Obama Wins Texas

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, riiight... and we know this to be true how? Exit polls, or ouija board? Given the number of Repubs voting in the Dem primary, it seems to me that they'd have made Obama a clear winner if that were the case... particularly given Obama's support from real Dems in the Caucus...

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2162769&enterthread=y

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Anybody who cites exit polls at this juncture in history is truly desperate, particularly wrt Repubs voting in the Dem primary in Texas...

The Repub poll respondents were basically lying when they voted, and there's no reason to think they'd quit so soon afterward...

Repubs have a history of these shenanigans in open primaries- voting for the weakest of the Dem hopefuls, for the one they'd rather run against, and this cycle that'd be Hillary when matched against McCain...

As opposed to who? People like you that make shit up? Please show some proof that Republicans are propping Billary up. The numbers prove you wrong. I'd say that people that make stuff up and claim some vast right wing conspiracy are much more desperate than someone that actually cites some statistics to back up their claim.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Repubs have a history of these shenanigans in open primaries- voting for the weakest of the Dem hopefuls, for the one they'd rather run against, and this cycle that'd be Hillary when matched against McCain...

Eventually you are going to have to provide some reasoning as to why Clinton is the weaker candidate against McCain, instead of just repeating the myth that's been propagated over and over here in this forum.

 

[Bitek]

Maybe not so fast...

Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh led a campaign to have his Republican followers in Texas cross party lines and vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton in the state?s open primary last Tuesday. Why? Because Limbaugh thinks Republicans can defeat Clinton in a general election. Plus, watching Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama bloody each other in a nomination fight is pure sport for Limbaugh conservatives.

According to exit polls, Clinton won a notably higher number of Republican voters than she has in past open primary contests. Of the 9% of voters who identified themselves as Republicans in the Democratic Primary, Obama still edged Clinton 53%-46%. However, that margin is significantly slimmer than earlier contests. In Wisconsin?s open primary, for instance, Republicans broke 72%-28% for Obama. Similarly, in Virginia?s open primary, Obama was favored 72%-23%.

Clinton unquestionably secured a Texas victory, but some locals are convinced it was a false win bolstered by dirty politics. Laura Jean Kreissl, an accounting professor at West Texas A&M University, served as an election official in Canyon, Texas on Tuesday. She contacted the Wall Street Journal to report the hijinks she observed at the four precincts that voted at her polling location.

Of the 181 voters she personally dealt with, 70 offered that they were ?Rush Limbaugh voters? who were there to cast ballots for Clinton. ?I?m here to vote for Hillary Clinton, I want to see the Democratic Party implode,? one voter told Kreissl, she recounted in an interview. ?I was just stunned,? she said. ?As an election official we can?t say anything. We just jot them down and let them vote.?

Kreissl, an Obama supporter, said she kept rough counts, but her fellow poll worker, a Clinton supporter, both estimated that as many as two-thirds of the voters were Limbaugh Republicans turned Clinton voters. About 800 ballots were cast in total there. ?I?m an accounting professor, I know numbers pretty well,? she said.

Kreissl worked a 19 hour day to also help organize the caucus event later that night. Similarly, she said she personally checked in 20 Obama supporters and 17 Clinton supporters. Of Clinton?s 17, 10 identified themselves as Rush Limbaugh voters, she said.

Also:

I am a Texas Republican who voted in the Democrat Party for Hill and left the rest of the ballot blank. If you go to the Texas Sec of State website and look, 22% of the registered voters in Texas voted in the Texas Democrat Primary, but only 17% voted in the other statewide race on the ballot, for US senator. That is such a huge difference ( the difference on the republican side is about 1% ) that I think its pretty convincing evidence that Republicans crossed over big time. Since we really only wanted to watch the mudslinging for a bit longer and cared nothing about those down ballot clowns, we made one mark on the ballot and left.

Hmmm.... HRC a tool of the vast right wing conspiracy? lol

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Repubs have a history of these shenanigans in open primaries- voting for the weakest of the Dem hopefuls, for the one they'd rather run against, and this cycle that'd be Hillary when matched against McCain...

Eventually you are going to have to provide some reasoning as to why Clinton is the weaker candidate against McCain, instead of just repeating the myth that's been propagated over and over here in this forum.

Plenty of people have spelled that out multiple times on this forum. For example, I am a conservative that is disgusted with the current state of the Republican party. I will vote for Obama over McCain. However, I would vote for just about anyone over Hillary, including McCain. I'm sure there are plenty of other disenfranchised Republicans that feel the same. You'd have to be blind to not see why Obama would make a better candidate than Hillary.

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: JD50

Plenty of people have spelled that out multiple times on this forum. For example, I am a conservative that is disgusted with the current state of the Republican party. I will vote for Obama over McCain. However, I would vote for just about anyone over Hillary, including McCain. I'm sure there are plenty of other disenfranchised Republicans that feel the same. You'd have to be blind to not see why Obama would make a better candidate than Hillary.

