Obama WILL be the next president

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 27, 2008, 5:58 pm

Kaldaur wrote:Lol...I gotcha now, so it randomly puts words together? I thought that was some rant from a Coulter Clone.

Not really random words, random nonsensicle complaints would be it.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » February 27, 2008, 5:58 pm

Xatrei wrote:I would rather discuss the merits / flaws of neoliberal economics or the benefits / costs of climate change inaction with Mid, Funk and Fash than talk about anything with this supertard Noysy. Jesus fucking Christ what a useless shitcock.

That is all.

Love you too baby... Kiss kiss.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » February 27, 2008, 8:08 pm

Midnyte: You're aware that one member of one Obama office put up a Che flag. Once Obama and the rest of his campaign bigwigs found out about it, they said it was unacceptable and had it taken down.

The only issue here is that one person on Obama's staff of (likely) thousands was stupid enough to hang up a Che flag. It also gave us a chance to see whether Obama would support or reject the hanging of a Che flag in his offices (answer: reject). A big picture thinker like yourself should be able to understand what a minor issue that is in the grand scheme of things.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » February 27, 2008, 11:14 pm

Also considering that the group being photographed in "Obama's Houston office" is 'Cubans for Obama'...

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » February 28, 2008, 2:06 am

Sueven wrote:It also gave us a chance to see whether Obama would support or reject the hanging of a Che flag in his offices (answer: reject).

Ah, but did he both reject *and* denounce it?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 28, 2008, 2:27 am

Traz-KOE wrote:
Sueven wrote:It also gave us a chance to see whether Obama would support or reject the hanging of a Che flag in his offices (answer: reject).
Ah, but did he both reject *and* denounce it?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's awesome.

Bagar- · Post by **Bagar-** » February 28, 2008, 5:27 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Traz-KOE wrote:
Sueven wrote:It also gave us a chance to see whether Obama would support or reject the hanging of a Che flag in his offices (answer: reject).
Ah, but did he both reject *and* denounce it?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's awesome.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't actually acknowledge the valid opposing points being made. That's awesome.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 28, 2008, 9:58 am

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299970,00.html

Barack Obama Preaches to Faithful at Nearly Full Megachurch
Sunday , October 07, 2007

ADVERTISEMENT
GREENVILLE, S.C. —

White House hopeful Barack Obama stood in front of a pulpit Sunday and told worshippers that his faith "plays every role" in his life.

"It's what keeps me grounded. It's what keeps my eyes set on the greatest of heights," Obama told members of the Redemption World Outreach Center, whose 4,200-seat sanctuary was mostly full.

Faith, he said, is "what propels me to do what I do and when I am down it's what lifts me up." The Democratic presidential candidate said God "is with us and he wants us to do the right thing," including breaking down the divisions between Democrats and Republicans and among religions.

When people work together, he said, there is "nothing that can stop us because that's God's intention."

The Illinois senator is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.

The service at the center, founded by an International Pentecostal Holiness Church minister, had members on their feet much of the time singing, swaying and raising their hands. Thumping, rock-concert loud music played from a pulpit sometimes awash with fog and filled with a band and choir.

Obama asked the church's members to pray for him and his family. "Sometimes this is a tough role, being in politics. ... Sometimes you can become fearful. Sometimes you become vain and sometimes you will seek power just for power's sake," he said.

Obama told the audience that people ask him, "`What role does faith play?' I say, 'It plays every role."'

Last week, Obama attended services at a black Baptist church in West Columbia and a white Baptist church a few miles away in Columbia.

His campaign is in the midst of what it calls "40 Days of Faith & Family" — an effort to introduce early voting South Carolina to how Obama's family life and faith have shaped his values.

In an interview with The Associated Press last week, Obama was asked about walking the line where politics and the pulpit meet.

"There are no set guidelines or play book. When I go to church, I go there to worship. I am perfectly content to sit and listen to the music and pray and listen to the sermon," Obama said after last weekend's church services.

Other times — such as this Sunday — Obama takes to the pulpit.

In those instances, he said, "my job is to try to draw a connection between the values that I express to the church and the challenges and issues that we face in politics. ... I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing faith in the public square and I think there's nothing wrong public servants expressing religiously rooted values."

More recently, watch the video.

http://www.kbmt12.com/news/local/16082427.html

I think I get the whole Obama thing now. He is the James Baker of politics. He is a preacher a TV evangelist. He's so good he even has the support of atheists. He has you all fooled.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · February 29, 2008, 3:19 pm

Fash · Post by **Fash** » February 29, 2008, 3:33 pm

With Clinton being an evil and corrupt psychopath, and McCain not even having the support of his own party, I'm not seeing many other outcomes here.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » February 29, 2008, 4:46 pm

Fash wrote:With Clinton being an evil and corrupt psychopath, and McCain not even having the support of his own party, I'm not seeing many other outcomes here.

