votes have gone up 44% from REPUBLICANS, not total), and though you're correct about the correlation not implying causation, it certainly doesn't take a huge leap of faith to get there.
    • ntr0p3, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Not nearly as many, but far more active in voting. It's how a minority has held power for so long, passion vs. apathy.
      We should say shame on democrats for not winning even with a rather large advantage in population, and work hard to bridge the gap in voter outreach and enthusiasm.
      It's something I'll look into, maybe later... I mean my chair is nice and warm, and youtube is running. Meh, we have another election is 4 years or something anyway right?
  • swrostmore, on 03/13/2008, -5/+55This is why closed primaries exist.
    • ZenMojo, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2Touche. And Tucker Carlson kept bitching that it was a conspiracy theory
      http://youtube.com/watch?v=ikZiPo74B98
    • Math, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6This is also why super-delegates exist.
      • bruce86, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Super delegates don't sound that crappy when you think about crap like this
    • Cyrus042, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1You can change your party registration ahead of time anyways. (as long as you meet the deadline, in CA it's about 2 weeks) Those intent on voting for the other side are always able to do so. McCain has been presumptive for much longer than 2 weeks. Changing to a closed primary doesn't really change anything. If there's a presumptive candidate for one side, they'll be able to wedge in before the deadline anyways, and if their primary is still competitive, than they may not get the Republican / Democratic candidate they want.

      Open primaries help independents and moderates make up their mind on election day instead of trying to have them make a decision weeks ahead of time. That's it, period.
  • SteeleyDan, on 03/13/2008, -4/+8I'm not sure why these voters should be allowed to vote in anything other than their own party's primary, or switch parties this close to their state's primary. In CT you had to be registered 3 months in advance for the party you would vote for, if you switch after that deadline you are in limbo and can't vote. I think that's pretty fair.
    • richporter, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2At least my home state does something right.
    • s1mph0ny, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1So can I vote for Hillary when Florida eventually gets a primary that matters? Two fascists running against each other can't possibly get the nomination against a decent man...
    • HomerS1, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1voters are allowed to do this because their respective state parties want them to be able to. Each party in each state sets up it's own rules for selecting delegates. There does not even need to be a primary or caucus if the state does not want one and the national party agrees.
      Florida and Michigan could have all the Democratic candidates play Texas Hold'em where each poker chip is a delegate. If the DNC agrees to seat these delegates at the convention, then, by definition, this is a valid 'primary'
  • SRSco, on 03/13/2008, -7/+17My state is run by Republicans...for local politics the only election that matters is the primary, since the party's nominee will always win the general election. Before the GOP closed the primaries here I'd always vote in primaries to try to make sure the most moderate, least right wing whacko would get the nod. Then I could vote against them in the general election.

    There is nothing wrong with Republicans doing this now.
    • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -10/+1"My state is run by Republicans"

      Why do you live in a *****?
    • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3If you voted for them in the primary because you believed they were the best choice among the likely candidates, that's one thing. If you did it because you were trying to undermine their party by pushing an idiot to the top... well, you're a dick. Politics sucks because of that kind of crap.
  • arbouler, on 03/13/2008, -12/+4i've worried about this whole thing since february 4th voting. as much as i deplore the republican party in general, there sure are sly people in the party whose motivation is only to win.
    • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5You voted on February 4th? I guess you wanted to beat the lines.
  • Dgen_X, on 03/13/2008, -3/+8Well hopefully Michigan will pull off the re-vote, so I can turn that 'undecided' into an 'Obama'

    • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6The LAST thing Obama wants to have happen is a revote in either of those two states.
      • petrodollar, on 03/13/2008, -11/+2He'd clean up in MI. Detroit is full of moslems and blacks.
      • rdoger6424, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6Wrong. The LAST thing he wants is for the original votes to be counted. Especially since Kucinich is out and everybody else was off the ballot except for Clinton.
        • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1He will still get slaughtered in Flroida, and at best barely win (fairly even delegates) in Michigan.
  • wemustbenuts, on 03/13/2008, -4/+11I'ts legal and it sucks!
  • wwnexc, on 03/13/2008, -6/+9Correlation doesn't imply cause.
    • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -0/+5There's no need to imply cause when there are plenty of Republicans out there happy to tell you that they're trying to screw with the process. I mean, they're not even trying to hide it. The exit poll stats just help to give a better idea of exactly how much of an effect they're having.
      • trenchcoat, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2You mean like how the exit polls said that Kerry was winning in '04?
        • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Which he did - he won the popular vote.
        • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1No, that was Gore, you nincompoop. Bush won the popular vote in '04.
  • trenchcoat, on 03/13/2008, -8/+32Just because you capitalize the word 'proof' doesn't make it so.
    • exomni, on 03/13/2008, -5/+3IT IS SO.







