There was a ridiculous amount of hype about right-wing talk-radio personality Rush Limbaugh's campaign to get conservative voters to switch their party registration and vote in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton.
Limbaugh's line was that Clinton was the weaker Democrat and so Republicans should keep her in the race -- either in hopes that she might somehow become the nominee or that her continued candidacy would undermine frontrunner Barack Obama.
But self-identified conservatives split almost evenly between the two candidates. Indeed, exit polls had Clinton and Obama splitting right-wing votes at a rate of 52 Clinton to 48 Obama -- less than her overall margin.
The ideological measure is the most useful one, since the actual number of voters who told exit pollsters they were Republicans was so small -- 3 percent -- that the polls could not provide credible measures of support levels for Obama and Clinton. Among self-identified independents -- 14 percent of the electorate -- Obama won 55-45.
Among the more than one in 10 Pennsylvania voters had registered as Democrats since the beginning of the year -- some of them Republicans, many independents and political newcomers -- more than 60 percent backed Obama.
And in the traditionally Republican counties around Philadelphia, Obama won some and lost others to Clinton by narrower margins than he was losing statewide. In Montgomery County, for instance, it was Clinton 51, Obama 49. In suburban and exurban counties to the west of the city, such as Delaware, Chester and Lancaster, Obama won by comfortable margins.
Limbaugh-inspired chaos on behalf of Clinton? Forget about it.
Clinton won Pennsylvania with strong support from mainstream Democrats -- union members, low- and medium-income workers, those without college degrees, people who are most worried about the economy.
The 82 percent of primary voters who proudly identified themselves as Democrats chose Hillary Clinton by a 56-44 margin over Barack Obama.
They were deciders, not Limbaugh-inspired agents of chaos. And, interestingly, the vast majority of Clinton and Obama voters say they'll back the Democrat in November. Indeed, the levels of Democratic loyalty displayed in the exit poll numbers were comparable to or better than in many past presidential primary contests.
Of course, there will be partisan cross-over voters this fall. But with more than a quarter of Republicans rejecting the essentially uncontested candidacy of John McCain in that party's primary, there is good reason to believe that whatever chaos there is will merely be a Democratic challenge.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
28 Comments so far
Show Allheav y runner: what a candidate's advisers tell them and what they do are two different things altogether. You can bet Obama's camp has suggested tactics to him that where beyond the pale, so why all the angst over what Hillary's people are suggesting. Hillary is running for the nomination NOW, not in 2012. Get over her big win in PA; she worked hard, did her homework, crafted her message, put out her plans for action, stayed on that message and spoke to the people of PA in respective manner that won them over. Obama didn't do as well. . .on the the next state.
Thomas More: Bull. Look at the voting patterns. I have seen your postings. Calling me a little fellow doesn't make your postings any more palatable. I have noticed the quality of your mind.
areader: where is your argument? I didn't make a majority of the rural population what it is. If you don't see that cities educate people then you are missing something. If you don't understand the effect of knowing perpectives of people from other countries then maybe it is because you have no use for it. City dwellers, generally speaking, are not the elite, they are simply more progressive. Education does make you more intelligent, it is up to the individual to be arrogant or not. If I am arrogant it isn't from education, anybody can be arrogant. Not all older people resist change or are conservative, but as we get older many of us do indeed stop learning. I prefer intelligent people to the not so bright. Don't you?
Obama's record is very similar to Clinton's on issue after issue - why isn't common dreams covering the candidates that are closer to what we actually believe? Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader get scant attention. Why is there no strategy to make sure that they are included in the fall debates? This is much more important than quibbling about is it 9 or is it 10% of the vote for which corporate elitist candidate.
I could live with Clinton as President, but not Obama - he'd set us back, where we could continue our real work with Clinton as President.
Before we quite throw out of court the effectiveness of the execrable Mr. Limbaugh's Operation Chaos in PA, consider please a few facts about the election (these are tentative, requiring closer examination of actual election results.)
1. There were about 2.3 million votes, and Clinton's margin of victory was about 215,000 votes.
2. If, as estimated, 1 of 10 primary voters were former Republican registrants, that makes 230,000 such voters.
3. On Nichols estimate of 40% of these former Reps voting for Clinton*, this means that Clinton received about 92,000 votes that she would not have received (and which, I would argue, are almost totally "Limbaugh" voters who would not vote for her in November if she were nominated, opposed to the "principled" Obama voters who were probably mostly white men eager to have a "safe" Democrat in the White House: the "kind" who would condemn a Jeremiah Wright).