Ok let me give you something to think about. You know all those old white people who overwhelmingly support Clinton? You know, the people that are the most reliable voters in this country. How many of those people do you think are going to be voting for the young, inexperienced black man against old man McCain, highly experienced politician and war hero? Lol.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Loki8481-

most republicans who voted across party lines voted for obama, so your entire premise is pretty much off.

Yeh, riiight... and we know this to be true how? Exit polls, or ouija board? Given the number of Repubs voting in the Dem primary, it seems to me that they'd have made Obama a clear winner if that were the case... particularly given Obama's support from real Dems in the Caucus...

Repubs are great followers, so it seems to me that they'd follow the advice of their chief pundit in charge, the great Limbaugh...

Or are you claiming that Repubs would rather run against Obama? Why? Some sort of death wish?

according to Texas exit polling, 10% of votes cast in the democratic primary were from republicans.

of that 10%, 53% voted for Obama and 46% for Hillary.

your claim that there's some vast republican conspiracy propping Hillary up is bunk. everyone knows how useless national polling is at this stage of the game, before the real campaign has even begun, Republicans especially... this far in advance of the republican primary, Rudy was going to sweep the board.

Obama has been beating the crap out of her amongst republicans in other states. Usually by 20%.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: JD50

Plenty of people have spelled that out multiple times on this forum. For example, I am a conservative that is disgusted with the current state of the Republican party. I will vote for Obama over McCain. However, I would vote for just about anyone over Hillary, including McCain. I'm sure there are plenty of other disenfranchised Republicans that feel the same. You'd have to be blind to not see why Obama would make a better candidate than Hillary.

Ok let me give you something to think about. You know all those old white people who overwhelmingly support Clinton? You know, the people that are the most reliable voters in this country. How many of those people do you think are going to be voting for the young, inexperienced black man against old man McCain, highly experienced politician and war hero? Lol.

Interesting, could you provide a link please?

And WTF are you talking about anyways? Are you talking about old white people that supported Bill back in the 90's, or are you talking about old white Democrats that voted for Hillary over Obama? Just because a bunch of white Democrats might be racist doesn't mean that Republicans are....

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Anybody who cites exit polls at this juncture in history is truly desperate, particularly wrt Repubs voting in the Dem primary in Texas...

The Repub poll respondents were basically lying when they voted, and there's no reason to think they'd quit so soon afterward...

Repubs have a history of these shenanigans in open primaries- voting for the weakest of the Dem hopefuls, for the one they'd rather run against, and this cycle that'd be Hillary when matched against McCain...

Of course you can back up this accusation with irrefutable proof, right?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Anybody who cites exit polls at this juncture in history is truly desperate, particularly wrt Repubs voting in the Dem primary in Texas...

The Repub poll respondents were basically lying when they voted, and there's no reason to think they'd quit so soon afterward...

Repubs have a history of these shenanigans in open primaries- voting for the weakest of the Dem hopefuls, for the one they'd rather run against, and this cycle that'd be Hillary when matched against McCain...

Of course you can back up this accusation with irrefutable proof, right?

The proof is in the open primaries of other states. Obama beat Clinton by 20-50% amongst republicans voting in open primaries before TX. Did Republicans win it for her? No, she still would have won. But the margin would have been smaller.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Originally posted by: senseamp
Clintons have a demonstrated track record of being able to clean up messes left by Bushes.

But not Lewinsky's, eh? :laugh:

I only care about messes that impact me.

OMFG, did you really intend to make a comeback to that comment so easy??? I guess since it impacted Monica........ :shocked: :laugh:

 

[M0RPH]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

The proof is in the open primaries of other states. Obama beat Clinton by 20-50% amongst republicans voting in open primaries before TX. Did Republicans win it for her? No, she still would have won. But the margin would have been smaller.

Lay off the crack pipe buddy, you're not making any sense tonight.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: Wreckem

The proof is in the open primaries of other states. Obama beat Clinton by 20-50% amongst republicans voting in open primaries before TX. Did Republicans win it for her? No, she still would have won. But the margin would have been smaller.

Lay off the crack pipe buddy, you're not making any sense tonight.

You're the one not making sense. Because you don't know shit about politics. You are a delusional Clinton fanboi.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The only reality MSM is slow to admit is that Obama is an empty suit. Their love affair with him is just pathetic to watch.

as are your posts......rofl

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Your statement is pure stupidity.

Clinton won the Texas primary. Obama won the Texas caucas.

Everyone knows which one is really meaningful and the true reflection of the voters in Texas, thus the media and everyone else will continue to call it a win for Clinton is Texas.

You can call it a win for Obama in that deluded little mind of yours if it makes you feel better.

so let`s see when OBama gets the democratic nomination your going to say what praytell?
It was rigged?
It`s all GWB fault?
It`s a commy conspiracy?


lol

 

[jpeyton]

Here's an interesting forum post I read:

Wyoming doesn't count because Hillary won Texas.