McCain needs a good share of the independents and some of the democrat swing voters to win. He doesn't need the crazy right wingers as they won't be voting for Obama anyway. At worst, they won't vote at all.

Drinsic Darkwood · Post by **Drinsic Darkwood** » February 29, 2008, 11:23 pm

I laughed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk

Nick · Post by **Nick** » February 29, 2008, 11:35 pm

Drinsic Darkwood wrote:I laughed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk

Fucking Brilliant

Edit: Relatively unrelated, but interesting nonetheless. Proof that Obama (and somehow Hickabee) are the most popular amongst the "average" income earner.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 1, 2008, 3:04 am

Drinsic Darkwood wrote:I laughed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe0BPwWAxnk

oh my god that is awesome... this should be on the news right now.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 1, 2008, 3:25 am

Ouch. That's beautiful.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 1, 2008, 2:17 pm

Winnow wrote:McCain needs a good share of the independents and some of the democrat swing voters to win. He doesn't need the crazy right wingers as they won't be voting for Obama anyway. At worst, they won't vote at all.

I think you're really underestimating the importance of turnout. "At worst, they won't vote at all..." uh, yeah. That's a pretty fucking big problem for McCain.

Let's also not forget that the party identification shifts from election to election, and significantly more people now self-identify as D than R, which was not the case a decade ago.

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » March 2, 2008, 4:30 pm

The democrats are raising huge amounts of money, which has always been a problem in the past. Bush's war machine in 2000 and 2004 were money making giants, and they always eclipsed the earnings of Gore and Kerry. It will be interesting to see, come the general election run, if the Democrats can continue that fundraising trend.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 3, 2008, 5:23 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU

Will.i.am has been busy lately.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 4, 2008, 11:30 am

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... media.html

SAN ANTONIO, Tex. - An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he'd spent enough time on the grill.

"Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions," Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. "We're running late."

The Clinton campaign has long complained that Obama gets soft treatment from the press corps. But Monday's exchange was no pillow fight.

The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official - reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama's criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show.

Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.

"When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time," he said. His camp still disputes the memo's account of the discussion.

The questioning then turned to Obama's links to ex-fund-raiser Tony Rezko, who went on trial in Chicago Monday on corruption charges. A reporter asserted Obama hadn't fully answered journalists' questions on Rezko.

Obama insisted he had - during a past news conference with Chicago media. But another persisted that questions remain unanswered, such as ones about fund-raisers Rezko held for him.

Obama replied, "These requests, I think, can just go on forever. ..." He said the "pertinent" information had been provided.

When Obama declared the press conference over, one reporter yelled that he was dodging questions just minutes after claiming he wasn't.

I didn't see the press conference, but I'm amazed at how they can add words like 'angry' and 'exasperated' and make a splash out of the same old story. Does anyone other than Clinton supporters actually care about his dealings in the past with this Rezko character? It's not like there is suspicion of murder or communist ties, like with the Clintons!

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 4, 2008, 12:23 pm

First Read @ MSNBC wrote:Here are a few very plausible scenarios:
Obama could net more delegates out of Vermont than Clinton does out of Ohio.

Clinton can win both Ohio and Texas, 52%-48%, and lose the overall delegate battle tonight, thanks to how both Texas and Ohio award more delegates in African-American heavy areas as well as those crazy Texas caucuses.

Speaking of Texas, Obama likely has a five-point cushion on the delegate front, meaning he could lose the state by five points and still net delegates.

How will the media handle Clinton winning two states but Obama winning the most delegates tonight? Who wins the night?

Bonus question: Who do we reward the state of Texas to if Clinton wins the popular vote in the primary but Obama nets the most delegates?

And finally, for all the talk of bias against Clinton's campaign in the media, does anyone believe any other candidate could have lost 11-straight contests, be this far behind in delegates, and be simply two victories away from being back in the game? One thing the media has done is they've given Clinton every chance she wants to write her own comeback story. She gets another shot today.

