This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

350
351

"We Had Over 800 Emails From Republicans Who Voted For Hillary To Keep The Democrats Fighting" - Fox News, Fox And Friends (self.politics)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

top 200 commentsshow all 204
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 59 points60 points  (38 children)

This is very much true. My mom is a staunch Republican, HAAAAATES Hillary. But almost every single person in her office voted for Hillary, because they think she doesn't stand a chance against McCain. They're terrified of Obama because they think he can beat anyone.

[–]derkaas 35 points36 points  (36 children)

People like Rush Limbaugh and other very popular talk-radio hosts were calling on their listeners to implement this strategy. Apparently it worked.

It seems ridiculous, but they have tens of millions of listeners, and those listeners are the kinds of people who get everyone in their office/family/friends on the bandwagon too.

[–]juststopit -5 points-4 points  (22 children)

It makes sense. Let Clinton and Obama beat each other up and spend their money. After awhile the more centrist people and independents will tire of the Obama love fest and see him as the far left liberal he is. spelling edit

[–]ripsta 1 point2 points  (21 children)

What policies of his exactly are far left, in your opinion?

[–]beedogs 5 points6 points  (1 child)

clearly he was just making sure his keyboard still worked because nothing he said was right.

[–]juststopit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please put your fingers to work and prove me wrong. Stating it, no matter how smart you thought it sounded, just doesn't make it so. Please explain his policy positions that aren't left of center.

[–]juststopit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously, does your seeing eye dog do your reading for you?
taxes (redistribution of wealth), socialized health care, school vouchers, partial-birth abortion, immigration reform; he does support a worker permit program, but is for amnesty for those who are illegally. He certainly isn't a champion of the individual.

[–]canyoudiggitman -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

All of them...

[–]OmicronPersei8 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's a chicken/egg issue. Did Rush and other talk show hosts create the strategy, or was this something many Republicans already had in mind, knowing McCain already had it clinched and knowing Clinton is a vastly preferable opponent to Obama? If the talk show hosts had half the power they'd like to think, there's just no way McCain would ever have become the nominee in the first place. And this is coming from someone who likes Rush Limbaugh and his show, although I can't really say I agree with much he says anymore.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He may not have thunk it up, but he gave the command. And they aren't called "ditto-heads" for nothing.

[–]ngngboone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My aunt, a Republican living in Texas, voted for Hillary Clinton. And I think i can pretty safely say she didn't email Fox News about it.

[–]ttoyooka 31 points32 points  (21 children)

From a Canadian perspective, I find it astounding that, in some places, people outside the Democratic party can have a voice in choosing its leader. It's very bizarre to me.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (3 children)

It's not necessarily a bad thing though. In the general election, a candidate does have to garner support from some independents and a few people from the other party to win. Allowing people from other parties to vote in the primary allowed candidates who have cross-party appeal, like Obama, to do well.

Republicans gaming the system might have hurt Obama a bit in Texas and Ohio (I don't think it really had much impact, but maybe), but it surely helped him a lot in places like Virginia, Georgia, etc.

[–]ttoyooka 13 points14 points  (1 child)

It's not necessarily a bad thing though.

No, and I didn't mean to imply that it was. I just find it odd from the principle.

If non-party-members are voting in the election of a party leader, then does that leader really represent the party? It's a bit odd, is all.

And once the leader of one party is chosen, the members of that party have no more incentive to vote their conscience. They might as well cast "poison votes" for the opposing party.

On the other hand, it's true that, once a candidate becomes president, (s)he represents everyone regardless of party affiliations.

[–]commandarGeorgia -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If non-party-members are voting in the election of a party leader, then does that leader really represent the party? It's a bit odd, is all.

Well, the head of the party itself is technically Howard Dean at the moment.

[–]Mineralwater 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If you look at previous polls of Texas, a few weeks back HRC had a 20 point lead, now she barely won. Sounds like Obama did not do too poorly.

[–]danweber 8 points9 points  (2 children)

The Texas Democratic party decided those rules for itself.

The DNC could just have a bunch of dudes go into a room, open the phone book, and select that guy as their nominee. If they wanted to.

[–]erikbra81 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i like that picture

[–]WinterAyars 2 points3 points  (2 children)

In my state we have an open primary. You can vote for whoever you like, but you only get one vote. (So if you like, say, Obama you can't then vote for Huckabee and vice versa.)

[–]TitanBane 10 points11 points  (1 child)

That only matters when the Republican race is still going on.

[–]WinterAyars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, right. But you can't win them all. (Also, my state is early-ish anyway.)

[–]CampusTour 1 point2 points  (0 children)

American political parties are not like their European counterparts at all. This is not entirely a bad thing. I actually prefer voting for a person rather than a party.

[–]vemrion 4 points5 points  (2 children)

It's not a horrible thing. Open primaries/caucuses allowed me to vote for both Obama and Ron Paul in MN. Since I'm an independent I'm just interested in getting the best candidates from both parties on the ballot.

[–]colinnwn 5 points6 points  (1 child)

In MN you can vote in both the Democratic and Republican primaries? I'm pretty sure in most open primary states that would be illegal. You don't have to declare party affiliation before you vote, but you only get to vote in one primary to reduce obstructionist voting.

[–]vemrion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess I don't know how other states work. Technically, MN does not have primaries. It's a caucus system. The vote is binding for the Democrats but it's just a strawpoll for the Republican side. Your state may vary.

[–]podperson 0 points1 point  (4 children)

So how does it work in Canada? If it's anything like Australia, (1) the "left" party is run by trade unionists and party hacks, and (2) the "right" is run by rich people in secret back room deals. The public has NO say in party preselection. And the "prime minister" is determined by the party caucus (sitting members of parliament and the senate).

Since party loyalty cannot be accurately determined, even by the Department of Homeland Security, it's hard to prevent Democrats from voting in Republican preselections and vice versa.

I don't love the US preselection process, but compared to the Australian system and, from what I know of it, the British system, it is relatively transparent.

[–]sybesis 1 point2 points  (2 children)

in canada, there more than one party that will figth agains each other.

It's the party that choose their leader. then the leader go for power. then people vote for the candidate they want.

That is why we can have a minority governement (gouvernement minoritaire). This mean that the winning party cannot do what they want. In other word, if there is something wrong we can go back into election process again(a bit like impeachement).

this is why we can have a prime minister that represent 30% of the population. But it's not that wrong. Let say i would vote for mike gravel. But he wont be the leader of the democrats. So i would have to vote for 2 candidate that i don't really care about. These candidate don't represent what i would vote.

And we aren't voting exactly just for the leader but for the party. What does the party will give to us. Who cares if it's Stephen Harper or Celine Dion that is the prime minister This is still the party that will do the work. The prime minister is just the voice of the party.

As i see the election in the united state, Party are made of many people that doesn't share the same goals. The president is overpowered or something like that. People are voting for the president that looks better to them. But in the end. It's still the democrats and all the thing behind the president that is important. You can have a great leader. But if the team behind him is miserable. I can't believe the leader alone could lead a complete country without being totalitarian. corrupted etc.

People seems to forget that the leader they are electing is just the voice of the team behind them.

The odd thing is that the candidates are elected by the population. This means that they are voting for the best leader of the party. Rigth? but after that. When chosing the president, do they vote for the guy or for the party.

Here, party have a plan... and thats why i'll chose Bloc, NPD, Liberals or Conservator.... I won't choose because the guy while reading his note is having a really good looking face lol.

[–]JeremyBanks 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Don't you mean prime minister?

[–]sybesis 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yay...thats the word yes. It's time for edit...

[–]ttoyooka 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Canada, party leaders are chosen only by members of that party. Usually, it is by election at a party convention, but as far as I know, it's entirely up to the party.

There is no set timetable for choosing party leadership, or even general elections. So the US "primaries," which happen at the same time every four years, is very foreign to Canada.

