Is it True the repukes helped pump up Edwards numbers in Wis. ?

[jpgpenn]

Apparently so! I just heard on MSNBC that Edwards recieved 10% of his total vote count from repukes!

I know this is common practice and has been used by Dems along with repukes but MSNBC is trying to use it as some kind of talking point of Edwards cross over appeal! Nothing can be more silly. From Iowa the repukes understood Dean was finished, from that point on they have been pumping up Edwards, saying he is now the candidate *Bush and company fear.

Let the facts fall as they are. The repukes are doing everything possible to have Edwards as the nominee or at a minimum, tarnish Kerry!

[question everything]

1. Yes, from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/17/elec04.prez.issues/index.html

Independent voters

Exit poll data showed that roughly four out of 10 voters Tuesday were not Democrats. Most of those identified themselves as independents and about one in 10 said they were Republicans.

The data showed Edwards did better than Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts among independent voters, but Kerry did better among Democrats.

Edwards, who picked up key newspaper endorsements this week, also enjoyed a late surge in support.

Roughly two-thirds of respondents said they made up their minds within the past week, and nearly half of those said they voted for Edwards, according to the exit polls.

======

This can be interpreted two ways, I think:

One, Edwards has a wider appeal - a consideration for November, or, two - these non Democrats just wanted to "spoil" and in November will vote for Bush.

[in_cog_ni_to]

2. Good thing

that all states don't have OPEN primaries. Does anyone know how many more states DO have an open primary?

[question everything]

3. I heard that CA allows independent n/t

[still_one]

21. The California Supreme Court ruled against it

They indicated that only if you are registered as an independent you can vote for either candidate, but it will not count toward delegates, unless you registered with a party, i.e. Dems or REPUGS

[jpgpenn]

5. This "Open Vote" is a scam!

I mean the whole idea a person of 1 party can cross over for the sake of skewing the outcome of their opposition is just crazy!

[Padraig18]

18. Not everyone agrees it's 'crazy'.

My state, for example, has ALWAYS had open primaries.

[atre]

34. If my state did not have an open primary, I would not be able to vote

There are a LOT of progressives who refuse to register as Democrat, for a myriad of reasons (in my case, because ideology is more important than party identification).

[jpgpenn]

54. If it is a Dem. nomination process, then...

only a registered Dem. should be able to help elect a candidate. Any open vote provides too tampering possibilities! As is seen here.

[Padraig18]

58. "As is seen here."

I've seen nothing of the sort, and not everyone agrees that only registered Democrats should be able to vote in Democratic primaries, as has also been pointed out.

[Mattforclark]

48. TX has an open primary

[funky_bug]

4. Check out CNN

Of the voters who stated they were satisified and enthusiastic about the Bush Administration, the majority of them voted for Edwards.

Of the candidates who listed the most important reason for their vote was to BEAT BUSH, the overwhelming majority of them voted for Kerry.

MSNBC got it right, but for all the wrong reasons. If they are so satisfied, and even enthusiastic about Bush, why would they want to "crossover?"

[sallyseven]

14. To throw the results of the election

I bet the RNC sent out the morning fax and told them to vote a certain way. They do that you know.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Well,

I heard a talking head say that they crossed over because THEY think if Edwards stays in the race, the primaries will be extended and THAT will be better for Bush. The longer this goes on, the better the chance for a Bush re-election. :shrug:

[Leilani]

56. I checked out the Freepers last night

& they were bragging about voting for Edwards. They wanted to slow Kerry's momentum.

However, they also said, if a Dem is to win, they'd rather have Edwards. They really despise Kerry.

[atre]

27. You're assuming voters are rational. Your assumption is wrong.

Voters vote the way they do for many reasons. It's entirely possible that women Republicans satisfied with the way Bush has been running the country like Edwards' hair or his Southern drawl. Or his wife waved to them and smiled on some campaign stop. Some of these voters may cast their ballot for Edwards for no better reason thanthe fact that they have a mole on their face in the same place that Edwards does. Maybe you have a couple hundred voters who voted for Edwards because their name too is "John Edwards."

There are also rational reasons why Bush supporters might vote for Edwards. It's possible that you have Republican attorneys who are worried about what the Bush Administration has been doing to Fourth Amendment protections or ridiculous tort reform (in the legal community, I know a good number of Republicans who would cross over for the tort reform issue alone).

I think there is a major problem here with cognitive dissonance.

[funky_bug]

45. cognitive dissonance is the GD theme song among many

But your post made me smile. I have maintained that voters these days are not all rational, thinking beings. Your post spelled that out in a very amusing way.

[flpoljunkie]

50. Excellent point! Why would voters who are Dubya enthusiasts vote Edwards?

This makes absolutely no sense--unless your Rethug vote for Edwards was to try and stop Kerry's momentum.

[Robb]

6. I think this would have been said

of WHATEVER candidate did well in WI. Some people are gonna say Kerry's win is a repub plot, some are gonna say the repubs voting gave Edwards more votes, some are gonna say it's all a plot to keep Dean (or Kucinich) down.

[masshole]

7. CNN exit polls

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html

Kerry won big with women, African-American,and Latino voters.
Edwards strongest support was with white men, and with those with incomes of 75K and higher.

[still_one]

8. It doesn't matter

Kerry or Edwards are both winning candidates!

[jpgpenn]

12. It certainly DOES matter!

We are electing a Democratic nominee. When there is a planned attack of skewing our numbers id'e say this is something we all should fear!

[still_one]

31. I personally feel both are equally electable

Each have positives and negatives, and I truely believe either one would be a formidble challege to Bush.

I prefer a Kerry/Edwards ticket, for a lot of reasons, and believe that is still the best case senerio.

[Webster Green]

15. Yep!

They should be careful what they wish for.

[Submariner]

9. I cruised by Fox n Friends this morning

and that blonde airhead they have was spinning about how bad Kerry was and how good Edwards was. It's just a repug desperate attempt to knock down the front runner.

[still_one]

11. How can you stand to watch faux?

[sallyseven]

10. I think that Edwards is a viable VP candidate

It irritates me however when the candidates say they didn't support NAFTA and they didn't support the War nor No Child Left behind among a myriad of other statements. They couldn't vote for them because they were not in office when the votes were taken. bush cut funding for no child left behind, veterans benefits and ignored provisions in NAFTA that would have mitigated the damage he is allowing. Nothing in NAFTA allowed for off shore offices for corporations, outsourcing, and out and out thievery. The bills are not bad the execution of the bill is outrageous. bush is slime.

[still_one]

13. Exactly, BUSH LIED ABOUT BOTH

[Padraig18]

17. Oh, baloney!

There is no proof that Edwrads benefitted any more from republican votes than did JK, or HD. Furthermore, Republicans CAN vote in the GE, and their votes would count 1:1 for a Democrat, just like our own would. :think:

[King of New Orleans]

30. Edwards got a modest benefit from pro-Bush voters

Those who said the were "enthusiastic" about President Bush voted 36% for Edwards, 32% for Dean and 10% for Kerry (That was only 5% of the electorate). Those who said they were satisfied, but not enthusiastic about PRes Bush voted 50% for Edwards, 23% for Kerry, 20% for Dean (that was 12% of the electorate). Of the 9% who said they considered themselves Repubs, 44% voted for Edwards, 26% for Dean, 18% for KErry. Would many of those Repubs or those supporting PRes Bush cross over and vote Dem if they liked the candidate? yes. Would many of them voted Repug no matter what? yes.

The Pro-Bush voter helped Edwards a little. Maybe narrowed an 8 point loss to a 6 point loss.

Edwards deserved the showing he got on his own merit. He did benefit from pro-Bush voters slightly.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3762911/


BTW--Did everyone notice the Wisconsin vote (40-34) was almost identical to the Iowa (38-32)

[nickn777]

19. wouldn't surprise me....

Hannity was pumping up Edwards last night saying he is the guy "we conservatives might be more frightened of running against...BLAH BLAH BLAH....." Since Hannity was saying that I have no doubt it is an obvious tactic he is employing to muddy up the race a bit and help his boy Bush...Poll after poll, after poll, after poll, shows one thing is perfectly clear: Edwards cannot beat Bush, Kerry can.

Hannity knows this, and the reality is, he fears Kerry, not Edwards.

[still_one]

23. I think either candidate can beat Bush

How can you believe what Hannity says? He is a clown.

Hannity also believes everything Bush says...

[nickn777]

33. I don't believe anything Hannity says

That was the point...Hannity is trying to pump up Edwards to take some steam out of Kerry's ship, the one he really does fear...Moron Hannity doesn't fear Edwards at all, he would love Edwards to be the nominee.

[still_one]

36. I understand your point

Hannity just isn't that clever

[jpgpenn]

49. excellent case in point!

I agree with your last sentence completely.

[Warren Stuart]

20. If true, it's a stupid move on their part

The Republicans want the Democratic primaries to end as soon as possible. They don't them grabbing the headlines, and bashing Bush at every opportunity. They want one clear candidate that they can focus their slime machine on.

This is not helpful to their cause. It could be that these Republicans do not want Bush running against a war hero.

Be careful what you wish for. Running against a trial lawyer who has stood up for the disadvantaged, against monied corporate interests, is not going to be a walk in the park either.

[still_one]

25. You are right

The REPUGS must be going nuts, that this keeps going on, and on.

At least we have the forum to emphasis the garbage that the Bush administration has been doing to the country.

Do you think the Supreme Court is a large factor in the election?

i.e. who gets appointed

[SeattleDem]

61. exactly, GOP wants this over NOW!

they are furious with the free air time the Dems are getting, day after day. The longer this process goes on, the more the Dems are on TV attacking Bush, monopolizing pundits talk shows (thus preventing Bush from getting his "share" of the free air time).

They want to know who the nominee is NOW so they can plan their attack and start the smear campaign.

it is NOT in the GOP's interest to slow Kerry's momentum and keep this nomination process alive and front¢er.

[atre]

22. Meanwhile, back in the real world...

There appears to be a cognitive dissonance here with Kerry supporters. They refuse to accept the possibility that Kerry has NO cross-over appeal. In addition, his support from the traditional caucus-goers is only skin-deep, and he probably would not have those guys without the media propping him up as the "most electable" (despite the fact that he takes many parts of the country out of play for the Democrats).

Kerry supporters here lately LOVE to talk up the fact that Edwards won the Republican vote. But what about the Independents? Not a word from Kerry's supporters here about that issue. Do they believe that all of the Indepedents are secretly Bush supporters? Or do they ignore the issue altogether to sustain the cognitive dissonance, to help them to sustain their belief despite all evidence to the contrary?

This sort of cross-over voting ALWAYS occurs in any election: 5-20% of people cross party lines for particular candidates (often for unpredictable reasons, like appearance or perception of empathy)...

To be honest, I have my suspicions about why some of these people crossed over. Do we have any exit-polling on how many of these people are women?

[Padraig18]

24. Edwards took a HUGE chunk of the Independent vote, too.

Also something a lot of people here are conveniently ignoring.

[sybylla]

26. What do you think had the bigger effect?

A few thousand repukes crossing over in an 800,000+ vote primary - OR - the media crowning Kerry long before the Wisconsin primary and calling Wisconsin for Kerry before the polls opened?

Please. Everytime we hold a primary here, the official excuse of the loser is that pukes crossed over. They were a pittance when taken as a whole, I assure you. Obviously there are a fair number of dems who are satisifed with chimpy or he wouldn't have the approval ratings he does. I'll need a little more evidence, thank you.

[jpgpenn]

57. a few thousand?

last I heard it was more like 45,000!

[efront]

28. It's a media conspiracy against Clark!!!

Seriously Clarkies, Edwards is not the devil. Kerry had more to do with the General dropping out than Edwards did. Give it a rest.

[bobthedrummer]

29. That has always been the case here in WI.

Open primary, you can register at the poll, 10 day residency requirement.

[sybylla]

37. Since the days of Bob Lafollette anyway.

And you don't have to register an affiliation with a party either. You either have to vote all dem, all repuke or all indy

[KittyWampus]

32. GOP'ers Been Doing It In EVERY Open Primary

First with the intent of sinking Clark.

They are now focused on ensuring Kerry doesn't get the nod.

[Padraig18]

35. Proof?

That's a rather blanket statement to make, without evidence.

[KittyWampus]

39. People Here Have Posted Comments & Stats

from last night.

The Moderate Independant had info posted.

This isn't rocket science.

By the way, it's obvious they were trying their best to get Dean the nomination. Too bad he imploded on his own.

[Padraig18]

42. I didn't ask what 'people did'.

I asked for proof of such a blanket statement, and didn't get it.

[efront]

40. Who needs proof? It's much easier to blame Clark's

demise on the media and black helicopter conspiracy theories rather than Clark's campaign skills.

