PDA

View Full Version : Did Rush lead to Hillary's narrow TX win?


Cave Johnson
03-06-2008, 09:42 AM
In the days running up to these last primaries, Rush Limbaugh told his national audience of conservatives to vote in the Democratic race.

I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know. We're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC, saying we're not going to be critical there. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yeah, I'm asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it -- I know it's a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need. It would be fun, too.

It turned into a pretty hot meme in Texas, and on Monday, while Rush was out, guest host Mark Davis scored an interview with Bill Clinton. Did it work?

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.

Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can't decide if it's better for Hillary or Obama, but it's a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)

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

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 10:11 AM
WoW! Interesting. Could have had an effect. Still I think, it's hard to say how many of those are for the purpose of nominating Hillary. Like I posted before, my SiL switched her registration from Pub to Dem just to caucus to keep Hillary out. My brother is a true staunch conservative, card-carrying member of the NRA...and even he said he may vote for Obama in the national. He's sick of war.

Another reason why the primaries should all be held on the same day, preferrably not in the middle of winter.

RedDread
03-06-2008, 10:41 AM
The "Rush Effect", if any, won't have much of an effect on the remaining states. His listening base is bigger in Texas than Wyoming and Mississippi. But these states only have 12 and 33 pledged delegates to give, respectively. The Pennsylvania primary, the biggest one remaining, is a closed primary so conservatives would have to go through the hassle of aligning themselves with the democratic party before the election. Some might, but I don't think it will be a significant number.

Rush got what he wanted, which was to see this race go on a bit longer. But the major overriding issue for Dems should be: Why would you vote for a candidate that Rush wants to win. Obviously he has an angle, because if he thought Obama was an easier candidate to run against, he would have come out and said that already.

Mr. Kotter
03-06-2008, 10:51 AM
http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html

It's Rush Wot Won It

David Weigel | March 5, 2008, 11:30am

In the days running up to these last primaries, Rush Limbaugh told his national audience of conservatives to vote in the Democratic race.
I want Hillary to stay in this, Laura. This is too good a soap opera. We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically, and it's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don't have the stomach for it, as you probably know. We're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC, saying we're not going to be critical there. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign says he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses. So, yeah, I'm asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it -- I know it's a difficult thing to do, to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need. It would be fun, too.

It turned into a pretty hot meme in Texas, and on Monday, while Rush was out, guest host Mark Davis scored an interview with Bill Clinton. Did it work?

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.

Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can't decide if it's better for Hillary or Obama, but it's a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)

UPDATE: The Texas theory is being challenged in the comments, so I'll add one data point. In 2004, Al Sharpton got 3.7 percent of the vote in Texas. Among the Republicans who crossed over to vote in the race, he got 10 percent. He got 2 percent of liberal voters, 4 percent of moderates, and 7 percent of conservatives. There's no way to explain this unless you assume some eventual Bush voters were making mischief for the Democrats.

UPDATE II: An e-mailer to the Corner has the most persuasive evidence yet. An astounding number of voters took Democratic ballots, voted for president, then left the rest of their ballots blank.
The undercount in the D primary was almost 700,000 ballots out of 2.86 million. By contrast, the undercount in the R primary was about 164,000 ballots out of 1.38 million. In the 2004 general election, the dropoff from president to railroad commissioner (the next race on the state ballot) was less than 400,000 out of 7.4 million.

It's reasonable to assume many of these voters were "screw the Dems" Limbaugh listeners.

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 11:42 AM
It didn't lead directly to the win, but it obviously impacted the cushion.

I know my friend's father voted for Hillary because of Limbaugh, and his brother voted for Hillary because he thinks Obama is the Anti-Christ.

And I sincerely wish I was joking.

memyselfI
03-06-2008, 11:58 AM
Likely as much as he helped Obama with his endorsement of him LAST month.



http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_021308/content/01125107.guest.html
February 13, 2008

RUSH: I'm thinking of endorsing Obama. Well, everybody's asking me about my endorsement. I want to give you a reason why I'm thinking of endorsing Obama. Listen to this. (playing of Barack Obama spoof)

