Questioning Hillary Clinton's 'Victory' in Pennsylvania: The Rush Limbaugh Effect
What if Democratic voters and the uncommitted superdelegates come to learn that Rush Limbaugh had a greater impact on Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania, and maybe Texas and Ohio, than say, the Reverend Wright, and the so-called 'bitter' comments? Would such a finding influence how voters view the Pennsylvania 'victory?'
If my thesis is correct, you have to ask yourself why so many Republicans want Hillary Clinton to run against John McCain in November.
Here is what we know: Approximately 160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans, Independents and/or new voters registered as Democrats in the months preceding the April 22 Primary. Media reports widely credit the tanking economy, health care crisis, and war in Iraq for Republican disillusionment. But wait--let's look at those very impressive numbers a little closer and compare the re-registration data to say, California. Pennsylvania is the home of approximately 12 million residents while California is the home of almost 38 million residents, over three times the size of Pennsylvania. So we might expect the California re-registration figures to climb to about three times the number of Pennsylvania's re-registrants.
But that isn't the case.
At 170,000 new Democrats, California, the most populous state, and arguably the state widely considered as being the most likely to hop on the latest bandwagon, roughly approximated the Pennsylvania experience, prior to its Primary election on Super Tuesday.
Something's not right.
In the weeks between Super Tuesday and April 22, the date of the Pennsylvania Primary, the circular firing squad occurring between the two Democratic campaigns increased both Democratic candidates' unfavorability ratings, while McCain began to win against both candidates in hypothetical match-up polls, for the first time. If distressed Republicans wanted to bail out of their Party, common sense suggests that they'd have been much more likely to do so after McCain locked up the GOP nomination but before Clinton and Obama began to engage in the 24/7 mud wrestling match leading up to the Pennsylvania campaign.
I've worn a lot of hats in my life, one of which was to serve as a Democratic strategist for congressional and statewide campaigns, and the other, as the Democratic Party's Voter Registration Chair for the most evenly split county in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area. I have conducted over 100 voter registration events in front of area Target stores, Farmers' Markets, at the mall, in schools and colleges and at area train stations in the last several years. I have talked to voters of every age, color, religion, socio-economic class, and gender. I have observed one common characteristic of authentically disillusioned Republicans.
They share with me that they are torn about their decision to register out of the Party of their parents. Almost reverently, they talk about the Republican Party they grew up with, and often articulate a concern that their family not learn about their defection. And in almost all cases, and I've helped hundreds of voters re-register -- they leave their Grand Old Party by first going to Decline to State -- and then, after placing their newly liberated toes in the water by voting Democratic several cycles in a row -- they take the plunge and re-register Democratic.
Very few Republicans boldly go all the way to Democratic in one fell swoop if they are serious about their voting.
I looked for answers. Like most people who've been paid to deliver Democratic strategy, I've mostly ignored self-important Rush Limbaugh's claims that his Operation Chaos is responsible for the large number of re-registrants voting for Hillary in the last several contests. Because I've worked with voters for 8 years and I know first-hand just how difficult it is to get voters to change their parties. But then it hit me when I compared the Pennsylvania numbers to California's. The voters I was dealing with for 8 years were saying good-bye to something that meant something. I sensed sadness, betrayal almost, as I stood by, clipboard in hand, helping voters leave the party of their parents. I have often compared this transition to the changing of one's religion -- it is that difficult when authentically done.
And that's the key. I believe that Rush's Operation Chaos is at play here and authenticity has nothing to do with too may new Democratic registrants in the last contests. This re-registration is, I believe, being undertaken at Rush's suggestion to cynically stretch this contest out -- as long as possible -- so that Hillary's promised kitchen sink theory -- will end up driving both candidates' negatives through the roof so that neither is likely to win against McCain.
Voters in upcoming contests will always be swayed by the outcome of preceding contests. It's human nature to be influenced by the wisdom of those who've gone before us. But if I'm right -- and the outcome in Pennsylvania, and perhaps Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio were influenced by Rush's call to Republicans to keep Hillary in the race longer -- Democratic voters in Indiana and North Carolina, and the states that follow, deserve to know that we're being manipulated.
Cross-posted from The Environmentalist
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
OK, a few numbers. Hillary won PA by 214,000 votes. So, the author is suggesting that 160,000 of those votes came from re-registration without offering any evidence other than that number is high in relation to California, which held its primary more than 10 weeks earlier. Whoa! Even for a board that is unabashedly anti-Clinton in this race, this is quite a stretch, even for this Obama voter.