      (See that? All caps. Fool-proof. And while I'm at it: I ***** YOUR MOM)
      • trenchcoat, on 03/13/2008, -2/+4It really works like that? In that case.

        I'M YOUR DADDY.
      • madoc62, on 03/13/2008, -0/+0Exomni,

        Wow, I'm sure everyone here is stunned by the depth of your succinct analysis and the overpowering intellect of your insightful comment.

        I'm sure they are.
  • formergthing, on 03/13/2008, -6/+17Wow, that's about the biggest non sequitur I've ever seen. I have PROOF that we never landed on the moon because every plane I've flown in is incapable of getting there!
    • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3I dugg you for the proper use of non sequitur, but I bury you for an inaccurate analogy.
      That means no digg for you.
  • kolinkoolface2, on 03/13/2008, -7/+18uhh people can vote for who ever they want...issue...?
    • RedHerringHack, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2Yep, thats the way it works. The fact that people are THINKING and STRATEGIZING their votes is good news.
    • gahal, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3People are voting for someone they want to lose, because they know that in the next round their guy has a better chance of beating the person they are currently voting for.
      They know that McCain has a better chance of winning against Hillary, so they are trying to get her to be his opponent in the final round.
      This is not people voting for their choice, this is people jumping over and polluting the numbers to give their guy a better chance.

      *I'm a registered republican, and I hope Obama wins*
      • pyronik, on 03/13/2008, -2/+3a vote for the person you want to lose counts just as much as the one for the one you want to win... either way your getting the same amount of say... you guys on this site just are pissed of its against your candidate
      • kolinkoolface2, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3haha yea... i know that... i am not a total retard. I am just saying.... obamatards need to stop bitching. This is politics not political correctness. When you play with the big dogs, Obama and Hillary, your bound to get bitten.
    • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2The issue is that we're supposed to be measuring who people think the best candidate is, not who the opponents think they would most likely be able to defeat. It undermines the spirit of democracy. It's bad when the dems do it, it's bad when the reps do it.

      Voting across party lines is fine, if you're voting for someone you actually want to lead the country. But voting for the weakest candidate to sabotage a primary is one of the many ways in which we've come to accept ***** for politics. Let's raise our standards please.
      • kolinkoolface2, on 03/21/2008, -0/+1you know what this..... it's the world's smallest violin playing just for you.
  • Brutis, on 03/13/2008, -4/+12bar graphs = proof
    • imightbewrong, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1tell it like it is
    • pintomp3, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2are you disputing the numbers?
    • Herv3, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1School of political statistics with professors Ross Perot and Tim Russert.
  • onetimeuse, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6Why the democrats don't make it a closed primaries and such i dont understand. Im probably leaning left but i can only blame the democratic party that this is happening. If the argument is so the voting can be "democratic" and everyone can choose, screw that. no one's playing by the rules. At some point taking the high road will just end up being the road that leads to nowhere.
    • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2The problem with closed primaries is that independents and undecideds can't participate, not to mention anyone not registered with the party. And before you scoff at that, keep in mind that Barack Obama could not have racked up his early wins without strong independent support.
      • koft, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Here in NC the republicans can't vote in Dem primary but the independents can.
      • Veretax, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Perhaps this is why DailyKos is upset, they wanted Hilary to Win, and wish the rules were changed during the process. God Help us if Michigan and Florida both revote...
    • spookyttws, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah I hate having the right to choose the candidate I believe in regardless of party affiliation. Damn this democratic republic!
  • Barbrady, on 03/13/2008, -8/+36Funny how when the Dems cross over to monkey with the Republican choices it's "ethical", but when the Reps. do the same thing to the Dems it's "unethical." Hypocrisy much? Buried, inaccurate!
    • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6I, for one, thought the "Dems for Mitt" movement was plenty unethical...
  • prophet5, on 03/13/2008, -10/+19When Democrats do this, it's exercising their right to vote (which doesn't exist, by the way - read the Constitution).