Barack Obama, ladies and gentlemen, is a blank canvas upon which anybody can project their fantasies, or their desires. You look at Democrats in the audience, and they're swooning. He's saying nothing. He's saying nothing better than anybody in my lifetime ever has. The reason he says nothing so well is because everybody thinks that he's saying what they want. So they're able to project onto Obama their fantasies. If they believe in allowing somebody to marry a dog, they think Obama will support it. Therefore, I would like today to announce a tentative decision, I'm stilling thinking about it, to endorse Barack Obama, since everybody is asking who am I going to endorse, and here's why. Barack Obama is pro-life. Barack Obama is a Constitutionalist. Barack Obama believes in limited government. Barack Obama is in favor of health care savings plans. Barack Obama loves free markets and wants to protect them. Barack Obama is strong on national defense. Barack Obama is a tax cutter extraordinaire. Barack Obama makes my leg tingle when I hear him speak. Barack Obama will end the designated hitter rule. Barack Obama will establish a college football playoff once and for all so we will genuinely have a champion. Barack Obama will get to the bottom of Spygate. Barack Obama will offer free beer Fridays. Whatever you want Obama to be, folks, he's a blank slate, he's an empty canvas, and this is the nature of his appeal. Whatever people fantasize about, whatever they want, they are confident Obama supports it, too.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 12:14 PM
The "Rush Effect", if any, won't have much of an effect on the remaining states. His listening base is bigger in Texas than Wyoming and Mississippi. But these states only have 12 and 33 pledged delegates to give, respectively. The Pennsylvania primary, the biggest one remaining, is a closed primary so conservatives would have to go through the hassle of aligning themselves with the democratic party before the election. Some might, but I don't think it will be a significant number.

Rush got what he wanted, which was to see this race go on a bit longer. But the major overriding issue for Dems should be: Why would you vote for a candidate that Rush wants to win. Obviously he has an angle, because if he thought Obama was an easier candidate to run against, he would have come out and said that already.

I don't hear every word Rush says, although I listen to at least a portion of his show pretty regularly. I'm not sure that Rush wants Obama to win. My take is that he just wants to prolong the process now that it is getting more negative. That way the democrats continue to use money on each other instead of turning their attention to the GOP candidate.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 12:18 PM
I'm sure this has been happening everywhere that people would rather face one candidate than the other.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 12:19 PM
Rush wants Hillary to be the nomination because she has no chance of beating McCain.
If Obama gets the nomination he will destroy McCain.

memyselfI
03-06-2008, 12:51 PM
I don't hear every word Rush says, although I listen to at least a portion of his show pretty regularly. I'm not sure that Rush wants Obama to win. My take is that he just wants to prolong the process now that it is getting more negative. That way the democrats continue to use money on each other instead of turning their attention to the GOP candidate.

Exactly. That is why I showed last month he was endorsing Obama and are we to assume the CONS/Indies who've been supporting Obama in larger numbers than Clinton were inspired to do so because of Rush?

No. This has been going on for YEARS. MOF, a friend of mine and her family are die hard Democrats but register as CONS so they can do this very thing.

alnorth
03-06-2008, 12:55 PM
Rush wants Hillary to be the nomination because she has no chance of beating McCain.
If Obama gets the nomination he will destroy McCain.

I dont think thats accurate.

From reading the transcripts, he does believe that Obama will ultimately get the nomination. He also believes that the media and the GOP will not have the stomach to really attack Obama at all, so Hillary needs to keep going to do that work on behalf of McCain. Then, once Hillary is finally out, Obama's negatives would hopefully be high enough for him to lose.

chiefforlife
03-06-2008, 01:01 PM
I dont think thats accurate.

From reading the transcripts, he does believe that Obama will ultimately get the nomination. He also believes that the media and the GOP will not have the stomach to really attack Obama at all, so Hillary needs to keep going to do that work on behalf of McCain. Then, once Hillary is finally out, Obama's negatives would hopefully be high enough for him to lose.

I can agree with that.

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 01:27 PM
Likely as much as he helped Obama with his endorsement of him LAST month.

Holy Hell, you're an idiot. That's not an 'endorsement'. He was mocking Obama. LMAO

You're just as naive if you think he played absolutely no role in the results. Clearly he did.

memyselfI
03-06-2008, 02:05 PM
Holy Hell, you're an idiot. That's not an 'endorsement'. He was mocking Obama. LMAO

You're just as naive if you think he played absolutely no role in the results. Clearly he did.

I know he's mocking Baaaarack. Holly Hell, he's mocking THE ENTIRE DEMOCRATIC PARTY with his 'endorsements' of their candidates. DUH.

FWIW, I imagine that Rushbots have voted more for Obamessiah over the past few months than they did on Tuesday. Rush's hourly, daily, weekly diatribes vs. the Clintons have likely convinced MANY folks to register or show up at the polls in order to vote AGAINST her.

