Limbaugh Democrats for Hillary

"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."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

our chief psephologist, nimh.

Unless I hear otherwise, I'm assuming that these folks are statistically insignificant.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1204709601137420.xml&coll=2

Quote:

Republicans switch to vote for Clinton to help McCain
Others in GOP say she's better candidate
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Joe Guillen
Plain Dealer Reporter

Republicans across Ohio jumped party lines during Tuesday's primary and voted Democrat - for reasons both pure and sinister.
Some wanted to clear a path for Republican victory in November. Others simply preferred one of the Democratic candidates.

In the Republican roost of Chagrin Falls, veteran poll worker Liz McFadden was amazed at the number of people jumping the party's ship. Democrats accounted for 70 percent of the voters in her precinct, one of seven at the village's high school.

"That's a complete reversal of what it normally is, even more so," she said. "I've never seen a switch like this."

Shortly before polls closed in North Ridgeville in Lorain County, one precinct showed 64 Republicans had crossed out of 589 voters.

In Chester Township in Geauga County, also a GOP stronghold, Democrats had outvoted Republicans by nearly 50 percent early in the going.

"I voted for Hillary," said Republican Eric Klieber, 56, of Cleveland Heights. "John McCain has a better chance of beating her than Barack Obama. . . . If the Democratic race was decided, I'm sure a lot of them would vote for the candidate less likely to win."

Clinton was the defector's choice in Cincinnati, too. In Hyde Park, an affluent neighborhood, a volunteer for Clinton said a number of Republicans told her they voted for Clinton in hopes of seating a Republican in the White House in November.

<snip>

But some Republicans might have switched for good. In Strongsville, middle-aged couple Lucy and Pete See - longtime Republicans - both voted for Clinton.

"I like that she has more experience in foreign affairs," Pete See said. "The Republican candidate was older than me."

Lucy See said she voted for Clinton as well. "I want to be part of making history," she said.

http://www.western-star.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/05/hjn030508voting.html

Quote:

Voters turn blue by crossing over
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
HAMILTON -- Butler County has turned blue.

Primary election results show there are now considerably more Democrats registered in the county, according to the Butler County Board of Elections.Of the ballots requested Tuesday, March 4, 48,991 were for Democrat, and 39,747 for Republican, according to the BOE. Before the primary, there were 45,711 registered Republicans and 21,640 Democrats

"Usually Republicans outnumber Democrats by 2 to 1," in the county, McGary said. "We won't know exactly how many switched over until we are able to certify results as official."

Marilyn Hatfield, an associate judge in Ward 3, precinct 3 at Christ United Methodist Church in Middletown, said she's seen more Democrats than normal in the precinct, which is usually heavily Republican.

"Several people said they were pulling Democratic ballots because of what Rush Limbaugh said," Hatfield said.

Limbaugh said Friday, Feb. 29, on the O'Reilly Factor that the battle between Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was "too good a soap opera" and that Clinton needed to stay in the race as long as possible to damage Obama politically in a way McCain would not.

<snip>

And here's more:

Quote:

Go and check the exit polls. In Wisconsin, Republicans made up 9 percent of the Democratic primary vote. Obama won them 72-28 over Clinton. Just as tellingly, 14 percent of primary voters said they were "conservative," and Obama won them 59-40, a bigger margin than he won with liberals or moderates. Tactical voters who said Obama stood a better chance of winning in November? They went for him 87-13.

Now, look at Ohio. Once again 9 percent of voters were Republicans, but Obama and Clinton split them evenly, 49-49. Once again, 14 percent of voters were "conservatives," and Obama and Clinton split them 48-48. (Obama did better with them than he did with liberals and moderates.) Those tactical voters who thought Obama could win gave him a 80-18 victory, a margin twelve points smaller than the margin in Wisconsin.

It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time since Super Tuesday, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.

http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html

Links in original.

This seems about right:

Quote:

The Caucus
March 8, 2008

On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing talk radio host, was triumphant. Well, as triumphant as someone who claims "we're already screwed" can be. Elsewhere, supporters of Senator Barack Obama were writing and calling other forums, including The Caucus, asking about the effect of Mr. Limbaugh's decree to listeners on the results in Texas and Ohio.

