« Gallup: Obama Leads Hillary Among Dems, But Trails McCain For The General | Home | Hillary To Speak On Iraq Policy, As Campaign Attacks Obama »
Boston Globe Notices Limbaugh Dems For Hillary
The story-line about "Limbaugh Democrats" — Republicans now voting in Democratic primaries simply to boost Hillary Clinton's shot at the nomination — is getting some major pick-up in this morning's Boston Globe.
The Globe notes that the Republican share of the vote in Texas, Ohio and Mississippi was higher than it had been in previous Democratic races, and Hillary Clinton's share of their vote also increased dramatically in the exit polls. The paper also describes it as "possible, though perhaps unlikely" that mischievous crossover voters delivered a win to Hillary in the Texas primary — she received an estimated 119,000 GOP voters there, with an overall margin of victory of around 101,000.
Advertisement
Maybe, in part at least, this explains why she didn't fair as well in the caucus portion too.
March 17, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Republican would be willing to caucus for a Democrat?
March 17, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No doubt, our caucus' were a mad house. My wife and I were in the front of the line and it still took us over an hour to sign in.
I doubt many Goopers Dittoheads would be willing to put off drinking beer and wife beating long enough to participate.
March 17, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
nisleib,
What an ugly comment! :-(
March 17, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's an ugly comment, but ditto-heads are some pretty hateful and ugly people.
March 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's let the GOP pick our nominee...that'll go well. Ugh. Whatever. They know they can't beat Obama, clearly, but I'm not so sure they can beat Hillary, either.
For some reason, this reminds me of the McCain campaign adviser, McKinnen, who will QUIT rather than say anything bad about Obama...because he likes him so much. Makes you think.
HILLARY = GREAT CANDIDATE
BARACK OBAMA = ONE IN A MILLION
March 17, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's always been my feeling.
March 17, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters, are you happy that your candidate is getting support from these lowlifes? That should tell you something about who they fear in the general.
March 17, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
So when Republicans vote for Obama, it's great because he has crossover appeal. But when they vote for Clinton, they're dirty "lowlifes". Another classic non sequitur.
What makes you so sure they're following Limbaugh, and not following Anne Coulter, who's said a number of times she prefers Clinton as president over McCain? Once McCain sealed the nomination, they'd rather see Clinton as President than Obama or McCain, and are voting accordingly.
March 17, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are talking about different kinds of Republicans. There are many moderate Republicans that will vote for Obama not only in the primary but also in the General.
The Limbaugh Republicans, however, have no intention whatsoever of voting for Hillary in the General Election. By and large they hate Hillary and know having her on the Democratic ticket will greatly increase General Election turnout for the GOP.
Apples and oranges.
March 17, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, where's your evidence for this distinction? As far as I've been able to gather, you have none.
Furthermore, the theory simply doesn't work in Ohio.
Who were all these enrolled Republicans voting in Texas? The suggestion that they all do Limbaugh's bidding is unlikely in the extreme, and it's virtually impossible they made the difference between Hillary winning and losing.
I imagine most of them were white - a Demographic Hillary tends to do as well, or not better in than Obama. And I imagine most of the white voters were women, again, a Demographic Hillary does better in.
Occam's razor, my paranoid friends.
March 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Occam's razor, indeed. Look at the evidence that I compiled and add in the evidence others have added. The simplest explanation that fits all of the evidence is Limbaugh "democrats".
Remember Einstein's version of Occam's razor: the theory should be the simplest one possible that explains the evidence, but no simpler. (I.e., simplicity does not trump evidence.)
March 17, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where's this evidence?
Buried in the Boston Globe article, is this gem of a sentence:
"Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states [Ohio and Texas]".
In other words, both Clinton and Obama were boosted by the same number of Republican votes.
I feel I need to make this even simpler.
If you subtracted all the Republican votes, Clinton would still have beated by Obama by 100,000 votes, and by *an even larger percentage*.
And I love people getting worked up over Bill Clinton going on Limbaugh's show to drum up support for Hillary. Of course he did! THe whole point of elections is to get as many votes as possible. Bill did very, very well there in 1996, getting to with 5% of Dole. Since then hasn't been within 20%.