    Locally, a Democrat-controlled union office put up a sign in 2004 that said "vote early, vote often". When Democrats encourage voter fraud, it's ok, but if people choose wisely it's a conspiracy? Are the tinfoil hats wearing out?

    Democrats don't like it when Republicans use the tricks the Democrats put in play to their advantage. Guess what? That's the cost of your game.
    • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -6/+7"Vote often" in general, idiot. Not in the same election.
      Only a corrupt Republican like you would think "voter fraud".
      • Verbinator, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Actually, if you study history, you'll find that particularly corrupt party officials (many of them Democrats) were known for tactics like this.
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6"They did it, so we can do it" is your justification? What are you, twelve?
      • Chordonblue, on 03/13/2008, -4/+3The R's have learned that being passive while the D's pull out the dirty tricks playbook is a losing proposition. The entire 80's was played that way until the D's totally screwed over Bush over taxes. Guess what? It's been 'game on' ever since.

        You may not like it when the other team gets in the game, but the blame is just as much, if not more, on your side.
        • WasabiBomb, on 03/14/2008, -0/+2Whoa, what? The Republicans are pure as the driven snow, while it's the Democrats who are pulling the dirty tricks?

          Dude, where the hell have you BEEN, and what have you been smoking while you were there? Ever heard of Rove? Name one Democrat who's as evil as that *****.

          Oh, and for the record, I'm not on any "side". I'm on my own side. I vote my conscience, not my party, because "party uber alles" is what's gotten us into the mess we're in now. Whether Dems were evil first DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is YOUR party is being evil RIGHT NOW. That should bother you as much as it bothers me- more, actually, since it's your party, acting in your name.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 03/14/2008, -1/+1The is nothing wrong with crossing party lines in the primary - it is legal. Freedom, ain't it a bitch Democrats! Now who is acting 12?
    • muchachoburacho, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Give an example of the last time democrats turned out in bulk to vote for the the person they thought was less likely to win in november.
  • FaithclubDotNet, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4I saw this coming last year. I made sure I was on the democratic ticket so I could vote against Hillary. I'm pretty certain that in PA, you need to be a member of the party to vote in the primaries. I wasn't sure who I wanted to win, but I knew who I didn't want to win.
    • rdoger6424, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4Correct. PA is a closed primary and the registration deadline is the 22nd.
    • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -3/+2"Faithclub" eh?
      I guess Jesus is a spammer(faithclubDotNet). He must also be a cheater - even though it's not against the rules, it's clearly wrong. Oh, and he must be a Republican because lying and cheating are okay as long as you don't get caught.

      Per your little site: "#3 God is really cool to me."

      No thanks. You people and your hypocrisy are disgusting.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1I think this demonstrates that you don't need a religion to follow to be a bigot.
  • bingobongony, on 03/13/2008, -11/+18I can't believe they gave Dailykos access to the voting records to the point that they have PROOF of which candidate everyone voted for! I thought our voting was supposed to be secret!
  • Look4Truth, on 03/13/2008, -13/+6Republicans = Democrats with different jerseys.
    • ZenMojo, on 03/13/2008, -1/+6And a love for nuclear weapons and sexual repression.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1Nah, they just like to air Democrat dirty laundry. If you want repression, check out Mrs. Clinton's opposition to M-rated video games.
  • ralph12c41, on 03/13/2008, -10/+16dailykos + proof = you have to be kidding...LOL
  • pintomp3, on 03/13/2008, -0/+13it's a little bit hypocritical of dailykos to call out the republicans, since they tried to persuade democrats to vote for romney in michigan to mess with things. it didn't have much of an effect since the democratic race is close and democrats don't want to waste their votes. republicans don't have this problem since their race is decided now. also, people like rush limbaugh have much wider reach and influence than the dailykos. our election process is screwed up as it is, we don't need people intentionally trying to subvert the process further. it's wrong for both sides to do it, but it is funny that the dailykos is pointing it out.
    • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4Yeah, right on. I'm bummed how many people are saying "so what?". It's a lousy tactic that just lowers the quality of things even further.. Dailykos are hypocrites, too.
  • pudgyv, on 03/13/2008, -3/+11I've been pulling that stunt in every primary for 40 years. So sue me!
    • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -2/+5You must be a Republican - you think lying, cheating and stealing is "okay".
      • pudgyv, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Only a douche equates voting preferences with lying, cheating and stealing.
        • homanh, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Only a total ***** equates tactical voting with voting preference
          • pudgyv, on 03/13/2008, -1/+0The supporters of the candidates I vote for are very happy even when I hope their guy loses. The rest of you all can stick with labor unions or churches telling you who to vote for. By the way, I like Obama. So much for being a Republican.
    • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3I can't sue you, but I can point out that whichever party you're part of, you're one of the reasons democracy is such a mess. Sabotage politics ruins America moreso than any particular candidate: you should be ashamed of yourself.
      • pudgyv, on 03/13/2008, -4/+0I'll sleep like a baby.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3I think those who use sabotage politics have gotten to the point where they think it doesn't matter anymore, to some extent. "If I can't win by playing fair, might as well bend all the rules in my favor." I think pointing out the error and rebuking them will have an effect opposite of what's intended, kind of like the French knights in The Holy Grail. The only cure for such despair is hope, and many of these "French knigget" voters will spit at even such an offer.
  • PseudoThink, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1If it makes more people aware of how broken our election system is, I'm all for it. Maybe it'll help us get it fixed. At least it shows that lots of people already understand how our "democratic" election system *really* works. People just get upset because it doesn't work like they thought it did.
  • DealCracker, on 03/13/2008, -5/+83 words: RUSH THE VOTE!
    • Tikisam, on 03/13/2008, -5/+2Rush Limbaugh is just one step beneath God to me. I love that man!
  • BbIT, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1You don't even know what your talking about.
    What?
    I said, You don't even know what your talking about do you?
    Heads or Tails?
  • bclinton, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1Citizens arrest Citizens arrest.....

    What a bunch of goobs.
  • Evolutuon, on 03/13/2008, -2/+7Seriously if Clinton wins, I'll be raising the flag upside down.
  • drmobutu, on 03/13/2008, -7/+1They're gaming it for Obama, not Clinton...the good ole boys are afraid their wives will secretly vote for Hillary...they think McCain has a better chance against Obama...
  • solid12345, on 03/13/2008, -5/+4Oh boohoo, I swear the dailykos knows how to make mountains out of molehills. Besides, how many dailykos readers tried to vote for Ron Paul, a Republican?
  • mrzack, on 03/13/2008, -3/+47/11 = neocon inside job
    • rdoger6424, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Holy ***** it all makes sense now.
    • felman87, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2the store is a neocon inside job?
    • DivisibleByZero, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2There is not a single 7/11 in Houston. Come November, whichever candidate promises to remedy that problem will win Texas.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2I thought 7/11 was orchestrated by Hindus.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 03/14/2008, -1/+29/11 was the terrorist attack - 7/11 is where you work.
  • simX, on 03/13/2008, -7/+3Buried as inaccurate: http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/More_Texas_Repub ...
    • starphish, on 03/13/2008, -0/+2Hey, thanks for the link to nowhere.
  • philipl411, on 03/13/2008, -3/+1Ross PerotQ!
  • Jetfire, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3For all of you who "Why the democrats don't make it a closed primaries and such i don't understand." It is designed to get people to switch party line and come over to your side. Of course when they first did this a lot of people said this would happen. Which it did before now but on small unimportant scale. This time it's so close for the Dems that it can matter. Reps. are voting for Hillary just to drag out the Dems primary and let them rip each other apart.
    The said this would be the Dems Election to lose and it looks like their doing a great job of doing that. Hello Mr. President McCain.
    • Veretax, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Here's another thing. Do you think Hilary cares at all who is voting for her? She just cares about the vote title, not what party the folks voting are.
  • sambapati87, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3The idea could be that McCain could beat Hillary but not Obama, so if you're a conservative you're trying to put the beatable candidate in the race.
    • darkciti2, on 03/13/2008, -1/+4So, in essence, you're cheating. Typical of "conservative" Republicans.
    • Tikisam, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3No the logic here is this: Obama has all but sealed up the nomination. Democrats have the ability to attack a person of color and not be condemned as a racist. Hillary will attack and hurt Obama, and when Obama becomes the inevitable nominee McCain stands a better chance of winning b/c of a weakened Obama from the primaries.
  • radiantarchon, on 03/13/2008, -7/+5I live in Texas and I did this. I decided that if Obama wins the primaries that he at least goes in with less momentum. Makes sense since it might allow McCain to win and his views are closer to mine though maybe not too close (conservative libertarian). I can vote however I want. I don't see anything wrong with this.
    • CravenTwain, on 03/13/2008, -1/+7If you can't see what's wrong with voting in a manner that is designed to sabotage a party to which you have no allegiance, then you don't deserve a vote. That goes for Dems and well as GOP.
      • radiantarchon, on 03/13/2008, -1/+2so its wrong to try and stop a leader i think could destroy the country to be let into office in a legal manner.
        • CravenTwain, on 03/14/2008, -1/+2Legal - maybe. Ethical? No. If you're a Republican you have no right to make a decision on behalf of Democrat voters - and vice versa.
  • ChipL, on 03/13/2008, -9/+4DailyKos = rabid crazy Koolaide drinking leftwing nuts
  • Clad, on 03/13/2008, -2/+8You can't possibly tell me that Democrats wouldn't do this to Republicans if Obama had secured a nomination first.
    • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -0/+3They already have, with some Democrats voting for Romney in Wisconsin. But that doesn't make it okay.
      • Chordonblue, on 03/13/2008, -2/+1Yes, but once you've gone down that road, it's too late to bitch about it when the other guys do it. It might such, but notice that the rules still don't seem to change much... Unless you're talking about Fl and Michigan that is...
      • Jordan117, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1Oops, strike that -- I meant to say they voted for Romney in *Michigan*, since the Democratic election didn't count up there.
    • rotundo, on 03/13/2008, -0/+4You're right. But it's a bad thing in both cases.
  • blar, on 03/13/2008, -9/+3Both your candidates suck hard core. McCain also sucks really bad WHO CARES! we are all ***** whoever gets in there. only hope I have is that John McCain won't "TRY" and take my guns :-( this will be a bad time for our country and for freedom no matter what happens.
  • InsaneOni, on 03/13/2008, -6/+3I think this has more to do with Republicans liking Clinton more than McCain, than trying to rig the election.
    • yacks, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6LOL a republican liking Clinton? where do we happen to find such a rare breed?
    • TheUserFactor, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1GOOD one. Nice flame-bait...a reminder for those of you who've never heard of Hillary Clinton. (A.) She's currently running for President, and (B.) she's the 2nd-most despised personality known to any Republican (first is her husband, "Slick Willy.")
  • test5477, on 03/13/2008, -5/+6buried for think you know why people are voting they way they are.
    All the anti-Clinton / pro-Obama spam on here is horrible.
  • tangentreality, on 03/13/2008, -6/+2...I just lost the game.
  • nittanylion06, on 03/13/2008, -2/+2There is an actual question in the exit polls that directly answers this issue: "Would you be satisfied if [Clinton/Obama/Either/Neither] wins?" 7% said "neither", and the difference between Clinton and Obama was ~4 % of the total vote. Not 25% that this author confabulates. S/he is pulling voter intention by party affiliation and favorability? A voter may like McCain, but disagree with his policy statements. More Republicans could be crossing over b/c they'd rather vote for Clinton, than Obama OR McCain. (See: False Dichotomy for more)
    • sq2shooter, on 03/13/2008, -1/+3Republicans are voting for Hillary because they want her to run against McCain. It may be his only chance at winning. They are attempting to help nominate the third ***** in a row for the Democrats.
      • nittanylion06, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1I know plenty of Republicans that are waiting to vote for her in the general. The far right isn't a fan of Clinton, but moderates aren't exactly in love with Obama...
  • subterfuge, on 03/13/2008, -0/+6this problem would not exist if the state primaries were all done at the same time. maybe the two parties should agree to do this, because democrats could just as easily do the same thing to republicans if their candidate had already been selected and the republicans' hadnt

    also, today i reregistered from republican (so i could vote for ron paul) to democrat (so i can vote for obama)
    • tracywood, on 03/13/2008, -2/+0You bloody idiot. Join your meetup group and learn why our strategy to win Ron Paul the nomination is working. I thought someone with a username of subterfuge would be a bit smarter than that.
      • magus_melchior, on 03/13/2008, -1/+1You were doing fine until you mentioned Ron Paul...
    • tcpip4lyfe, on 03/13/2008, -0/+1You're going from Paul to obama? Obama is basically the complete opposite of Paul.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account