Whose Nominee?
contributed by Charles Lemos
Just exactly who is voting for Barack Obama in these contests? For an answer to this question came this answer from Representative Dennis Kucinich.
In Ohio's primary election in the 10th Congressional District last week, more than 10,000 registered Republicans switched their party affiliation on election day and became "Democrats for a Day." Their purpose was twofold 1) allowing them to try to unseat the one Congressman who has been a national leader on every issue and who reflects the core values of real Democrats: Representative Dennis Kucinich and 2) to sway the Democratic nomination in favour of Barack Obama, not because they support Barack Obama necessarily but because they want to derail Hillary Clinton.
10,000 Republicans in one Congressional District. If you believe that these are Republicans who have seen the light, think again. My view of open primaries is now firmly against them. Just who is electing whose nominee?
Comments
I heard the same whining about people trying to sway the primaries from hardcore conservatives complaining about New Hampshire. Sorry, but I think it's a red herring.
Do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe that there are very many Republicans undermining the open primaries? I don't, although in a hotly contested race such as Kucinich has found himself in and with a lightning rod such as Kucinich is, I could see this being an isolated case.
The fact is, Kucinich prevailed so the numbers couldn't have been huge and the process did triumph in the end. Do you think this is even close to the top 5 (or 100) reasons Obama has been leading in the polls? If you do I question your judgement. Why even brooch the subject, it is a side issue at best.
Part of the purpose of open primaries is the keep us out of the partisan gridlock which, from many of your posts, it sounds like you rather enjoy perpetuating. I don't support Obama or Clinton wholeheartedly and thank my lucky stars that the election system is still open enough that I can support those whose views I agree with without having to take a party platform hook line and sinker.
I voted for Obama in the primary because I agree with most of the Democratic platform. I'll vote for Nader in the general election because he more closely allies with my views on what needs to be done. Would you shun me for being "Democrat for a day"?
It's fine to be appalled that people misrepresent their views but the broader reason for open primaries, I think, weighs heavier on the side of good than the minor indescretions of a few whacked out Republicans do for the evil that these open primaries represent.
Usually there is a time commitment associated with swapping party affiliations.
ANd who did the republicans vote for in Texas? Hillary.
If you are going to title your post "Whose Nominee?" as if Obama was beholden to republicans and then disagree with yourself later in the post.
Attempts to define the democratic party in caucuses has been characterized as undemocratic in previous posts. How would excluding independents and republicans be less so? Certainly this is likely insincere voting but you can't legislate sincerity.
Particularly since some states do not have party registration.
I am on the warpath again because Obama is playing games. He is getting votes that he will not get in the general election and in the process he might secure the nomination. That spells a Pyrrhic victory.
Nevada: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/14/145143/927 Florida: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUE4Kp0YERs Virginia & Wisconsin: http://hoosierinva.blogspot.com/2008/02/republicans-for-obama.html
And now Ohio and Pennsylvania (the cutoff for changing party registration and still be eligible to vote in the primary is March 24): http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/10/151214/569
Anywhere from 7% to 10% of his votes are from Republicans and I doubt that a plurality of these will vote for Obama come November.
It varies by state, some states allow on-the-spot registration changes: Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas, Virginia, Missouri and California come to mind. I don't know about the red caucus states so people can point to the rules in their home state, that would be helpful.
Charles Lemos
I am for winning the Democratic agenda, not for a compromise with those who will not compromise anyway.
May I point out that in California, democrats and independents were both legible to vote in the Democratic primaries? And look who's won - Hillary.
I don't have anything against registered independents voting in the democratic election, but may I bring up a couple names of famous independents - Bill O'Reilly and Michael Bloomberg.
Now, I don't know who out of all the independents in California actually voted for Hillary, nor would I know their true intentions. But if you are going to take a swing at Obama for Ohio, same could be said for Hilary in California.
Quid bono?
Quid bono?
The moneyed interests? ;-) The English pound is in sterling shape, at any rate.
And may I point out that Republicans weren't eligible to vote in California's Democratic primary, only Democrats and Independents. California has a modified closed primary, Independents can vote in or the other contest. No cross-over. Obama won just the following counties: Humbolt, Tahoe, San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Santa Barbara.
Sepero melior.
Charles
The same asinine "reasons not to vote for Barack" could (and are) used interchangeably with Hillary.
I wish you'd give it a rest. Your post strikes me as shallow analysis that is destructive, and boring.
Obama and Hilary both would make "good" presidents, probably not great, but a step in a sane direction. Each would brings something unique, each has different assets and strengths. Each has inconsistencies and failings. They are not that different on the issues. No one knows who would get more done. You don't know, I don't know.
Ripping into either one on anything other than their stands on issues, or their perceived effectiveness as America's next leader, is giving aid and comfort to the assholes now in power.
Obama and Hillary ought to be vetted, but is this really the best you've got, 'cuz it ain't much. The YouTube video you cite as "evidence" has a whopping 1000 views and a one-star rating. "Obama is playing games"? A grand Rovian conspiracy? You're smokin' man.
Your other "evidence" looks like random chatterings of rumor-mongerers. It's a big country, and if you look hard enough you'll find anything you're determined to find. I dunno, my advice is to not write attack posts until you have something substantial to communicate. Just my opinion.
What of all the states that have no party registration?