March 17, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The evidence is down below. I gave a brief numbered list, and others have added to it.
March 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
clinton has been bashed incessantly on the right wing talk radio monopoly for many years. i think you will discover many of the obama 'republicans' were genuinely rejecting bush while many of the clinton voters were ding rush's bidding.
this is a good example of the power of talk radio and why progressives must take it seriously- it does the groundwork for the GOP propaganda and swiftboating that will tear into whoever the nominee is, its uncontested repetition makes it acceptable to the rest of the media and intimidates those in the media who would criticize the republicans. we need another Fairness Doctrine.
March 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is that:
1) We know Limbaugh encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary in Texas, a State where Republicans hate her enough to do so. Hillary's Republican turnout increased dramatically.
2) We know Obama has been doing very well with Indies and moderate Reps, as well as more liberal Dems. They are unaffiliated or swingers for various reasons but generally share a disdain of the status quo and both parties.
3) Hillary does well with what I call the machine Dems. i.e. the party loyalists who the machine always turns out. Both party has them. These are people who aren't that well informed or educated, who see politics as sport and always root for their team. They'd still turn out for a one legged chimpanzee.
4) Virtually all Republicans hate Hillary. There's simply no way they're genuinely turning out for her in large numbers. This has been proven repeatedly by opinion polls and follows logically from the 90s.
March 17, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're right.
they hate hillary because of years of uncontesetd repetitious swiftboating of the clintons on their talk radio monopoly and i'd bet most republicans who are sick of bush enough to get out of the GOP would go to obama. the racists wont switch.
March 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
essentially yes. if a Republican actually supports and votes for a Democratic candidate, that is 'crossover' voting and is good for Dems. if a Republican just votes for a Dem candidate to help draw out their primary race and because they think that candidate will be more easily defeated by their own candidate, then they're not 'crossover' voters, they're saboteurs. which is their right, its not illegal to do. but Democrats, real Democrats, should acknowledge that this is happening, and incorporate it as a fact into the discussion here. this whole ridiculous Hillary 'comeback' narrative that the media has been pushing to death since before OH and TX relied on these anticipated victories in making the case, and these Republican voters make it appear that she has more support amongst Democrats than she actually does.
March 17, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Onceler has it right. Moderate leaning Republicans crossing over to vote for a Democrat they like is one thing. Die hard Rebublicans crossing over only in the primary in order to prop up whichever Democratic candidate they believe is the weakest is another thing.
A black friend of mine, however, was at another nearby precinct caucus where one Hillary "supporter" called Obama a "n____er." Who wants to guess whether that Hillary "supporter" was a real Democrat or a Limbaugh Voter for Hillary?
I personally observed some of these Limbaugh Voters for Hillary at my precinct caucus in Texas. The two examples I saw made no attempt to pretend they were "real Democrats." And, in their defense, they weren't doing anything contrary to the rules. It was perfectly legal.
Legal or not, however, it should send a message to Hillary supporters that the Texas "win" was a very shallow victory. Hillary only got over the hump because Republicans preferred their chances against her in the general.
March 17, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner,
Are you forgetting (or maybe unaware) that the very Bill Clinton went on the Limbaugh show to ask Texans to vote for Hillary? Who do you think he was appealing to?
Surprise!, he was appealing to those who listen to Limbaugh's show.
He went on the show the day that magically, Limbaugh stayed home, sick with the one-day flu.
In this show, he was asking for votes, as opposed to asking about the 'Chelsea-is-a-dog' issue...
March 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the article.
March 17, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
New campaign slogan: Hillary Clinton -- Rush Limbaugh's favorite Democrat. John McCain's wet dream of a general election opponent.
March 17, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supporters, let's get this argument out of the way right off the bat:
Yes, Obama receives votes and support from Republicans, too. No, they aren't voting for him to sabotage the race but rather because they like him. Yes, there are some Republicans who have finally decided to become Democrats and they like Hillary. No, it's not that many and in fact the large majority of Republican Hillary voters are Limbaugh voters.
