Hillary Clinton suffered a huge defeat last night in Mississippi, and now faces an insurmountable pledged delegate lead by Barack Obama. But what most pundits missed was the fact that Obama's victory would have been even more overwhelming in Mississippi (and he might have won the popular vote in Texas) if not for the "Limbaugh effect": Republicans voting in the Democratic primary in order to undermine Barack Obama and help John McCain.
Approximately 25% of Clinton's voters in Mississippi were Republicans voting for a candidate they hate in order to try to undermine Barack Obama. Obama's 61-37 margin of victory in Mississippi would have been around 70-30 without Clinton's Republican voters, and Obama would have easily expanded his delegate win there from 19-14 to 24-9.
In the voting during January and February, Republicans were an average of 3.8% of the voters in the Democratic Primary, and they heavily supported Obama. But for the primaries in March, in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, Republicans have been 8% of the voters in the Democratic primary, and now they heavily support Hillary Clinton. This is definite proof of the "Limbaugh effect" coming through. Overall, 1.36% of the voters in the January and February primaries were Republicans who marked their ballot for Clinton; yet, 5.67% of the voters in the March primaries were Republicans voting for Clinton. Barack Obama's Republican numbers in the March primary showed only a modest increase, probably from moderate Republicans who shifted their support to Obama once John McCain's campaign was assured of victory.
In Ohio and Texas, 9% of the voters were Republicans, and they split almost evenly between Obama and Clinton. These votes, more than doubling the percentage of Republican voters in earlier primaries, gave Hillary Clinton a big advantage since Obama typically won more than twice as many voters as she did in previous primaries. In other words, about 3% of the voters in Ohio and Texas were Republicans newly voting for Hillary Clinton out of purely tactical reasons, to try to ruin the Democratic race.
The "HillPublicans" (insincere Republicans voting for Hillary) became a much larger force in the Mississippi election. Fully 9% of the people voting in the Democratic primary were Republicans voting for Clinton. That means that almost one-quarter of Clinton's votes in Mississippi came from Republicans, nearly all of whom hate Clinton but wanted to distort the results of the Democratic primary. By contrast, Obama's Republican vote, at 3%, was similar to his historical average throughout the primaries.
The exit polls in Mississippi proved that these "HillPublicans" are not sudden converts to the Clinton campaign. As this diary noted, 70% of those who have a strongly favorable opinion of McCain picked Clinton. In addition, 6% of the voters in the primary voted for Clinton and said they would be dissatisified if she won the nomination; only 1% of the primary voters went for Obama and said they would be dissatisfied if he won.
According to a Pew Research Poll in February, substantially more Republicans would support Obama (8%) rather than Clinton (5%) against McCain, so we know this voting is tactical.
Hillary Clinton's loss in Mississippi would have been far more dramatic if not for the concerted efforts of Republicans to save her campaign and damage Barack Obama. Of course, some Clinton supporters might claim that these numbers simply reverse what was happening earlier in the primary, when Obama had the support of Republicans and independents. However, this is highly doubtful. Obama's support came from moderates who are likely to switch parties in the fall. The votes he got came consistently during the early primaries when the Republican nomination was a hotly contested battle. It is unlikely that many Limbaugh supporters were voting for Obama back when they were so busy trying to deny McCain the nomination.
The "HillPublicans" had a dramatic effect on the analysis as well as the results. Pat Buchanan declared during the MSNBC coverage of the Mississippi vote, "Apparently Clinton's voters don't like Obama." That's probably because more than one-quarter of Clinton's voters were Republicans, and nearly all of them were voting in an effort to hurt Obama.
Rarely in American politics have so many people ever intentionally voted for a candidate they hate so much. Approximately 40,000 Republicans in Mississippi decided to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to help her destroy the Democratic Party this year with a divided convention. Hillary Clinton's "big wins" in March failed to help her close the delegate gap, and she cannot possibly win the pledged delegate race against Obama. The only hope for Hillary Clinton is that Republican voters will help her reduce the gap against Obama, and that the superdelegates will somehow be convinced to obey the will of Rush Limbaugh and his acolytes by stealing the election from the legitimate voters.
Crossposted at ObamaPolitics.
Note: I'm the author of a new book, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, but I'm not part of the Obama campaign.
It's total crap to say that people are "disenfranchised" by not being able to vote for a party primary they don't belong to. Join a party, or wait for the general election.
And if hillary wants all that Republican support, maybe she should switch parties declare herself to be a moderate Republican.
But what the republican are doing is stealing delegates from Obama because they feel much more assured the will be Clinton, and at the same time they are increasing Clinton's popular vote making it appear superficially that she has more support than she actually does... this further argues for Clinton to drop out because the reality of her winning in the general election is skewed toward unreality by the neo-con and other McCain supporters voting for the weaker general election candidate... and perhaps the Clintons have worked this system with the republicans who want to see Bush policies continued by the next president, so given a McCain-Clinton match-up, they get their wish. And perhaps this collusion is in place since her husband and the rest of her campaign who have said previously that delegates are what counts, now say popular vote counts and that included the republicans who are attempting to choose the Democratic nominee... if the Clintons were decent folks she would drop out now and stop this aggressive, sleazy attempt at theft in collusion, active or passive, with neo-cons.
