Why Does Barack Obama Want Republicans to Vote in a Democratic Primary?

[DemKR]

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, a red state Blue Dog Democrat has endorsed Barack Obama for the Presidency. Senator Obama Has Made no Secret that he wants Republicans and Independents to Vote in the Democratic primary.


Kent Conrad's voting record, snipped from OntheIssues.org:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Kent_Conrad.htm

# Rated 43% by NARAL, indicating a mixed voting record on abortion. (Dec 2003)
# Rated 25% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
# Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
# Rated 56% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
# Rated 75% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)

# Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
# Rated 70% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rated 50% by CAF, indicating a mixed record on energy independence. (Dec 2006)

Rated 53% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)

Rated 50% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)

# Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
# Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
# Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)

# Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)

# Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
# Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
# Religious affiliation: Unitarian. (Nov 2000)
# New Democrat: "Third Way" instead of left-right debate. (Nov 2000)
# Member of the Senate New Democrat Coalition. (Jan 2001)
# Rated 33% by the AU, a mixed record on church-state separation. (Dec 2006)

[DemKR]

1. Just look at Barack Obama's ad

He Makes it Very Clear his desire for "Republicans" to get involved in the electoral process in OUR primary.

[Nailzberg]

7. That's a good thing.

I've been trying to convince this one Repub friend of mine for years that our party is the only part that really cares about the middle class and the issues affecting her. She's done her reading, looked at Dems, and now she wants to vote for Edwards.

Convincing moderate repubs and independents to vote for Democrats is a good thing, I don't know why you think it's not. You must have loved being the minority party.

[jwirr]

26. I want them to vote in the general election not take over our party. nt

[Nailzberg]

31. chalk one up for the party of inclusion.

There's lots of Repubs out there who just grew up Repub, never understood why. They're actually quite liberal on many issues. I want to bring them into the party. We're a better choice on health, education, the economy, foreign policy, we're better choice for them.

Do you just want to get a swing voter, or do you want to get people to start identifying with Democrats.

[sniffa]

2. probably to siphon votes away from Hillary

[Nailzberg]

3. Good thing I don't have to vote for Conrad

[rodeodance]

6. yeah, I will take Feingold any day!

[earthlover]

4. So...is Kent Conrad now running for President or are you just trying to smear Obama

by associating him with one of his endorsers?

It might surprise you, but part of what it means to have bi-partisan appeal is to reach out to independents and dissatisfied Republicans.

If we take into November a strategy of NOT getting their votes, there is one guarantee: we lose! Unless some of the folks who voted for Bush last time vote for our nominee, we won't have a chance of winning a steal-proof victory.

So let's start right off the bat and criticise a Democratic candidate for having exactly the type of appeal that we need in November! That'll work.....sarc

The sad and ironic thing is that we give up more for Hillary...she has supported Bush and the Repubs on Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman and on many issues, she buddies up with Rupert Murdoch, has more corporate health care doners than even any of teh Republican candidates...in short, Hillary is the most conservative of our candidates, but she will NOT get any cross-over votes in the election because the Republican slime machine will paint her as a wild-eyed liberal and rally all of them to the polls against Hillary. While Obama quietly has more of an appeal to independents and cross-over Republicans and at the same time is more progressive than Hillary.

[DemKR]

11. so you want Republicans to choose our nominee ?

[earthlover]

16. You're putting words in my mouth...typical of the Hillary Herd I might add

No, I want the Democratic nominee to win in November and defeat the Republicans. We cannot do this, however, without winning over independents and cross-overs.

Hillary will not appeal to these voters as well as Obama. Obama's more positive message will increase voter turnout, Hillary's not so much.

Hillary cannot even count on the left wing of our party, because many of them view her as so corporate-owned they would likely vote for Nader or just sit out the election.

So what we would have is a candidate who only unites one party: the Republicans.

I have not heard any candidate make a public statement saying they did not want any cross-over votes from the independents or disaffected Republicans. Not Hillary, and you can bet anything she wasn't thinking about being pure when she was kissing Rupert Murdoch's arse.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

35. Uh, yeah, actually. For the reasons that earthlover so aptly described.

Newsflash: Democrats are not the majority of American voters. That means...now try to follow along here...that we need to pick up some Independent and maybe even R votes!

Of course, it would help if we weren't running the candidate who absolutely will bring the MOST Republicans out to vote for the opposition! But perhaps we can't have everything.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[sniffa]

9. this deserves it's own thread

go for it. :thumbsup:

[madrchsod]

13. "obama busses al-qaeda to vote in iowa"

go for it.....

[earthlover]

19. And you and your candidate would bring Fear Mongering of al queda if it would get her more votes!

Just like Bush used fear to get more votes for the IWR, I might add.

