Republicans and Independents are less likely to vote for Clinton than Obama or Edwards

This is what I am told by Republicans and Independents I talk with -- and yes, I am married to a Repub and have many Repubs and Independents in the circles I encounter (Hey, I live in Nevada, okay).

Case in point: My MIL is a newly registered Dem, having been a Repub all her life. She and I attended, of all things, a Hillary caucus meeting the other night, but she is not a Hillary first supporter. She's a Richardson supporter and an Obama second supporter. She did say that she'd vote for whomever wins the Primary, but she has a great distaste for Hillary. The only thing keeping her from voting Repub is Bush & Co. for 8 years and the bozo-Repugs currently running.

Repubs have a great tendency to vote against things in large numbers -- they can be motivated by the negative. Are they more likely to vote against Hillary if she wins the Primary than either of the other two front-runners? Should this matter when casting a vote in the Primaries?

Are others here hearing the same thing or do other have similar concerns?

Edited to add, in Nevada, the cross-over Repub vote and the Independent vote are extremely important, particularly in the North and Rural Counties, in order to win any election.

husband is an Indie who supports Obama, and many of his Air Force colleagues also like Obama. He will win by a landslide.

She said if Guiliani wins the nom, she is staying home -- UNLESS he is up against Clinton and then she is going to start a carpool service.

Anecdotal, so take it for what it is worth.

I can pretty much give you a handful of similar examples as the one you have just put out there. This is what I'm hearing, too. It's not as if they are supportive of their own candidates (and who would be, jeesh, they are a bunch of clowns) but they are insanely against Hillary, in my experience.

They want an easier candidate to run against.

fits with the whole authoritarian personality that Bob Altemeyer and John Dean have written about:

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

perceive to be the stronger. On the basis of Iowa, Obama.

quasi-normal right), and very soon, effectively, end up as a DINO. So, imo, it makes little difference. He wants to negotiate with people who think bipartisanship is date-rape, and have said so; more importantly, who have remorselessly embodied it, while in power.

:shrug:

There is no dubiety about the potential. Only its realisation by the act of his being elected. If he were to be elected, it would be a done deal, whether he liked it or not. When the Republicans contemptuously reject subpoenas and the very rule of law, what makes you think that they would listen to Obama and give due respect to anything he proposed? For crying out loud, they've already started drawing up caging lists, and are no doubt already planning some unexpected voting returns on machines in the key States.

(1) There are people who call themselves "independent" all over the political spectrum. I'M an Independent and there's no fucking way in hell I'm in any mythical 'middle' between Democrats and Republicans. That's just nonsense.

(2) Some people claim to be "independent" merely because they aren't familiar with either the issues or the candidates. NOT EVERYONE or possibly even the majority are that way. I sure as damned well am not unfamiliar with either!

Please! Stop swallowing the idiotically over-simplified M$M 'spin' about a political condition that's far more complex. (And if you swallow it, please don't regurgitate it.)

Yikes. I apologize. Didn't mean to put Inds "in the middle", so to speak, or to claim they aren't familiar with the issues. I was merely thinking in terms of candidates garnering the votes of voters other than Dems -- for the purpose of discussion of electability, really. We call these persuadables in the field, and often in my area, they are Repubs and Inds who've previously expressed support for a Dem issue or Dem candidate in past elections via surveys.

;)