The author's argument fails to take into account the impact of the passion inspired by Obama over those ten weeks. And, since anecdotal rather than statistical evidence seems to be the standard for this thread, I'll point out that my mom switched her registration from Republican to Democrat to vote for Obama. Anecdotally, I think a lot of democrats and independents did just that, suggesting that the 160,000 votes split a lot more evenly than the author contends or guesses or whatever the author did to come up with this truly outlandish topic.
I live in Indiana; today, Tuesday May 6th, I asked my republican friend to vote for Obama. He said he voted at 8am for Clinton because she is easier for McCain to beat in the GE.
The same thing happened in Texas. A number of our friends who live their said that there was a lot of this "Rush L." voting going on. One friend told us that when he was in line at his polling place at least half of the people in the line were joking about how they were going to vote for Hillary because she would be easier to beat, blah, blah, blah. I have no doubt that it went on in Ohio and Penn. I also have no doubt that it will be big today, especially in Indiana. Indiana the, birthplace of the Klan, is chock full of ditto head mental midgets. The Billary campaign has been playing directly to this crowd for some time. From Bills appearance on the Rush L. show the day before the Texas primary/caucus, to his most recent appearance in Martinsville, Indiana. KKK heaven. The Superdelegates need to decide whether they want to end this fiasco or continue to let the Repug's and the Clinton campaign make a laughing stock out of the Democratic party.
Sorry but Ms. Leach's argument is weak. (And I'm an Obama supporter.
Ms. Leach ignores exit polling numbers of cross-over voters that show that Obama got about 60% of those votes in the early primaries and about half of them in TX and OH.
Ms. Leach ignores the possibility that the excesses of the Bush administration that became most apparant after the '04 election could push Republicans to switch faster than she has observed in the past. Let's face it, Bush has been a very unique president.
Ms. Leach ignores the possibility that some cross-over voters may do so for gender reasons. I.e., they want a woman in the White House no matter the party. That alone makes this election unique.
Personally, I think a solid majority of cross-over voters are sincere in their switch. No doubt there are some that want to make mischief or because they are ditto-heads but I think they are relatively few and have had a minimum effect on the elections.
Oh come on, Tom, Ms. Leach isn't interested in being bothered by these kinds of facts! Your statistics pale before the hard statistical evidence provided by people who talked to a few, complete strangers in line on election day and concluded that the vote was Rigged by Rush. Get with the program!
I live in PA, and my husband and mother-in-law both switched their party affiliation from R to D so they could vote for Obama.
Oh goody.
CONSPIRACY!!!
Wonderful for rateings don't you think.
One problem that I know of - me.
54 yo white male ex-republican here - went over for only one reason - Obama.
Clinton sickens me with her ducking from sniper fire.
McCain sickens me with talk of expanding our wars to a third front in Iran.
Obama 08.
You may hate Obama for coming from nowhere and kicking that womans butt in these primaries but he did it didn't he.
She may steal the nomination - if she does I have my write in for Obama ready.
:-) Take care all and have lots of fun. :-)
These numbers aside, I'm pretty sure Repubs would rather have a choice between McCain and Clinton, because she is as pro-business, pro-war, and status quo as McCain himself.
I don't think it really has anything to do with how electable Hillary is vs McCain or Obama vs. McCain. It comes down to if McCain did lose, who would Limbaugh want?
Clinton of course. She'll keep his tax breaks in place, as she slipped and said in a rare moment of honesty with fellow millionaire Bill O'Reilly ("God Bless the wealthy", "I'll ensure they can continue their way of doing business in future generations" she said. Guess that means estate tax will go bye bye under her Presidency) all the while Rush and his fellow right wing nimrods can continue trash talking her and Bill in public, while raking in ratings now that they have a manufactured boggie-woman.
Meanwhile, Bill can still hang out with George HW Bush, and Hillary can still get advice from Scaife, Roger Ailes, etc.
The "vast right wing conspiracy" is nothing more than a smoke and mirror show. The Clintons are, always were, and always will be Republicans in Democratic clothing.
Wake up. There's a war going on for your mind. Fight with tools.
Excellent essay. And I agree with 90% of it. However, that doesn't mean Hillary's not still the best to throw against McSame.
I AGREE that the Repukes want to drag it out and let the intra-party fratricide continue. I would even suggest Obama is turning out to be stronger than they would have anticipated, which was the genesis for the idea.