4. While the absence of these 92,000 "Republican" votes would not have deprived Clinton of her plurality win, it would certainly have reduced the margin of her win well below the "double digit" win that both campaigns said would be necessary to keep her in the race. With the 92,000 she does (or just barely misses) the magic 10% and voila! the contributions pile in and pundits announce her as still "viable."
No wonder Rush was celebrating on the "morning after." And, as they say, perhaps "it's not over yet." Registration changes in Indiana and North Carolina ahead of their May 6 primaries are already closed, but Indiana election officials are complaining of the difficulty of processing an "overwhelming" number of new registrants. Hmm.
*I personally believe this is a low estimate. If it is based on "exit poll" results as Nichols indicates and if only 3% of poll exiters identified themselves as ex-Republicans, isn't it obvious that, as one poster here noted, these mischief-makers who entered the Democratic contest to vote for a candidate for whom they would not vote in November would be unlikely to admit the scam that they were committing?
"Indeed, exit polls had Clinton and Obama splitting right-wing votes at a rate of 52 Clinton to 48 Obama — less than her overall margin."
Riiiight...unscrupulous Republicans that have temporarily switched party affiliation to Democrat for the sole purpose of nominating a candidate McCain can beat, ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH AT EXIT POLLS..
twits...
Republicans would swift boat Obama and get away with it. If they try that on Hillary she will blast them and make them look dumber than they already are.
In PA, a closed primary, you can change your party registration up to one month before the primary election. (They need time for you to show up with your new party affiliation when you sign in to vote.)
But, changing your party is not the same as registering as a new voter. So, new registrants are not people 'disguising' themselves.
Wow, Lizard. Talk about elitism and stereotypes!
Plus, youth is better than older! by definition!
Elitism is not a function of how much money a person has. It is an attitude. Also, you don't have to be a common person to relate to working people. Buckminster Fuller could do it. But he was an exception. He was truly intelligent.
Education seems to = arrogance, rather than intelligence. (Lizard won't get that one. He's too stuck on his credentials.)
Good thing that the posters on CD have all the answers!
Too bad there is such a dearth of humility.
best for 90% of americans to flee to canada...especially families and go to a conservative province... the voters who voted for hillary proves too many people in america has been dumded down so much that there will be always the corp robber barons making slaves out of we the people
..
seeing that hillary got that many votes speaks volumns.. there is no HOPE in this corporate controlled system of brainwashing to make slaves out of americans...and america is a magnet to draw the worlds most corrupt and greedy to come here and make the slaves in more misery so they can also get rich... america is fast becoming a third world country..
the clinton yrs in power was about SETTING us UP for all this.. with their nafta and gatt bringing to america ... THAT set this up for all of 90% of americans to be harmed...... and then hillary did it again with voting for this war for the robber barons again to hurt the 90% of americans...
the clintons work for the robber barons to make sure americans are in slavery!! and their voters are the types that would elect hitler even after knowing what hitler has done.. they are brainwashed so strongly by the corp evil.. that there is no hope here ... destruction will be the ONLY way that solves this problem.. so best to get away and maybe come back AFTER the destruction..
It is extremely hard work not to be an elitist in this lowest IQ nation in the "developed" world. Youse guys have unrealistic expectations for your politicians if you demand non elitists in high office. Perhaps the real experience required of a presidential candidate is a decde spent in dumbing down school.
white, poorly educated, rural, very religious,low income, older
multiracial, well educated, cosmopolitan, moderately religious, middle class, young
This is not just who votes for Hillary and who votes for Obama. This is a struggle between two distinct groups that has been going on for centuries. The city against the countryside. At the state level, elections show a split between city dwellers and rural voters. At the national level it pits city rich areas (northeast, California) against the more rural states.
