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
You can bet the Republicans are laughing their heads off over this stuff. I'm laughing my head off, and I'm not even a Republican. How hard is it for people to understand that there really are people who prefer Clinton and that just because Obama hasn't clinched the nomination yet doesn't mean there's a conspiracy? This sounds like the mother of a naughty child, making excuses for why he can't get along with others. It's not his fault. It's someone else's, always.
It's not at all hard to understand that there are people who really prefer Clinton. But it seems to be hard for you to understand that there actually is this nationally syndicated radio guy Rush Limbaugh who has actually been promting this thing called operation Chaos, and that it's important to know whether it's having a significant effect. The fact that Obama hasn't clinched the nomination yet doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, true, but we already know there IS a conspiracy, we just don't know whether it's working or not.
Indianans haven't gone for a Democrat in a national election since 1964. It's an important state for Hillary, but it's meaningless for the Party. Same with Texas. Hillary is running as a Republican now because it's the only way she can beat Obama. But it's no way to beat McCain. Hillary is a fool and she will lose. And she will deserve to.
Many election variables do not corroborate with Hillary Clinton's victories in recent primaries (i.e. Texas, Ohio, Pennyslvania). As someone else mentioned, her polling negatives are indirectly related to her victories in those states. Couple that with her struggle to raise money, and you see a clear disconnect. If there was really such a resurgence in her campaign it seems likely it would immediately be reflected in her fundraising and her positive/negative polling. I smell a rat...
BINGO... Repubs may cross over and vote for Hillary in the primaries, but they're not about to send her money. The fundraising and enthusiatic crowds belong to the next President of the United States: Barak Hussein Obama.
something I've suspected for a while now......finally, someone (at least) raises it as an issue, although I doubt it will see the light of day anywhere else.... this will most likely prove itself to be true as we near november and a lot of these "new" registrations magically switch back to the other side.
It make no difference what Rush did or does, the superdelagates will make Obama the nominee regardless. What ever Rush did was too little too late.
respectfully, that isn't really the point... the point is the amount of damage done to Obama by HRC's republican rove-style campaign and how that will harm him heading into the general... so the continuation of the race does make a difference....
No actually it doesn't. There are two entities hurting Sen. Obama. One is the MSM doing the constant Clinton bashing while doing the Obama hour exampled by MSNBC at 8pm. The other is Sen. Obama himself. If he can't take the heat in a primary what chance does he have in the general? None. Do you really think that it is Sen. Clinton's campaign who can only come up with stuff to win an election? Really? Obama supporters do not help the cause either with all their Hillary bashing. All it does is create friction going into the general. Hence why so many Clinton supporters state they will not vote for Obama in the general. Perhaps the general populace does not need to be too neutral as far as the candidates go in the primaries, but the MSM sure should be.
bnaughty --
Nailed it! That's exactly what the Clintons want, too -- to destroy Barack's chances at winning in November -- that would be such a sweet set-up for their run in 2012, if they're unsuccessful at stealing the nomination away from him this time.
There's nothing the Clintons would like better than the chance to wag their fingers at the Democratic Party and say, "We told you so!" And what a crushing blow it would be to all the young, idealistic voters who would disengage from politics, probably for a generation or more -- just like what happened after 1968.
Yeah, the Clintons are doing some nice ground work for our Neo-con corporate overlords, aren't they? And they claim Obma's the "elitist?!"
Hypocrisy at its finest!
If after all Hillary has said and done over the course of this campaign, there is still a democrat wuith brains who still thinks she cares about this party or democracy, they deserve another Bush term. This woman is a skunk and has soiled everything she and her team have touched.
Maybe that's because Obama has a lot more pledged delegates than Hillary does.
The Rush Limbaugh effect is the spawning of strong, emotional opinions about things one knows very little about.
For propaganda purposes, of course.
Right on the money. Hillary is Carl Rove's dream candidate. If she were to gain the nomination all her dirty laundry is going to get the super fine comb.
But politics is like religion. Those sold out to the idea of a Clinton II presidency will employ all manner of cognitive dissonance in order to avoid reality.
Dream candidate for the Repubs to run against: OBAMA
ZERO foreign policy experience
ZERO meetings held of NATO subcommittee
ZERO judgment for affiliating with anti-patriots like Wright and Ayers.
ZERO chance to win in the general election.
ZERO chance of Hillary winning the nomination.
Hah, hah... You are listing real issues. If you don't know by now that elections are won and lost on emotion-driven scandals then you haven't been paying attention; and Clinton has many that will be pulled out of the bag in the general election, not the least of which will be Monica.
Put away the Clinton talking points and start using that brain of yours.
OK "putzcrappn", go on back to REDSTATE where they will tell you that Hillary is all sugar and cream. You're either an idiot or a troll. Wait, that would be redundant. Barack! Go young man!
I know the polls arent very reliable sometimes but hasnt anyone wondered why clinton gets the votes yet polls tell of her extremely high negative ratings, obama was beating her nationally, she is polled at dishonest etc. There is a real disconnect between how she is viewed in the polls and how people are voting for her. Just makes you wonder.
Rush Limbaugh has "Operation Chaos" where republicans vote for her in order to prolong the contest. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/
Also, her people are the elderly and uneducated, and the racists. The elderly ignore her garbage and feel that Bill will really be running the country, the uneducated are just easily duped, and the racists are self explantiory.