And yes, if you can't see the difference between the two, you are a staggeringly obtuse fool.
March 17, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see you submit some evidence to back up each of those claims.
March 17, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pieces of evidence:
1) Limbaugh's statements (obviously he could be trying to play reverse psychology, but that would seem to defeat his purpose)
2) The vast majority of polls (I know, I know, polls don't matter, maybe people are lying to the polls, etc.)
3) The statements of ordinary Republicans that many of us here at TPM know as friends (rejoinder: not scientific, small sample size)
Each of these pieces of evidence by themselves can be refuted. As a whole, and without evidence to the contrary, it seems quite difficult to doubt the veracity of billysumday's statement.
March 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cheers for that, makes discussions much easier!
1. This assumes Limbaugh is massively influential. Apparently his show gets around 10 million listeners a week worldwide. Let's be generous and assume 10% are in Texas. Given that 100,000 Republicans voted for Clinton, that would mean 10% of his Texan listeners did what he said. Given that turnout is only around the 10-20% mark anyway, this implies that almost every one of his listeners that did vote, voted as he told them - seems phenomenally unlikely to me.
2. Which polls? I simply don't buy that a Republican voting for Obama now is more likely to favour him in the GE than a Republican voting for Clinton - there'll never be any way of knowing the answer here, so I guess people will just believe what they want to believe.
3. What you said - small sample size, very biased, unable to know who's telling the truth and who's lying (and I'm sure some are lying).
A few bits of unconvincing evidence doesn't make a hypothesis more likely to be true. It's amazingly unlikely that even Republican voting for Clinton did so because of Limbaugh, but I'm sure a few did. Equally, I'm certain a some voted for Obama having no intention of voting for him in the GE.
And the most important thing here, is that if we discount all Republican votes, Clinton still wins by 100,000 votes according to the Boston Globe. Enough said.
March 17, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) There's a reason they're called dittoheads. (They themselves use this term.)
2) The polls that have had (until very recently) Obama consistently doing better against McCain than Clinton.
3) As I said, merely another piece of evidence that is not meant to stand alone.
4) From converse:
Where's any evidence to contradict this body of evidence?
March 17, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, first I'd argue it isn't a body of evidence. What it does do, and this I've acknowledged from the start, is suggest that some Republicans did maliciously vote for Clinton.
The question, is did it change the outcome of Hillary winning the primaries? She unquestionably won more votes from Democrats, and every single one of her Republican votes would have to be malicious, and none of Obamas.
Incidentally, the latest Rasmussen poll has McCain equally ahead of both Hillary and Obama. What's interesting, is that more *Democrats* would switch to McCain if Obama was the nominee, while more Independents would vote McCain if Hillary was the nominee.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
All this whining about Republicans making mischief is completely disingenuous. If only Democrats were allowed to vote in the primaries, Hillary would be running away with the nomination right now.
Let's keep our eyes firmly on the prize - whether it be Hillary or Obama that gets the nomination, we need to get behind them. Start now, by supporting both. Isn't that what the 'great unifier' would want?
March 17, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on what you mean by outcome. As genghis correctly points out, we don't really know that she wouldn't have won anyway. I think it is fair to say, based on this evidence, that she would've gotten fewer delegates without the Limbaugh support.
March 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see your list before adding my own in thread. The main thing I'd add, and I think it;s critical, is that Hillary is an establishment figure and Obama is more of an outsider. As such, for Indies and swing voters, Hillary carries all the baggage of the party.
That's tremendously important with swing voters who tend to dislike the machine politics and policies of both parties. There are plenty of moderate Dems and Reps who would be willing to vote across party lines otherwise.
McCain has great crossover appeal. So does Obama . Hillary doesn't. The Republican strategy against Hilalry is simple: hang all the Democrats baggage on her neck, from the war vote to NAFTA to failed healthcare even to her cookie cutter feminism. She has no reform record or anything to appeal to Indies. That'll kill her with Indies and swing voters.
March 17, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply look at the Texas exit polls and identify how many Clinton voters said that they *did not want Clinton to be the nominee*.