Surely you jest if you actually think all of these CONS actually LIKE Obama. ROFLROFLROFL

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 02:29 PM
That wasn't an endorsement, douchenozzle. He was mocking Barack, not advocating voting for him. He DID advocate voting for Clinton just to **** with the Democrats. And because you're a sad sack of shit who's convictions only go as far as your ability to rub them in other people's faces, you don't mind what he's doing.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 02:32 PM
That wasn't an endorsement, douchenozzle. He was mocking Barack, not advocating voting for him. He DID advocate voting for Clinton just to **** with the Democrats. And because you're a sad sack of shit who's convictions only go as far as your ability to rub them in other people's faces, you don't mind what he's doing.

:rolleyes: Like a bunch of traditional liberals and other non-conservatives didn't crawl under the fence to vote for McCain, must to the delight of the left.

If Democrats don't want people who aren't liberals voting then they should close the primaries.

Or I guess they could use an elaborate system by which the party brass itself holds a third or more of the votes and - errr. sorry.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 02:36 PM
I dont think thats accurate.

From reading the transcripts, he does believe that Obama will ultimately get the nomination. He also believes that the media and the GOP will not have the stomach to really attack Obama at all, so Hillary needs to keep going to do that work on behalf of McCain. Then, once Hillary is finally out, Obama's negatives would hopefully be high enough for him to lose.

I heard one of the big pollsters (Scott Rasmussen, I think) say something fairly interesting the other day. He said that Hillary is so well known that her potential range in November is a fairly narrow band around 50%. By contrast, he describes Obama as being relatively unknown with the potential to end up with substantially more than 50% of the vote if he succeeds in selling himself to voters or with substantially less than 50% if Republicans succeed in selling the idea that he's flawed in some way. It seems kind of obvious, but it wasn't something I'd thought about before hearing it.

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 02:39 PM
:rolleyes: Like a bunch of traditional liberals and other non-conservatives didn't crawl under the fence to vote for McCain, must to the delight of the left.

I never said it didn't go on both ways, but I think you wouldn't have much success making an argument that a sizeable portion of people planning to vote for Obama/Clinton in the Fall voted in the Republican primary to **** with them when the Democratic primary has been so closely contested.

If Democrats don't want people who aren't liberals voting then they should close the primaries.

They should be closed from the other party. Sounds about right.

jettio
03-06-2008, 02:47 PM
I think that there were some insincere votes cast by GOPs that wanted to affect the other party's primaries, but I think that people that would do that are also likely to lie to exit pollsters.

People that are in the middle of doing something ethically questionable, are not likely to admit that to someone that is asking questions near the scene of the disreputable act and writing down the answers.

I think there is a good chance that the Democrats having to get on the ground in every state and build a political organization can help the eventual nominee. There are other risks that could affect the general election, but it could turn out to be helpful.

Another thing to consider is that McCain will now hoard his future fundraising for the general election.

Obama may ask so much of donors in the primary that he might elect to take the $85 million federal funding for the general. It may turn out that McCain will be the one to opt out of public financing first, after he has spent the last couple of weeks using the press to suggest that Obama had a promise to live up to.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 02:50 PM
It wasn't always closely contested and it wasn't close in every state. I know you dislike the idea that the 'good guys' might do it to but it happens all the time.

People cross over if their state is not close, on both sides. And especially, people in the middle, who traditionally vote one way but don't really have loyalty to anyone or anything and just want their vote to 'count'.

In Missouri it was written that many libs crossed over to vote for McCain, because of the situation here where three or four inner city counties rule the whole state's choice and it was perceived that Clinton had little chance in those areas. Voters don't care about percentages or the convoluted way democrats assign delegates, they care about who 'wins' the state.

jettio
03-06-2008, 03:11 PM
It wasn't always closely contested and it wasn't close in every state. I know you dislike the idea that the 'good guys' might do it to but it happens all the time.

People cross over if their state is not close, on both sides. And especially, people in the middle, who traditionally vote one way but don't really have loyalty to anyone or anything and just want their vote to 'count'.

In Missouri it was written that many libs crossed over to vote for McCain, because of the situation here where three or four inner city counties rule the whole state's choice and it was perceived that Clinton had little chance in those areas. Voters don't care about percentages or the convoluted way democrats assign delegates, they care about who 'wins' the state.

For that last paragraph, link?

You apparently don't know much about Missouri politics.

HolmeZz
03-06-2008, 03:17 PM
It wasn't always closely contested and it wasn't close in every state.

Surely, but I have a hard time believing a good chunk of dedicated supporters(for either Obama or Hillary) cared enough, when their states got their chance to vote, to vote in the Republican primary just to f*ck with them. It likely happened in Michigan(supposedly against Romney, who won anyway). I have yet to see anything legitimate related to that in any state where both parties were in play at the same time.