She's doing a great job playing the victim... and this guys probably right, if anyone else lost 11-straight they would get no air-time whatsoever. Treat Hillary like she were Ron Paul and see how quickly she fades.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 4, 2008, 1:33 pm

Have to give her credit for playing the media like chumps. She has them overcompensating to prove there is no bias and she has also managed to get her 3am ad played 323244345556 times for free.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 4, 2008, 3:27 pm

lol, I just got this as part of an email from my mom:

Do you know that you will only be casting 2/3 of your vote for president? The other 1/3 comes from the caucuses at each precinct at 7:00 p.m. tonight. If you are voting for Obama, please go to the caucus at your voting place tonight. If you are voting for Hillary….stay home! Haha! If you are voting for McCain, well there is no hope!

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 4, 2008, 5:10 pm

Boogahz wrote:lol, I just got this as part of an email from my mom:

Do you know that you will only be casting 2/3 of your vote for president? The other 1/3 comes from the caucuses at each precinct at 7:00 p.m. tonight. If you are voting for Obama, please go to the caucus at your voting place tonight. If you are voting for Hillary….stay home! Haha! If you are voting for McCain, well there is no hope!

I'm going to my caucus tonight. Curious if other voting Texans participate or not. maybe new thread?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 5, 2008, 12:19 am

Not very pleased to see how Ohio is looking.. idiots. Have hope for Texas at the moment, but still nervous.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 5, 2008, 4:19 am

McCain's going to win the presidency because democrats don't have a clue about how to nominate an electable candidate.

And now Hillary will make the race dirty, further screwing up the democrats while McCain can rest up for a few months. Texas was close but Ohio should be an embarrassment to anyone that lives there or in a neighboring state.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » March 5, 2008, 11:35 am

Obama got absolutely bitchslapped last night. He still holds a strong lead in delegates, but his momentum just took a beating.
Being an Ohio resident, it was fairly obvious Hillary was going to win this state. On monday I had predicted a 10% victory margin.
A couple factors went into that:
NAFTA hit Obama hard. Not the fact that he "opposed" it and wants to revise it. Thats standard democrat talk. Its the fact that while he was stumping in Ohio on the subject, his aides/advisors were up in Canada saying "pay no attention to him. He's just playin those ohio numnutz." Hillary pounced on that. And it worked.
Secondly, over the past two weeks, we have been absolutely bombarded with Obama ads. I swear to god, one of his radio ads ran during EVERY SINGLE COMMERCIAL BREAK on the radio. Thats 3-4 an hour, every hour, every day. He went a little lighter on TV, but still he was everywhere. He even polluted my local papers website. I go to read the paper in the morning and a big old Obama ad is screaming at me from my monitor. He way WAY oversaturated this market. And way WAY overexposed himself. It was a complete turnoff. I just want him to go away! Thankfully its wednesday. And I don't have to suffer thru that anymore......until october.

And I don't know what anyone else thinks, but Obama needs a new speech. When I first heard him speak after Iowa, and again after Super Tuesday, I was in awe of his ability. He is an AMAZING speaker. He inspired and excited. He revved up the crowd, spoke encouragement. Hope and Change. I watched him deliver those speeches and said to myself, "He's got this election in the bag." He is strong. Impressive!

Last night, his speech was dismal. He needs a new one. He's still using the same one and its falling flat. Hillarys was the one that motivated. Huckabees was a great and emotional speech in his concession. McCains was substantive. Obamas was old, flat, rehashed, and uninspired.
He needs to find a way to break out of the college campus rah rah pep rally speech, and dig into substance and reality. The hope and change is losing its effectiveness. People are awakening to the I Believe rhetoric and saying to themselves "yeah great. I believe too. But what are you going to do about it?"
He needs to start offering answers rather than just offering hope.

He'll gain some more delegates in Mississippi next week. But Pennsylvania has Hillary written all over it. If she takes that, then things really start to get nasty.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 5, 2008, 11:41 am

Winnow wrote:McCain's going to win the presidency because democrats don't have a clue about how to nominate an electable candidate.

And now Hillary will make the race dirty, further screwing up the democrats while McCain can rest up for a few months. Texas was close but Ohio should be an embarrassment to anyone that lives there or in a neighboring state.

Democrats are grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. McCain really shouldn't stand a chance in the general election but the most likely outcome now is he will be up against a severely damaged opponent and a fractured if not entirely split democratic party. I already see a lot of posts from both sides stating they won't vote for the other side in the general. This will only get more pronounced the longer it goes.

Forthe wrote:Who would have thought they would re-elect GW. Never say never, them folks down there are a weird bunch

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 5, 2008, 12:35 pm

I live in Ohio and I crossed party lines to vote against Hillary last night to no avail. I predicted she'd take it, but hoped my fellow Ohioans weren't idiots.