March 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about: all of the Republicans I work with (I live in Ohio) who came into the office on the Wednesday after the election, boasting about how they voted for Hillary to sabotage the election? And the numerous other anecdotal stories I heard from other friends and family members all over the state?
Or, wait, I know - ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE JUST LYING! Yes, that must be it!
March 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Foreigner,
Feel free to submit evidence against what the Boston Globe is saying.
March 17, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Globe contradicts itself - it says that as many Republicans voted for Obama as Hillary in Texas and Ohio. In a Democratic primary, Hillary still would have won by 100,000 votes. And in an open primary... well, we know the result.
March 17, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yawn.
Foreigner, You're choosing to be difficult. I'm a Texan. It would take about ten minutes to compile a list of people who fall into either category.
My dad, for one, is a Republican who voted for Obama, and has donated money to Obama, and will be voting for him in the GE. He's also a small town Methodist pastor, and has many members of his church who also fit within this category.
On the other hand, everyone in Texas knows at least one Republican who voted for Hillary because of Limbaugh. Do you need names? I hate to out people, but they're pretty proud of it, given the carnage they're causing. So what would satisfy you?
Of course, this won't be empirical enough for Foreigner. But then, nothing will be.
March 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that explains all the tone of HRC supporters of late. I thought they sounded almost like GOP, now it turns out some of them are!
Also note, that Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh's show before Texas.
So if Hillary wins the "big states" with the help of Republican vandals who will certainyl vote against her in the general, doesn't that kind of defeat her argument?
March 17, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, when republcans and independents were voting for obama, it was great! but when hillary is getting all these blue collar white republicans, its becoz either its a conspiracy or because they are racist! it was the same thing in new-hampshire remember, when chris matthews and some in the media was trying so hard to justify it's because of inherent racism !
- its time someone calls these closet obama supporters out in the open and expose them for what they really are.
March 17, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that this particular conspiracy is out in the open kinda makes it a little less crazy, doesn't it?
Not all "conspiracy theories" are crazy—just most of them.
March 17, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was there as a Democratic Election Judge in a deeply Republican precinct in Central Texas. Many of the Republicans who voted for Clinton were not shy about their motives amongst each other. Because we are a rural precinct the Republican Judge knew or was related to the voters who came for our tickets. I estimate about 20-25% of our votes for Clinton were Limbaugh Democrats. Didn't have the term 2 weeks ago but that is what they are. For further confirmation one of my sisters-in-law also played this dirty and venal political game. At the Democratic precinct caucus after the polls closed the vote was 2:1 for Obama.
March 17, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why does this gotta be the magic of the limp-bough?
Why can't Republicants support the truest Republican in the election. REPs appear to be drawn to, at a genetic level, fear-mongering, overt and covert bigotry and a brazen tendancy to lie and ride that lie into hell to get get what they desire damn anybody or everything in their path. Throw in the corpoorate affinity and Her Royale Crownship is their wet-dream candidate. The only thing Clinton could do make herself more appealing to the REP base is for her to claim that god told her to win.
March 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Limbaugh Democrats?
Sorta like Jewish Nazis or black Klansmen.
This is jiu jitsu. Limbaugh would love to have Hilary as his punching bag in the general election.
March 17, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know a few of those Texas Republicans. They don't think they can beat Hillary in the general. As a matter of fact, they think either Dem has a very good chance to beat McCain. They don't want that Dem to be Obama. What this should tell you something about is Obama's chance of bringing the country together behind him. If you think Clinton is divisive, nominate Obama and hide and watch.
March 17, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you're assuming is that the typical voter is rational. From what I've seen in talking to friends and family, likely "swing voters" just *like* Obama (without any good reason) and just *dislike* Clinton (without any good reason). I have logical reasons for preferring Obama, and you're right that true conservatives would have logical reasons for disliking Obama even more than Clinton, but I do believe you're giving the electorate more credit than is due.
March 17, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a no brainer for the right to supporter her in the primary.
If she proves to be as weak an opponet in the general election as they hope- McCain wins which is good for them.
If it's just one of those years were there's no way a the democrat loses and she beats McCain - well, that's a better alternative for them than Obama.
