Originally Posted By gadzuux >> No, voting who you want will not "disfranchise" voters. It's the opposite. << But that's not what's happening. This stunt calls for voting for who you DON'T want - and registering within a party you DON'T support for the sole purpose of hamstringing the vote. Obviously it didn't work. The idea was for conservatives to vote for their nemesis - hillary clinton - in order to boost election turnout for the GOP in the fall. But if it HAD worked, it would have disenfranchised obama voters, who were the majority of the democratic party. This is showing contempt for the election process. Anybody who knows the difference right and wrong will understand this.
Originally Posted By woody >>But if it HAD worked, it would have disenfranchised obama voters, who were the majority of the democratic party.<< No, this is incorrect. Obama already had a insurmountable lead. It would be impossible for Hillary to ever make up for the difference according to the numbers. You might have a point if Rush started operation chaos a bit earlier, but he didn't. All Rush did is make the race appear closer than it should be. Besides, there will never be enough Republicans to turn the elections to Hillary. Mathematically, the votes for Hillary from "new" Democrats is barely a fraction. >>Anybody who knows the difference right and wrong will understand this.<< Did you realize that you don't know what you're talking about? Haven't you heard about the Obama dirty tricks against Hillary? In the state caucauses, there were reports of Obama supporters locking out the Hillary supporters. Also, Democrats also threatened to vote for certain Republican candidates in the open primaries. Your example of right and wrong is a bit misplaced. You have the right to vote for whomever you chose and you have the right to change your mind as well. That sounds like the "new" Democrats (former Republicans). First, vote for Hillary, but if Obama wins the nomination.... Second, vote for McCain. That's what some Hillary voters are planning to do anyways so your crying seems like whinning.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Anybody who knows the difference right and wrong will understand this." Exactly.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>You might have a point if Rush started operation chaos a bit earlier, but he didn't. All Rush did is make the race appear closer than it should be.<< The Kool-Aid is extra-strength today. If Rush had started a whole lot earlier, I guess the Democrats would've nominated Romney!
Originally Posted By woody >>If Rush had started a whole lot earlier, I guess the Democrats would've nominated Romney!<< Rush was neutral on the Republican candidates until it becamse clear McCain will win. All the right wing pundits were late with their endorsement of Romney. It would appear your Kool-Aid is strong. Obama had the nomination based on his performance. The only reason for prolonging the race was because Hillary kept going. Maybe you should blame her.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>All the right wing pundits were late with their endorsement of Romney.<< Yeah, they were busy sharpening their fangs for the inevitable Hillary Clinton nomination. Whoopsie!