I know you dislike the idea that the 'good guys' might do it to but it happens all the time.

Don't be a dumbass.

In Missouri it was written that many libs crossed over to vote for McCain, because of the situation here where three or four inner city counties rule the whole state's choice and it was perceived that Clinton had little chance in those areas. Voters don't care about percentages or the convoluted way democrats assign delegates, they care about who 'wins' the state.

I didn't say Democrats didn't vote in Republican primaries. In fact, I said they did. What I did say was that it was in no ways near the effect Limbaugh caused.

patteeu
03-06-2008, 03:56 PM
I never said it didn't go on both ways, but I think you wouldn't have much success making an argument that a sizeable portion of people planning to vote for Obama/Clinton in the Fall voted in the Republican primary to **** with them when the Democratic primary has been so closely contested.

That would be a strong argument if the candidates on the dem side were dramatically different from one another. As it is, there isn't too much difference between the two candidates on the issues. I'd imagine that the racists and the sexists in the democrat party stayed home to vote their bigoted agendas, and people who vote on the basis of personality may have stayed home as well, but for those who are focused mainly on issues and who find Obama and Hillary fairly interchangeable, there's little to dissuade them from crossing over to do mischief in the Republican contest, IMO.

They should be closed from the other party. Sounds about right.

I agree with this. I think both sides should close their primaries.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 04:03 PM
Another thing to consider is that McCain will now hoard his future fundraising for the general election.

Obama may ask so much of donors in the primary that he might elect to take the $85 million federal funding for the general. It may turn out that McCain will be the one to opt out of public financing first, after he has spent the last couple of weeks using the press to suggest that Obama had a promise to live up to.
I thought it was the Mad Bomber who opted into public funding but now wants to opt out. I think Obama should stick it to him because I think he could raise more money than McCain and I'm not sure McCain can opt out once he opted in. I'd love to see McCain get threatened legally for doing this and go down in a scandal.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 04:05 PM
For that last paragraph, link?

You apparently don't know much about Missouri politics.

I know that nobody knows as much about anything as you do. I don't remember where I heard it. If you don't believe me, or even if I didn't hear whatever it was correctly, I will just have to find some way to keep on living I guess.

BucEyedPea
03-06-2008, 04:06 PM
I don't hear every word Rush says, although I listen to at least a portion of his show pretty regularly.
I coulda sworn you once posted that you weren't a Rush listener. :shrug:

patteeu
03-06-2008, 04:46 PM
I coulda sworn you once posted that you weren't a Rush listener. :shrug:

I don't know but I'm pretty confident I've never disavowed Rush completely. I go through periods where I hear him a lot and periods where I don't catch him much at all. I enjoy his show, but even if I had the opportunity, I doubt that I'd listen to him 3 hours a day, 5 days a week. He's too repetitive for that. I also tend to listen to political talk radio a lot less during football season because I'm more inclined to listen to sports talk.

Cochise
03-06-2008, 05:01 PM
I have been listening to him lately sometimes, since it's an election year. Not once a week, but whenever I have occasion to catch it. I find the show funny and informative.

jettio
03-06-2008, 11:27 PM
I know that nobody knows as much about anything as you do. I don't remember where I heard it. If you don't believe me, or even if I didn't hear whatever it was correctly, I will just have to find some way to keep on living I guess.

You should have more respect for your name than to post nonsense that you think you might know as if it were fact.

Nobody in Missouri thinks that the results from 4 counties overwhelm the results from all of the other counties.

McCain and Obama's victories in the primary were exceptions to the general rule that Missouri is a swing state that elects Republicans and Democrats from any corner of the state to statewide elected offices.

Calcountry
03-08-2008, 07:54 PM
There is a talk show host out here on KSFO named Lee Rogers and for weeks, he has had Repbublican pundet after pundet come on, and try to convince him how he must soften his stance on McCain and his retort is always the same: "There isn't a snoballs chance in Hell that I will EVER vote for that 2 face back stabbing McCain". He says it right to the guests on HIS show and he doesn't give a damn what they think.

His thinking, as a conservative, is it is better to be screwed and see it coming(Hillary and Obamanation) than to get screwed blind sided(McCain/Bush).

Bush=Liberal pretending to be a conservative(compassionate Conservative). Utter crap. All the while Bush was spending away, the left wing Marxists(Democrat base) was calling Bush a Conservative right wing nutjob.

McCain=Nixon, Ford, Bush.

He smiles in your face, all the while he wants to take your place, THE BACK STABBER.