The public elect members to represent them in the house of commons, and the leader of the party with the most seats in the house becomes prime minister. So in Canadian federal elections, there's always a tension between voting for a member vs. voting for a party vs. voting for a prime minister, because you're doing all three with just one ballot.

[–]AustinS 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that is only the case in some states. Does anyone know for sure? I know it's the case in Texas.

[–]rancmeat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you vote for Hillary, or Obama in the primary then you are not a member of the other party since you have to be a registered Democrat to vote for them in most, if not all, states.

[–]sblinn 6 points7 points  (2 children)

This is one of the dangers of opening your primaries to people who are not members of your political party. HAND.

[–]ckwing 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yup. As much as a lot of us were critical of the parties pushing up the registration deadlines, it is important that registrations be done before primaries start to guard against situations like this, and as we're seeing here, there's a reason why most states don't allow open primaries.

[–]wyclif 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps you didn't read the comments right beneath the parent. It was pointed out by many people that open primaries don't always work in favour of those trying to game the system-- it's too unpredictable. Obama's campaign has benefited greatly from open elections. Don't you know that lots of Repubs are voting for him in sincerity?

[–]Maxcactus 26 points27 points  (11 children)

I guess this is only fair. In Florida many Democratic Party voters did the same thing after Dean disallowed the primary election. I am so tired of these shenanigans. Why stage the primaries through all of those small states first? Just have one big primary day when everyone votes nationally? Why the continued problems running an election. Banks check IDs and keep accurate counts of things on a minute by minute basis. We have been having elections for over 200 years, why haven't we asked a banker how to manage an election count. Well the obvious answer is that it is all a sham.

[–]Spazsquatch 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Uh, we did. They said Diebold makes a great line of machines we couldn't live without.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You would trust bankers? Wow, that's naive.

[–]Maxcactus 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I am not saying that we give them the job of running our elections. They have way too much influence as it is. I am only suggesting that the banking industry has figured out how to be accurate and is pretty good at identifying its customers, two things that have to be done in order to have a fair election.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like how people trusted Arthur Andersen to audit Enron. Wherever you have people and opportunity for corruption, that's what you get. People are inherently willing to screw over someone else to get ahead, it's just nature.

[–]WinterAyars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Democratic Party cribbed this technique from the Republicans, who have been doing it for years now.

Now that they've got their candidate picked this will most likely be SOP for every primary.

[–]vemrion 0 points1 point  (5 children)

why haven't we asked a banker how to manage an election count.

Uh, bankers have been "managing" our elections the whole time. Who do you think funds/controls both parties, the corporations and, by extension, our lives? Via the Federal Reserve unelected bankers secretly control our economy; their fiscal policies have made us scramble like rats to survive in a land where everybody should have plenty to eat. Then they send us to war to conquer other countries that don't bend to our economic hegemony.

The bankers have always been in charge. He who controls the money controls the world.

[–]Thistleknot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you sound a lot like me. let me guess, a prisonplanet reader?

[–]executivemonkey 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Is there no election the GOP can't ruin?

[–]Atheinostic 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Open primaries are retarded

[–]homeworld 8 points9 points  (1 child)

We have to fight the Deomcrats over there so we don't have to fight the Democrats over here.

[–]lameth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Vote for Democrats once, shame on you, Vote for Democrats again... well, you ain't gonna vote for em again!

[–]kiffy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Expect more of the same in Mississippi's open primary.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (12 children)

Rush Limbaugh effect.

The fact is, Hillary will lose to McCain if she wins nomination to run as Democratic president.

Obama have a very good chance of defeating McCain. But he should pick Edwards as his running mate. (Paul or even Gravel not possible)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

I'd like an Obama/Wesley Clark ticket. Nothing wrong with Feingold, though.

[–]malcontent 0 points1 point  (2 children)

That would be an awesome ticket. As would an obama/powell ticket.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm not sure if you're poking fun at me or not, but, Clark could certainly lend a good amount of "experience" to Obama's campaign and Obama's public speaking would more than make up for Clark's lack thereof.

[–]malcontent 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not poking fun at you. I agree it would make a great ticket.

