A conservative, Hugh Hewitt, is worried about this possible Dem tactic in 2012

[Jim Lane]

Do you remember Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"? He urged Republicans, whose nominee had effectively been chosen, to vote in the Democratic primaries (re-registering if need be) solely to foul up the Democrats' process. He specifically called for votes for Hillary Clinton. I think that was because she was trailing and he wanted the infighting to go on as long as possible, not necessarily because he thought she'd be a weaker candidate.

Now , a right-wing broadcaster, has pointed out that we might do something similar in 2012. It's probable that our nominee (Obama) will be known from the beginning. Therefore, he writes, "the presidential nominating process ... as it stands now is extremely vulnerable to manipulation by hard-left activists of the Democrats who, when 2012 rolls around (or late 2011 given the acceleration in primary season we witnessed in this cycle) will want to advantage President Obama by forcing the nomination of the weakest GOP candidate." He concedes that there would be nothing illegal about such a maneuver. ()

His proposed solution is for the Republican National Committee to demand a drastic re-ordering of the primary calendar. In addition, the RNC should "mandate that ... that New Hampshire will close its primary so that only Republicans so registered by the close of 2011 can cast a ballot...." (There's no explanation of exactly how the RNC dictates a change in law to a state government -- presumably a loss of delegates, which proved ineffective for both parties this year.)

Of course, if we wanted to try this, we'd have to figure out which disgusting Republican to support. Should we back the worst of them, figuring that he or she would be the feeblest opponent? (In 1980 there were Democrats who cheered for Reagan on that theory. The plan didn't work out so well.) Should we back the one who'd do the least damage if elected? Might we try to decide who'd fare worst in the swing states?

Despite these practical problems, it's certainly an interesting idea to kick around. Thanks for the heads-up, Hugh!

[Happyhippychick]

1. I fully plan to do anything and everything I can to fuck up the GOP chances in 2012.

And if that means registering as a Republican so I can vote in the primary, I'll do it.

[crispini]

2. I'm quite confident that Republicans voted in the Democratic primary.

I have contacted a great many of the Democratic primary voters here in Texas and have occasionally gotten the response "I'm a Republican." However, I read an analysis somewhere that said that they pretty much split between voting for Obama (because they liked him, or because they thought he would lose) and voting for Hillary (because they hated her, or because they thought she would lose).

Plus, who really wants to hold their nose and vote in a Republican primary? Not me! I'm a precinct chair, anyway, I'd get kicked out of the party if I did that.

[Colobo]

3. I had no intention of doing such thing, but I will now!

[Pattib]

4. Unfortunately, in FL we have to vote for the party we are registered for...would love to stick it to

the Republicans though. Especially Rush.

[Jim Lane]

7. Same here in New York... but one is allowed to re-register and change parties

In New York, I think you have to change party affiliation before one year's general election in order to vote in that party's primary the next year. Most states, though, are less restrictive. I read plenty of reports of Rushbots who re-registered just before the primary so that they could join Operation Chaos.

[SoCalDem]

10. Change your registration just so Huckleberry wins.. then change it back

:)

[quakerboy]

13. What now?

[csziggy]

15. Yes, but you can change your registration to Republican for the primaries

Then change back for the General Election. As long as you do it at least 30 (29?) days prior to each election, it is legal. Florida does not require any kind of declaration of allegiance to a party to register with that party.

I have in-laws who did this in 2000 & 2004 to try to affect who got the Republican delegates from Florida. It did not work so great for our side, though. I do not know if they did it this time.

[No Elephants]

35. You can always change back.

[Unsane]

5. Go Palin!

[BrklynLiberal]

6. It must be quite a burden to be so evil...and then start projecting your evil on others

and have to figure out how to out manipulate them while they are playing your game...

[nxylas]

8. And now, the good news

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/3491832/Republicans-launch-2012-claims-with-trips-to-Iowa.html

[EconomicLiberal]

9. Sounds like a great idea! n/t

[quakerboy]

11. Lets all register Repub and

make Kucinich the Republican Nominee for 2012.

Now that would be constructive fun

[grantcart]

18. Well we could all help Ron Paul get it - now that would be fun

[Thrill]

12. I'm pretty sure they will have a hard time finding someone to run against Obama

[Jim Lane]

21. No, even with a popular President, the party out of power finds candidates

Consider that in the recent years in which an incumbent President won handily -- 1964, 1972, 1984, and 1996 -- the opposition party had multiple serious candidates and genuinely contested primaries.

Also, I doubt that public contentment with the President will be as high in 2012 as it was in most of those years. The current economic mess can't be fully resolved in four years. We'll be out of Iraq, but it will have an authoritarian, pro-Iranian government. Terrorism will still be a major problem.

