Wednesday, March 5, 2008

So what's REALLY behind Hillary's "surge" of wins in TX, Ohio and Rhode Island


Source: Getty Images

As we all know, Hillary Clinton won in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island.

How come these states voted for Clinton when virtually all other states voted for Obama? Is it Hillary's new strategy? Did a scandal I missed happen to Obama? Perhaps the democratic voters in those states are contrarians, and vote for Hillary for fun?

No.

It's much simpler.

The GOP primary is done, and McCain won the republican nomination for president.

Now, all the republicans that live in the states that did not get to vote yet... won't. Because McCain ALREADY WON the republican nomination. There is no point.

There's only one republican left in the race - John "bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain.

What's a republican voter to do?
It's simple - the republican voter will vote in the democratic primary for his state, and vote for the WEAKEST democrat nominee, that McCain could beat, to help his republican party.

That would be you, Hillary.

Don't believe me?
Rush Limbaugh on FOX "news":

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 (...)

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.

The Yoo Ess Ey election system is beyond broken - it truly is fucked up.

This would be all avoided of course if we as a nation had a one day national, direct vote (as in actual democracy) system to choose a president.

That way, the media won't be able to tell us that a candidate has no chance, because they wouldn't know it. We wouldn't need to worry about superdelegates, because one person = one vote eliminates this bullshit. You wouldn't worry if you are throwing your vote away voting for Kucinich, Ron Paul or Gravel... because as you cast your vote, no one will know who is winning and who is losing...

But we live in the Yoo Ess of Ey - and we get this farce shoved into our faces, and told it's a democracy...

Bonus material:
Take a look in here, will ya?.

web analytics

 Del.icio.us Add to my Technorati Favorites! StumbleUpon

55 comments:

arevolutionofone said...

I don't know if enough Republicans would actually do this to make a difference. I don't know if Rush and the shock punditry have that much pull. I hate to say it, but I'm afraid we have to blame Democrats for what happened yesterday. I think Clintons politics of fear - 3am ad, and mocking of Obama and the rest of it, sadly, worked. That's a shame.

thepoetryman said...

Thanks for the visit, American Goy.

My take on the Clinton factor is in line with your own take. I have said it before and I'll say it again...Hillary is the easier one to defeat come November. The Neocon wing of the Repubican Party are frothing at the mouth to pit her against the "war hero" turned "sycophant"... Rush, Ingraham, Malkin, Hannity and all the other neo-con-artists are pushing for such a contest. Why? Although I think either one, Hillary or Barak, will likely clean up this November, the NRP hasn't much to go after Obama for, that we know of yet, Hillary is the candidate that will energize the RNP rabid base. Hatred is a powerful tool and the RNP wields it (despicably so) to near perfection.

The sooner the country realizes this, or acts upon their knowledge of it, the better off we'll be.

Peace.

jpcalkins said...

Hillary Clinton attack ads put the slam dunk on alot of the peoples minds. She did the old psychology cause a second thought with doubt. http://hotcookies.net

Anonymous said...

I'm quite the right-winger, and I made it a point to vote for Obama in the Texas primary. Why? Because I wanted to vote for the best candidate for that party. The republican nominee is set, but why just let him win? As right-wing as I am, I'm no McCain fan. I wanted to give him a real competitor so that he may possibly realize that he needs to change some things to get more support.

Anonymous said...

Let's just ditch the whole open primary thing. It's because of open primaries that we got John McCain as the Republican nominee. He did not win among Republicans he won among non-Republicans who crossed over to vote for him in the primaries.

Anonymous said...

Oh if Rush Limbaugh says it then it MUST be true.. Jeez.

Anonymous said...

I know of plenty of republicans in WI that voted for Hilary for that exact reason.

Launchpad said...

"How come these states voted for Clinton when virtually all other states voted for Obama? "

Well, quite a few states, with quite a few people, have voted for Clinton--NY, NJ, California, etc. Which is why the two candidates are so close in the number of delegates.

It's not the number of states that counts, it's the number of delegates, which is based on population. Many states have a relatively small population and thus have fewer delegates.

I'd like to see both parties change the rules to cut down on people voting in other parties' primaries simply to cause trouble for the party they don't like (Democrats did this too, encouraging Dems in Michigan to vote for Romney to keep him in the race).

Anonymous said...

I live in Ohio and I did just that. McCain had already won so it was almost pointless to vote for him. I voted for Hillary just so this drama continued and I think more people would vote for anyone but her if she ran for president. So my republican vote went to Hillary.

Anonymous said...

