How did Senator Clinton pull out primary victories in Ohio and Texas? Well, the “kitchen sink” strategy of going negative on Obama all the time with any and every thing imaginable (NAFTA lies, 3 am ads, etc.) obviously had something to do with it, but an additional source of support came from people who crossed over from the Republican party solely to vote for her in the hopes of hurting Obama’s chances. Call it the Limbaugh Effect. Spurred on by conservative radio talk show hosts led by Mr. Oxycontin himself, many thousands of GOP voters are casting votes for Hillary, not because they like her, but because they think she is the more beatable Democrat in the Fall:
“It’s as simple as, I don’t think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice,” said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. “I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office.”
Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.
About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio’s primary to further confuse the Democratic race. “I’m pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it’s great, it’s wonderful,” he said. “It broke my heart, but I had to.”
How many Republicans crossed over to vote for Senator Clinton at the urging of Rush Limbaugh and other talk show hosts? Well, the Boston Globe reports that according to exit polls about 119,000 Republicans voted for Clinton in the Texas primary, a state where her margin of victory in the primary was only 101,000. And in Mississippi, GOP voters held down Obama’s margin of victory by going for Clinton over Obama by a 3:1 margin.
Whereas Obama’s appeal is primarily among moderate Republicans who were attracted to his campaign and his personality, the opposite can be said of Hillary’s Republican supporters. Just like Senator Clinton, they’re in it to win, and if that requires them to vote for her in the primary to insure a Clinton vs. McCain contest this Fall, they are more than willing to vote for her now so they can vote against her later. And I imagine in states which hold open primaries, like North Carolina, the Limbaugh effect could influence the outcome or limit the margin of victory for Obama significantly.
Something to keep in mind in the weeks ahead. If Republicans are voting for her because they think she is the candidate most likely to lose to McCain, why should Democratic super delegates support her over Obama? Unless they have a suicide wish, of course.
Thought I just saw where you went on strike. That was short! Did BooMan relent?
Welcome back.
lots of big hugs bro.
On advice of counsel, all I can say is that negotiations over my demands are still ongoing.
😉
Wasn’t it a 1-day strike?
My experience as a precinct chair in Bexar County Texas is that the cross-over Republicans in my precinct were for the most part Hillary voters, and rather secretive and somewhat abashed; not proud button-wearing conventioneers. (Our precinct “caucuses” are called precinct conventions in Two-Step Texas). The reason we know they were cross-overs was because the voter rolls indicate their last party vote. My guess is that out of 158 conventioneers, there were about 10% or so white cross-overs. There were about 3% African-American and Latino crossovers.
OTOH, the number of African-American voters at the convention was huge – I had never seen any at our precinct conventions in the past. We are generally a pretty white-bread precinct that votes between 70-80% Repub in every election. We had about 10% African-Americans conventioning. Many of them were first-time voters as well as first time conventioneers.
So, the Limbaugh Effect was cancelled out, IMO, by new African-American voters for Obama.
Thanks for shining some light on this. I’m here in MS, and I can tell you that beyond the hard numbers that are in the exit data (if you have the stomach to look), the so-called “Limbaugh Effect/Factor” isn’t too “so-called”. It was a very REAL animal here on Primary day. I’ve talked to loads of Limbaugh-lovin’ Republicans (there ARE a few here, y’know), and they were VERY keen to try to trip up Obama–because they’re honestly afraid of him–by crossing over temporarily to Hillary. Even among Dems, there’s not a lot of love for the Clintons here (though black Dems DO regard her a bit more favorably, but Obama had pretty well negated that well before the Primary). As I’ve said, the Limbaugh Effect is a very real concern for me while Obama has yet to formally secure the nomination. Once he does, it’s dead. But until then…
As for the Clinton “Kitchen Sink” strategy, The Field has a good little analysis up about how Hillary’s hits on Obama seem to be toughening him up while at the same time turning around to bite Miss Inevitable on the butt, in case anyone wants to take a look. I don’t know that Obama is quite as impervious to them as Giordano thinks, but it’s interesting to consider.
I am now turning off the radio and skipping over blogs and news items regarding the McO’Billary controversy. What a boring distraction. What’s to learn here? Vote Dem or get McCheney for prez; Hill/Bill are tearing apart the Dem party for their own ambition. Not much more. Pastor Astor Ass Blaster. Whatever.