The biggest obstacle for the re-election effort will be that too many people will have forgotten how bad the Bush era was.

[political_Dem]

14. Republicans have always done this.

One most notable event was the vote to put Cynthia McKinney out of office in Georgia. In that race, Republicans switched sides in her district to vote for her challenger. This was on the heels of the "Capitol cop" brouhaha.

So, I'm not surprised that Hewitt and the other Republicans are afraid. After all, they created this crap and people are getting wise to their tactics. The GOP can't hide their nastiness any more now that a new system has beaten the Republican machine soundly in the last election. What is even more, they witnessed the anger of folks who had to live for a long time with the results of their dirty tactics.

We, as Dems, should be more worried about the Republicans stealing our 50 state strategy.

[VoodooGuru]

16. Actually I'd say the weakest link would be Romney.

He's an obvious phony, and they don't call him "Mitt the Twit" for nothing.

Palin, for reasons which remain opaque to me, energizes their base, at least the wide swaths of red that get off on being ignorant.

[leftynyc]

32. She energizes the base

but scares the shit out of everyone else. Pubs can't win with just their base.

[Rectangle]

17. Hey Hugh! BTW, How's that book "Painting the map Red" doing??

:rofl: :rofl:

[grantcart]

19. Ron Paul all the way

[camera obscura]

20. Ew, forget it... no way could I stand in a room with those caucus-goers

unless I get a bunch of friends to come with me and vote as a joke... but I'm afraid of seeing someone I know and having him/her think I'm a Repub :yoiks:

[TheKentuckian]

22. I could only motivate to do something like that if was going to stack the deck

truly in our favor like was said above, somehow stick them with Kucinich or the like. I have no idea how to decide which of the actual nutjobs are the most electable or the least threatening. I guess the best gamble would be Mitt but I'm not bothering with that either. Odds are they will screw themselves up far worse than we could.

[Seen the light]

23. This is starting to go viral. I've seen it in plenty of forums.

I say we give Sarah Palin a boost in 2012. :D

[BritishDemocrat]

24. Eugh

Very dishonest. Aren't you more satisfied when you win fairly, with a decent message and honest platform, like this year?

Don't play Republican games, rise above them.

[leftynyc]

33. I agree that it's unethical

and I personally don't know if I could do it (I'll have to think on that). However, sticking it to Rush would be sweet. It was his idea, after all.

[regnaD kciN]

25. O.K., everybody...ALAN KEYES '12!!!!!

:rofl:

[Cheap_Trick]

26. Why not? It worked last time.

At least, that's the only reasonable explanation for McCain. ;)

[tanyev]

27. Ah'm votin' fer Sarah!

[RollWithIt]

28. I am so changing my registration and voting for Palin...Go Palin go! nt

[Alter Ego]

29. There's gonna be enough chaos in their primary

without us fucking with it.

The religious right, the business wing, and the neocons will fight a bloody battle for control of the party, and I guarantee you that the eventual winner will have a harder time uniting the party than Obama did.

[crispini]

39. Quite true.

I'm looking forward to the collective footbulleting.

[leftist.]

30. Chances are that they will do this themselves with Palin.

Thanks for the suggestion Hugh but if you guys stick to Palin (as it appears you are) then that takes the workload off of us :)

[leftynyc]

31. Karma can be a real bitch

Everyone make sure to thank Rush loudly when crossing the aisle during the primaries in 2012.

[No Elephants]

34. Accusing us of planning something they already did? Typical con bs.

[No Elephants]

36. Thing is, though, if I had had to choose the weakest in 2008, I would have chosen either

Huck (for his far religious right schtick) or McCain (for his lack of popularity among Republicans and his age/health), the two who stayed in the longest.

[dsomuah]

37. Well seeing as they did it in 2004 and in 2008 I don't see why not. Sarah Palin 2012!!

[sufrommich]

38. I don't know about you guys, but I'm votin' for Palin ,you betcha. nt

[WinkyDink]

40. ANYbody who is "worried" about ANY eventuality FOUR YEARS from now baffles me. We should ALL live so

long.

[Jim Lane]

42. Generally, I'd agree, but some 2012 issues need to be addressed soon

Hewitt wants changes in the rules concerning primaries. Getting something like that through multiple state legislatures can't be done overnight.

On our side, the obvious example would be voting reform (openness, verifiability, undoing improper purges, etc.). By the time of the Iowa caucuses, those issues will have largely been resolved as they relate to the 2012 election.

[Kingofalldems]

41. This is Hugh!!!111!!