So, those groups will all vote for her even knowing she is a huge liar with no cred.
and dont forget the ultra-feminists, who just want a woman in there, no matter what her character or lack thereof.
Bill Clinton going on Rush's show before the Texas primary to aid the effort IS NOT being ignored by the superdelegates.
It can't be discussed though, since assuming a voter's motivation is impossible, and the last thing we want to do is alienate those who truly are sick of the GOP.
The only way to prove your thesis would be for Hillary to be the nominee, and that aint worth it.
Spin, spin, spin. California has a much higher percentage of illegal aliens and therefore don't get more registration. Dems will get to that in the GE. Hillary is the better candidate. Obama is a far left marxist who will never be elected.
Care to offer how many more illegal aliens CA has than PA?
Since they're never counted among the voter roles, illegal aliens have no impact on the numbers whatsoever. The fact is that Rodham has low favorability, low new registrations and very low fundraising when compared to Obama, so the numbers coming out of places like TX are nonsense. In many ways, that state is the tell tail, because it illustrates how wide a swing can be between real Democrats rallying behind a candidate vs. Republican party infiltrators pumping up Rodham's numbers just to deceive the American people into believing that she is viable. She is not, and hasn't been since Tsunami Tuesday. Ever since then, it's been all Obama, all the time , and nothing has changed. Without Republicans, Indiana polls would be double-digits in favor of Obama - but they have an open primary.
In a way, this entire exercise may be academic, because when you stop doing "business as usual", it really doesn't matter what party you're in. They're both going down.
8
Are comments closed here too?
Or can Obamaphiles still riidecule dead horses?
How dumb.
Rush Limbaugh is so relevant that the Dems control Capitol Hill, Bush is the most despised President ever, the Iraq war is very unpopular and John McCain has the the Repub nom for President.
It's not 1994 anymore, people. Get a clue already.
Instad of realizing that Obama is a weak candidate, you would rather blame pillhead Limbaugh. You're getting played. Again.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/
How do you explain that then?
Rush still has the ear of the 28% that still think the worst President in history is doing a good job. Either he and they know something that the rest of the world doesn't know or they are not really paying enough attention.
Um Hum - sure.
I beg to differ; Limbaugh et. al. are the reason conservatism still has a breath of life following the disastrous results of everything it has touched.
When will we learn? When will the American people realize that BOTH political parties are a danger to Democracy?
George Washington warned us about this in his last speech as President.
To a political party, protecting their power and keeping the money rolling in are far more important than some abstract idea like Democracy, there is an inherent conflict of interest!
We need to go to a system of local, state, and regional primaries based on ideals, not party affiliations! We the People agree on a lot more than either party is willing to admit.
They need conflict to fill the banks, to keep us at odds with each other they have used racism, sexism, religious dogma, and economics. Hell, now it's flag pins!
Operation Chaos, and it's relatives used by Democrats, are intentional attacks on our system. They are Treason! Participation should permanently revoke the right to vote. But this would not be possible if our Nation wasn't already the victim of the power lust of the parties!
First off the Republicans are not stupid. They can see the reality about Clinton in the polls. Head to head poll results don't matter especially this far before the election but underlying poll responses tell pollsters what they really want to know. In polls Hillary has a higher negative rating than any other presidential candidate who might go into a general election. Also by a ratio of 2 to 1 people think she is dishonest and untrustworthy which is also abnormally high. Republicans know how people really feel about Hillary based on these poll numbers and will relentlessly attack these weakness to great effect.
The Clintons have beaten the Republicans in 8 straight elections. The Republicans have never beaten the Clintons. They have tried "knee-capping", they have thrown the "kitchen sink', they have tried "smear and fear"..... yet the fact remains: The Clintons have beaten the Republicans in 8 straight elections.
Republicans DON'T KNOW how to beat a Clinton.
Apparently Obama doesn't know how either.
That's becuase she and Bill are lower than even Karl Rove and the Republican Attack machine. Not exactly a character trait I want in my next President.
Too bad for the Clintons that Perot's not running.
Don't get out or read much do you? If you did you'd realize what an anal statement your last sentence is 'Apparently Obama doesn't know how either'. I can't help but wonder what your own personal criteria is for one candidate to beat another because obviously the popular vote, number of states won and delegate counts don't factor into your equation.
So, apparently.... Republicans who vote for Obama are the good kind, and we want more of them.
But Republicans who vote for Hillary are the bad kind, and should be disparaged for the evil slime they are.
Do I have it right?
Is this the NEW style of politics I keep hearing so much about?
and just how many repugs do you know who honestly like hilLIARy?
You insulted two constituencies in one short sentence.
Is this the "civility" which Obama represents?
Is this how his supporters will help bring "unity" to the country?
Obamamania is a fraud.
Don't take it personally, but yes, in general experience, this is the case. Every Republican I know who voted for Obama says they did so because he is, in their opinion, the best candidate. Every Republican I know who voted for Hillary gleefully admitted they just want her to win because they believe there's no way she can win in the presidential election.
Obviously, one person's experience bears little weight; but the phenomenon is widespread. When thousands have the same tale, well, it bears considering. The issue of vastly differing reasons for Republicans to vote for Obama or Hillary has little to do with the candidates, and much to do with Republican voters and (both implicit and explicit) strategies.
You are so full of it, your eyes are brown.
Care to relay the story of your Republican friends who gleefully voted for Clinton?
Why do you know so many scummy people in the first place?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