Um, the US/world economy almost fell through like the crane in New York City over the weekend, due to the overleveraged Bear, Stearns. You think that’s the only bank that has problems? I don’t think so. As consumer spending in the US is forced into paying for only necessities, and the price of those necessities goes up, all the incredible diversity of the US economy will crash and fall like the buildings underneath the crane, or the price of Bear, Steans stock.
Take a look at Krugman’s column today. This should be subjects of controversy on our blogs, not this destructive bickering over ambitious politicians.
Here’s Krugman today:
Here’s my friends’ response. This within an e-mail thread amongst friends:
It was SUNDAY’s Krugman column.
Spouse calls this reverse Shakespeare!
I was saying this since those elections. The Wednesday morning after Ohio and Texas they were bragging on the FOX morning show about this.
I will also point out that exit polls are notoriously inaccurate when people are switching parties and playing mischief, so I don’t think they had accurate numbers.
Having said all that, again, I have to admit that I’d like a little more light on the massive collapse of our economy.
Well, watching MSGOP at the moment is making me sick to my stomach. Repliscum trashing Obama BEFORE his speech. This is an uphill battle. I hope he knocks it out of the ballpark.
Obama is the one who has been running Democrat for a day campaigns, he is running one in PA and he has been running it in previous states.
Yes, and as the polling shows, he’s drawing moderate/centrist Republicans, who could potentially vote for a Democrat – even a progressive! – in November, particularly when the economy’s doing its best impression of Snoopy fighting the Red Baron. Hillary, as documented here and elsewhere, is drawing ultra-conservative Republicans. There’s no way in hell these people will vote for her during the general election.
The text is amazing and I have never read anything like it from a politician in my life. This guy is something special and the haters out there know it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-t_n_92077.html
That was a great speech. I have tears in my eyes from reading it.
For what it’s worth, I know at least 5 cons who voted for Hillary and have no intention of voting for her in the general. I also know 3 who are firm Obama supporters and will probably vote Dem right down the the entire slate.
I’ve been looking at this subject for a while. Whereas there are logical reasons for disputing the effect, these are not particularly telling. Curiously, MSNBC is doing a report on this as I write.
The logical problem is distinguishing “sincere” voters from “party-raiders.” As Stephen points out, and quite astutely, there has been a shift in the character of Republican crossover voters. Counterarguments that attempt to cite recent bad press against Obama fail to explain why this effect has only occurred within a small demographic sub-group, moreover, in the group with a clear incentive for raiding. Compounding this — of course — are the explicit pleas by Limbaugh and Ingraham to crossover and vote for Hillary.
Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this problem is the apparent collusion by the Clinton campaign, as shown by Bill Clinton’s appearance on the Limbaugh show on the day of the Texas and Ohio primaries. I’m sure the Clinton people could find some plausible sounding reason for this, but I regard it as a blatant attempt to encourage raiding rather than sincere crossovers.
Another factor that needs to be addressed, and could be a post in itself, is the nature of attitudes and responses to survey questions. The following post on Pollster by Mark Blumenthal is useful for illustrating what I mean:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/clintons_mississippi_republica.php
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/mysterypollster/2008/031208.htm
Blumenthal detects a hint of sincerity in the Republican crossovers in Mississippi over economic issues. The problem I have with Blumenthal’s analysis is that it regards voters as having consistently ordered preferences. The first question we need to ask about Mississippi Republicans is whether they were casting a vote for a Democrat (a sincere vote) or against a Democrat (a raider). The 85% approval rating (58% strongly) they gave McCain and their low ratings of Clinton (such as: 72% regard her as “not honest and trustworthy”) calls the sincerity of their vote ‘for’ Clinton into question.
What’s less understood by many people is the nature of these apparent McCain voters’ second choice of Clinton. It’s not necessary that Republicans view their vote for Clinton in strategic terms. Voting choices can be intransitive in their ordering (see Kenneth Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem), and cognitive dissonance can also lead to a polarized perception of candidates. In the first case, Republicans, who intend to vote for McCain in the general election, can be registering a sincere preference for Clinton as their second choice. In the second case, Republicans, who will eventually vote for McCain, are registering their dislike of Obama, and may have adjusted their assessments to bring them in line with with their overall opposition to the Democratic candidate.