In most areas she is much more conservative then Obama , particularly in foreign policy (just look at who her advisers are). Rush knows this.
A bit off topic, heres a link to my latest post which I'm particularly proud of..
HOWARD WOLFSON'S EXORBITANTLY HIGH SALARY AND WHY IT MATTERS
http://100reasonsnottovoteforhillaryclinton.blogspot.com/2008/03/9howard-wolfsons-exorbitantly-high.html
Hope you enjoy it.
March 17, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
When you look at the popular vote overall, Hillary is leading among registered Dems. It's true that some Republicans are crossing over genuinely and it's true that many are crossing over (for Barack or Hillary) in an effort to muck up the nomination process. But it's unfair to suggest that Hillary's momentum is the result of Limbaugh Dems. For true closed primaries, Hillary has the advantage.
March 17, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
In Texas exit polls, the large percentage of Clinton voters who also said that they *did not want Clinton as the nominee* matched the number of repubs voting for Clinton and clearly showed that they had no intention of voting for her in the general.
March 17, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
jeffgee is correct. If Clinton wins, Limbaugh gets eight years of radio air-time and does not have to write a single script.
March 17, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I doubt he'll be at a loss for words with Obama either, though.
It's not like he needs to base his tirades off of truth or anything.
March 17, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters want everyone to believe all Repug crossovers vote for Obama. They've been trying to ram that one down our throats at least since Virginia, if not earlier.
HAH!
March 17, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the article:
""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."" Boston Globe
It's a well-documented movement on the part of Limbaugh.
March 17, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
you guys don't even see how ridiculous you are... i've been jumping up and down about the insanity of letting republicans vote in dem primaries, but as long as it was helping obama his supporters here at TPM had no problem with it. now that republicans are (supposedly) voting for hillary, it's a HUGE problem.
take a stand already! republicans get to vote in dem primaries or not? but turning your head when it works in your favor and whining when it doesn't just makes you look dumb.
sorry, i don't usually like to call people "ridiculous" and/or "dumb", but in this case, i'll make an exception...
March 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dumb is kind-of nasty. In my case, poorly informed is a better assessment. I guess I missed your posts.
I had no idea that the number of republicans voting in our primaries was so high...and I know some dems were doing a similar thing to skew the GOP race...so I guess I didn't worry about it enough. I thought it was more of a insignificant symbolic protest, not really an effective sabotage strategy.
The numbers from this article are shocking.
Color me informed.
March 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your frustration, but there is a difference here. Previously, there was every reason to believe that most of these Republicans genuinely preferred Obama to Clinton. In this case, many of them are voting for Clinton on Limbaugh's orders, just to muck up the Democratic convention. The first set seem ethical to me, the second set do not. (Obviously, I'm distinguishing ethical from legal.)
So, yes, Republicans get to vote in open elections. We get to complain about them trying to sabotage the process, even if they do it legally.
March 17, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with Republicans voting in the primary. I think it has been a huge boost for Obama, and rightfully so. There are a lot of disaffected Republicans out there who see in Obama the opportunity to right the wrongs of their recent voting conscious. (They're right too, he is.)
However, what's happening with the Limbaugh Democrats speaks ill, not of the primary system, but of the Dem. leadership for allowing this thing to get out of hand, allowing Clinton to frame this race as, well, a "race."
The Republicans aren't doing this so Hillary can win, either. It's to prolong the primary. As Limbaugh has often said, Team Hillary can and will say things about Obama that Team McCain won't and can't.
So I'm less concerned with the Republicans voting per se, and much more with the Dem. leadership realizing the consequences of their indecisiveness.
March 17, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, to be fair, I think the lion's share of the blame belongs to the Limbaugh camp. Also, I'm not exactly sure what the Democratic leadership could really be doing all that differently without coming off as being heavy handed.
March 17, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
They could've encouraged superdelegates to make a decision. They could've take a stand on Fl and Mich and not allow Hillary camp browbeat them into it. They could've encouraged Hillary to look at a delegate calculator. There's a lot of leadership the DNC could've shown along the way.
I agree that now, what they might do might seem heavy handed, but that's only because they allowed Hillary to play the Mar. 4th game that defined her "wins" as significant, when, as everyone knew well before hand, she needed 20 point margins to remain competitive.
If the DNC could've kept their eyes on that, they would've been in a good position to exert some influence.
Or, after Obama won 11 in a row.
Instead, this is a dream situation for Limbaugh/ McCain.
March 17, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember that the republican party is not monolithic any more than is the democratic party.
There are crossover Limbaugh republicans who voted Clinton for destructive reasons, and there are crossover disgusted-with-Limbaugh/Bush republicans who voted Obama for constructive reasons.
As well, I am sure there are crossover republicans who wanted to vote against a 'black man' middle-named Hussein as well as crossover republicans who wanted to vote against a 'woman' named Clinton.
As Obama points out when he speaks of the slicing and dicing of the electorate, the important point to remember is that we are all Americans [albeit of varying degrees of awareness and/or purity of motivations], each and all affected by Washington political actions or non-actions.
What is the path a president should follow which takes all the divisiveness into account, but then offers the sliced and diced a more foundational identity in order to address common issues?
Seems to me that Obama sees the divisiveness as something to heal, while others see the divisiveness as something to exploit.
March 17, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Limbaugh Democrats are Reagan Republicans who are conservative Democrats. If Obama is the nominee, the GOP wins the POTUS. If Obama, the lying manufactured image is the Dem nominee, Wright, race, Rezko will be top issues and I doubt that tops the GW Bush depression or Iraq.
March 17, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
This makes no sense.
March 17, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
there's a difference between obama supporters or clinton supporters calling for repubs to vote for them and the talk radio machine being used to game the primaries for the GOP!
this is just a minor example of the power of the talk radio monopoly and a good reason for all progressives to back a new Fairness Doctrine. unfortunately right wing talk radio is greatly underestimated by progressives, who ignore it along with media critics because it may be so distasteful to listen to or because there are no readable searchable transcripts of the daily uncontested repetition that gets spread all over the country until molehills become mountains, lies become truth and the irrational becomes acceptable.
progressives continue to ignore the talk radio monopoly at great cost while their candidates get beaten down with rove's invisible talk radio hammers. and bush nor his war could not have been sold to us without their uncontested repetition to make the lies acceptable to the rest of the media later in the day or week.
March 17, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of those evidence-free threads where everyone talks out of their asses. A Republican who votes Hillary could plausibly be any of the following:
a) Trying to throw the election for Clinton (or extend the Democratic nomination process). After all, Limbaugh does have influence
b) Pessimistic about Republican chances and prefers Clinton to Obama
c) A McCain-hater who prefers Clinton to Obama
d) A moderate who genuinely likes Hillary
None of you have any idea about how many of which kind of Republican voted for Clinton, so have some humility, and stop making pronouncements. If you want to limit Republican influence, then lobby against open elections in the next election. As for Texas, it's over, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's just as pathetic for Obama supporters to whine about Republican influence as it is for Clinton supporters to whine about the primacaucus.
March 17, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone needs to play devil's advocate with Limbaugh.
Someone needs to challenge Limbaugh on why McCain can't beat Obama.
We need individuals to call Limbaugh's show and argue for McCain and force Limbaugh to tell his viewers why Obama is the better candidate.
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Aren't there any folks willing to do this ?
We need to get in the minds of the Archie Bunker types.
They need to hear the truth.
Limbaugh will delight in telling why Obama can beat McCain in a snide way.
We need devil's advocates.
March 17, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's my understanding that well-spoken liberals don't usually get past the screening process…
Still, it's worth a try, I suppose.
March 17, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
limbaugh IS massively influential- he and his wannabes are the main reason we are in this bus disaster. that's why he got a contract for 1/3BIL- a firesale considering what he made for his patrons in tax breaks and war profits.
he gets closer to a 20mil audience and then everyone else hears about it from the media coverage. it's way past time for a new Fairness Doctrine.