The reality is simply that Limbaugh is irrelevant. Check the exit polls - not many declared Republicans voted in the TX and OH primaries, and those that did more often voted for Obama.

Anonymous said...

to thepoetryman

Only True Leftist use words like Neocon. Then try to paint a broad picture with your ignorant understanding of the word. That word in its self exudes the hatred that you supposedly despise. So drop it. Likewise Extreme Right winger use words like leftist.

Then there are folks like me. Who are Fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and environmentally aware.

Anonymous said...

If I am not mistaken, only independents can vote in either primary in Ohio. Registered Republicans can only vote in the Republican primary.

Other states have their own rules (look to Michigan, Dems. did the same thing putting Romney over the top). I wouldn't argue that this isn't wrong, but both sides do it. I am just having fun watching the Democratic party implode on itself. Only they could ruin a sure-thing.

Anonymous said...

"If I am not mistaken, only independents can vote in either primary in Ohio. Registered Republicans can only vote in the Republican primary."

You are wrong: you can ask for either ballot. If you switch parties, you just have to sign a form attesting to it.

"I am just having fun watching the Democratic party implode on itself. "

Why is that fun? Because you think the war is great, the economy is great, health care costs: great. So, you want to insure republicans keep running the country?

Anonymous said...

You made me laugh, but I find this theory hard to accept.

1. The real reason that Hillary won in Texas is because the state is full of latinos. These people are so thrilled that, for once in their lifetimes, American politicians are courting, instead of disdaining, ignoring or simply deporting them, that they have chosen to side with HRC because she PROMISES (LOL) to defend their interests. What a big fucking joke. If she were ever la Presidenta, she would be like, "Latinos? Say what? Oh, THEM... ha ha ha... Psyche."

2. Hillary won in Ohio because the blue collar work force hates that fact that an African-american got further in life than they did. Period.

3. Hillary won in Rhode Island because she has a few yachts, several oceanfront properties and a lot of really good buddies there. Fuck Rhode Island. It doesn´t count, anyway.

That´s my analysis, and nobody take offense: a lot of my mother´s family lives in Youngstown y me encantan los latinos. Es una buena gente, pero se dejan engañar por la Clinton. No sean tan inocentes, por favor. Hillary es malísima. A ustedes los utiliza. Punto.

Anonymous said...

P.S. Only take offense if you live in Rhode Island and voted for Clinton. It was intentional.

Anonymous said...

Have you even checked the exit polls? In ohio all republicans who voted voted evenly between the two candidates, and for the texas primary more republicans voted for obama than hillary!

check cnn.com's election center

before making statements like this at least do a LITTLE research.

Anonymous said...

I'm a registered republican, 46 yrs old, 2 kids, gun owner. I have rigid ideals and standards - I don't lie, cheat or steal and I attend church.

If Obama runs, I vote Obama.

If Hillary runs, I vote McCain.

I ALWAYS VOTE. EVERY election, no matter local, primary, whatever.

That's all you need to know, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Olé to you. That´s the attitude. Non-partisan, non-racial, good old honest if-I-don´t-get-the-guy-I want let´s Kill the Bitch. Not a bad plan.

Anonymous said...

If you checked the facts you'd find that your simple-minded assertion is incorrect. Hillary won because she received more votes from Democrats. It may have helped that in the previous week Obama stopped getting as much of a free ride in the media.

BTW: What makes you so certain that Rush is telling the truth? He's a manipulator by trade. Look who he's actually going after: Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Just like Americans to do this childish, prankster bullshit. That´s how come the President is always the one that the majority of the country never wanted.

Mike said...

It's true that this can happen to a certain extent (not all states have open primaries), but your solution of a one-day vote ignores the purpose of the primary system, which is designed to ENHANCE democracy by letting lesser-known candidates like Obama can get a toehold in the early caucuses, where they can actually talk to people rather than just appear on oversimplified (not to mention incredibly expensive) 30-second TV spots. Think of the alternative: it would be all but impossible for any lesser funded candidate to compete with someone like Clinton, who already has access to the democratic fundraising machine.

Anonymous said...

for what its worth, i had no idea that rush said what he did, but me and my friends all came to the same conclusion and switched over and voted for HRC. i must admit it felt very awkard filling in that bubble, but well worth it.

Anonymous said...

so called "conservatives" are nothing more than nazi's and criminals in pressed suits. but apparently that's what amerikkka wants because they elected bush junior back into office. meanwhile he's still sending people's children to their deaths in a war orchestrated on false intelligence, organizing the systematic torture of suspected "terrorist" detainees, and seems more concerned with the ability of his administration to spy upon the amerikkkan people themselves than their enemies.

i hope that you ignorant white trash have a great time explaining to your grandchildren why you voted for john mccain and sent them to war in iraq for another hundred years. you make me sick.

la_florecita said...