BUT... if the essay's theory is correct, the poll of polls -- on a state-by-state basis -- would NOT show Hillary clobbering McCain (291-236-11), but Obama in a dead heat with McCain (264-263-11) as of this writing. Daily Kos's Kos would say the above is deceptive, given "leaners" are given to candidates, and as true as that is, the numbers are what they are. Of course, they might change twice by dinnertime, and again once one of the Dems is crowned.
No, the reason Repukes want to run against Hillary is simple: Even the disillusioned base can rally for one last anti-Clinton hurrah. They fear a big stay-home -- or crossover-for-hope -- problem if facing the less-polarizing Obama.
The irony -- and potential backfire -- is that Hillary is proving resilient, and may still pull it out. In which case, she'll mop the floor with McCain. Here's hoping she does; it's ALL about the electoral college. Primaries, shimaries.
www.electo
http://www
http://www
Reason.. I normally find myself in agreement with you but I found Terry's article inchoate and confusing. What is her thesis?
You and I agree that the Republicans think they have a far greater chance of winning against Hillary than Barak.
And they are right.
I too find the argument "inchoate and confusing.
Terry's thesis is very simple:
There are honest, but Disillusioned Republicans, who change their party status to make things better.The
disenfranchise the Democratic voter's primary. They are deceitful, dishonest, and unprincipled. The Democratic Party doesn't need them, neither does the real Republican Party. They are radical, destructive to the democratic process and insincere.
Operation Chaos ,in a nutshell ,is a destructive process meant not only to disenfranchise the will of the voters, it is meant to destroy democracy. In short ,it is unpatriotic.
"You and I agree that the Republicans think they have a far greater chance of winning against Hillary than Barak.
And they are right."
Look how much confusions and anger they have been able to cerate over Obama. The pin story was a complete fabrication made up out of thin air, and the worst they have on him is he knows someone that said things they can use against him. Never mind what he says or beleives, we have something to attack on.
They have not begun on Hillary. IF they can create a conflict our of absolutely nothing at all like they did with Obama, Just imagine what they will do to HIllary and the complicated issues of the Clinton Administration. How long until they say it is a "character issue" for HIllary to stay with Bill throughout? That opens the door to all their BS, they are dying to fight Hillary because it is easier to misrepresent the truth with her than Obama. WIth HIllary they do not need to create issues, just find the complicated ones and dumb them down, misrepresent them, then attack.
If white trash nation wonders why they feel looked down upon, this is a great example. Listening to the ramblings of Limbaugh-a drug addled, true elitist, Mercedes driving loudmouth means you don't have the intelligence to read the news for yourself or even conduct some independent research to form your own opinion. It's sad, really. Do these uneducated fools really think that Rush gives a rat's behind about them? He belongs to a private country club where his "fans" wouldn't even be allowed to serve him his portion of lard. As for November, the Repubs are in for a huge shock-the Democratic backlash against them will be ugly. The swiftboat ads will look like Princess Cruise ads compared to what moveon.org will do to McCain.
The key is to look at CNN's exit polls. If you'll examine the results carefully, you'll see evidence of the crossover vote. Two questions in particular will demonstrate it. The two questions asked whom voters would vote for if either candidate won. In both cases, there were voters who would not vote Democratic if their candidate lost, but the surprising point was that a small percentage of voters would vote for McCain even if their candidate DID win the nomination.
There seemd to be 1.5% crossover for Obama and 3% crossover for Clinton. This says to me that 1.5% of Clintons margin of victory was artificial. So, it wouldn't seem that this flipped the results overall, but there may have been mischief in select districts. It hard to say just from this info whether the delegate counts were affected.
Your numbers confirm my on inquiry into the matter. I concluded that there may be some republican cross over voting and at most it made a 2% difference in the outcome in Hillary's favor. That was a factor in a couple of Texas counties but I don't think it made any significant difference in the Ohio and Penn elections because none of the counties were within the 2% points. It is also hard to speculate on the effect of crossover voting since each state allocates delegates in a its own bizzar way. Some by congressional districts and numbers of democrats voting in the LAST election, whenever that was and others by county and others by other forms of higher math. So go figure!
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
It makes you wonder what's going through some people's minds, doesn't it? I can't for the life of me understand why the Kool Aid Brigade of the Obama camp can't understand that not everyone hates Clinton and loves Obama. If that were the case the nomination would have been settled ages ago.
It's the timing issue, foos.
Before Huckabee left, it didn't make sense for Republicans to cross over to vote for a Democrat duplicitously because Republicans still had a choice in their own party.
Hillary's victories have all occurred after it became blindingly obvious that prolonging the Democratic race would be a good strategy for the dittoheads.