March 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Cleveland Plain-Dealer looked at this, here's part of their article:
16,000 Republicans in Cuyahoga Crossed Over and
> Voted
> Democratic in Primary
> By Amanda Garrett
> Cleveland Plain Dealer
> Sunday 09 March 2008
>
> A staggering 16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga
> County switched parties when they voted in last
> week's
> primary.
>
> That includes 931 in Rocky River, 1,027 in
> Westlake and 1,142 in Strongsville. More than a
> third
> of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village
> switched.
> Pepper Pike had the most dramatic change: just under
> half its Republicans became Democrats. And some of
> those who changed - it's difficult to say how many -
> could be in trouble with the law.
>
> At least one member of the Cuyahoga County Board
> of Elections wants to investigate some Republicans
> who
> may have crossed party lines only to influence which
> Democrat would face presumed Republican nominee John
> McCain in November.
>
> Those who crossed lines were supposed to sign a
> pledge card vowing allegiance to their new party.
>
> In Cuyahoga County, dozens and dozens of
> Republicans scribbled addendums onto their pledges
> as
> new Democrats:
>
> "For one day only."
>
> "I don't believe in abortion."
>
> A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records
> showed few of those who switched were challenged by
> poll workers. (...)
March 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you should mention all the republican votes Obama has recieved.
March 17, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Republican support is so repugnant then maybe Obama should stop getting them to vote for him in Pennsylvania.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxMD8vcl0bc
March 17, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
there's a difference between getting votes from republicans who are beginning to see the corruption and incompetence of the bush admin and having the GOP distort the Dem primaries for their gain.
March 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's call for "change" isn't any more pure nor lily-white, he's simply doing everything he can to win.
March 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
my point is that while many republicans voting for obama are anti bush most republicans voting for Clinton are anti Dem.
March 17, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, to put it another way, there is a difference between receiving votes from Republicans who plan to vote for you in the general election, as opposed to getting votes from those who just want the weakest possible nominee to face off against their man, McBush.
March 17, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've read most of the comments above and posted something to this effect the day after the primaries in Ohio.
I was the presiding judge (poll manager) for a small highly Repulican precinct in central Ohio. We had 54 people switch party allegiance from Republican to Democrat that day. We had 185 people chose a Democratic ballot. Hillary won the precinct by 17 votes.
I can personally attest that the majority of the voters switching did so at Limbaugh's bidding and were very upfront about it despite the statement I had to read to them which said (paraphrase, but close): I attest under penalty of election falsification that I desire to change my allegiance to the (Democratic) party and believe in the principles they stand for blah blah blah."
This is anecdotal evidence to be sure, but significant nonetheless. These people were highly motivated to manipulate the results of the Democratic primary simply because they fear facing Obama in the general election.
March 17, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A Plain Dealer review of thousands of records
> showed few of those who switched were challenged by
> poll workers. (...)"
I contacted my county Board of Elections after the fourth or fifth switch. I spoke to a Democrat Party representative who told me that despite what the voter tells me directly, I cannot challenge the person's choice to change parties. "A person can use essentially any reason to switch parties and it isn't the Presiding Judge's responsibility to challenge that voter." I was told to approve every request as long as I didn't have any doubts that the person was a US citizen and of voting age which are the main reasons were are given to challenge a person's right to vote.
The problem is systemic. Voters should indeed have the right to switch parties, but should be given a deadline to do so with their county Board of Elections at least one month prior to a primary election. That gives the BOE enough time to update their poll books and greatly diminishes this type of manipulation.
March 17, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
By allowing open primaries, the Dems have granted the Republicans the opportunity to boost Hillary's chances of getting the nomination, knowing that she polls lower against McCain than does Barak.
I will grudgingly give the Republican voters "credit" for thinking several moves ahead, but this is a travesty.
From my own perspective, the DNC needs to rethink both open primaries and proportional allocation of delegates. Alas, it's too late for either in this election cycle.
The same goes for allowing Michigan and Florida to move up their primaries against party direction. This insurrection - that's what it is - should have been addressed immediately, as in not permitting it to happen in the first place and putting both states on notice that they would have to pay for any "do overs". All those responsible at both the national level and at the state level should be fired.
March 17, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink