Comments on: Win one for the Mittster http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/ "...a somewhat popular blogger" Mon, 30 Nov 2009 08:43:46 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Neil http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2915 Neil Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:55:30 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2915 <p>Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat on the ballot in Michigan who is “in the race”. Neither Edwards nor Obama are on the ballot. Of what value is this Democratic primary in Michigan? Votes for “a” Democratic candidate WILL NOT reasonably indicate Michigan’s preference for a Democratic candidate. The Michigan primary, as it is currently formed, will yield a misallocation of delegates. </p> <p>Michigan primary rules specifically allow a voter to vote cross party. So, it is legal and within the bounds of the rules set forth but is it an abuse of the rules? Is it ethical to cast a vote FOR a person who you do not want to be President because it may improve your candidate’s chances of becoming president? I don’t see why an individual cannot make that choice with a clear conscience.</p> <blockquote><p>In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state’s Democrats. In fact, <b>a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes. </b></p> <p>In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.) </p> <p>In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian’s lawyer — quack Geoffrey Feiger — win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor’s mansion that year.</p></blockquote> Sen. Clinton is the only Democrat on the ballot in Michigan who is “in the race”. Neither Edwards nor Obama are on the ballot. Of what value is this Democratic primary in Michigan? Votes for “a” Democratic candidate WILL NOT reasonably indicate Michigan’s preference for a Democratic candidate. The Michigan primary, as it is currently formed, will yield a misallocation of delegates.

Michigan primary rules specifically allow a voter to vote cross party. So, it is legal and within the bounds of the rules set forth but is it an abuse of the rules? Is it ethical to cast a vote FOR a person who you do not want to be President because it may improve your candidate’s chances of becoming president? I don’t see why an individual cannot make that choice with a clear conscience.

In 1972, Republican voters in Michigan decided to make a little mischief, crossing over to vote in the open Democratic primary and voting for segregationist Democrat George Wallace, seriously embarrassing the state’s Democrats. In fact, a third of the voters (PDF) in the Democratic primary were Republican crossover votes.

In 1988, Republican voters again crossed over, helping Jesse Jackson win the Democratic primary, helping rack up big margins for Jackson in Republican precincts. (Michigan Republicans can clearly be counted on to practice the worst of racial politics.)

In 1998, Republicans helped Jack Kevorkian’s lawyer — quack Geoffrey Feiger — win his Democratic primary, thus guaranteeing their hold on the governor’s mansion that year.

]]> By: factanonverba http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2911 factanonverba Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:20:58 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2911 <p>I’ve read the Daily Kos rationale and I most wholeheartedly disagree. To distort the sanctity of an election, to perpetuate a fraud are not progressive values. If we are called on to defend the Constitution how we ourselves commit acts though legal are not in keeping with democratic values.<br /> Make no mistake, I abhor what has happened to the country over the past 40 years. We have lost our way and much of that lies at the feet of the Republicans. The partisanship is extreme and perhaps we can’t completely overcome but to engage in tactics that are worthy of Karl Rove is something that we as progressive liberals are better than.<br /> In Iowa, I have heard a few anecdotal instances where Republicans crossed into the Democratic caucus to vote against Hillary. I am all for fighting the Republicans but not succumbing to dirty Rovian tricks. It is one thing to respond, quite another to engage in the same behaviour. We should lead by example because we know we are right. Ours is a just cause and we can overcome all the hate they throw against us.</p> I’ve read the Daily Kos rationale and I most wholeheartedly disagree. To distort the sanctity of an election, to perpetuate a fraud are not progressive values. If we are called on to defend the Constitution how we ourselves commit acts though legal are not in keeping with democratic values.
Make no mistake, I abhor what has happened to the country over the past 40 years. We have lost our way and much of that lies at the feet of the Republicans. The partisanship is extreme and perhaps we can’t completely overcome but to engage in tactics that are worthy of Karl Rove is something that we as progressive liberals are better than.
In Iowa, I have heard a few anecdotal instances where Republicans crossed into the Democratic caucus to vote against Hillary. I am all for fighting the Republicans but not succumbing to dirty Rovian tricks. It is one thing to respond, quite another to engage in the same behaviour. We should lead by example because we know we are right. Ours is a just cause and we can overcome all the hate they throw against us.

]]> By: AnneLaurie http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2831 AnneLaurie Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:48:09 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2831 <p>Twenty bucks to the first person who gets Willard to sign that placard.</p> <p>Ten bucks to the first person who gets a (not photoshopped) shot of one of the Five Bros posing with it.</p> Twenty bucks to the first person who gets Willard to sign that placard.

Ten bucks to the first person who gets a (not photoshopped) shot of one of the Five Bros posing with it.

]]> By: captphealy http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2816 captphealy Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:04:32 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2816 <p>Vote for Mitt and make Tagg cry! It’s a win-win!</p> Vote for Mitt and make Tagg cry! It’s a win-win!

]]> By: fauxmaxbaer http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2809 fauxmaxbaer Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:26:56 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2809 <p>I’m hoping for a brokered convention. The more fragmented the delegates, the better. It’ll be bloody. Call it Karl Rove’s legacy.</p> I’m hoping for a brokered convention. The more fragmented the delegates, the better. It’ll be bloody. Call it Karl Rove’s legacy.

]]> By: cbear http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2807 cbear Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:24:46 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2807 <p>File this idea under ” be careful what you wish for…”</p> <p>Why the fuck would we want to bolster the campaign of a guy who might very well be able to attract the support of low-info voters in the general election?</p> <p>I say go for Huck or Paul. Huck’s negatives would be the easiest to exploit in the general–with the added benefit of watching the neocons freakout in the primaries. Paul’s continued presence in the primary debates only serves to illustrate the difference between crazy and batshit crazy.</p> File this idea under ” be careful what you wish for…”

Why the fuck would we want to bolster the campaign of a guy who might very well be able to attract the support of low-info voters in the general election?

I say go for Huck or Paul. Huck’s negatives would be the easiest to exploit in the general–with the added benefit of watching the neocons freakout in the primaries. Paul’s continued presence in the primary debates only serves to illustrate the difference between crazy and batshit crazy.

]]> By: SydB http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/comment-page-1/#comment-2802 SydB Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:28:22 +0000 http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/01/10/win-one-for-the-mittster/#comment-2802 <p>since i was tricked by that “read more” icon again, i will go ahead and post a comment request more JonJon Romney before Mitt drops out…</p> <p>also, i haven’t seen susan estrich’s “O” face in awhile either</p> since i was tricked by that “read more” icon again, i will go ahead and post a comment request more JonJon Romney before Mitt drops out…

also, i haven’t seen susan estrich’s “O” face in awhile either

]]>