Though hardly admirers of Senator John McCain, Mr. Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts are even less enthusiastic about a Democrat in the White House. So they asked Republicans to vote in the Democratic primaries (Texas's primaries were open, and in Ohio, voters could change their registration at the polls) for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. Limbaugh explained his plan to listeners on Monday, the day before the primary:

The strategy is to continue the chaos in this party. Look, there's a reason for this. Our side isn't going to do this. Obama needs to be bloodied up. Look, half the country already hates Hillary. That's good. But nobody hates Obama yet. Hillary is going to be the one to have to bloody him up politically because our side isn't going to do it. Mark my words. It's about winning, folks!

"We're already screwed: Vote Hillary!" his Web site proclaims.

On Wednesday's show, after Mrs. Clinton won in Texas and Ohio, Mr. Limbaugh proclaimed victory. However, there is little to suggest that he successfully drove enough Republicans to vote strategically to impact the outcome.

"There's just not a lot of evidence, when you start looking at the data, that there's a lot of this sort of behavior in presidential primaries," said Michael McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University who studies voter turnout.

Mr. Obama actually won among Texas Republicans, who made up nearly twice as much of the voters in the Democratic primary as they did in 2004, at 9 percent, and 53 percent of them went for Mr. Obama, according to voter surveys by Edison/Mitofsky. In Ohio, where Republicans participated at similarly increased rates in the Democratic contest, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama both received 49 percent of the G.O.P. vote.

Mrs. Clinton won the Ohio primary 54.3 percent to Mr. Obama's 44 percent, and she took the Texas vote with 50.9 percent to 47.4 percent.
The Republican vote was "definitely not determinative of whether or not Clinton won those states," said Professor McDonald. He added that the effect of Republican voters could have added "maybe a percentage point or two" to Mrs. Clinton's total.

Of the states with open or semi-open primaries, Mr. Obama has generally won among Republicans handily. Only in Alabama, on Feb. 5, did Mrs. Clinton win among Republicans, who made up 5 percent of the voters, by a margin of 52 to 45 percent - but Mr. Obama won the primary there overall. Ultimately, Mr. Obama's success with Republicans tends to correlate with his fortunes among other groups.

The voter polls do not give many clues about voters' motivation, so it is difficult to determine exactly why Republicans voted for either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama. Even though, by March 4, the Republican presidential race was all but decided, there were down-ballot races in both Ohio and Texas, giving Republicans other reasons to vote in their own primaries. [..]

Nimh,

Thought you'd be interested in this since it could skew your charts a bit.

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news/120505162549970.xml&coll=2

Excerpt:

Quote:

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.

Sandy McNair, a Democratic member of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, said Friday that the manipulation of the system was troublesome.

"It's something that concerns me, that I think needs to be looked at further," McNair said. "This is not a structural thing by the Republican Party. If it's a problem at all, it's on an individual level."

Lying on the pledge is a felony, punishable by six to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Butrflynet wrote:

Nimh,

Thought you'd be interested in this since it could skew your charts a bit.

Dunno. Obama still got 49% of the Republicans voting in the Democratic primary in Ohio. Just as much as Hillary. So if, say, it hadnt been possible for Republicans to cast a vote in the Democratic primary, you'd have weeded out the "Limbaugh voters", but Obama wouldnt have won a single percentage point, the end results would still be exactly the same.

If there were a way to separate genuine Republican cross-over voters from those just having a go at the process, that would be cool. But I dont see a clean way to do that. Yes, you could filter out the votes of people who scribbled something like, "For one day only" on their pledge cards. Except that I imagine the ballots and pledge cards were collected/kept separately, so there's no way to count 'em. And while there were a great many cross-over Republicans, the number who actually scribbled some kind of qualification on their pledge card must be relatively limited - "dozens and dozens" wont amount to a percentage point.

It's interesting though, for sure. Especially how localised it is: more than a third of the Republicans in Solon and Bay Village switching, just under half of those in Pepper Pike. Must have been some "neighbour drive" going on. So that's a good reason to not attach too great a value to results by individual precinct.

But on county level the effect is already a lot less significant. "16,000-plus Republicans in Cuyahoga County switched parties" - thats still just 5% of the total number of primary voters in that county. So it doesnt seem like it would have effected the outcomes by county I mapped on the other page very strongly, for example -- especially since a fair share of those 16,000 will have been the kind of cross-over voters that Obama has been getting out successfully everywhere. But it might have inflated Hillary's numbers more in rural counties, where the total number of votes was much lower, and it took fewer plotters to impact the vote.

As for the state-wide picture: according to the exit polls, at least, Republicans made up 9% of the Ohio Dem primary voters; same in Texas. In comparison, in Virginia it was 7%, in Wisconsin 9%, in Illinois 6%, so that's not especially high. It suggests that overall the "Limbaugh voters" made up perhaps 2-3% of the primary voters.

Ultimately, Mr. Obama's success with Republicans tends to correlate with his fortunes among other groups.

Here ya go, Nimh -





Note the percentage of Clinton voters who would be dissatisfied if she won the nomination.

It would seem that Republicans gave Clinton a significant advantage, and I would bet my hat that 99% of them were white as well. The cross-over votes significantly helped her, while exaggerating the racial statistics.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here ya go, Nimh -





Note the percentage of Clinton voters who would be dissatisfied if she won the nomination.

Yes, that was the question in the exit poll data I was referring to. But dont forget that you have to recalculate them! (Although in this case the result turns out to be similar).

I.e.: the numbers above do not say that 15% of Hillary voters would be dissatisfied if she were the nominee while 59% of them would be satisfied (as evidenced by how that doesn't add up to 100%). They say that 15% of those who would be dissatisfied with Hillary as nominee voted for her, while 59% of those who would be satisfied with her as nominee voted for her. So it's a bit tricky that way. Thats what I meant earlier by how I had to recalculate that "bitterness quotient".

So you recalculate. 15% of 39% = 5.85% of total primary voters voted Hillary, even though they wouldnt be satisfied with her as nominee. Whereas 59% of 60% = 35.4% of total primary voters voted Hillary and would be satisfied with her as nominee. (Makes for a total of 41.25% of Hillary voters in the primary, a little too high; the exit poll numbers have since been adjusted a bit.)

So of Hillary voters, 35.4%/.4125 = 86% would also be happy with her as nominee, while 5.85%/.4125 = 14% of them would be dissatisfied if she were the nominee.

That is a bit odd, of course, you're right. That could then maybe be a rough approximation of the number of "Limbaugh voters" in the primary - Republicans who didnt cross over because they liked one of the Democratic candidates, but because they wanted to stir the ****, responding to Limbaugh's appeal.

Even then you do still have to subtract a small number of legit conservative Democrats who would end up in this category, because they are just not happy with either candidate but voted for Hillary as the least worst candidate in their eyes. And maybe a few white Democratic Mississippians who dont like Hillary, but are damned if they're gonna let a black guy become the Democratic nominee as well.

On the other hand, a few malevolent cross-over "Limbaugh Republicans" will have indicated that they'd be perfectly satisfied with Hillary as Democratic nominee too, so it can only be a very approximate indicator, but let's assume that those groups will roughly balance each other out and that "Limbaugh Republicans made up some 5% of total Dem primary voters yesterday and 14% of Hillary voters. Which brings me to your next point:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It would seem that Republicans gave Clinton a significant advantage, and I would bet my hat that 99% of them were white as well. The cross-over votes significantly helped her, while exaggerating the racial statistics.

I dont think so. First of all, the percentage of whites voting for Obama in Mississippi - 26% - is totally in line with the percentage he got among whites in most other Southern states - LA, OK, TN, AL, SC, FL; so there's no reason a priori to assume the number is "clouded" much by malevolent Republican cross-over voters.

But let's say, then, going on the above, that 5% of the primary voters yesterday were "Limbaugh voters," who I assume would almost all be white. White voters made up 48% of the primary voters, so Limbaugh voters, in this model, would make up 5% / .48 = 10.4% of the total white primary vote.

That doesnt change the racial statistics much at all. Instead of 26% of the white vote, Obama would thus have gotten 26 of every remaining 89.6 "legitimate" white Dem primary voters. That's 29%.

So even taking the role of cross-over "Limbaugh Republicans" into account, according to this indicator, Obama's share of the white vote would just be 29% rather than 26%. Still would rank Mississippi solidly in the bottom quarter of states in terms of his result among whites, better only than five other Southern states.

Mark Blumenthal, from Pollster.com:

Mark Blumenthal wrote:

Second, the open Mississippi Democratic primary -- the first to be held after John McCain secured his nomination -- included 2-3 times as many Republicans (12%) as the other states. And those Republicans supported Clinton by a 3-to-1 margin, far more than Republicans in any of the other Southern states.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mississippi_results_thread.php