Obama's appeal to independents peaked in February and before Super Tuesday - IE, before he became the front runner, and before an "Operation Chaos" would have made any strategic sense. Also, to be fair, before the Wright story broke.
But I get you guys support the gas tax holiday too.
ASK YOURSELF THIS......
WHY WOULD ANY REPUBLICAN VOTE FOR HILLARY? IF THEY WANT TO VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN THEY CAN STICK WITH THEIR OWN CANDIDATE!
I am an older white, female, Democratic from Florida. I despise the political tactics employed by
HIL-LIE-RY Clinton. She has the audacity to pretend that she is concerned about the feelings of us Floridians whose votes have no bearing on the seating of our delegates - when she agreed to the primaries being moved up and the ramifications of this decision! Did she care about us when she signed our delegates away? Hell no, our votes were dispensible to her then. What she cares about NOW is that the delegates be counted for her PERSONAL gain. She is dishonest and can not be trusted anywhere near the Whitehouse!
I will never vote for her if manages to steal her way to the nomination!
True Republicans can't stand HRC or the whole Clinton machine. If they're voting for her, it's because they think she'd be easier to beat in the general.
I agree.
We had a Operation Chaos party this weekend. About 12 of us who switched parties to vote will be voting for Hillary in NC today.
tator --
Yeah, an Operation Chaos "party" -- that sounds about right for Republican losers like yourself.
Did your mommy throw it for you?
No one will deny that their are a lot of really stupid people that beleive the things that Rush tells them. The point you're missing ( one of millions no doubt) is that the 12 of you and the rest of the Rush cult are insignificant in the big picture.
It is very sad that you are subversive to your country, but even worse is being to stupid to know better.
Rush is just doing what he does best, create Controversy. I think that his listeners who are willing to commit a federal crime on his behalf are idiots. However, the Democrats know what's going on and if Hillary Clinton is willing to ruin her own party by continuing this farce, that is not Rush Limbaugh's fault.
Do the right thing, vote for Senator Obama and put an end to Operation Chaos and the Limbaugh LOSERS!
Why is it that so few liberals are aware of the first amendent? People can vote for whomever they wish for whatever reason. The primary system only limits your selection to your registered party (hence the switching). If people vote for HRC (or Obama) and switch to McCain in Nov, saying they are commiting a 'federal crime' only serves to announce your own ignorance.
It's China, Venezuela and Cuba where you can be arrested for voting the wrong way.....yo
These guys really don't realize that Gaming the Election shows how little respect they have for the democratic process. It's sad, but Repugs have a long history of using dirty tricks in elections.
Good piece, Ms. L. And badly needed, too -- far too few of your fellow journalists have taken the time & effort to investigate the effects of the Republican
My predictions for the IN & NC primaries today is, the Clintons take IN by less than 10, and Obama wins NC by less than 5.
I base my predictions on the fact that Republican crossover voters will affect both races by about 2-3 points, in each case, and factoring a 1-3 point advantage for the Clintons with the redneck vote, again in each state, the elections should end up with a slightly better than expected performance by the Clintons.
This, of course, completely skews the validity of the results, which is exactly what the Republicans and the Clintons want -- it provides them with an opportunity to trumpet their "victory" as proving the worthiness of their quest, blah, blah, blah . . . and the carnage goes on.
If nothing else, it also proves that, if done correctly, the tail can always wag the dog, and logic can be turned on its head, or fashioned into a pretzel.
I won't vote for Rush Limbaugh's pick, come the fall.
As a former DEC committeeman in Philadelphia I can say firsthand that Ms. Leach has no understanding of politics or demographic makeups within the Commonwealth. PA was a red state in the not too distant past, but is now blue. The reason most Rep.'s switched is actually quite simple,their county turned blue.
Party affiliation is the first thing checked when dealing with anything within your County. The second thing checked is if you vote. Different agencies of the Government are controlled by the different parties. If you are not in the "right" party chances are you are not going to get very far if you need anything. Pennsylvania voters regardless of party affiliation vote across party lines constantly.
Rush Limbaugh is a tired and worn personality who is on the outside looking in. He is a desperate man trying to make headlines for himself as well as show the republicans he can tow the line. Anyone who actually believes he can influence an election and contribute to its outcome is nothing short of an idiot. The truth is the Republicans do not want to go up against Sen. Clinton. They have played most Democrats and you have listened to their song. Republicans know if they are going to win they can not go up against a Clinton . Logically speaking what do they have to throw at her, nothing. Nothing that we haven't already heard before and the American people have stated resoundingly time and again, we don't care.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