Rush limbagh spews out more anti AMerican crap than any terrist ever has. He collect listeners like a mob or a possie. He plays on ignorant and the uninformed and appeals to the worst in people. Rush is a problem for America we need to get past.
California had it. I'm back in Nebraska and just one of the reasons I am happier now is that this state doesn't.
Join a group or stay out of their business!
The Democrats will likely counter the gender wedge simply by nominating a female Vice-President. The wedge of race will always be a possibility to Republican instincts as long as Barack Oboma is the candidate. The great problem with this poorly thoughtout scenario is that Barack comes to the voter not as a Black but as a fully rounded candidate who defies categorization and racial typing. His appeal to white voters will only improve as the general election begins.
Republicans have little history of being able to wedge black voters.
You can study the exit polls and see for yourself.
The biggest problem for Dems isn't that Hillary and Obama are tearing each other down. The biggest problem is that traditionally the nominees slant a little more extremist in the primaries and then move back toward the center for the general election. If this primary keeps going on and on, neither Obama nor Hillary will have time to maneuver back to the center.
I don't like McCain. He's the embodiment of almost everything that's wrong with the Republican party. I respect him on several issues, but I can say the same thing about Hillary.
To me, the only big thing stopping me from voting for a Dem at this point is the war in Iraq. We need to bring it to a responsible conclusion. We can't just yank out troops out and leave a gaping hole there for extremists and sectarians to fill. Doing so would hurt our image even further around the world, and we would soon be forced to re-invade to try to put a lid on all the problems.
If Dems would simply run on balancing the budget and on ending the war responsibly, I would vote for them in a second. Neither will do that. But at least I believe that Hillary could be a competent President. Obama is just a joke. If I want to hear a sermon I'll go to church. Obama offers hope, but I don't want to just hope the President will be able to do something. I want someone that I can be confident in their ability to implement reform. Nothing about Obama's experience, his policy positions, or his speeches convince me that he can possibly do that.
He practically admits it. His slogan is "Yes we can". That's all well and good if you have 80+% approval for your policies. But on the major issues of our time, the country is much more divided than that. There simply won't be a WE to do anything unless he can bridge the gaps. And there is a major, major disconnect between his rhetoric of unity and his policies of the same old tired socialism. If he thinks he can talk his way past all the details, he would be the most incompetent leader possible. People aren't just going to lay down for him. And with Republicans in the minority, they'll be spoiling for a fight, not looking to join the new empty suit on his crusade.
The NRCC Campaign chair challenged the Republicans in Illinois to win by saying that the loss of Hastert's seat was the end of the GOP.. Now they are trying to claim the Democratic victories as a way of distracting from their humiliating defeat in Illinois. Indeed they want a continued bloodfest in the Democratic race to bloody Barack enough that his coattails may be shortened a bit.
Will it work? Like most poorly thought out deserate ploys, it will likely backfire as Senator Obama demonstrates to his supporters glee that he has swamped the Clinbaugh coalition. Many of the Rush advised Republicans may in the finale of this memorable election, like the Conformist forget to reregister Republican.
In the beginning when it became evident that Obama had some traction, universally the vast rightwing conspiracy of journalists and media personalities came out with glowing commentaries on Obama. Why? Possibly because of a never sated enmity for all things Clinton....or quite possibly the RNC as directed by Karl Rove felt that liberal sentiment might allow Obama to triumph over Hillary but in a general election Obama is a much more vulnerable candidate than Hillary. The list of conservative mouthpieces supporting Obama is eye opening and in need of serious scrutiny. They helped promote the Obama campaign ceaselessly, piling on all of the criticisms about Hillary and Bill that emerged on the way. This was not due to some sudden emergence of a conservative conscience, compelling them to do the right thing. They felt the republican, who ever he turned out to be, could beat Obama. Maybe as a function of race. Maybe inexperience. Maybe there is some entirely disqualifying issue that will emerge in the general election.
Now that the Democrats are intractably tied to Obama as he is more than likely the designated candidate, these very same RW mouthpieces have begun to recognize the emptyness of the Obama rhetoric, or the missteps he has made, or his inexperience and they have swung to support Hillary. Why? It is to the benefit of the Republicans to promote and extend this divisive campaign for as long as possible. Both Hillary and Barack will emerge damaged goods. That is why the RW spokespeople have come out for Hillary at this point. That is why Limbaugh recommended that the Republicans go out and vote for Hillary. Not because they are afraid of Obama. No, not a chance. Extending the primary season for the Dems serves the Republicans purpose. And they have decided that an Obama Candidate in the end also serves the Republican purpose.
No wonder the Democrats consistently take their own lemonade and pee in it. I fear we are lining up for another disappointing National election and this one means more than ever.
Democratic Coalition: 90% of Blacks, 75% of Jews, 60% of Hispanics, 60% of Asians, 40% of Whites
Republican Coalition: 60% of Whites, 40% of Hispanics, 40% of Asians, 25% of Jews, 10% of Blacks
Traditionally republicans win they can push their share of the white vote up above 60%. Democrats win if they can keep their share of the white vote from falling into the 30s. If Obama looses because of his race, it will look like a traditional 'white-flight' Democratic loss. However, Hillary is offering the uniqe chance to hold on to the white vote and loose by driving the black vote under 90% instead.