I read that our former Governor shied away from predicting a win here in his ‘home’ state last week, and got to thinking that some independent voters are on to something. So much so that I’m considering voting in the Mass presidential primary against Mitt Romney – to deny him a win in the state that he has derided so much on the campaign trail.
I’ve been a registered Democrat for as long as I can remember. I don’t usually make it a habit of voting in Republican presidential primaries, but I think this opportunity might be too good to pass up. By the time the Massachusetts primary rolls around on February 5th, Clinton or Obama will have the nomination wrapped up, and plenty of voters will still go to the polls for them.
Researching this a little, our ‘modified closed primary’ system here allows registered Independents to vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, without formally committing to either party. You just go to your regular polling place, give your name and ask for one ballot or the other. According to the Secretary of State’s Office, you must be registered to vote and enrolled as an Independent by this Wednesday (January 16th) in order to exercise this option.
If Romney wins in Michigan – and in all likelihood he will – his campaign will have the momentum it’s been so desperately looking for since his second-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire. A Michigan win puts Romney back on the front pages, gives him a good fundraising boost, and most importantly, allows him to stay in it until Super Tuesday. February 5th. Our primary day.
This might be a wild stab in the dark. Wishful thinking. But, I don’t think that I can stand by and let Mitt Romney, our ‘Governor-by-press-release’ with his eyes always on the White House and never on Massachusetts, win the state that he used only as career opportunity.
I think public service is a calling, not a place to pad your resume.
If Romney is so inconsequential, why are Democrats suggesting interfering in GOP primaries, just to work against him?
<
p>What are you scared of?
<
p>And you are certain you want to cede the Democratic primary to She Who Must Be Obeyed? (not that I have any particular problem with that…)
Most of the proposed “interference” suggests voting for Romney, on the theory that he’s a non-viable candidate, so keeping him in the race as long as possible is good strategy for the Dems. I don’t see fear; I see well-deserved derision.
What’s next, you’ll be telling her the secret handshake?
…to be able to say, See? It was only DEMS voting for Mitt, GOP’s didn’t vote for him at all.
<
p>When Mitt wins, watch this storyline surface.
<
p>If he REALLY wanted to screw up the race, he’d be plugging the unelectable Huckabee. Instead, he just wants to torpedo the most viable candidate.
<
p>BTW – I heard an interesting take on coverage on this race on a radio show here in Maine with Jackie Mason (Who knew?). A woman pollster who had predicted Hillary’s victory was on, and Mason asked why the other polls were so wrong.
<
p>She replied that there are professional pollsters – Rasmussen, Zogby, Gallup, et al – who do polling for a living, and news outlets – CNN, ABC, MSNBC – with limited expertise and some free cash and empty air who have decided to do their OWN polling – and THOSE are the polls that were wrong. It’s an interesting point. Go to RCP, and factor out polling by networks, and outcomes change. And let’s face it – networks have an agenda, a bias, towards the best story, not the most accurate one. Otherwise, why is Hillary an amazing victor with a 3 point win, and Mitt finished with a close 4 point loss?
Target somebody by…telling people to vote for them. Brilliant. I’m sorry, maybe this reasoning would be valid if the race was a runaway for Romney, and Kos (I don’t know why it’s particularly important what his personal motives are, but anyway) wanted to poison the victory, but come on. You’re simply not going to torpedo a candidate in a close race by telling people to vote for them. Dems will not vote for Mitt Romney out of fear for Mitt Romney.
From CNN.
<
p>McCain had 37.9% and Romney had 32.2%.
<
p>It wasn’t a 4 point close loss your number is off by 40%.
<
p>Translated: I really support my candidate Romney and he really needs to win in Michigan, but don’t any of you DEMS vote for him in this crucial primary because….because…. even though a win in that state may make or break my candidate. Ya got that! Don’t vote for my candidate!
<
p>
I don’t see the Dems (myself included) as being scared of Romney in any way, shape or form. He’s going through enough just trying to overcome his terrible flip-flopping and opportunism. I guess I feel strongly enough about him using our state as a staging ground for a presidential run that I ultimately don’t feel he deserves our votes. Moreover, he deserves an effort to debunk his claims that he was a good Governor for this state.
<
p>I don’t follow Kos, honestly. If he’s claiming that Romney is a far-fetched candidate for the GOP in the general election, I might tend to agree. But my personal preference is to stop him dead in his tracks. Something that says “Even the Republicans and Independents in this state don’t want you to be President.” While not altogether true if this ‘movement’ takes off, it has the advantage of removing a phony from an important election.
I used to like Edwards. Now his rhetoric is overboard. I’ll concede the point. Being a Dem though, I’d vote for Barack or Hillary in order to sink Edwards.