OK, she didn't actually win the most delegates. But she did win the popular vote.

OK, she lost nearly 20 percentage points in the last two weeks. But Obama did fail to close the deal.

OK, Hillary still has to win every remaining state by margins she hasn't managed even once. But she's still ready to take that 3:00 AM call and keep your children from being killed.

OK, so she did blow the single most important foreign policy vote in her Senate career. But George Bush tricked her by putting lies in the NIE.

OK, so she never actually read the NIE. But now she agrees that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

OK, so she's only saying that now because it's popular. But Obama promoted NAFTA back when it was popular and look at all the jobs that left Ohio.

OK, so it was actually Hillary who promoted NAFTA. But now she says she didn't, so that shouldn't count against her.

OK, so she's lying to avoid embarrassment. Isn't Obama lying about Rezko?

OK, so he's never been accused of anything with regards to Rezko that he could lie about. But doesn't Hillary's campaign bringing it up all the time make him look suspicious?

OK, so they're just trying to smear him. But isn't Obama trying to smear Hillary by challenging her to release her tax returns while people have a chance to vote on their judgment of them?

OK, so they challenged Rick Lazio to release his tax returns when they were running against him for the Senate. But transparency is important in judging a politican's ethics.

OK, so they still won't release the list of donors to the Clinton presidential libary. But how could you be concerned that the Clintons would sell White House access for money?

OK, so they did sell White House access for money with that Lincoln bedroom business. But they were broke from defending themselves against Ken Starr's right-wing smear machine!

OK, so they're worth somewhere between $10,000,000 and $50,000,000 now. But why should that make anyone suspicious enough to demand to see Hillary's tax returns?

OK, so they never did explain exactly how she earned that $100,000 in futures trading....

Shit, I could keep this up all night.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here's an interesting forum post I read:

OK, so they never did explain exactly how she earned that $100,000 in futures trading....

[/quote]

That futures trading always bothered me, and I let it slide because she wasn't an elected official.

The Dems are going to be slugging it out for another 5 months while they should be focused on beating McCain.

The public is going to get frustrated watching the talking head meat puppets acting out the Itchy & Scratchy show on TV. If Hillary gave a crap about this country and the party she'd bow out.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pabster
Topic Title: Obama Wins Texas
Topic Summary: MSM Slow To Admit Reality, As Usual

Story here.

Essentially, Hillary won the Primary, Obama wins the Caucus, and the delegate split from the whole package leaves Obama netting 3 or 4 delegates more than Clinton.

I told the guys at work that Obama won Texas on that night and they refuse to believe it.

Another bold Mcowen prediction. :roll:

Yes and your point is?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Your statement is pure stupidity.

Clinton won the Texas primary. Obama won the Texas caucas.

Everyone knows which one is really meaningful and the true reflection of the voters in Texas, thus the media and everyone else will continue to call it a win for Clinton is Texas.

You can call it a win for Obama in that deluded little mind of yours if it makes you feel better.

Oh the irony.

Last time I checked, winning the most pledged delegates seemed like the most important factor in being nominated, no matter how those delegates were awarded (caucuses vs. primaries).

And as BlindBomber said, it wasn't a clear winner for anyone - one person won the primary but the other won the caucus. And because of the results and such, the delegates were split about 50-50, giving no one a real advantage.

no, its about viability.
winning primaries shows viability as they are democratic unlike the sham caucus system. the final election is one where everyone votes, primary style, not a caucus type joke.

just remember that with obama outspending hilary big time and with constant negative hilary coverage and puff pieces on obama he still couldn't pull off decisive victories. and in fact lost some. thats not a sign that your candidate is as strong as some people are claiming.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: M0RPH
Your statement is pure stupidity.

Clinton won the Texas primary. Obama won the Texas caucas.

Everyone knows which one is really meaningful and the true reflection of the voters in Texas, thus the media and everyone else will continue to call it a win for Clinton is Texas.

You can call it a win for Obama in that deluded little mind of yours if it makes you feel better.

Oh the irony.

Last time I checked, winning the most pledged delegates seemed like the most important factor in being nominated, no matter how those delegates were awarded (caucuses vs. primaries).

And as BlindBomber said, it wasn't a clear winner for anyone - one person won the primary but the other won the caucus. And because of the results and such, the delegates were split about 50-50, giving no one a real advantage.

no, its about viability.
winning primaries shows viability as they are democratic unlike the sham caucus system. the final election is one where everyone votes, primary style, not a caucus type joke.

just remember that with obama outspending hilary big time and with constant negative hilary coverage and puff pieces on obama he still couldn't pull off decisive victories. and in fact lost some. thats not a sign that your candidate is as strong as some people are claiming.

Not really sure which election you've been watching:roll: