Wisconsin's Primary: Tainted

[Dying Eagle]

This is a artical written by a Kerry supporter. What do you think?



I don’t want to rain on the parade of true John Edwards supporters who worked hard this week and came out to the polls because they did work hard and deserve some credit, but tonight’s results being this close was not so much because of his popularity as it was that the Kerry camp became the victims of the polarization of the country for the first time in this election.

I had heard rumblings before the election and in fact had heard from my Grandpa of older Republicans talking up going to the polls to hurt our primary, in fact I heard from callers on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal that lived in Wisconsin and claimed that as Republicans they were going to screw with our primary.

It appears it happened tonight.

Check this out from CNN tonight:

Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry

Voters who are enthusiastic about the Bush Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry

Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards

Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.

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

This will show that it wasn’t just Edwards drawing Independent and crossover Republican support but rather this was considered a vote to keep Kerry (whom Republicans fear) fighting for his life, to change perceptions that he can take on Bush (“if he can’t win big in WI, this might turn the tide”… pundits said it all night) and moreso to make Kerry spend as much money as possible so the campaign is drained when we finally get to the General Election and Bush can unload his $140 million warchest.

To me this is another reason why open primaries are not a good idea. Sure we invite new Democrats in here or there, but Republicans, even the kind that aren’t officially Bush staffers, will play dirty at all costs and having this process open allows for them to cheat us and damage the credibility of our system.

ALSO, on Countdown last night the REAL numbers came out. From Democrats that voted (and this WAS a Democratic Primary):

Kerry 48%
Edwards 31%
Dean 16%

Kerry got more votes than the other two combined. This was clearly a conspiracy on behalf of Republicans who voted (some disguised as Independents) to try to screw our primary over.

[ibegurpard]

1. Sorry no sympathy here

Dean supporters were ridiculed for stating such things.
"It's just the will of the voters." Get over it.

[Robb]

6. Yup. nt

[bigwillq]

2. Kerry won the primary, be happy.

'Nuff said.

[Dying Eagle]

5. dean supporters

this post is trying to show that Kerry is a strong canidate and the repubs are VERY worried that Kerry is going to whoop bush in Nov.

[gasperc]

11. probably afraid of Kerry or Edwards just as long as they are broke

by the convention that's alllllllll that matters, then they go Nixon on his ass

[bigwillq]

17. It's also another way for "some" Kerry supporters

to take a knock on Edwards.

[Dying Eagle]

20. No knock on Edwards

Show me something that proves this info to be wrong. Or is it like "Some" Dean supporters to try to discredit anything presented as "pro-Kerry" to be labeled "a knock" on another candidate??

[bigwillq]

23. Let Edwards enjoy the win

The last sentence of I think the first paragraph is a not to knock I think.
I for one do not discredit anthing "pro-Kerry" nor do I think it's a knock to the other candidates. I hope Kerry does well, I will vote for him in the GE if he's the nominee. However, I am against some of Kerry's issues because he voted for the Bush agenda.

[Dying Eagle]

24. Kerry has the best anti-Bush voting record...

of all active senators, including edwards. I am serching for the link after i type this. can anyone help? BRB


edit:spelling

[Zynx]

3. Without all the momentum and a couple more weeks of campaigning

I doubt Kerry would have won Wisconsin.

[Tweed]

4. Huge anti-Edwards here, but the Wisconsin thing is bogus

We'll just have to wait and see if he can only come close to or win over Kerry when Republicans vote in the primary or he was born in the state. Take your time before you say that Wisconsin was tainted.

[xultar]

7. A wingnut here in GA was talking of doing the same

thing in the GA primary on a wingnut radio show today

[retyred]

8. And still Kerry won

What A great day for America.



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[Cocoa]

9. Russ Feingold said he likes the open primary

he said it was a long tradition in WI. I don't know the reasoning for letting republicans vote in our primaries, but there seems to be a reason for it.

[54anickel]

18. I'm from WI and it's been a long tradition under the idea of being a

Progressive state. Most of us love it, so please don't mess with it.

Most people here don't necessarily consider themselves diehard associates of one party or the other. They vote for the candidate they think is the best for the position.

The diehard Repugs that don't like Bush would rather select the Uncommitted (None of the above) than not show up at all just to show their digust with the party. Sure a handful might play the games being alluded to, but it's a very small percentage. Of the folks that vote, many take that right seriously and would not use it in the way suggested.

Give Wisconsinites a little credit.

[oasis]

10. A "freeped" primary. I thought something was a little fishy. The Drudge

fake story was also worth a percentage point or two in favor of
Edwards, IMO.

[knight_of_the_star]

12. Interesting

Any idea on numbers like that for VA and TN? I have a gut feeling something similar happened to Wes Clark there.

[scarletwoman]

13. If repugs voted for Edwards they did Dems a huge favor.

Step back and think about it: keeping the contest for the nomination close keeps the Dems in other states who haven't yet had their primaries energized and active. Having the contest for the nomination close keeps the attention of the news media on the Dems.

This is a WIN-WIN situation! More attention, more activism, more interest! I fail to see a downside!

The Democratic National Convention is MONTHS away. The more news cycles that are dominated by the Dem contest for the nomination the better!

If Repugs hoped to monkey-wrench the WI primary, they really only screwed themselves. Kerry supporters should stop whining about not getting instant gratification -- a closer contest is a BENEFIT to ALL Dems!

sw

[Dying Eagle]

15. I can't believe this stuff

I am not complaining, I am not whining, I am not bashing Edwards. I found this artical interesting and thought i would share it with the DU. I think the DU is the smartest site on the web. I am glad you replied and i agree with your post till you said

"So stop whining about not getting instant gratification"

I wish people could see past there anti-Kerry atitudes and talk like the inteligent democrates we all are. All this anti-kerry stuff is getting old.

[scarletwoman]

16. Sorry, you read my post before my edit.

I realized my phrase, "so stop whining" was badly stated, since my objection was to the article, NOT to your post. So I quickly edited -- alas, not quickly enough, I see. My sincere apologies. It was not my intent to cast aspersions on you personally.

sw

[jpgray]

14. Again, the intent cannot be ascertained, so it's all interpretation

One side will interpret it one way, the other a different way. An easy counter to your interpretation would be that Edwards is slightly more conservative than Kerry, and therefore attracts more conservative voters. But really there is no way to tell which guess is 'right'.

[Gman]

19. I usually put a lot of weight on exit polls

One of the best examples is that the exit polls were right on the money in FLorida in 2000.

So I think that 85% of Edwards voters were from satisfied to enthusiastic about Bush says an awful lot about what was going on. This is strong evidence that the WI primary was freeped.

Then again, as someone above said, it probably is a good thing to keep the great press coverage going about the Dem candidates as long as possible.

Freepers aren't smart enough to anticipate unintended consequences.

[Zynx]

21. 85% of Edwards voters were NOT satisfied with Bush.

Prove it.

[eyesroll]

22. 85% of Edwards voters weren't satisfied or enthusiastic

I think you misread the poll.
52% of people who were satisfied about Bush voted for Edwards; 33% who were enthusiastic did the same. But if you click the link, you'll find that only 5% of people who voted were enthusiastic.

There were 800,000+ votes. (I don't have the numbers offhand.) 5% of them -- maybe 40,000 -- were enthusiastic. A third of them (13,000?) voted for Edwards. (Some voted for Kerry.) That's hardly a major amount. Not enough to swing an election.

As for "satisfied," plenty of people here just don't have a hardcore affiliation. They might be OK with the president, but think Edwards (or Kerry, or whoever they did vote for) could give him a run for his money. My assistant is "satisified" with Bush -- but he likes Edwards better. He's an independent (a swing voter, if you will). My other officemate is a registered Republican, fundamentalist Christian, but is fed up with Bush's crap and voted Kerry. We're weird that way, here.

Also, Edwards campaigned in populated, suburban, conservative areas. It seemed to pay off for him. Handshakes mean a lot.

[spooky3]

27. I totally agree with you.

[mohc]

25. How did WI "freepers" vote

If we do not carry Independents in the GE, we will not win. And its going to be hard to win without a strong crossover Republican vote. Were all of these Republican voters legitimate crossover voters? Of course not. We're all the Republican voters saboteurs? Again, of course not. I seriously doubt the number was very high, and you could probably get an analyst for any theory as to how it breaks down. But how about this group: Very Conservative (3%). Even if its a larger group, this group should be fairly indicative of the vote of those that have no intention of voting for a Democrat in November. So how did this group vote? According to the same exit polls everyone is quoting:

Kerry 32%
Dean 32% (His largest % of any ideology)
Edwards 20% (His lowest % of any ideology)
Clark 4% (His largest % of any ideology)
Kucinich 1%
Uncommited 1%
Sharpton 0%

Just food for thought.

[spooky3]

28. very interesting

[Spirochete]

26. Well, in 2008

the Repubs will be running against an incumbent Dem president, and trying to hold their primaries.

Then it's our turn...

[AP]

29. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard ...

..from this guy who knows this kid who's going with a girl who saw Ferris pass-out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.

Where's the organized effort to throw the primary? I guarantee you, the Republicans don't want to face Edwards over Kerry, and they don't want to extend this primary so that every gets free TV time.

[Shanty Oilish]

30. I don't buy it

I try to keep an ear to the ground for these things, and it sounds to me like Republicans are kind of nervous about John Edwards. If they were going to vote for a dem, wouldn't they vote for one who was on the ballot but no longer in the race?
Or Dean or Kucinich, whom they consider long shots?

[Nicholas_J]

31. Actually

There is little evidence that REpublicans who support Edwards did so out of some strategic voting set up rather than conviction that Edwards would be a more conservative democratic choice than Kerry, and that degree of conservatism would make him a better choice for moderate Republicans than Bush.

[AP]

32. Which is the winning formula, as we all noted with Dean: look moderate

but have a liberal core.

The losing formula: look liberal, but have a conservative/pro-business/anit-worker/anti-consumer core.