Our Venom Is Our Vote
More from the PPP Michigan poll - could it be that being the Not-Romney is NOT going to be a disadvantage? Fascinating new twists and turns - maybe the Republican establishment has been hoist with its own petard.
Can't stand Romney? Apparently, neither can the Democrats:
Santorum’s winning an outright majority of the Tea Party vote with 53% to 22% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich. He comes close to one with Evangelicals as well at 48% to 20% for Romney and 12% for Gingrich. And he cracks the 50% line with voters identifying as ‘very conservative’ at 51% to 20% for Romney and 10% for Gingrich.
Santorum’s benefiting from the open nature of Michigan’s primary as well. He’s only up by 12 points with actual Republican voters, but he has a 40-21 advantage with the Democrats and independents planning to vote that pushes his overall lead up to 15 points. Santorum is winning by a healthy margin in every region of the state except for Oakland County, where Romney has a 40-26 advantage, and the area around Lansing where Paul actually has an advantage at 30% to 27% for both Romney and Santorum.
Full post: Link
This is going to be too hilarious if it comes true.
The allegation that republicans are not the only voters in the primary does not prove that Santorum is disadvantaged. You haven't even listed the 4 elements necessary to make a claim.
You also failed to prove that the Michigan Republican State Committee wanted non-republicans to vote. The only known fact is that the committee voted to have a closed primary. The vote does not prove that the committee wanted non-republican votes.
You are just speculating.
Right out in the open - "Democrats hoping to play in the Republican race". A liberal columnist dispenses hints for Democrats that are "thinking strategically", and who they might want to vote for on February 28.
"For strategic voters with a penchant for independent action, presidential primary season is the most wonderful time of every four years. .....
In a state where nobody has to register as a party member, that request may be less of an obstacle to mischief-friendly Democrats than the Republican lineup.
"Be careful what you wish for," Mitchell says.
My advice: If you aren't voting for the one you love, you should vote for the one you can live with."
It's not right out in the open. You wrote "It's official now - Democrats are organizing to vote as Republicans". Your referred to Democrat Party. Wrong. The article you initially referenced as corroboration of your own statement expressly stated that the Democrat party policy was to vote for Obama - precisely the opposite of what you wrote. You switched and referenced Bill Bigler's article. But his article did not reference official party policy either. Now you reference the News editorial - that does not reference official party policy. Furthermore, your reference of Berman's DetNews editorial - apparently in support of your announcement - indicates that absentee ballot counting does not reveal cross over. Her comments about cross over are strictly her own - that's what an op-ed is. It is not official democrat party policy.
Dennis, I do not favor many of the Democrat party policies. But I oppose misrepresentation, and I believe you have misrepresented official democrat party policy. You have done so with irrelevant facts, speculation and innuendo. Not only is your report factually incorrect, but you may be creating anti-social hatred against democrats with your inflammatory rhetoric. In my opinion, although some hard-core tea party activists may enjoy the division you create, independents - or people who previously voted democrat but are considering republican support - may find your technique to be repulsive. Those are the people we need. So I request you consider the merits of facts and critical analysis.
The "fact" is that Obama's name is on the Democrat ballot because he didn't remove it. There are only 2 reasons. Either Obama intended for his name to be on the ballot, or it was a mistake.
I replied to Berman in the Detroit News as follows:
Berman is wrong. First Berman's premise is wrong because voting is not the essence of being American. Furthermore, voting does not imply a moral status that can be artificially labelled as "good" or "bad". Today's American's are so divided that agreement on the issue of our essence is not possible. The original American essence was freedom achieved by a revolution against the established government.
Berman is also wrong to argue - essentially - in favor of voting of a cross-over vote for a candidate "whose politics you abhor" because the cross-over is - essentially - a fraud. Americans are provided with many opportunities to cheat, and Americans devise justifications for cheating. Generally, the justification for cheating amounts to the argument that the "ends justify the means". But the prevalence of this attitude has progressively lead this Nation's united States and their People into a caldron of moral chaos.
Berman's so-called "advice" is morally repugnant and neither political party has resolved in support of her misguided notion. The People should vote for the candidate they want to win because that is the right thing to do.