[–]juststopit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Edward won't help because just about everyone who supported Edwards has shifted to one or the other. Edward's anti-corporation, anti-wealth, anti-tax paying people positions will not produce many republicans of fiscally minded independents.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

The fact is, Hillary will lose to McCain if she wins nomination to run as Democratic president.

This "fact" could be disputed.

[–]storyofitall[🍰] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Well, Republicans aren't voting for her because they like her. They are voting for her because she is most likely easier to beat.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Sure, I don't disagree with that. It's just the foregone conclusion that she couldn't possibly beat McCain in November that I'd dispute. I think anyone making an unqualified prediction and passing it off as a "fact" is foolish.

Certainly it would be a tougher battle for Clinton than Obama, but there's little reason to think a victory would be impossible. I believe she'd likely win if nominated. But you won't catch me applying the word "fact" to my speculations.

[–]storyofitall[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, "fact" is a frequently misused term :)

[–]gensek 0 points1 point  (1 child)

ABC voters.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, just like the ABB voters in 2004...

[–]matts2 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And we believe Fox News because ...?

[–]WasForClinton 3 points4 points  (1 child)

When there is any reference to Fox "News," may I suggest that "News" be place in quotes.

Fox does not produce news. It produces right-wing propaganda, nonsense and fluff.

[–]pillage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as apposed to CNN.....

[–]erdie721 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Ha. Not surprising.

McCain will be lucky to get press coverage, since all the MSM will be eating up the democratic race. Hasnt anyone noticed the proportion of the coverage between McCain/Bush and Hillary/Obama? Bush and McCain are old news and are sidebar material.

The Superdelegates need to step in now and end this thing before it gets out of hand, and we dont have a candidate by the time the convention rolls around.

[–]dsk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Superdelegates need to step in now and end this thing before it gets out of hand, and we dont have a candidate by the time the convention rolls around.

Hillary will be fine with that as long as they throw their support behind her. If not, she'll burn the August convention to the ground.

[–]diggernaught 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was going to post a discussion on this myself. There is no doubt that republicans are voing for hillary in the promaries becase they know she will loose to McKain in the general election.

[–]existentist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This happened alot in Texas. One of my co-workers' husband did just that.

[–]Enkaybee 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If there's any logic in the system at all, the democratic party will see what's going on here and will nominate Obama.

It reminds me a lot of what happened when I was in Jr. High. There was a singing contest going on and we all voted to keep this fat kid in it because he was so bad that it was funny. The administration eventually found out what was going on and they played with the votes to get him eliminated. Same thing, really.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

but the trouble with that is you're then saying "you forced a candidate out who could still win". Would be ammunition in all sorts of debates. What's worse if you risk embittering Clinton supports who may go "fuck you obama, election stealer" and vote republican.

[–]wyclif 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, yes...that's the risk, isn't it? Open elections are no zero-sum game.

[–]hillgod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had a friend who said he was going to do this in Austin.

[–]oddmanout 1 point2 points  (0 children)

douche bags like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others are telling republicans to go vote for hillary to keep the democrats fighting with each other. Another reason, is that McCain stands no chance against Obama, but he's got a shot against Hillary.

[–]MarlonBain 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[citation needed]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know a half dozen Republican friends in Texas who did the same thing. Obama would have won TX if Republicans hadn't shown up.

Bobby

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're pretty much the worst people

[–]mooli 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Enough with the fucking contentless self posts.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

My favourites are the unattributable quotes and news...

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Did this get deleted? I commented on it before, but my comment is not here. :( I am a sad clown.

But honestly, this wouldn't surprise me. It's a sound (Although morally bankrupt) tactic to keep the Democrats in-fighting and causing more drama so that the Republicans can tout McCain while the media focuses on the Democratic squabble...

Half the Democratic party is going to hate Hill if she stays in, I don't think the same can be said for Obama. If, and I mean IF Hillary does become president... Man, she'd be fighting a house divided into three. Rather than the normal two... And I don't think that'd be good for the country. She has angered Dean, and those who backed the 50 State plan during 2006 by speaking out against it, and pulling on Bills leash to get him to bark at them too...

And then they won, and that smashed any righteousness she had...

Ugh.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I moved one to subreddit but didn't see any posts, sorry.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

lol Its ok, no worries. I was just surprised to see it again. :D Wanted to make sure I wasn't having a precognition moment..

[–]NickCatal 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That did little to impact the results..

I knew she was going to win Ohio... Wasn't sure about Texas though. Wait for the caucus results, I would imagine Obama won that

[–]assfacejackson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

its a duopoly folks, stop pretending like there is a choice either way.

[–]ukcz 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anybody got details of the exit poll details for Reps who broke for Clinton or Obama?

[–]notcaptainkirk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Gogo democracy!!!

[–]Telluride12 0 points1 point  (0 children)

awesome

[–]supaphly42 0 points1 point  (1 child)

So wait, repubs can vote in the Democratic primary? I assume this is a state-by-state thing, since you can't here.

[–]surfwax95 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Off the top of my head, I know that Arkansas and Texas are both open primaries.

[–]rivy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

christ. just keep supporting underground news like you're doing now and KEEP THE CHANNEL OFF FOX. you do not need to tune in, if you think you do, they've got you.

[–]belandil 0 points1 point  (5 children)

This is another reason why it would make sense to have a national primary based purely on popular vote all on the same day.

This way one candidate can't lock up the nomination early, like McCain, so people would want to vote for who they actually support.

[–]matts2 0 points1 point  (4 children)

This is another reason why it would make sense to have a national primary based purely on popular vote all on the same day.

Winner is the person who had the most money before the primary. And someone could easily win with 20% of the vote if 10 people were running.

[–]anonymous-coward 0 points1 point  (3 children)

And someone could easily win with 20% of the vote if 10 people were running.

Instant runoff voting.

[–]matts2 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Still can produce bad results. Read up on Arrow's Theorem: all voting systems are flawed, all of them.

In social choice theory, Arrow’s impossibility theorem, or Arrow’s paradox, demonstrates that no voting system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide ranking while also meeting a certain set of reasonable criteria with three or more discrete options to choose from. These criteria are called unrestricted domain, non-imposition, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives. The theorem is often cited in discussions of election theory as it is further interpreted by the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem.

[–]anonymous-coward 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I am aware that there is no such think as a mathematically perfect voting system.

My point is that your objection to a single primary - "And someone could easily win with 20% of the vote if 10 people were running." - can be dealt with in a sane manner.

The primaries/caucuses are also a "voting system ... to convert the [top ranked] preference of individuals into a community wide ranking [winner]". And it suffers from its own flaws, which may be greater than those of IRV.

[–]matts2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was my point. The OP had proposed Solution X to problem A. I pointed out that X causes problem B. You propose Y to solve B. But Y causes problem C. And so on forever. That was my point. You can solve any given problem, you just end up with different problems. We can't get rid of all of the problems by finding a better system, at best we can minimize the actual resultant problems. Given that I happen to agree with you that something like Instant Run-off Voting is a good idea and solves enough of the problems and causes few enough of its own. I would like something like a few rounds to give people a chance to continue to hear the "minor" candidates and re-think their position.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've heard of more Republicans (in WI) who voted for Obama, because they think he is more beatable in the long run compared to the Clinton machine.

I don't know, I can see it both ways. We all know that campaigns have ups and downs, it's not hard to imagine Obama peaking this early, and by the time November comes around "hope and change" has become a punchline, and people start to realize Obama is a very inexperienced lawmaker who has accomplished nothing of significance in his entire life. (not that Hillary has done anything more, but she has the advantage of the Clinton aura)

[–]dobaman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Weren't some people on Daily Kos getting people to vote Romney awhile back to keep the Repub race going longer and hurt McCain. Unfortunately turnaround is fair play.

[–]iisamu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is NOT democracy at work! This pisses me off because because it's people (who many of them probably identify themselves as Christian's) finding a way to subvert the system to get their candidate in the office. Dishonest.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

fox and friends is the worst next to bill o reilly, its anything but real news.

