The Dem dilemma in the 2012 primaries - is Sarah the new Sanjaya?

[Brittain33]

Because Obama will not have a serious competitor in his renomination race, Democrats in most states will have the opportunity to take a Republican ballot or reregister as independent or unenrolled and vote in the Republican primary. Call it "Operation Chaos." Would you vote for Sarah Palin in the primaries to enhance Obama's reelection chances?

[Brittain33]

I voted no, with an option to change my mind as events unfold. I don't see anything wrong with people casting a legal vote but I don't think I know what the best choice is to help achieve my policy goals in the long-term. And heaven forbid she gets the nomination and Obama does so poorly that she actually becomes President.

[xavier110]

I may be in New Hampshire in 2012. If I am, I will probably vote for her in the primaries (unless Obama has a legit primary challenger or there is someone remarkably competent in the GOP primaries).

[RIP Robert H Bork]

I'm not a Democrat, but I'd vote no because:

1. it's unethical/unfair
2. it can actually backfire. What if you help Palin get the nomination, and she actually beats Obama because he's very unpopular?

[useful idiot]

She's not going to win the nomination on the backs of Democrat votes (or anything else). She has about as much of a chance of winning the nomination as Ron Paul. We forget that there's going to be a 9-10 month campaign before the Iowa caucuses, with a dozen debates. If Thune, Huckabee, Daniels, and Gingrich are in the race she's going to get pounded (and not in a good way). Even smart guys who don't have a chance like Santorum are going to wipe the floor with her in debates.

If you don't live in one of the first few states, you might not even get the chance to vote for her while she's still in the race.

[xavier110]

She's not going to win the nomination on the backs of Democrat votes (or anything else). She has about as much of a chance of winning the nomination as Ron Paul. We forget that there's going to be a 9-10 month campaign before the Iowa caucuses, with a dozen debates. If Thune, Huckabee, Daniels, and Gingrich are in the race she's going to get pounded (and not in a good way). Even smart guys who don't have a chance like Santorum are going to wipe the floor with her in debates.

If you don't live in one of the first few states, you might not even get the chance to vote for her while she's still in the race.

I think you're seriously underestimating Palin. She has a bloc of primary voters who will support her regardless of what she does and she can easily play the victim/gender card, portray her opponents as insiders/"members of the old boys' club," etc.

She has a lot of cards in her deck, and it helps that the supporters of those who may not seek the nomination (like Huckabee) are closer to her in ideology than, say, Romney.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

Dems: How would you like it if all of us Republicans voted for Alvin Greene in the Dem primary? What if, for the sake of the example, Alvin Greene won the Dem primary as a result?

Voting for a weaker opponent in your opposing party's primary is, as TrueCon stated, unethical and unfair.

[Brittain33]

Dems: How would you like it if all of us Republicans voted for Alvin Greene in the Dem primary? What if, for the sake of the example, Alvin Greene won the Dem primary as a result?

Voting for a weaker opponent in your opposing party's primary is, as TrueCon stated, unethical and unfair.

It doesn't work if you choose someone who isn't a viable candidate already. I don't care if you vote for Alvin Greene in 2012; no more than a tiny minority of people will do so. Sarah Palin is a viable candidate with a very dedicated pack of supporters who are not a majority of Republican primary voters, but could be a plurality.

I didn't make this idea up. "Dems" certainly didn't, although it's not a Republican thing. Rush Limbaugh bragged of Operation Chaos in 2008. Before that, there was Geoff Fieger in Michigan, followed up by Dems voting for McCain in the Michigan Republican Primary in 2000. If the opportunity presents itself, people will try.

[tmthforu94]

First off, please don't compare Sarah Palin to Sanjaya. That's simply insulting to him.

While I'd hope it wouldn't be done, I don't think I'd have a right to complain about it, given that I persuaded a lot of Republicans back in 2008 to vote for Hillary in the primaries, and a lot did. Hillary Clinton won the Indiana primary thanks to Republican voters.

[Poundingtherock]

Of course, a hack Murkowski supporter such as yourself is assuming those GOP voters wouldn't have voted for Clinton over McCain.

Keep in mind that she would have defeated McCain by 11 points per the exit poll.  There really weren't any Obama voters who would have voted for McCain over Clinton but there were a good number of mcCain voters who would have voted for Clinton over McCain.

the democrats actually nominated one of the weaker candidates in 2008.

[Хahar 🤔]

Why would it be unethical?

[Oakvale]

I don't know if it's unethical - although it's slimy and the kind of thing Rush Limbaugh wanted people to do on the other side of the aisle.

It is foolish though - no election's a sure thing, after all. Even against someone as hilariously unelectable as Palin.

[Lief 🗽]

God no. I don't want it to be written down somewhere that I once voted in a Republican primary.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Not a Democrat (and I opposed this in 08 when Republicans did this) but I think this would be wrong.

A vote in a primary is a vote of confidence in who you would support as the party's nominee - not an avenue for real life trolling, political style. sh**t like this makes me want to support closed primaries.

Also, in doing this, you guys still are technically voting for Palin.

[Mr. Morden]

Has there ever been a clear cut case in which it's thought that the scale of "mischief" of this sort was big enough that it actually tipped a party nomination towards a particular candidate, who wouldn't have otherwise won?  I don't mean for the presidency.  I mean a party nomination for any office.

And I'm talking specifically about people voting for who they think would be the weaker candidate of the party, not who they actually like.  There are many cases in which people cross party lines to vote for someone they like.  But what about cases in which enough people crossed over into the other party to vote for the weaker candidate, and it actually made the difference?

[Brittain33]

Two examples from Michigan: Geoffrey Fieger in the Dem gubernatorial primary in 1998 and McCain in the Republican presidential primary in 2000. McCain got votes in places with close to zero Republicans because of an organization called "D.O.G.G. Engler," Democrats wanted to get back at the Republican governor who called himself a "pure asbestos" firewall for Bush against McCain.

We'll never know for sure if Limbaugh engineered some tiny margins for Hillary Clinton in late primaries or not. If he did, he gets credit for delivering North Carolina and Indiana to Obama in the general election by forcing him to build up an organization in those states for the primaries.

[Mr. Morden]

McCain got votes in places with close to zero Republicans because of an organization called "D.O.G.G. Engler," Democrats wanted to get back at the Republican governor who called himself a "pure asbestos" firewall for Bush against McCain.

I remember that.  But they were doing it to embarrass Engler, not to get a more easily defeatable opponent in the presidential election, so it's a bit different.  And I would also imagine that McCain would have been a more palatable president for those Dems than Bush.  I would guess that it would be harder to organize a large group of Dems to vote for someone they utterly despise (as would likely be the case with Palin).

[Brittain33]

Yeah, I have no idea if any large number of Democrats would do it and I share your skepticism that anyone would seriously organize such an effort. I was thinking it would be a matter for individuals to talk about, because why not?

[pbrower2a]

Sarah Palin has done far too much to coarsen the level of political discourse in America. Even if she lost she would do even more to coarsen the level of political discourse, with harm lasting perhaps into the 2020s even if she never ran for another political office.

It is best that President Obama face the strongest opponent that he could possibly face so that he can better hone his appeal for a second term.

[Smash255]

No.  It wouldn't work, no more than a handful of people will do it, much like when Limbaugh tried to get his listeners to vote for Hillary in the Dem primary because he thought she would be easier to beat than Obama.

[Bull Moose Base]

I seem to recall Rush wanted Obama as nominee but wanted to drag out the primary so advocated Hillary votes when Obama was ahead.  Anyway, I agree it wouldn't work.  Democrats will just have to wait and see who gets thrown at 'em.

[TomC]

I would likely vote in the Dem primary, and I would not vote for someone in the GOP primary just to make the Dem chances better. And Sarah Palin is in many ways, not my kind of conservative candidate. I do not like many things she stands for.

But on the other hand, there are a lot of things I like about Sarah Palin. She is not an establishment candidate- she brings something fresh yet understandable to the political stage. She has character- that is, she knows exactly who she is and does not apologize for it.  She is far from the fairly stale but looong line of wasp males we have seen dominate American politics. Though she is ever present in the media, she is in many ways an underdog because so many underestimate her by piling on every mistake she makes and ignoring the many PR moves she gets so very right.

Am nowhere near her on many issues, but as a political junkie, one who likes the drama of elections as much as if not more than actual policy acheivements, I could certainly see myself rooting for Sarah Palin to be the GOP nominee.

[TomC]

No.  It wouldn't work, no more than a handful of people will do it, much like when Limbaugh tried to get his listeners to vote for Hillary in the Dem primary because he thought she would be easier to beat than Obama.

I recall his reasoning was that if the Democratic primary were prolonged, it would divide the party more seriously- more hard feelings and less time to heal the wounds- and that the longer Hillary and Bill went after Obama, the more he would be damaged goods in the general. It was not that he thought Hillary would be easier to beat- in fact with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayres stuff, Limbaugh seemed to imply Obama would be easier to beat.

[Poundingtherock]

A lot of these Obamabots don't recognize that a lot of those Republicans would have supported Hillary against McCain.  Hillary didn't win Ohio and Indiana because of Limbaugh as Plouffe claims.  Plouffe is the same moron who claimed that Texas was trending blue and that Arizona would be close.

Face the facts, you guys nominated your weakest candidate.  You guys should have won by around 11-13 points in the environment and won a lot more states than Obama did.  There are barely any Obama voters in 2008 who also wouldn't have voted for Clinton whereas the opposite wasn't true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why would I waste my time voting in a Republican primary, when Obama needs to be primaried?