Limbaugh Telling Listeners: 'Vote for Hillary'

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Despite all the crap polls people have been shoving in my face recently saying Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain, and all the hate posts I've gotten lately, I'm surprised that it doesn't look like anybody's posted this as of yet.

Watching the media over the past few weeks, they've gone from thrashing Obama & his acquaintances, to how tough Hillary is. They're using their pull to lessen Obama's chances and improve Hillary's, all the while posting polls that show Hillary as being the better opposition to McCain; HOWEVER...

The actual news sources seem to KNOW they're full of it when they show those polls because Rush Limbaugh has been telling his listeners to vote for Hillary. Why oh why would he do that if Hillary REALLY had a better chance to beat McCain?

Here's the link: www.newsmax.com...



It may be sound unbelievable, but conservative Rush Limbaugh is urging Republicans to cross party lines this Tuesday in primaries in Ohio and Texas and vote for Hillary Clinton.

“Remember what this is, this is about us winning. You have to understand, it's not about Hillary winning; It's about us winning. It's about our party winning. It's about those people losing. They've got some problems in the Democratic Party. It's not all sweetness and light over there . . .





[edit on 5/5/2008 by bigbert81]




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
And here it is people, straight from the horse's mouth:



RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically


SRC: www.foxnews.com...



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Limbaugh and co. want Clnton to get the nomination because they think she will be easier to beat in November than Obama. They're running scared of him, and well they should. But I don't think McCain would be a slam-dunk against Hillary either. The Republicans will probably only succeed in stretching the Clinton-Obama contest out longer. They're playing with fire.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Sestias]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bigbert81
 


Hey bigbert,

I think the negatives far outway the positives when looking at a candidate such as Clinton.

Her polling numbers show a better than 50% unfavorable by likely voters. Rush knows exactly what he's doing in kicking his listeners into a frenzy. Clinton's negatives are so high compared to Obama's, the pundits realize the general election will be far bloodier than the primaries.

McCain beats Clinton quite soundly because of her checkered and varifiable track record. Obama brings nothing positive or negative to the general election and quite frankly would pose a viable threat to the GOP.

Either way it'll be fun to watch!

Becker



[edit on 5-5-2008 by Becker44]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Becker44
 




Her polling numbers show a better than 50% unfavorable by likely voters. Rush knows exactly what he's doing in kicking his listeners into a frenzy. Clinton's negatives are so high compared to Obama's, the pundits realize the general election will be far bloodier than the primaries.


Where were you when I started my last thread?

I sure could've used a quote like this to help people understand what I was trying to say instead of it getting WAY off course.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
And here's a little video for anyone who decides that they want to start questioning the more recent polls we've been seeing regarding Hillary supposedly being better to fend off McCain:

And it's done by a REPUBLICAN! (Luntz)







[edit on 5/5/2008 by bigbert81]



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Never believe polls. That rule holds true for supporters from both sides, GOP & Dems. Far too many opportunity to fudge the numbers through carefull participant selection and pigeonholing questions asked of those polled.

We don't need polls to tell us why Hillary Clinton would lose to John McCain, especially after the events we've seen transpire over the past few months. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination (which I believe she will) it will result in hundreds of thousands of black voters, feeling disenfranchised and screwed over, staying home form the polls. Historically, when dealing with the Dem candidate winning the presidency, those black votes have been a major component of the difference. Combine those lost votes with the huge percentage of GOP voters who wouldn't urinate on Hillary if she was ablaze, and you have a pretty solid victory by John McCain.

Barrack Obama doesn't come with the surety of disenfranchised voters. I'm sure some Clinton supporters will automatically vote against him in the general election, feeling sore over their cnadidate not getting the nomination, but that number won't apparoach the effect she'd have on the black vote. BUT, I think the moderate democrats are a toss-up at this point. Between the patriotism questions, religious concerns, and appearance of some very socialism and activist viewpoints Obama espouses, I'd expect a number of moderates to shift over to McCain's side provided he doesn't stick his foot in his mouth or do something to make them dislike him.

They can blame Rush for this if they want, but it's all on their own shoulders. Last year this presidency was essentially handed to the Democrats on a silver platter. The GOP field sucked (In the interest of full disclosure, this is a die-hard far right conservative saying that.) and the current administration left the average American with a desire to try a different direction. Instead of finding a traditional, supportable, moderate Democrat candidate, the party decided to make a statement and it has backfired on them. While it might sound nice on paper and make some folks feel all warm and gooey inside, now wasn't the time for them to try and get a historic candidate into the office. But hey, I've certainly enjoyed watching them act out the King Soloman & the one living baby Bible story in front of our very eyes.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




We don't need polls to tell us why Hillary Clinton would lose to John McCain, especially after the events we've seen transpire over the past few months. If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination (which I believe she will) it will result in hundreds of thousands of black voters, feeling disenfranchised and screwed over, staying home form the polls. Historically, when dealing with the Dem candidate winning the presidency, those black votes have been a major component of the difference. Combine those lost votes with the huge percentage of GOP voters who wouldn't urinate on Hillary if she was ablaze, and you have a pretty solid victory by John McCain.


Yep, and it's things like this which is what they mean when they say 'tearing the party apart'. This has been a historic, bloody battle, and I think we haven't seen half of it from people's retaliation just yet.

However, I don't think Hillary will get the nomination unless she cheats (Fla., Mi.)



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
‘Operation chaos’ is what Limbaugh is calling his bid to get Billary nominated. I call it ‘operation get Billary elected‘, and he’s far from the only ‘conservative’ talking head doing their best to make this happen. I think that the big money PTB know that it’s going to take every MSM minion in their employ to get their girl in the white house, and the presstitutes are all pulling together to make it happen. It’s going to be interesting to watch it work.



posted on May, 10 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


And what's so funny about it, is that they try to show people polls that say that Hillary now has a better chance of beating McCain, all the while telling their loyal listeners and watchers to vote for Hillary, even though they're pro-GOP.

Rupert Murdoch is a punk!





new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join