« Obama Chides Reporters For Swallowing Media-Tougher-On-Hillary Line | Home | Hillary's Long-Shot Strategy -- Get Super-Dels To See Obama As "Paper Tiger" »

Republicans Turning Out In Ohio — For The Dem Primary

Thanks in part to the lack of a competitive GOP contest, a lot of Republican voters are crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary — so much so that Democratic ballot requests are out-numbering the Republicans in even a lot of GOP strongholds. Just who is benefitting, though, it not yet clear.

In the heavily-GOP Cleveland suburb of Chagrin Falls, an estimated 70% of today's ballots are being cast in the Dem race. And judging by the folks who talked to the Plain Dealer and indicated who they'd voted for, they were breaking mostly for Hillary Clinton. We'll find out tonight just how widespread that pattern was.


61 Comments

| Leave a comment

But, but, but... Raeka and Ricosuave told me that it was Obama who was winning only because of Republicans who were going to vote for McCain in Nov. Do you mean to tell me that their hyterical rants were mistaken? Say it ain't so...

NBC exit polls had 10% of Dem primary voters as republicans in the OH primary. That's certainly enough to make a difference in a very close race...

I find this incredibly disturbing. Now that McCain is the Republican nominee, what meaningful vote can republicans cast moving forward?

Since Rush (the big fat idiot) is telling his listeners to vote for Hillary, its clear that the Republican party does not want to run Against Obama. And Hillary (the wedge issue) Clinton would raise astronomical dollars for the republican side, not to mention serious Republican Turnout in the general election.

What this says to me, is that Obama had better win Texas or the republicans will give us Hillary as our Nominee.

God help us.

Rush strategy is working

Hmm... I wonder if this is a strategy by Republicans to try and get Obama out of the race because they think he'd be too tough a candidate for McCain?

user-pic

What's amazing is the people they sampled in that article were almost all crossing over to vote for Clinton. Huh??

Republican shennigans. I wonder if Clinton touts this as evidence of her cross-over appeal.

Well, there is Rush's strategy at work. There is no way in hell more than a handful of Republicans would cross over to vote for Hillary because they prefer her.

I heard about republicans at polling places in Dallas, TX telling those requesting republican ballots to vote for Hillary instead.

Any lingering doubts about who the GOP would rather run against?

Note: this was related to me by a colleague at work who had seen this happen at her voting place in Dallas this morning.

Forget Ohio. What are they doing in Texas?

It seems pretty obvious that most Republicans think Obama will be harder to beat and here's more evidence. Why don't the Democrats wake up?

Great. This. The weather. New voting rules. Extended early voting. How much more noise can we add to the voting process?

Could there be so many confounding factors, that no single trend emerges by which to assess tonight's results, aside from declaring a winner and a loser? I am reluctant to believe that the ill intentions of cross-overs will decide this. I remember the same thing being said when we were looking at WI. But I'm open to evidence on the contrary.

I almost hope that Hillary becomes President to spite these fools.

Maybe in a parallel universe at least...

i'd live in that parallel universe

Yeah, okay. A cross-over of 50 counts for what these days? And how many went for Clinton versus Obama?

Yeah, sounds like a blow-out to me. Heck, Ohio goes for Clinton by 0.2%. Riiight.

Easy there. This is a reporter accosting people exiting the polls, not a well thought out exit polling operation. What we're witnessing here is selection bias - those voters most willing to confess crossing over are also likely to be those with the most adamant views.

We know from countless primaries that genuine instances of strategic voting are always too rare to have any meaningful impact on the outcome. So I discount the anecdotal evidence in the story out of hand - if they're finding strategic voters, we know to a moral certainty that their sample is worthless.

It's possible that the dynamics in Ohio are different than states we've already seen - that Hillary will fare better among crossover voters, for the same reason she fares better among the electorate as a whole. But I strongly doubt it. The published polls in the runup to the election gave quite the contrary impression. Obama has topped Hillary among independents and republicans in every poll that breaks out the numbers.

If there's really record crossover turnout, it almost certainly benefits Obama. Perhaps not enough to put him in the lead, but it should certainly erode Hillary's margin.

A good point. I agree with the substance of your post. That said, surely you can see the savory irony in this, the same to which I alluded in my post at the top of this thread. We have been treated, again and again in this campaign season, to taunts from the Clinton partisans that Obama has only been winning based on strategic votes by nefarious republicans. There is, of course, no more evidence for this than there is for the idea that Clinton might win because of Limbaugh's ditto-heads, but it is a delight to see the tables turned on these purveyors of nonsense. As such, I hope that you will excuse me as I continue to shout "LOOK, Clinton is only winning because of republican dirty-tricksters."

Yeah, I remember the same gripes circulating in WI, VA, MD...don't think it will have too much of an effect. but the gop would sure love to see this thing go on, no question about that. mary matlin said as much sunday on meet the press.

Hillary can have Ohio. Texas is the prize. If Obama wins Texas--even if he wins ugly--the race is effectively over.

user-pic

Shit. Looks like Limbaugh's strategy is working. Wonderful.

user-pic

I don't understand why some states allow Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries. Independents, sure, but Republicans? It's just begging for interference.

How would you screen out "republicans" from "independants"? What's to stop someone from simply re-registering?

they should have to register several months ahead of time so that they can't game the dynamics...

if a republican wants to be permanently registered as a democrat in order to create havoc or vote for the "beatable" dem, then they will never have an opportunity to vote in the republican primary even when it is hotly contested like the dem primary is this year.

user-pic

kensdad is right. You can always switch your party affiliation, even in a closed primary, but few people do that or they wouldn't get to vote in their own primaries. New York has a closed primary; independents can't vote in the primary at all. And to vote, you have to have been affiliated with the party during the previous election. Pretty draconian.

So I suggest allowing people who are not affiliated with any party to vote in any primary. You could of course still game the system as an independent, but it would require more commitment. Loyal party members, the ones who would be likely to try to game an election, tend to register with their own parties. There would be a suitable timeframe before the primary in which you could switch your affiliation and still vote. Some states must do it this way.

Maybe. I am not convinced that this amounts to any sort of barrier. At most, the system which you propose simply serves to encourage strong partisans to register as independants. That way you leave your options open to either back your own candidate in your own hard-fought primary, or to throw a monkey-wrench into the opponent's hard-fought primary. Given that (as FotW already points out) mischievous cross-over votes do not actually sway the results in the end, why bother to work to enact an non-effective solution to a non-existant problem.

But what do you do in years when the primary on one side isnt contested at all? This year is an extraordinarily rare occurrence, when neither party has an obvious front runner. In 2004, republicans could have reregistered en masse as independents or democrats, since there was no primary on the republican side. Same for Dems in 2000.
I am ultimately not one of the Dems who think the primaries should be closed. Democrats account for something like 35% of the electorate (obviously not an exact number...). The point is that even if a Democrat won every single democratic voter in the country, they still need a lot of Independent or Republican votes. An open primary allows us to gauge, barring interference from douchebags like Rush Limbaugh, which candidate has the most crossover appeal.

The only strategy that might work to prevent opposition interference would be to allow people to reregister as independents, but make them wait until the next election to cast a ballot in an opposing primary. Most people wouldn't think that far in advance, so the independents voting in either party's primary would in all likelihood be actual independents.

IIRC, here in California that's what we did. Independents were aloud to vote in the Democratic Primary or the American Independent Primary, or just vote on the Propositions. If you were registered as a Republican, than you could only get a Republican ballot.

We'll have to wait for the exit polls, but I doubt there will be a significant amount of voters switching over just to mess with the vote. At least I'm really hoping that's right.

nbc exit polls have it at 10% in OH. that's fairly significant, imho.

Cynthia McKinney lost her seat in congress twice through Repub campaigns to vote against her in the dem primary. Never got much play in the media. The repubs drop their support in the general and the next election their ringer always loses.

user-pic

In some states there is no "party affiliation" as part of the registration. And why should there be?

One small, bittersweet smirk. If HRC wins, she'll always have to wonder if it was because she was considered so 'beatable.' At least she'll have to hear other people say it.

user-pic

I don't think she'll care. On the other hand, it's some useful spin for Obama, since Hillary has been out there whining about his (legitimate) support among republicans for a while now.

"legitimate" support from a republican is only legitimate if they vote for a dem in the GE, not in the primary.

cross-over voting in the primaries should not be allowed.

that's ridiculous... any talk that hillary won (if she does win) OH due to republican shenanigans is no different than what some obama critics call his "democrat-for-a-day" strategy where republicans supposedly showed up to vote for him in the primaries/caucuses then revert back to voting for the republican in november...

we need to end this f-ed up cross-over b.s. in the future.

I hope that all the Republicans have given up on McCain and voted in the Dem side, only to have Huckabee and Ron Paul each win 40% of the vote to McCain's 20%.

user-pic

We know from countless primaries that genuine instances of strategic voting are always too rare to have any meaningful impact on the outcome. So I discount the anecdotal evidence in the story out of hand - if they're finding strategic voters, we know to a moral certainty that their sample is worthless.

I don't know, republicans are the kind of people who like marching lock-step, especially Limbaugh listeners. And they have nothing else to do.

As much as I hate what it may portend, we have to take those anecdotal evidence for what they are but still prepare ourselves for the possibility it might be a factor.
Let's not shoot the messenger.

i have been consistently denouncing these ridiculous open primaries... why should a republican be able to vote in a dem primary (or vice versa)?

i would even say that independents should not get a vote in either primary (dem or repub) though i know a lot of people disagree with that.

i think it's perfectly fine if people don't want to register as a dem or repub, but that should come with a price. it should mean that you have no say who is nominated by the 2 parties.

am i crazy?

Yep, pretty much.....

I think Rush and the GOP want an extended bloody Democratic race.

The DNC should respond by coming together on March 5th around the leader.

Then Rush's strategy won't work.

The power is in the DNC's hands ..... be stupid and drag this out to help the GOP, or end this sooner, regardless of Reep shenanigans.

Come on people, all we have is the word of a journo who basically accosted people outside of a voting place. This does not an exit poll make.

Hey!!! I grew up in Chagrin Falls. My parents still live there (ages 60+). It's a very well-to-do touristy township where the demographics heavily favor Hillary. (a lot of 50+, 60+, 70+ year olds). Almost ZERO minority voters. During my high school years, there were probably 3-4 african-american kids in a high school of about 600.

I agree that primaries should be reserved for party members.

Let the independents and those who refuse to state find their own candidates; let them support candidates with their money and time instead of selecting from the blue plate special the rest of us provide.

We are in the age of Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove where nothing is sacred, certainly not the ballot box.

it would be bad idea for the two major parties to do that. it would alienate independents and encourage 3rd party candidates (which ironically might be good). it would also lead to general election matchups of more extreme candidates like Tom Tancredo on the right and Dennis Kucinich on the left.

RUSH LIMBAUGH actually has been urging republicans to vote for in the democratic primaries for Clinton in order to keep this race alive for a possible split in the Democratic party. So I will not be surprised if the rebublicans actually keep Hillary in the race beyond today. I was monitoring The EIB network which is Rush Limbaugh's radio station and there were many callers who called in to confirm they have applied the Rush strategy.

No worries; I grew up in Chagrin Falls, the demographics heavily favor Hillary. It's nothing like most of Cleveland. A lot of old folks, and only about a 1% minority population (when I went to high school there, only 3-4 african american kids out of 600 in my HS)

According to this article, some dirty, some authentic. http://liberalvoices.typepad.com/progressive_nashville/2008/03/gop-crossing-li.html

user-pic

These open primaries are paid for, and controlled by the state legislatures. If Democrats are concerned about crossover nonsense the state party can pay for its own primary or caucus to participate in the Democrats Presidential nomination process and allow only Democrats the option of voting. The problem is that elections are expensive and most state parties do not want to pay for them. Its that simple.

So "WE" don't have a say unless "WE" live in that state and are active in our state Democratic party.

user-pic

That's not entirely true. The DNC sets rules for primaries & caucuses and can penalize states that don't abide by them, e.g. FL & MI. A few years back, the DNC and RNC successfully pressured CA to gut a referendum-approved open primary policy. That said, the parties can't run roughshod over the state governments, especially when those govts are controlled by other side.

user-pic

It doesn'tIt doesn't matter whether it's called an endorsement, or "choosing McCain," or whatever. The indisputable fact is that Hillary is saying that she and McCain has the experience to be President but Obama does not. It's irrelevant that she's clumsily trying to hide the statement by couching it in terms of what McCain himself will say.

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

And I should add, in reference to Clinton's claims that she's not being given a fair shake by the press (somewhat true, but Edwards sure got worse treatment - and in reality, the press, with it's horserace mentality and quest for ratings, isn't particularly fair to anyone), that when she makes gaffes like this or the earlier racial stuff, she starts to bring some of that down on herself, imho.

EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY CLINTON!!!
Sorry, I had to do it - the usual poster is not around...

user-pic
And judging by the folks who talked to the Plain Dealer and indicated who they'd voted for, they were breaking mostly for Hillary Clinton.

I should have read the stupid story before I commented. The reporter interviewed all of seven Republicans, hardly a statistically valid sample size. Eric, I'm disappointed. While technically accurate, that was a misleading writeup.

Those Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary à la the "Limbaugh" strategy better be careful what they wish for. Through all their calculation and manipulation, they could end up with another Clinton presidency.

user-pic

You have to re-register to cross over, you can just do it at the time you pick your ballot the day of voting.

As to Chagrin Falls, its about as an upscale white population as you can get.

According to The Field, the indy turnout is huge according to AP exit polls. Al G cautions about reading too much into it, but if true should be good news for BO.
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/

"The primaries in Ohio, Texas and Vermont were open to all voters, while in Rhode Island registered independents could choose which party’s primary to vote in. In the Democratic primaries, independents were about one in five voters in Ohio, one in four in Texas, a third in Rhode Island and four in 10 in Vermont.

"

user-pic

I'm glad the math is in my candidate's favor.

MSNBC confirmed the AP numbers- in OH indy's are more than 20% and Repubs are 10% - both are double from '04.

Indy's are only up a few points in TX (24% up from 22% or so) but Repubs are also at 10% but that is also double from '04.

Safe to say the Indy's are strongly for Obama but the Repubs are a real question mark.

Everyone advocating closed primaries is unbelievably obtuse and knee-jerk.

We have a two-party system, not only de facto but explicitly institutionalized in the election process. Until:

a) Every last trace, and I mean last trace, of that is abolished;
b) No party affiliation has anything to do with any election at any level in this country, including who can be on a ballot;

and etc, then closed primaries amount to nothing more than saying "because you aren't willing to march in lock-step with a party in every election, you get no voice in who can be on a ballot".

It is utterly repugnant to anything but a crony fascist state. I hope everyone suggesting it has just not thought through the implications, rather than being closet fascists.

interactive map of ohio returns:
http://vote.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enr/f?p=152:15:0

I find this incredibly disturbing. Now that McCain is the Republican nominee, what meaningful vote can republicans cast moving forward?

Since Rush (the big fat idiot) is telling his listeners to vote for Hillary, its clear that the Republican party does not want to run Against Obama. And Hillary (the wedge issue) Clinton would raise astronomical dollars for the republican side, not to mention serious Republican Turnout in the general election.

What this says to me, is that Obama had better win Texas or the republicans will give us Hillary as our Nominee.

God help us.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address