I still have a prediction of Clinton vs McCain in the General Election with McCain winning, it just pains me to see "Ohio is for Hillary!" type comments. It makes my stomach turn.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 5, 2008, 12:36 pm

This new twist with Hillary saying she'd consider Obama as her VP/running mate is bad news. It's going to dupe some people into voting for her. People are boneheads and think the VP actually matters after the election. (not counting Cheney)

I can almost see a Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary ticket no matter which way it turns out. Either way, Obama would have to live in fear of his life. You don't want a Clinton anywhere near you in politics.

I'm not sure if a Hillary/Obama ticket would win but it would take some votes away from McCain if that thing uses a black man for gain. If I was Obama, I'd wait four years and run again instead of accepting a token VP position.

At this point, I hope Obama and Hillary destroy each other as I don't want to see that combined ticket. McCain will emerge as the most stable choice, especially with a little help from Bush in international happenings closer to November.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 5, 2008, 12:41 pm

I'm pretty sure Obama has no desire to play second fiddle to Billary Take 3. I'd lose all respect for the man if he did. Better to wait and try again.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » March 5, 2008, 12:59 pm

The only way for Hillary to win is either win all remaining primaries by an avg of 22 points or have superdelegates push her past obama's delegate lead.

The first possibility is highly unlikely, too many people hate her for her to get over 60% of the vote. Maybe if she captures Obama killing puppies on video but even then it would be a struggle.

You would think the second possibility is unlikely as it is party suicide but that is the outcome Hillary is aiming for.

So I figure McCain either:
1) Face Obama after Hillary tears him down for 6 months and many of her supporters hate him for not being a woman. I believe McCain will win, he will get the feminist revenge votes.
2) Face Hillary and McCain will win easily. He will get all the "Hillary stole the primary" vote. Democrats can also bet on losing their core black support.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 5, 2008, 1:32 pm

Ahh, I just looked at the CNN results breakdown and it now makes sense. Obama carried the greater Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland areas, but lost in every other (mostly rural) county.

That whole NAFTA thing about Canada, real or totally blown out of proportion, was taken seriously in this state where there's been a shitload of Job shrinkage to cheaper countries.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 5, 2008, 4:23 pm

Homercles wrote:Obama got absolutely bitchslapped last night.

Ohio wasn't as close as Texas, but it was nowhere near a landslide or a bitchslapping. Considering Obama's campaign analyst guy predicted they wouldn't win TX or OH, I don't see how they got bitchslapped considering how close it was.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 5, 2008, 4:30 pm

I'm starting to agree with Forthe.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » March 5, 2008, 5:29 pm

Ashur wrote:I live in Ohio and I crossed party lines to vote against Hillary last night to no avail.

Interesting, I talked to 3 people in line last night that were republicans voting for hillary because they knew she'd lose in the general election and wanted to keep obama from getting a chance. Also, from secondhand (my father told me) that Limbaugh is campaigning for republicans to do the same.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2008, 5:31 pm

Race and Ohio
March 04, 2008 11:52 PM

Interesting exit poll nugget from Ohio…

If I'm reading this exit poll correctly, 20% of Ohio Democrats who voted said race was important…and they broke for Clinton 61% to 38%.

That's quite an edge.

ABC News polling director Gary Langer breaks it down in an email:

19 percent of whites said race was important in their vote; 80 percent, not important.

25 percent of blacks said race was important in their vote; 75 percent, not important.

Whites who said it was important went 77-21 for Clinton. White who said race was not important went 63-35 for Clinton.

Blacks overall went 86-14 for Obama. Blacks who said race was important, 84-16 for Obama.

Incidentally, the same exit polls indicates that gender was important for 17% of voters…Those voters went overwhelmingly FOR Clinton 62% to 38%.

Those who said gender was not important went for Clinton 54% to 44%.

What do you make of these numbers?

- jpt

Wow. I'm just stunned. I thought Democrats were the enlightened ones. LOL

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 5, 2008, 5:34 pm

Don't care.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 5, 2008, 5:35 pm

They were talking about that on FOX last night, that Rush is telling everyone to vote for Hillary... to keep the Dems attacking each other instead of McCain. I don't like the approach, though... They claim to be unhappy that McCain is the Republican nominee, but how does that translate to voting for Hillary?... It just highlights that everyone is dirty and willing to play dirty to get what they want, the will of the people be damned.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 5, 2008, 5:45 pm

Fash wrote:It just highlights that everyone is dirty and willing to play dirty to get what they want, the will of the people be damned.

A) They don't care
B) It doesn't surprise anyone

I'll never understand the whole 'party line no matter who' voters. Wife's dad is one of them.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 5, 2008, 5:52 pm

Truant wrote:
Ashur wrote:I live in Ohio and I crossed party lines to vote against Hillary last night to no avail.
Interesting, I talked to 3 people in line last night that were republicans voting for hillary because they knew she'd lose in the general election and wanted to keep obama from getting a chance. Also, from secondhand (my father told me) that Limbaugh is campaigning for republicans to do the same.

yeah, there were a couple people in the Clinton group at my precint caucus last night that even said that they were Republicans that voted for her just because they knew she would lose. One even mentioned the Limbaugh story as well. They got some funny looks, but that was about it. I thought it was just energizing to see as many people participating last night while hearing from the people that participate in every caucus talk about normally having about 10 people total.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2008, 5:53 pm

The reason to vote for Hillary and keep it going is so that Hillary and Barack will have to keep fighting each other for a long time now. Probably all the way to the convention in August or September. McCain has shown he isn't really into dirty politics and we know the Clintons are, so by having the nomination up in the air, Hillary will attack Obama viciously and bring out all the skeletons in his closet that McCain wouldn't do. Plus when Hillary does it as opposed to the PACs that would bring these things out, she wouldn't get accused of racism, etc. because the Dems are wonderful altruistic people whom are above such barbaric concepts.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 5, 2008, 5:54 pm

It should surprise people... You're supposed to vote for who you support, period. We're constantly preached to that our vote is important, but there is constant evidence that it's all a colossal joke at our expense.

I'm still throwing my primary vote (away?) on April 22nd (PA) to Paul, because I actually do support him... It means something to me, to cast that vote for myself. I would never cast a vote for Hillary, no matter the circumstances. That's like having gay sex to prove how straight you are... You fail.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 5, 2008, 5:56 pm

Fash wrote:It should surprise people... You're supposed to vote for who you support, period. We're constantly preached to that our vote is important, but there is constant evidence that it's all a colossal joke at our expense.

I'm still throwing my primary vote (away?) on April 22nd (PA) to Paul, because I actually do support him... It means something to me, to cast that vote for myself. I would never cast a vote for Hillary, no matter the circumstances. That's like having gay sex to prove how straight you are... You fail.

I admire your conviction, but like you said yourself, you are throwing your vote away.

Also, your analogy, while funny, is way off.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » March 5, 2008, 6:00 pm

Ashur wrote:I live in Ohio and I crossed party lines to vote against Hillary last night to no avail. I predicted she'd take it, but hoped my fellow Ohioans weren't idiots.

I still have a prediction of Clinton vs McCain in the General Election with McCain winning, it just pains me to see "Ohio is for Hillary!" type comments. It makes my stomach turn.

That is hilarious you say that. At least 5 of my friends crossed enemy lines to vote for Hillary due to the fact that McCain would have a easier time beating her over Obama.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » March 5, 2008, 6:04 pm

I'm voting for McCain in November.

I would prefer that Hillary not make the ballot at all because I despise her.

Again, I predicted it would be McCain vs Clinton with McCain winning.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 5, 2008, 6:18 pm

Why are people even allowed to vote for someone on the opposite party they registered as? I could see maybe in the general election but for primaries and such you should have to vote for someone in your party. This voting for the enemy of my enemy thing just sounds retarded to me.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 5, 2008, 6:22 pm

Ask the states... It varies. In PA you cannot do that, so one of my friends has changed her registration so she can vote for Obama.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » March 5, 2008, 7:13 pm

Aslanna wrote:Why are people even allowed to vote for someone on the opposite party they registered as? I could see maybe in the general election but for primaries and such you should have to vote for someone in your party. This voting for the enemy of my enemy thing just sounds retarded to me.

Technically, you can't. At least in Ohio.
If your registered Republican you get the republican ballot. Regesitered Dem you get the dem ballot.

BUT, you can fill out a form at the voting station to change your party affiliation. And lots of Repubs did that yesterday. It was reported that last night Hamilton county (cincinnati), for the first time, became a majority democratic county.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » March 5, 2008, 7:18 pm

Your democrazy makes me giggle, particularly when you're so keen to "free" other people by exporting it. It would be like Leroy Jenkins opening a school for nub raiders.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » March 5, 2008, 9:12 pm

Aslanna wrote:Why are people even allowed to vote for someone on the opposite party they registered as? I could see maybe in the general election but for primaries and such you should have to vote for someone in your party. This voting for the enemy of my enemy thing just sounds retarded to me.

I don't have to register for any party in Texas, but I can only vote in the primary of one party.