I wrote about this on my blog, too.

Anonymous said...

I am from a Democratic state that hasn't elected a Democrat for quite some time because of this very reason.

Aaron said...

A direct vote would result in a fragmented voting distribution and would probably result in a candidate that most people weren't happy with getting elected.

Consider if 60% of voters voted for a democratic candidate but none of those candidates got more than say 10% of the total votes. Then say the other 40% of voters voted for a republican and one of those candidates got 13% of the total votes. The result? Even though 60% of voters voted for a democrat a republican ends up in office. Not what the majority of people wanted.

Of course there are voting methods that could eliminate this but they are probably too complicated for the average citizen to work.

Anonymous said...

FYI... the USA is not a democracy. its a federal constitutional republic.

Anonymous said...

I actually did this, along with a good group of my friends and family as well.

Justin said...

McCain is no the only republican left in the race. Ron Paul is still in!

fivestarfolds said...

I feel like you're just rationalizing a loss that is smarting you. There aren't enough Republicans willing to "cross over" and vote Hillary into office. It's too bad you can't accept that Obama didn't get the major victory that was hoped for on Tuesday and just move on. Instead of writing this kind of blog entry, maybe you should consider what needs to happen next, because right now, you simply look like a sore loser.

fivestarfolds said...

Also, it would help if you read the New York Times and watch CNN (two fairly left oriented media outlets in support of Obama; I think you would appreciate their perspective) then you might realize how erroneous your assumption -and it is a huge assumption not based on fact at all- actual is.

Anonymous said...

FYI I referred to the term "democracy" as a political philosophy, not as a form of government, although it looks more like an oligarchy or a plutocracy lately. When the Power goes to the People, they just fuck it up. That´s another characteristic: the Masses are left ignorant in order to be better manipulated. The US completes this criterium to a T. It´s a democracy, representative, but a democracy.

Anonymous said...

Are all of you Clinton freaks so desperate that you have to resort to getting worked up over such a pitiful number of delegates. Big deal. Obama is still ahead in States Won, Pledged Delegates, and with regards to McCain in the polls. Hillary has had her day in the limelight... what´s on next will be a muzzle and a straight jacket and a big ADIOS.

Anonymous said...

We don't live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic. In a democracy, if 51% of the populace said "Put all bloggers in jail", all bloggers would go to jail. A constitutional republic is meant to protect the rights of the minority. 'Real democracy' is something we do not want. Please, educate yourself on system of governance you are critiquing.

Dr. Ph0bius said...

If only one person = one vote was actually how it worked... but it sadly is not.
Thats why a candidate can win the popular vote (i.e. a majority of "We The People" voted for him/her) and still lose the election.

That obviously isn't news to anyone, but its unfortunate enough that I wanted to mention it. :(

Joe said...

Butler county, in Ohio, one of the most republican counties in the state of Ohio turned out 3,800 more democrats this year than they have ever had. And nearly 3,000 less republicans than usual.

hmmm....

cory said...

Behind every good candidate is a great Golden Girl

Anonymous said...

Here's the reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Ralph said...

Anonymous wrote, I'm a registered republican, 46 yrs old, 2 kids, gun owner. I have rigid ideals and standards - I don't lie, cheat or steal and I attend church. If Obama runs, I vote Obama. If Hillary runs, I vote McCain.

I recently heard something very similar in a barbershop. A customer announces that he is a lifelong Republican and says that he would NEVER under any circumstances vote for Hillary, but if Obama is nominated, he was not sure whether he would pick McCain or Obama.

Of course there's no way to know whether Obama really has a decent chance at this particular guy's vote, but if even a small fraction of Republicans follow through on such sentiments, Obama wins in a landslide.

Anonymous said...

I agree with this concept 100%. My father in law told me (knowing that I voted for Obama) that he voted for Hilary just so that she could lose to whatever republican got into office. The republicans know that if she gets on the nomination she'll lose. If Obama gets on the ticket, Obama could win.

Anonymous said...

The reason Hillary won is because she spent a lot more time in both Ohio and Texas then Obama did. She had/has a stronger base in the both states.
Obama was playing defense and underestimated what she was willing to do to win. She saw an opportunity and took advantage of it.

All of Obamas supporters know where he stands on issues but he does talk about it enough in the media.

I will vote

Anonymous said...