How does one define Democrats besides those that vote in Democratic primaries?
I've heard that some republicans in Northern states voted for Obama, but that was back when they were "moderate" an choosing between vote for McCain or for Obama.
Down here, though, make no mistake: both Ruch Limbaugh and Ann Coulter came out and campaigned for Hillary Clinton, because they're tired of people criticizng their "Magic Negro" skits...
The other things you fail to mention:
Corporate DEMOCRATS voted against Kucinich. The same ones who vote for Clinton.
Some registered Republicans (who haven't changed their registration in years) are very strongly opposed to iraq, and very opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration. Not all, of course, but some -- and those that can vote vote for the only Progressive member of Congress, they do. We'll have to see how the General election plays out to know for sure.
Why I'm lifting my personal ban again, I have no idea. There's cartoon about it somewhere...
My parents are republicans who voted for bush (3x) and dole. Guess who they will vote for (BO) and guess who they won't vote for (HC and JM). Yeah, lets give their vote to McCain or a protest vote.
TO suggest the only people who are voting for Obama won't vote for him the the primary is false, mostly with the matchup polls that are being done now. Obama beats mccain by far more than hillary. SO, somebody is switching sides and not going back.
A quick quote from here
That's why she's not a good candidate anymore.
Or as Bill C. said, "We can do better".
Just another kernel of damning proof that many of Obama voters could care less about the Democratic Party. Some didn't even bother to cast any other votes in the primary races in Texas.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html
I've said this before and I'll say it again, Obama is not a Democrat.
If the link gets cut off, then google "Dallas Morning News Obama Coattails"
Charles
That is actually just a sign that they are first time or occasional voters. Its actually a common effect in presidential generals. THis is just likely a sign that Obama is getting those individuals that only vote in those elections to show up for a primary.
Keep looking charles, there has got to be a damning piece of evidence out there somewhere.
Your hate must be valid.
TypeKey appear to not want to let me log in, so whatever.
Lemos, from the article in question we get this:
But the numbers suggest that many Obama voters were drawn singularly to him and might not return in the fall if he's not the nominee – blunting the flood of new voters who Democrats hope will help revive the party in Texas and sweep it into the White House.
I somewhat stumped as to how drawing in single issue voters a bad thing, given that this helped bush edge out gore in 2000
also, the links you presented also have a similar feel to the "anyone but Bush" sentiment back in 2004 - the "Republicans for Obama" and the like also have a counterpart - see http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=115856
I have yet to see a coherent and logical reason for why you hate Obama so much: as every post I have seen from you indicates if not outright disgust.
also, keep in mind I'm a Political Science senior, so random youtube links and strongly worded diatrabes will not count as factual evidence, just as my professors would not accept them.
phase,
Half the posters on here are professors so I am not sure that your major is going to dissuade Charles from insulting your intelligence.
Charles,
An anecdote from one of the "Republicans who have seen the light."
I have been qualified to vote in two presidential elections before this year, and both times, I voted for George W. Bush. I have learned a lot since 2004, and I now regret these votes. I'm no longer a Republican, but I'm not quite a Democrat either. On Tuesday I pulled a Democratic primary ballot for the first time because I want Barack Obama to be the next president. No underhanded motives there.
Of course, I don't live in the 10th District (I'm next door, in the 11th), so I can't speak for Mr. Kucinich's constituents, whether they are D, R, G, L, or I, but it would be unfair to automatically assume that voters in the primary that renominated him had an ulterior motive, simply based on their previous party affiliation.
In order to vote Dem, I was asked to sign a affidavit (in case of possible challenge) that I supported the platform of the Democratic party. This was not comfortable. I can understand why committed Democrats might think that I didn't have the credentials to vote in a Democratic primary. After all, I'm not a committed Democrat. But as an American, and as an Ohioan, I would rather be given the choice of three candidates in March than just two candidates in November.
If we didn't have an open primary in Ohio, I would be left only with the latter choice. I'm not a member of any political party, but that doesn't mean that I am not politically informed. Why should I be left only with the choices that the partisans allow?
Just who is voting for Barack Obama? Those of us who support him.
Will the Obama bashing never stop or gain any reason?
Why haven't you posted your "Catholics are Fascists" rhetoric at each Colbert video, Charles? He's a devoted Catholic, you know. You could even write it in non-English and he might use it on the show.
Anyways, lifting my personal ban again to root out someone who's "wrong" on the internets, Check the Houston Chronicle for the insights that are missed in Dallas.
Does Hillary owe Rush?
Essentially, the Republicans voting in the Democratic caucus didn't have a huge effect at all -- and the drop-off in voting "down the ballot" is actually the normal pattern, as advertising for the Senate and other seats is a mere percentage of the money spent by either Presidential Candidate.
Obama won the Caucus here in Texas, by a larger margin than he lost the primary vote. Sure, it's possible that a few underhanded Republicans waited peacefully two hours, or six hours or more in the cold (for here), to be heard. It's true that a lot of those who supported Obama are indeed Minorities; many hadn't voted before; many feel they haven't had a chance at actual representation in the White House their whole lives, whether they're 18 or 81.
And, yeah, they may not vote Democrat if Obama isn't the nominee. Not because they aren't Democracts, but because the Democrats don't as a party speak for them (or us).
Post a comment