There are two mentalities. A logical examination of these mentalities reveal that the rural mentality represents the old and erroneous, and the other, defective as it is, is a sign of progress, and more intelligent. The rural areas retard the devolopment of the society as a whole.
scratch that in my earlier posts and below.....where i said obama lost 1000 votes when the totals went from 99% counted to 100%.. but i see that he gained 3 thousand and hillary 2000 from last nite and from this person's math... so obama had gained 1000 votes over hillary so instead of her winning by 9.4% its more like 9.3%..
now this showing on 100% counted is not thru yet.... the philadelphia county is the only county that don't show 100% counted and it shows 99%.. and this is where obama won by 30%.. so 4 or 5 thousand votes could still be yet to be counted and from that... obama may gain 1 or 2 thousand more votes to bring down the winning percent to 9.2 or 9.1 percent..
so any way you look at this.. hillary did not win by double digits but by single digits and the media should put it correctly as a 9 % win not a 10% since she won by less than 9.5 %..
suspicious vote counting........
last nite on cnn.com their county results showed all countys at 100% reporting except 2... one philadelphia which showed 97% counted which was going for obama by 30 points and the very next one also showing 97% counted and which was going for obama by 10%...
the philly county had about 450,000 voting so 3 percent left would make around 13 or 14 thousand votes left to count...
now at this time all the sites was showing that 99% of the total vote has been counted and this with all the other counties showing 100% counted.. this should mean more votes than obama over clinton coming....
now i have checked the vote totals and they show 100% counted and not the 99% as last nite... now one would think obama would gain a few thousand votes since the 2 counties that had only 97% of their votes counted the biggest went 30 points for obama... so low and behold when i checked tonight it shows hillay gaining 2 thousand votes and get this Obams LOSING 1000 votes... how could he lose votes when 13 or 14 thousand votes were still uncounted and they are from where he was winning by 30 points...
very suspicious stuff... the clintons and their people all have been PROVEN already as corrupt as any politician ever.. so one would logic look in that direction ..
now the big deal ..thing is did hillary win by double digits or single digits....
its extremely important for hillary to look like she won by double digits not single digits...so this would be suspicious stuff on them or their supporters..
now even tho the totals now show 100% counted still the philadelphia county shows 99% counted which could mean still 4 or 5 thousand votes not counted yet this county is where obama won by 30%..all other countys show 100% counted.
now even with obama LOSING 1000 votes from when the totals said 99% counted and today 100% counted even with this.. the margin for hillary over obama is 9.2 or 9.3 % and with this one has to say hillary won by 9% and not 10% a single digit win not a double digit win...
some people are really corrupt and the history of the clintons and their supporters are really scary for america.... hitlers can be easily elected with how their voters seem to care nothing for truth and real value...their voters really are voting for their very worst enemy in the clintons.. but they have been so brainwashed that they don't care.... This is what elects hitlers and brings destruction for the whole country...
those debates are nonsense and just trying to help the corporate candidate to help keep slavery on americans.... saying there was no significant differences in the candidates.... really....
how bout one voting yes to this war and the other saying NO.. the biggest difference in the world for 90% of americans cause this war for the robber barons for oil has hurt 90% of americans.. and then the other that has hurt 90% of americans nafta and gatt.. which the clintons brought to this country to help the robber barons rob from the people....
the moderators had 2 big big issues to ask about it was THESE 2 issues.. and they did not...
in fact rhe vote for the war was also a vote to tell the world we are a fraud on democracy when we went against world democracy the UN when they voted NO.... so this issue was very very important to talk about in the debate.. cause world hate on america harms these 90% in a million different ways..
america is in very very serious trouble.... just watching the response to hillary shows this... shows how a hitler could be elected very easily and destruction coming for the whole country.
the math is all off for clinton. the number i heard this morning was 70%. she must win 70% of the delegates in each of the remaining contest to win the pledged delegates column. when she loses in north carolina, that number will increase. it's not realistic.
which means she has other motives. perhaps winning the superdelegates, right? but w/out the pledged delegates, the maneuver to capture the nomination via superdelegates will cause riots in the streets of denver and split the party (real bitter people walking around america). dean wants it wrapped up by 2nd week of june, but we all know clinton will not relinquish her bizarre ego maniacal pursuit of the white house, for her husband (bill remember...).
that's the next interesting phase of this campaign, watching hillary withdraw her candidacy. i want to listen to the initial conference call b/w pelosi, dean and clintons (bil/hill) on you tube (are you listening staffers??..). i'm looking forward to capturing some of the expletives i hear during that conversation and transferring them to ring tones for my cell phone.
RSJ April 23rd, 2008 6:15 pm
the quote i remember from democracy now recently was sam walton's, "the best board member this company has ever had"
there's something to the elitist conspiracy theories, if clinton wins in 2008, every president for the last 5 rounds (7 if we assume bush 1 actually ruled 3 terms) will have attained a degree from Yale. creepy.
of course there's nothing creepy or elitist about 2 families controlling one government for 24 years....
...peace...