I am a republican and I live in Texas. I couldn't stand to vote for Clinton. My friends all voted for her for the very reasons mentioned in the article. It wasn't because Rush told us to. My friends and I don't listen to Rush. I was upset to see that the analysts were putting the blame on a stupid phone ad instead of a large majority of Texas Republicans (not just my comparatively small amount friends). I am not just basing my theory on my friends. I don't like any of the nom's. I can't wait till 2012.

Anonymous said...

He is the best candidate for this country and if he were to be elected president, the World would change. With that said, some people are just not ready for that change and are unwilling to accept that a man actually came along who has the courage to HOPE and the power to bring people together.

FEAR lead to him losing because the republican leadership is afraid the country will be united under the a democrat president. If that happened, they would lose their power to achieve their own agenda.

Karl Rove gave Hillary a compliment and she called him by his first name.

She also said that McCain has more experience to lead them Obama.

Awfully chummy with the opposition aren't we. I'll let that marinate in your head for a second.

Anonymous said...

I'm a Democrat who admired the Clintons but now recognize that they only care about themselves. Hillary is a very inauthentic candidate who has no unique voice. Furthermore, she's the one who's gone negative yet blames Obama for going negative.

Barack Obama is, unlike most Democratic candidates, a great stump speaker who is very likable. After limp candidates like Mondale, Dukakis and Kerry, you'd think the Dem Party would recognize that we don't need to nominate another Wonk.

The choice is obvious.

Shopping Cart Software said...

I personally hope Hillary wins. :) It would be nice to have the 1st women president.

C. said...

I had a friend who is a McCain supporter do exactly this in RI on Tuesday. :(

Russell said...

Yeah, I'm not sure how popular this was, but I do know that I live in Texas, the Houston area, and my boss (who is a staunch republican) went out to vote for Hillary, because he wants Hillary to screw things up so bad that Republicans get it back after 1 term.

Anonymous said...

i want A teenage girl to win, so i can wank during a state of the unit address

Michael Blaine said...

If Obama wins the nomination, I likely will vote for him.

If war-monger Hillary wins it, I will vote for Nader.

Democrats had better get smart and vote for the fresh, intelligent voice in their party: Obama.

Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Any republican who votes for a Clinton for any reason is not a true republican.

You know that is she succeeds or steals the democratic nomination that she will attempt to eviscerate John McCain, and ANY complaint made against her will be labeled as right wing conspiracy.

I couldn't pull the trigger for Hillary - EVER.

The Depressing Truth said...

How did Hillary win in Texas?

Same way that she won in New Hampshire, New York etc. Two Words...

ELECTION FRAUD

In Houston, people went to the Polls only to find...that they had "already voted"

Precents in Harlem recording ZERO votes for Obama.

The Recount in New Hampshire shows MASSIVE ballot tampering.

(blackboxvoteing.org)

What works for Bush must work for Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Someone here made a difference between (indirect) democracy and republican party with minority rights protection.

This distinction is incorrect.

First, nothing hinders someone like Bush to enable a terror state by providing laws which the whole state must follow. He is quasi almighty, with a corrupt elite that reaps benefits they can get a hold on.

Second, in either case REPRESENTATIVES decide what will happen, and NOT the voters.

The votes vote candidates, these candidates can then decide what will happen.

This is not democracy, this is not republican state, this is simply called unfair corruption.

True democracy would enable everyone to express his or her opinion at any time without the NEED to use a representative which would influence the law.

sandbags said...

@Anonymous said...

"I'm a registered republican, 46 yrs old, 2 kids, gun owner. I have rigid ideals and standards - I don't lie, cheat or steal and I attend church.

If Obama runs, I vote Obama.

If Hillary runs, I vote McCain......"
March 6, 2008 8:29 AM

Thats because this whole republican /Democrat idea is nonense. You will vote Obama because he doesn't seem to be one too lie steal or cheat. While no-one can deny that Hillary already has. So in the end the line is not drawn between republican and democrat, but between those who will accept a lie and those who wont.

@Mike

Maybe you could run primary styled lead ups with debates and so forth? but no actual voting as such. The TV networks can still have their stitistathon, then on one day everyone votes and the man (or woman)that gets the most votes is the president?

Radamel said...

Wow, what a great website you have here. It is nice to see actual fresh content for a change. From one webmaster to another, I congratulate you for the effort you must have put in. I will definitely recommend your website to my readers which is highly related to your theme. Keep up the great work on your website!
Chech mine if you like,
Heaven on the Earth: Five Fantastic Beaches

Technoziac said...

Great page and informative blog.
Check my page.

Technoziac