An interesting scenario unfolded in this 2008 Election...

McCain is now the presumptive nominee while the Democrats are still slugging it out.

What this means is, for the rest of the states in play, the Republican primary/caucuses don't really mean anything. So it presents an interesting scenario that has not been lost on Republican voters:

Some Republican voters are seeking to influence the Democratic outcome by voting for Hillary (who they see as more beatable than Obama). I heard this strategy advocated on a right wing talk radio show this morning. Callers, many of them from Texas, admitted that since the Republican nomination has been locked up, they were going to be voting for Hillary on March 4th.

Very interesting. I don't know of any precedent for this. Do you think it can be effective? and Do you think it is wrong?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

I think it can be effective, but I don't know about calling it "wrong". It is partisanship at its most childish, so there's no surprise that the Limbuaghs of the world would be advocating it.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Hehe, yes us Texas Republicans sure can cause this sort of an uproar, i may just go out and vote in the primary! But who would i vote for....

*Thinks*

This sort of strategic voting is not uncommon in the world.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Do you know of any other cases specifically? Any idea if it was effective or not?

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

From anecdotal evidence, that is, Republicans to whom I have spoken, Republicans crossing party lines to vote in our primary in Ohio are more likely to vote for Obama than for Clinton.

You can vote for the person that you think you can beat, or you can vote for the person to whom you would hate less to lose.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Right, if i think its gonna be close on the Dems side then i may go vote for Obama because he has thebest chance of beating McCain, making it easier for a true conservative in 2012.

If it was even close to being competitive on the GOP side then i may well go and vote for McCain, just to mess it up even further if Huckabee could hang on in there for a while.

Precisely, just about every GOP voter i know will vote Obama if they cross over.

Nobody thinks Hillary can beat McCain but they do think Obama can.

Since I created this thread, Texas and Mississisippi primaries have been held.

It's possible that the narrow victory in Texas for Clinton came by way of republican help.

It's more clear that republicans voting for the "easier" candidate for McCain in Mississippi had a significant impact.... something like a 10 point swing due to republicans voting for Hillary.

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

This is a biased source, but I had a hard time disputing the information presented within.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

I wouldn't be surprised to see that here in PA. I think registration is open until March 24th.

Well, in point of fact, Clinton actually lost in Texas.

She won the primary by a narrow margin, 51% to 47%, garnering 65 delegates to Obama's 61.

But the caucus wasn't nearly as close. Obama won the caucus 56% to 44%, and was awarded 38 delegates while Clinton got 29.

So in the final accounting, The delegate totals looked like this:

Clinton: 94
Obama: 99

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Strategic voting is legal, but it's wrong, I just don't imagine that there are enough turd heads who prefer winning over democracy enough to actually influence an outcome.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

I think it is wrong. No party should interfere with what the other is doing. It should be completely up to democrats & independants to vote for whom they wish. In Texas, there were many republicans that admitted they just couldn't cross over to vote for Hillary. So, I really think it's a none issue anyway.

Look at the exit polls in Texas. The registered Republicans who voted in the Democratic primary made up a small percentage of voters. Among them, they went for Clinton only slightly over Obama. In no way did they swing the race.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

This is true for Texas. Good point.

- Obama won the most delegates and the caucus (only 40% of which is tallied to this point...pathetic)...

Clinton won the popular vote in the primary and the media victory.

The average Joe might perceive that Hillary won Texas, but I think the Superdelegates and people who follow politics closely know that her proclaimed huge victory was a mixed bag.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama