Conspiracy Theory #9867234 - Would NH Dems throw the primary?

[funky_bug]

So, I'm sitting in my living room watching the post-SOTA coverage on ABC. My screen is lit up with a bus full of NH folk. According to the reporter, four of them are Dems, two are Repubs, and one is an Independant. Five of them raise their hand and say the voted for Bush in 2000, and will vote for him in 2004. That means THREE of the five were Dems/Independants.

I'm screaming at the tv, but they can't hear me.

Then this thought occurs: IF there are self-proclaimed Dems in NH who are Bush supporters, is it a far stretch to wonder if they won't throw their primary support to a candidate they view as weak, in order to assure Bush a victory.

Now my dear husband (who was bruised and battered from his attempts at surpressing my full-bodily rage) tells me that NH folk "think differently" and are "very independant" and would be "logical and responsible" with their vote, putting the best Dem forward.

Please GOD, tell me he wasn't just trying to subdue me.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. is this a preemptive explanation for Dean beating Clark in NH?

seems like it?

[mistertrickster]

2. Question--why do Republicans run attack ads against Dean and only Dean

if they see him as "weak?"

[funky_bug]

12. aargh!

Please tell me exactly where in my post did I refer to any candidate by name?

I'm sorry you're all thin skinned from the latest rash of bash-Dean threads... but I am NOT one of those posters, and I do not participate in "bash the candidate" threads.

I posed a simple question for thought... as unfounded as it may be, it was not an attempt to hit anyone.

[Rich Hunt]

17. it's effective propaganda

They have to discredit the dissent and anger being registered by making it look like only a bunch of fringe hippies are fed up.

[funky_bug]

6. Far from it

If you take a look at my previous posts, you'll notice that I am not one of those "Dean bashers." I will be happy to provide you with links that attest to that fact, as well as names of Dean supporters who recognize that.

It is simply a question. In all honestly, if I had to pick a weak candidate to satisfy this scenerio, I'd go with Lieberman.

[boxster]

3. I think he's probably right.

It would take an extraordinarily concerted effort to do this, and I'm not sure that even the Bush Administration is capable of that, especially in "independent-minded" NH, as Kate Snow accurately described it.

I too was angered (and then disheartened) that their "random" sample of voters seemed so pro-Bush. I cannot believe how many people just cannot see Bush for what he is.

It sounds like we had very similar reactions to their little group.

[lancdem]

7. Something to keep in mind

Perhaps people who don't like Bush didn't really want to be interviewed on TV. Also, keep in mind that Bush lost by more than 500,000 votes in 2000, so at least he didn't gain any votes among that small group (and do we have any way of being sure those Dems were really Dems?).

[funky_bug]

10. Holy God

I think, in my rage I forgot who runs the media 'round here. Thanks! Seriously, you have answered my question in the most simplistic of terms.

:yourock:

[boxster]

16. Yes, you're exactly right.

I found it strange that self-proclaimed Democrats were so readily pro-Bush, and you're dead on target that anti-Bush people likely wouldn't want to be interviewed.

[bowens43]

4. If this were true

Clark's numbers would be rising instead of dropping.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jerseycoa]

13. Edit, Wife

This can get you in trouble: "iggy button"

It's happened to me. :)

[funky_bug]

15. Duly noted. Thanks. n/t

[SheilaT]

5. That's silly.

One of the biggest decisions a lot of these early primary/caucus goers have to make is do they vote for the guy who has captured their heart, or the one they honestly think can beat Bush if those two are not the same.

And as all of us on DU know, there's a LOT of disagreement about who can really beat Bush.

But I really don't think, despite what you saw on TV last night, that a significant number of Democrats in NH will deliberately try to forward the campaign of a man they honestly think won't beat Bush come November. Which isn't to say they'll really come up with the best guy, or that the eventual nominee will win the election. That's an entirely different can of worms.

And a full bus only held five people? What a tiny bus.

[funky_bug]

14. giggle

Yeah... actually, I think the reporter said she had 4 dems, 2 repubs and 1 independant.

You cracked me up.

Thanks to all the posters who b*tch-slapped me back to reality.

[LuminousX]

9. My basic response

They can only put their support behind someone they perceive as the weakest. But that isn't good enough, they actually have to determine who the weakest is of the viable candidates. If it were really that simple to do, wouldn't we also be able to determine who the strongest of the viable candidates is? Would we need to go through this process?

[funky_bug]

11. Good point

You know, I think I was so mad, that I abandoned all logic.

Thanks for returning it via your sensible brain.

[WilliamPitt]

18. A lot of people did that to Bush in 2000

In several states, including my own Massachusetts, people voted for McCain directly to submarine Bush. These were Democrats all, in states where crossover voting was allowed.