The Daily Kos is a leading Liberal-Democrat website. They think the Republican candidate nearest their philosophy, Romney, is the one most likely to win. Here are some excerpts from a Feb. 15 article there:
Daily Kos Staff, Front Page
Announcing Operation Hilarity: Let's keep the GOP clown show going!
It's time for us to take an active role in the GOP nomination process. That's right, it's time for those of us who live in open primary and caucus states—Michigan, North Dakota, Vermont and Tennessee in the next three weeks—to head out and cast a vote for Rick Santorum.
Why would we do such a crazy thing? Lots of great reasons!
Republican turnout has sucked, and appears to be getting worse by the contest. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primaries, which helped President Barack Obama and the Democrats to build a national organization, the GOP is an organizational disaster, with waning voter interest. That means that it takes fewer votes to have an impact than if Republican turnout was maxed out.
Several of the contests have produced razor-thin margins of victory. Rick Santorum won Iowa by 34 votes, Mitt Romney "won" Maine by 194 votes. It won't take many of us to swing contests the way we want them to swing.
The longer this GOP primary drags on, the better the numbers for Team Blue. Not only is President Barack Obama rising in comparison to the clowns in the GOP field, but GOP intensity is down—which would have repercussions all the way down the ballot.
It's a no-brainer! The following states have completely open contests coming up:
2/28: Michigan (Primary)
3/6: North Dakota (caucus)
3/6: Tennessee (primary)
3/6: Vermont (primary)
If you live in one of those states, pledge to participate in Operation Hilarity by voting or caucusing for Rick Santorum. Click here for Michigan, here for North Dakota, here for Tennessee and here for Vermont.
And if you're squeamish about this, just remember what's at stake—not just the White House, but Nancy Pelosi's gavel and a Senate run by Mitch McConnell. The weaker the GOP standard bearer, the better our chances in November. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have had no problem meddling in our own contests. And if there's one thing Daily Kos is about, it's about fighting fire with fire.
So, one might wonder if the Republican State Committee is pleased about choosing a primary instead of a caucus or convention now? Actually, the real influential decision makers are crying all the way to the bank today. When the national presidential campaigns arrive in a state about to hold a primary, who do they look up to be the local experts? It's the established power brokers, those who have the contacts and networks, who can pick up the phone and immediately get just the right person. They are the ones who are paid to be consultants, collect the commissions on million dollar TV ad buys, and get compensated for all the other arrangements that need to be made in a high powered 2-3 week advertising and organizing blitz. They are also the very same people who have the veteran status and experience to influence their allies and cronies on the State Committee, as well as the inexperienced newcomers, on decisions like candidate selection process votes. An idealistic campaign volunteer might say, "Oh, but they wouldn't do that!". Keep on believing, if you like. That only happens in the Democratic party, right?
Some more discussion at Hot Air.
Quote: "Exit question: Why do we have open primaries again, anyway? Is there any reason to believe that the independent voters they attract remain loyal to the party in the general election? "
There is no need to "wonder if the Republican State Committee is pleased" because that group's emotional status is irrelevant. Whether the group is happy or sad does not matter. Furthermore, the group cannot judge it's decision because the results have not been determined. All we have is speculation and gossip, and these are not matters upon which to judge the merits of a decision in retrospect. In other words, the "I told you so" attitude is pre-mature.
There is still zero facts in this forum to corroborate the author's claim that the "official" Democrat Party policy is to cross-over. The only evidence raised thus far is speculation and gossip from - a few individuals - using the news media. One such news media - Daily Kos - indicates that Rush Limbaugh instigated cross-over voting to effect the Democrat party. Does Limbaugh represent the "official" Republican Party? NO! He represents himself. Similarly, the news media articles referenced by the primary author of this forum do not represent the "official" Democrat Party.
I'll respond to Daily Kos and forward a thread to this forum. I'll also draft an editorial to the Detroit News, and Heritage News on the issue of cross-over. If the author discovers "facts" then please notify me. However, if the substance of your claim remains based in speculation then simply add it to the thread.
As such, this forum is limited to a public relations news media issue and does not involve either the Republican or the Democrat Parties.