I do, however, think the kind of examination of the past & present voting patterns, as was done by the caller to Stephanie Miller’s show, sheds some light on the subject. I don’t believe a district in TX is going to go from 72% Bush support in 2004 to 20-some percent for McCain and a humongous number for Hillary in 2008. Obviously my references in the last sentence aren’t accurate, but I do think it’s worth taking a look at this. It’s a way of going beyond rumor & innuendo, and I think it deserves investigation, not disparaging.

There are always going to be dumbasses who try to pull stunts in politics — every year. Dems tried to do the same thing in MI with Mitt because it was an open primary. But when you know that both the Obama and CLinton campaigns had internal polling numbers that were telling both of them that Clinton was likely to win Ohio, AND you know that Obama was devoting his best resources to TX, AND you know that Rush Limbaugh is a self-promotion bonanza who also saw a lot of the same poll numbers we were seeing…I just don’t see it as statistically significant on rumor and innuendo and the occasional bit of anecdotal evidence. I want to see someone do a full-out statistical analysis and some real follow-up reporting first.

For one thing, how does the reporter who interviewed those people know for certain they cast a Democratic ballot — or that, if they did, they actually voted for Clinton — and didn’t just say it when they were leaving the polling place to stir up a bunch of shit with Democrats? Because people who listen to Rush Limbaugh never, ever tell a lie? Sorry, without statistical back-up, it’s an anecdotal story with no foundation for me. And the very sort of thing that asshats who want to stir the pot would do.

I’m fine with your not liking her, and I absolutely think you you should use your own judgment in assessing her. I also don’t think you should make accusations you can’t back up, particularly if they’re extremely divisive.

The conversation between supporters is really getting schoolyard, and I think we’re better than that.

Bonkers — please, stop repeating talking points without citing sources for them. Can you empirically show that the Clinton crossover votes are solely because someone wants to throw a wrench in the works? If so, show your data.

Christy, did you see the article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer [I sent you a link this morning]. In it, individuals at OH polling places reported the “throw a monkey-wrench in it” voters.

Also, this morning on Stephanie Miller’s show, an individual called in with an extensive report re TX. She’d researched the Dem vs. Rep voting totals in a number of precincts in 2004 and 2006, and compared those numbers with Tuesday’s. Areas that had gone 60-70% Republican on those prior dates had very small Rep. numbers on Tuesday, and large Hillary numbers.

Anecdotal, I know, but you can listen to the caller on Stephanie’s site. [During second hour.]

I suspect a search of various sources would find more reports of this.

To me, Richard Dorsch simply doesn’t like being (here comes the code) “talked down to” by Obama, simple as that. It doesn’t matter how much experience Obama actually has.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk…..vote_l.php