I think we need to argue our policy differences without emotional appeals to fear. We are supposed to be better than that....

If you want the politics of fear, you are in the wrong party.

[wyldwolf]

8. For the sake of consistency, Obama supporters should not be thrilled with this endorsement...

...for the sake of accuracy, Conrad isn't a blue dog.

[madrchsod]

10. why not?

i think we still have a choice in america to vote for who we want . that still includes republicans does`t it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Lots Of Stuff To Roast Obama On But This Isn't One Of Them...

Conrad is a blue Senator from a red state and he is endorsing Obama; Obama is not endorsing him...

[DemKR]

23. its just an example. kent conrad is as 'washingtonian' as it gets.

[Didereaux]

14. another BO mistake based on insufficient thought...

These cross-overs in the primaries have historically voted for the WEAKEST candidates. Barack is starting to drink his own 'Hopeful' Kool-Aid. Sad really, but not unusual for less experienced politicians who are running high in 'popularity'. Happens all the time to celebrities, they get to listening to their own PR.

[DemKR]

15. The fact taht Republicans like Obama so much is what alarms me

[Didereaux]

17. quite reasonable to like your weakest opponent! We hope Huckabee gets the nom, right?

[NYCGirl]

18. Conrad's Republican now? That'll come as a big shock to him.

The fact that Republicans and the more left-leaning Democrats hate Hillary so much is what alarms me.

[sniffa]

20. this concerns me

[NYCGirl]

21. Make it work!

:rofl:

[sniffa]

24. Andre, every time I take you to the Red Lobster we get into a fight

and you run off to the bathroom crying. We have to make this work.

:hi:

[NYCGirl]

27. Sniffa...

:yourock:

[earthlover]

22. The fact that Hillary fires up the Reps to vote against her and unite concerns me

Hillary is the Reps' only hope of winning in November. She not only cannot reach out to independents and cross-overs, she will get them fired up to vote in droves against her.

We need cross overs and independents to actually win this thing in November. Reminder: unless some folks who voted for Bush vote for us, we lose. Get it yet?

You illustrate why your campaign will have a difficult time. These folks are not going to be more likely to support us if you beat them over the head.

The Reps are licking their chops for a hillary candidacy. Their only chance.

[mtnsnake]

33. Only on DU can Hillary be a Republican lite on one hand & the antithesis of Republicans on the other

Hillary is the Reps' only hope of winning in November

There are more people who think that that honor belongs to John Edwards, not Hillary.

[earthlover]

38. It's not so hard to understand....Hillary is perceived as a wild-eyed liberal by the right....

We, of course, know that is not the case. In reality, Hillary has over the years compromised or triangulated just about every liberal principle there is. Hillary feels that she has to talk tough on defense otherwise she will look weak, that is why she talked tough on IWR and Kyl-Lieberman.

But from day one, Hilary has been perceived as quite the radical liberal. It is this Hillary that the right will campaign against in November. It is this Hillary that will scare the bejesus out of all the Reps and drive them to the polls in record numbers to vote against her (in a year that they are otherwise without a clear direction due to the poor poll ratings of Bush).

So yes, because she has had to try to fight her "liberal" reputation, she has triangulated everything to the point of being the most "Republican" of Democrats....yet at the same time, because of this "liberal" reputation, she will unite the Republicans at the polls in November. It's perception that rules...and Hillary is perceived as liberal, although the reality is she is not.

[jwirr]

25. That is the big problem with the Iowa primaries. They are a crossover

state and local parties can easily inter fer with candidate selection. As a former Iowan that is the last state I want to see leading the way down the road. Their caucus system has little to do with who is selected - most do not attend - and their primaries do not necessarily reflect a party choice.

[NYCGirl]

28. Except that the person with the voting record the OP quoted is a DEMOCRAT.

And he's endorsed Obama.

[MadBadger]

29. He's A Democrat dumbass

Dumbass,dumbass, dumbass, dumbass..

[Jim Sagle]

30. Because he IS a Republicon.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Wow, you sound as if he co-sponsored the IWR and voted for the Patriot Act!

Like Edwards did.

[chascarrillo]

34. Don't tell anyone, but...

... I hear Obama wants Republicans to vote for him in the General Election, too!

Shhh...

[Perry Logan]

36. Oh, why even bother to talk about this guy anymore?

[Old and In the Way]

37. What I will find of great interest in Iowa is

how the total votes split between Democrats and Republicans. That could be quite telling about how the voting public is sizing up the 2008 election.

[TwilightZone]

39. Conrad is a Democrat. Most of the upper Midwest Democrats are moderate, out of necessity.

You don't get elected in a red state as a Democrat unless you're moderate. Ben Nelson, for example.