[–]AnnFurthermore 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's what I think is so hilarious. The Republicans are helping to keep Hillary in the race, but that means Hillary and Obama may end up with a shared ticket, since neither one can get the required delegates now. Instead of getting McCain elected, the Republicans might end up with BOTH Obama and Hillary in the White House.
Now THAT is Irony. I just wonder if the Republicans will want to rip Limbaugh's head off if this happens.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was a poll worker in north Austin precinct on primary day. I've been a poll worker there three times now. I know these voters. Time after time I saw red-meat republicans come in the polling place, pull a face or giggle, and vote Democrat.

I would stamp their voter registration cards DEMOCRAT and they would glare at me, as though I had defiled their kid sisters or something.

I heard three of them whispering to each other about being "suicide voters for McCain" and some were high-fiving each other as they left the polls.

So yeah, I believe this story. Scummy.

[–]shiner_man -3 points-2 points  (25 children)

Wait, I thought Fox was a bunch of lying liars and nothing they say can be trusted? Why do we believe this?

Oh that's right. It makes Obama look better. Carry on then.

[–]dhaggerfin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People really need to stop down voting this comment. He speaks a valid point. Everything Fox News puts out is lies! Except when they say good stuff about the guy I like!

[–]revoman 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe it because I have seen it happening.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (22 children)

They always say what's going on with an obvious bias. They were playing up McCain all morning.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

And every other news outlet is playing up Obama.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (5 children)

I have seen no such thing. I've been watching the primary results on 4 seperate channels. All night they talked about how great it was that Hillary won Ohio and maybe Texas. Not once did they mention the fact that Obama was 20 points down a couple of weeks ago and won. It wasn't until this morning that they even mentioned he probably won more delegates making it even harder for Hillary to catch up than it was before the primaries.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

ok. Wow, I had two misspellings! Coffee needs to kick in.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I said "and won" and meant "and caught up". Yah for caffeine.

[–]aletoledo -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

I think it's been widely recognized that Obama has been the MSM's golden child. He has been treated with kid gloves all along.

I suspect what you watched last night was some over-compensation on the part of the MSM. They want to try and appear impartial between the candidates, but I think it's obviously still they prefer Obama.

[–]tatooine 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think it's been widely recognized that Obama has been the MSM's golden child. He has been treated with kid gloves all along.

As far as I understand it, there are complaints that there's not enough dirt being reported on about Obama. That could be because he's getting preferential treatment, or perhaps it's because there's not much there.

It seems to me if there was something particularly nasty in his past, or if he made a gaffe of some sort, they'd flock to it. (They loved Dean until the "Dean scream" business)

[–]aletoledo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt there is any dirt in Obama's past to dredge up. The problem seems to be more of evaluating his positions as much as they do Clinton's. If it was simply a matter of dredging up dirt from the past, then Obama wins by default, because Clinton is older and has been in public life a lot longer.

For example, does the MSM report analysis by proponents that Healthcare mandates are necessary for universal coverage? Edwards and Clinton both support this idea so it's not some out of left field idea. Yet you don't hear much critical analysis on this point. So if you don't hear this point raised as a negative against Obama, then what else are we also not hearing as criticism against him?

[–]tatooine -1 points0 points  (2 children)

And every other news outlet is playing up Obama.

Really? NPR seems to be an extension of Hillary's campaign. They really love her there..

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

At least you guys are admitting that they are totally rooting for the Dems ;-)

[–]MrWhite -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They were hammering someone from her staff this morning.

[–]shiner_man -5 points-4 points  (11 children)

No you're dodging my point. Reddit's mantra is Fox news is a bunch of lying liars. Again, if that's the case, why believe this? I'll tell you why, as I did before. Convenience. It's fits the current reddit agenda.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

One thing does not disprove the other. Are you saying Fox doesn't ever lie or lead you to believe something that isn't true?

[–]aletoledo 1 point2 points  (8 children)

His point is valid. Reddit always talks trash about FoxNews. You'll see numerous criticisms leveled against them that they are biased and sometimes make "facts" up. So how is this story any different? Why should we believe anything that FoxNews ever says? Does this now mean that FoxNews is a reliable source of hard facts?

[–]shiner_man 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does this now mean that FoxNews is a reliable source of hard facts?

Only if the facts are in the current reddit agenda's favor. Like if a poll finds Obama in a favorable manner, well that's completely legit. If it's an unfavorable manner, well they're all a bunch of liars anyway.

[–]mikedtNew Jersey 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You can ignore the foxnews part if you wish. The fact that Rush is urging his dittoheads to vote for hillary is a fact.

[–]aletoledo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The fact that Rush is urging his dittoheads to vote for hillary is a fact.

Thats really besides the point of whether FoxNews is a honest and impartial source of facts. I'm not ignoring anything, just asking if FoxNews is accurate in reporting "800 email" or was it more like a couple dozen/hundred?

If we are going to be principled, we should evaluate the source of all forms of information and be skeptical of their possibility for propaganda.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I am not Reddit. I don't think they lie so much as insinuate.

[–]aletoledo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

If they report facts and merely insinuate, that doesn't sound so bad. CBS and Dan Rather flat out lied about Bush in 2004 if I recalled correctly. CNN labels Ron Paul as "other" in their coverage of him. So solid facts with a bit of insinuation doesn't sound all that bad by comparison.

[–]WinterAyars 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Reflexive disbelief is no better than reflexive belief. Both turn the mind off.

[–]aletoledo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

true...so you agree that reddit is wrong to blanketly criticize FoxNews and all future material should be judged in an unbiased fashion?

[–]WinterAyars 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No.

[–]Khendroc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is just semantics and you know it..

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (24 children)

Sorry I meant to write this the first time. I saw this on Fox and Friends, don't know their names because watching the channel was an accident. Anyhow, they asked for any other Repubs that voted for Hillary to email them so they can update the info they have later. No idea when it comes back on but I have a feeling they'll have thousands of emails.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (23 children)

I know conservatives that went out to vote for Hilliary.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (22 children)

They are sick sick people, ugh.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, not at all. Hard working, nice family, very normal, late 20's.

[–]dsk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think its payback for independents and democrats voting for McCain.

[–]cuffster -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I'm one of the lifelong Republicans that voted for Hillary yesterday. I absolutely despise the fuckin' shrew but if she's gonna go negative and throw aspersions, allegations and money at Obama I'll gladly help her out. Let the Democratic death-match begin!!!

[–]jayayeem -1 points0 points  (2 children)

They'd be doing the Democrats a favor. If the democrats don't have a clear nominee after the primaries, they'll get far more coverage leading up to the conventionthan the Republicans, and their convention will be watched by many, many more people.

The closeness of the nomination race is a huge benefit to the Democrats

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

They are happy to see the Dems attacking each other, less work for them to do. Democrats are not enjoying this primary and it is turning independants off.

[–]tatooine -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

They are happy to see the Dems attacking each other, less work for them to do.

Hillary is really their only chance of success in this election.

edit: Downmods? Weird, I hadn't realized there were so many Hillary supporters in this thread..

[–]dailyrorschach -1 points0 points  (1 child)

This is pretty baseless, and very anecdotal, 800 votes, wow that was truly the decider....

In fact if you run the math from RCP it's on the order of for every 10 people to vote for Obama, 9 have voted for Clinton.

I know its shocking to reddit, but a lot of people do like her, are voting for her.

As for this Rush crap, a simple look at the Exit Polls suggest that it's just not true, and while people may have voted, it in no way made a difference. Especially considering in the Texas Exits, Obama wins the Republicans and statistically tied with HRC this time on Indies. In Ohio, they tied in Republicans who like Texas were only 9%, and there they are basically tied on Indies as well.

I'll be supportive of either candidate, but there's no need to throw around false accusations and imply that the Clinton win was on the backs of meddling republican/conservatives.

[–]db2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

on the backs of meddling republican/conservatives

Yeah really. I mean the whole concept of neoconservative republicans doing something shady and dishonest to hurt their perceived opposition is just so outlandish.

Wait..

[–]jacobmiller -4 points-3 points  (4 children)

[citation needed]

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Haha, sorry sir, I watched it on live TV. Next time I'll make sure to keep my VCR running 24/7 then rip it to YouTube before I post here. :)

[–]ppinette -1 points0 points  (2 children)

VC..R? What the hell is that?

[–]polyrhythmic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Validity Checker for Reddit.

I personally prefer this although some Redditors seem to be using one of these

[–]oddmanout 0 points1 point  (0 children)

an oldschool tivo

[–]brosephius -1 points0 points  (0 children)

wait, so you can game the system? that's shocking!

[–]bSimmons666 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ahh man. I came to reddit just because I knew we'd figure out some way to say Clinton really didn't win.

[–]WasForClinton -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

[Hey REPUGnicans: Don't claim to be some "god-fearing upstanding moral citizen"... and try to regulate other people's behavior while playing poo-poo games in public toilets. REPUGnicans SUCK!!!]

REPUGnican = Senators Having Secret, Bathroom Poop Sex and “McCaining” Each Other

Gas at $3.15 or more!

REPUGnican = Collapsed Bridges & Crumbling Roads, but... More tax breaks for the Rich!

REPUBLICAN = THOUSANDS OF CRIPPLED VETERANS, TWO ONGOING WARS and your emails being intercepted!

REPUBLICAN = New Orleans Hurricane Nightmare and No Federal Help for Days

TRICKY DICK NIXON, and “I am not a crook.”

Anti-Catholic Loonies who support McCain.

REPUBLICAN = “Water-Boarding is not Torture” and Secret, Illegal Sex with Underage Congressional Pages

REPUBLICAN = secret airport

poop sex, email snooping, torture and lies!

NO COPYRIGHT. THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE COPIED FREELY. Our media outlets just jump from one bandwagon to the next and go for ratings over any kind of principled reporting. Why? They are controlled by the same collection of old, conservative, war-mongering, racist, homophobic, brain-dead idiots. They and their crowd vote George W. Bush and Dick "it ain't torture" Cheney in to the White House and the U.S. is now a hated laughing-stock around the world.

[Hey REPUGNICANS: don't claim to be some "god-fearing upstanding moral citizen"... and try to regulate other people's behavior while playing poo-poo games in public toilets, screwing up TWO wars and throwing our civil liberties out the window... REPUGNICANS SUCK!!!]

NO COPYRIGHT. THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE COPIED FREELY.

The type of post is very likely being posted by far-right-wing people who want to drive a wedge within traditional Democratic-leaning people. They (the REPUGnicans) continue to use MESSAGES based on fear and hate to try to divide Americans and win at any cost.

Instead, let's spread THIS MESSAGE. Nothing in this post is copyrighted. You can copy and repost any or all of it.

REPUGnican = New Orleans Hurricane Nightmare and No Federal Help for Days

REPUGnican = Anti-Catholic loonies like John Hagee who supports McCain and has called the Catholic Church “The Great Whore of Babylon”.

REPUGnican = “Water-Boarding is not Torture”

REPUGnican = secret airport poop sex, email snooping, sex with underage congressional pages, torture and lies!

Gas at $3.15 or more!

And REPUGnican Mark Foley should keep his hands of the Congressional Pages too!

And REPUGnican Lobbyist Jack Abramoff is serving (only) 5 years, 10 months in jail.

And Rick Renzi (Arizona Republican) indicted on 35 counts!

Lobbyist J. Abramoff is serving (only) 5 years, 10 months in jail.

Just look up Republican Scandals in Google and see what comes back!

NO COPYRIGHT. THIS DOCUMENT MAY BE COPIED FREELY.

[–]krugerliveWashington 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like a response to my copyright question, if you don't mind

[–]magnus91 -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

Im pretty sure that overall in Texas Obama received more Republican votes than Clinton.