Republicans voting for Obama at Democratic primaries solely to stop Hillary??!!

[CGP]

I have heard a number of reports, in states which allow it, of Republican voters participating in Democratic primaries and voting for Obama solely to stop Hillary Clinton. So I wonder to what extent Obama's wins have been inflated by anti-Hillary haters from the Republican party who have zero interest in Obama and total interst in stopping Hillary's rise to power. Seems very possible to me.

What do others think?

[johnny51981]

I think it might be a long shot...but then again, it is the Republicans. And it also explains why Obama is winning a lot of Red States.

Indeed.

[CGP]

I think it might be a long shot...but then again, it is the Republicans. And it also explains why Obama is winning a lot of Red States.

Indeed!

[CGP]

Indeed they are. And why? Because they think Obama is more beatable than Clinton in the Nov elections. So not only is Clinton up against sexism, ageism and a biased media, she is also up against a Republican party which is encouraging its members to vote in open Democratic primaries so as to help oust Hillary Clinton. Why is this allowed to???

http://journals.aol.com/mdiv94/DoireMusings/entries/2008/02/20/wake-up-and-smell-the-republicans/2763

[skc1976]

The GOP dabbling in the Democratic race has been something I've referenced before. It makes me sick to think that GOP members are voting for Obama just because he's an easier target for them than Clinton is. Of course, I'm sure they are thinking that people backing Clinton will have a tough time backing Obama, which I'm definitely one of those. In fact, I wouldn't back Obama if he was the only candidate running. I dont like him and I don't trust him. Without trust, there is nothing.

But I've read articles in which the Obama campaign has actively seeked the GOP vote now that the race for them has been all but solidified. This could explain why his vote has went up.

Of course the GOP wants Obama and not Clinton. I'm sure with their "investigative" teams, they have a lot on Obama that's not surfaced. And he's provided a lot in the meantime. Clinton is pretty much an "open book" for them. It would actually be tougher for them to fight her than Obama. Not to mention, I'm sure that Clinton has a lot on Obama, but cannot use it in order not to divide the party further. Of course, the division of the party shows me that he doesn't have the "majority" he thinks he does. When it comes to those that matter, Clinton matters more to them.

It's definitely disturbing to think that the GOP may be determining our election. But for as much stake as they have in it, the media is doing even more harm. I fault the GOP voters that have partaken in this election, but I fault the media more for how they have selected their candidate before America spoke!

[Disfranchised]

This is a copy of a blog in JohnMcCain site from a Hillary supporter. I personally looked at the website she refers in this blog and think it is just another website by OB ppl which makes me to respect him even less than I did before. But the email has been sent to a lot of republicans.

Hi,

I had posted a comment before, I am just answering to it now...like I mentioned before, most of my family are Republicans (21), we did vote for Sen. Clinton. ( but we also love and admire Sen. Mccain)

We are pretty centrist independents, however as I mentioned before, we WILL NOT BECOME MCCAIN DEMOCRATS if the Republican party starts doing "Democrats for a day " stuff... ( one of my Republican relatives received this, its pasted below, essentially vote for Obama for a day to get clinton out!!).....in the general, we all like Mccain and Clinton and are undecided between the 2 ,
BUT WE WILL NOT VOTE FOR SAINT HUSSEIN OBAMA


....HOWEVER WE WILL SIT OUT THE ELECTION SHOULD the Republicans do stunts like this, PLEASE DO NOT GIVE AN EXCUSE TO SIT IT OUT OR VOTE FOR NADER....
RESPECTFULLY, PLEASE CUT THIS NONSENSE OUT....there are many like us....( who love our country before a party)

thanks for your time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The email:

Subject: Republicans for Obama -Be a Dem for a Day in Tx
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:10:45 -0600

Repubs for Obama group urging flooding of the Dem Primary for Barack etc.. democrats for a day.


E-mail to send to Texas Republicans
Sat, 02/16/2008 - 10:49pm -- afnighthawk

http://republicansforobama.org/?q=node/3 59
Attention All Texas Republicans and Independents!!

On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton's (and Bill's) presidential ambitions once and for all!

Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, "she's done!" Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!

Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.

After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.

I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton's defeat on March 4th!!!

[joeysky18]

the more reason to dig deep for Hillary.

[CGP]

the more reason to dig deep for Hillary.

Precisely. Seeing that kind of trash just makes me more determined!

[Bless]

It's real! how can this be allowed.....geeezz :mad:

Texas Republicans cross over to vote for Obama
True support combines with stop-Clinton sentiment in next week’s primary

By Alex Johnson
Reporter
MSNBC
updated 8:01 p.m. ET, Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008
One of Sen. Barack Obama’s surest applause lines comes about halfway into his standard stump speech. It goes like this:

“They whisper to me. They say, ‘Barack, I’m a Republican, but I support you.’ And I say, ‘Thank you. Why are we whispering?’”

If the latest polling data are to be believed, those Republicans aren’t whispering in Texas, where 195 of the 228 delegates the state will send to the Democratic National Convention will be chosen in a primary and caucuses Tuesday.

As many as a tenth of the Texans voting in the Democratic contests could be Republicans, and overwhelmingly they favor Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, the polls show.

“I ran for Republican precinct chair. I went to the Republican state convention,” said one of them, Donald Rau of Austin, who has already voted in early balloting. “In this election, I voted for Barack Obama.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070

[SwiftFox]

The dishonest, reprehensible crossover voting needs to be stopped. I don't know who would be responsible for doing something about this -- the DNC and/or state legislatures? But it needs to stop. It's too late for this election, unfortunately, but hopefully by 2012, the loopholes in the system can be plugged. First of all, I prefer closed to open primaries in all states that currently hold primaries. This would mean that only Democrats could vote for Democrats, and personally, I think that's how it should be since we're trying to choose someone to be the Democratic nominee. There could be a provision so that Republicans, Independents and others could change their party affiliation up to a month before their state's primary. However, IMO, if someone wants to change from Republican to Democrat for a primary, then they should have to remain a Democrat for, say a year. I'd even be open to having people sign a pledge under penalty of perjury that they're switching their party affiliation because they believe in the values of the Democratic party. Throwing enough obstacles in people's paths in terms of switching affiliations back and forth may significantly curb the dishonest voting.

(I've never lived in a caucus state, so I'm not sure what could be done to solve this problem in those states.)

It really disgusts me to think that the GOP might have already had a significant impact on this process via dishonest crossover voting.

Here's an interesting article on the topic for anyone interested:

"Bamboozling the American Electorate Again"
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

[CGP]

The dishonest, reprehensible crossover voting needs to be stopped. I don't know who would be responsible for doing something about this -- the DNC and/or state legislatures? But it needs to stop. It's too late for this election, unfortunately, but hopefully by 2012, the loopholes in the system can be plugged. First of all, I prefer closed to open primaries in all states that currently hold primaries. This would mean that only Democrats could vote for Democrats, and personally, I think that's how it should be since we're trying to choose someone to be the Democratic nominee. There could be a provision so that Republicans, Independents and others could change their party affiliation up to a month before their state's primary. However, IMO, if someone wants to change from Republican to Democrat for a primary, then they should have to remain a Democrat through the general election. To me, that should stop the dishonest voting.

(I've never lived in a caucus state, so I'm not sure what could be done to solve this problem in those states.)

It really disgusts me to think that the GOP might have already had a significant impact on this process via dishonest crossover voting.

I agree entirely. Only registered Democrats should be able to vote in the Democratic primaries otherwise the entire process is contaminated and open to abuse - as we are unfortunately seeing in this election. It's like Democrat voters determining who the Republican nominee should be - absurd. Yet another fiasco in this increasingly fiasco-riddled election!

[skc1976]

The dishonest, reprehensible crossover voting needs to be stopped. I don't know who would be responsible for doing something about this -- the DNC and/or state legislatures? But it needs to stop. It's too late for this election, unfortunately, but hopefully by 2012, the loopholes in the system can be plugged. First of all, I prefer closed to open primaries in all states that currently hold primaries. This would mean that only Democrats could vote for Democrats, and personally, I think that's how it should be since we're trying to choose someone to be the Democratic nominee. There could be a provision so that Republicans, Independents and others could change their party affiliation up to a month before their state's primary. However, IMO, if someone wants to change from Republican to Democrat for a primary, then they should have to remain a Democrat through the general election. To me, that should stop the dishonest voting.

(I've never lived in a caucus state, so I'm not sure what could be done to solve this problem in those states.)

It really disgusts me to think that the GOP might have already had a significant impact on this process via dishonest crossover voting.

Here's an interesting article on the topic for anyone interested:

"Bamboozling the American Electorate Again"
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html



This is where the superdelegate's role is really important. Superdelegates should take the information and make an informed decision based upon that. If you have "democrats for a day," then a superdelegate should look at that, research the percentages, and see who is encouraging the most of those to come out.

They also need to look at the demographics. It's more than just who wins the state, but who carries the democrat base in each state. It's so much more than just winning a state. After all, Barack Obama supporter and superdelegate John Kerry thinks that superdelegates should favor those that the state votes for, however, he doesn't believe in switching his support over for the opponent that won his.

But in theory, this is where the superdelegates should really make a difference and overturn corrupt anti-Democrat voting. Of course, it would serve them right if all this comes back to bite them on the ass (pun intended) in November.