[KittyWampus]

44. Are You Suggesting The Media Didn't Assasinate Clark?

I made no mention of black Helicopter Conspiracy Theory. So stop trying to make what I said sound extreme.

Did Gray Davis act to ensure he had his preferred opponent in the CAN race?

Of course he did.

[efront]

47. I think 12% in NH after spending so

much time, money energy there "assassinated" Clark. 90% of objective people realized it was over for Clark and Lieberman right then and there. They had the entire state to themselves and both fell flat on their faces.

Clark supporters make ridiculous statements about bias and the media without any proof besides their own emotions. Then, most vilify Edwards b/c he did better in nearly every state where they both campaigned hard. It's not JRE's fault; somebody always loses.

[HoosierClarkie]

69. It is not even worth it.

People who didn't see it, just do not get it. Posting all of the proof will still be a waste of time. :)
Like I said, supporters know the truth and that in itself is a REAL victory. :toast: http://moderateindependent.com/v2i2media2.htm

edit: link

[HoosierClarkie]

74. Here is proof.

http://moderateindependent.com/v2i2media2.htm

Have a nice day! :)

[jpgpenn]

79. here ya go!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080247/posts

[atre]

41. Is this a joke?

You really believe in the existence of an anti-whomever-cryingshame-is-supporting-at-that-moment conspiracy????

[KittyWampus]

46. Joke? No, It's Politics. And I'm Not Supporting Anyone

I am calling things as they are.

The mediawhores and GOP:

Pushed Dean for as long as possible
Assasinated Clark

And are now in the process of trying to prevent Kerry from getting the nod.

I personally dislike Kerry but it is painstakingly obvious.

[atre]

77. You say you don't support anyone

but we know you support Clark. And we can assume that you'd rather have him as the VP nominee. We can probably also assume you know that there have been discussions about whether Clark will accept that spot if Kerry is the ultimate nominee. And you probably also know that the better Edwards does in the primary, the more attractive he is to Kerry as a VP nominee.

I'm just calling them like I see them as well.

There's a reason you've been acting the way you have. The partisan rancor coupled with the tinfoil hat/ cognitive dissonance demonstrates to me that you want Kerry to win. Cognitive dissonance and indifference are completely incompatible.

[King of New Orleans]

43. I'm sure that in every state

There was at least one guy who goes to vote thinking he can sabotage the whole process, but there not enough people like that (and they can't be coordinate enough) to do anything like that.

The Wisconsin vote did have more pro-Bush people voting in the Dem primary than usual because there were other things on the ballot. They were there, they could vote in the Dem primary if they wanted to, so why not?

Would they vote for the right Dem in the general election? A few would, most won't.

[AndyP]

38. I am looking at the results from my city...

granted it's a small college city but:
Kerry: 648
Edwards: 302
Bush: 281
Dean: 239
Kucinich: 85

I don't think the Repubs tried to help Edwards as much as they were idiots and voted for Bush. It's the DEMOCRATIC primary people why even vote if you are going to do that... Man what a bunch of stupid rednecks. (sorry I gotta vent, I hate this town- but I gotta go to school somewhere)

[jpgpenn]

51. people fail to remember how repukes contributed to Dean...

on a regular basis earlier in the race. This was a major talking point on freeper boards, as was often posted here.

For those that support Edwards, you can cover your eyes to these facts but that wont change what is really going on!

[dansolo]

60. I don't believe they really did contribute to Dean

I'm sure that some freepers said that they contributed to Dean, but do you honestly believe that any of those cheap bastards would contribute any money to any Democratic candidate? If so, then you are extremely gullible. I think that the Republicans are playing up the candidates that they don't want, because the Democrats are very predictable in their response. "Oh no, if Karl Rove wants <insert candidate's name>, then we must pick someone else."

[jpgpenn]

62. apparently you missed the constant posting here at DU.

on a regular basis many people posted threads from freeperville where they talk openly about contributing to Dean. Sorry you missed all of them!

[fiorello]

52. From the numbers: Republican support for Edwards was not significant

MSNBC's headline is a great study in how-to-lie with statistics. Edwards got 10% of his votes from repukes - when rePukes were 10% of the total voters? B-b-b-big deal.

From previously posted polls: Republicans were 10% of the voters - at most 17%.
The Republicans voted roughly 40% for Edwards, 20% for Kerry.

Without these votes, Kerry's lead over Edwards would have increased by 2-4 percentage points. So, Kerry-Edwards might have been 42-33 instead of 40-34.

No big deal.

I support Kerry - but Edwards did well in Wisconsin. Congrats to him.

[carolinayellowdog]

55. Thanks for the analysis and welcome to DU!

Hey,

Conspiracy theories on this don't ring true to me, and your analysis does. If the R voters were part of an anti-Kerry conspiracy directed by the RNC, why did half as many vote for Kerry as for Edwards?

CYD

[ChiefJoseph]

53. I don't know why that would be the case...

Edwards would make a much stronger candidate against Bush.

[jpgpenn]

59. I don't agree.

What do you base your thinking on?

[RetroLounge]

63. It is if one lives in Kerry-World

:boring:

[LuminousX]

64. Wow, how did they cooridinate it all. They are so well organized

We are doomed... DOOOOOMED!!

:eyes:

Wake me up when we the Kerry camp stops blaming opposition success on the Republicans or friendly media.

[littlejoe]

65. What do you think? Why else would repugs vote in a dem. primary?

[efront]

66. Maybe b/c there were other issues on the ballot like casino gambling n/t

.

[jpgpenn]

68. really?

[VOX]

67. Nonsense! The GOP fears Edwards *because* of his broad appeal...

Edwards was the *first* Democratic contender to take hits from the RW machine, which began its attempts to derail him at least a year ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54335-2003Feb10?language=printer
With Edwards, White House Shows First-Strike Capability
Tuesday, February 11, 2003; Page A19

Is President Bush afraid of John Edwards?
<snip>
But the White House and Bush's political arm, the Republican National Committee, seem preoccupied with Edwards, a first-term former trial lawyer. A month ago, when Edwards began his candidacy, the RNC put out a 10-page report a day later branding him "An Unaccomplished Liberal in Moderate Clothing and a Friend To His Fellow Personal Injury Trial Lawyers." At the time, the GOP had not issued similar takedowns of the other Democrats in the field.

A week later, on Jan. 14, a White House official told the Associated Press that Bush was delivering a speech on medical malpractice as part of a "whack John Edwards" day. When Bush called for limits on awards in medical malpractice suits last July, he spoke in North Carolina.
<snip>
A key Bush activist, Tom Rath, has joined the American Association of Health Plans, an adversary of Edwards, to help the HMO lobby's political efforts in New Hampshire. The group last week released a poll showing Edwards in fifth place in the state.

In private conversations, Republicans linked to the White House often talk of Edwards as the most dangerous of the Democratic candidates, because he is handsome and southern and "undefined" in the public imagination. That gives him the potential to create a populist challenge to Bush...
<snip>

[jpgpenn]

71. I don't think so...

sounds more like wishful thinking to me!

[VOX]

76. You read the WP link I posted: "Is President Bush afraid of John Edwards?"

Check it out -- link is in post above.

Thanks.

[citizen snips]

72. The repukes are scared of Edwards.

A southerner like and Edwards and Bob Graham as his VP would make a good showing in the south.

[jpgpenn]

73. yea, that is why 10% voted for him..

:eyes:

[citizen snips]

70. Most independents voted for Edwards in that primary.

[Perky]

75. Did it ever occur to folks that GOPers

Might actually like Edwards? SHeesh.

Besides if the GOP was making a concerted effort to mess with a Kerry coronation.... they would have voted in Droves for Howard Dean.

[jpgpenn]

78. your wrong!

Dean couldn't be a factor even with their numbers. They look at Edwards as the man to prop up to undermine Kerry, just as they used Edwards to derail Clark.

Slow and steady they are having what they want and each step of the way Edwards supporters are drawn into this trap thinking that Edwards after more then a year and a half has somehow caught on! Sorry too many of us know better!

[absyntheNsugar]

80. No, I just think Edwards is more agreeable to Repubs

Alot of Repubs are angry at Bush. He's spent loads of $$$, wasted 500+ lives and has cut vetrans benefits.

So, just like Reagan Democrats, expect to see Edwards Republicans if he should win the nom.

Edwards is a Right-leaning Democrat - granted no Zell Miller or Evan Bayh, but he voted for IWR, the tax cuts and the Patriot Act (note: so did Kerry) Chances are if he ran against Bush, he could woo a lot of Republicans. That is, unless the debates are all "OH Yes Dubya, I agree with you on that TOO!" like 2000.