I find the common dreams forum sometimes inspiring, and sometime really frustrating, but mostly not taking us closer to what I think is our common dream - living a life where peace and justice have priority rather than corporate greed, war, and lies.
I do find the total focus on the mainstream candidates a source of confusion. Do the readers here on common dreams just want a democrat, any democrat, no matter how similar they are to George Bush?
Anyone but Bush didn't work in the last two elections. Anyone but McCain won't work in this one.
I don't think that common dreams has evolved into a Democratic Party leadership lapdog, at least not yet. But it seems to be moving in that direction.
Is it so important to win at any cost without any concern as to what is actually being won?
Someone else mentioned that the democratic party leadership would rather have McCain elected than try to include the liberal left. I think that is absolutely true, and the reason for that is even more chilling. It is because they actually identify with the republican values (those that get them more money and power) rather than fairness and justice.
so it goes...
Rich Griffin (April 23rd, 2008 2:22 pm) wrote: "What's wrong with Obama supporters? Clinton's position papers are much closer to the needs for working class voters. There is a huge amount of ELITISM and they favor Obama. You are blind to it, Obama supporters. Take a close look in the mirror. It's a CLASS issue!"
Oh, brother, Rich -- it's nice she has good 'position papers' but every time something important comes along, she votes like a Republican -- and now she campaigns like one, too.
Before you start calling people blind and yelling about 'class' issues, I suggest you check on Hillary's past: she grew up in Park Ridge, a well-to-do, lily-white suburb of Chicago, went to Wellesley College and Yale Law School which, last I heard, weren't exactly trade schools. Then she worked for Rose Law Firm and served on the board of Wal-Mart for eight years -- Sam Walton fondly called her his 'little lady' -- and never once brought up the fact that Wal-Mart workers were underpaid and prevented from unionizing. She also supported NAFTA, before that became a political problem for her.
Oh yeah, Wellesley, Yale, Rose, Wal-Mart, and she's now worth over $100 million -- glad she's not an elitist.
The question is, what's wrong with you supporting this backstabber of the American worker?
During a short drive time this afternoon, I checked out the hate talk end of my AM radio dial to catch Limbaugh's take on the Pennsylvania primary and his GOP cross over "Operation Chaos."
Rush was really gloating, particularly about the fact that the exit polls clearly showed a lot of white voters in the Democratic primary were lying to the pollsters (the Mayor Bradley effect). He also was firing up the troops to revisit Reverend Wright as an issue with evangelicals and other conservative Christian church goers in the North Carolina primary.
Sure, much of this is self-congratulatory hype designed chiefly to foment yet further internal animosities within the Democratic grass roots. But in a closely divided state, I just don't buy the idea that very many Republicans were re-registering to vote for Obama, rather than re-registering for purposes of voting against him.
What I still find most mystifying is that so few in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party don't seem to care that the Clinton campaign is openly working hand in glove with the likes of Scaife, Murdoch, and Limbaugh, while the GOP's fabricated issues (madrassa schooling, oaths of office taken on the Koran, hanky panky with Farrakhan, Reverend Wright's sermon snippets, flag lapel pins, pledging allegiance) are being embraced as valid campaign issues within Democratic ranks.
The twisted logic seems to be that since the Clintons were subjected to a bunch of utterly baseless right wing attacks when they were in the White House (like dealing drugs and having Vince Foster whacked), it's now only "fair" that similar groundless slander attacks should be leveled at Barack Obama, almost as if to level out the playing field.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove is out there, chuckling all the way to the bank.
Bill from Saginaw
A few points:
PA has a traditional Democratic "Machine". Its a fraternity ("frorority" now, I guess). The grand old man (Rendell) and the Philly newcomer (Nutter) gave their endorsements to Hillary. Its her turn, and they owe her for the support they received. They helped turn out the old mainstream Demo vote for her.
She does have a PA connection. Her Dad grew up in Scranton and played football for Penn State!
The Bill Clinton years were comfortable years in PA. NAFTA and China normalized trade status hadn't yet run wild, even though they were kicked off during the Clinton years. Sleazy President but "good" government remembered.
I'm not saying that Limbaugh's operation was in any way a factor in the PA primary, but the Author's analysis is seriously flawed.
It would seem obvious that if someone has gone to the trouble of lying in the voter's booth to manipulate their "enemy party's" primary, they would not then walk out of the polling place and immediately spill the beans to some stranger taking an exit poll.
Don't you agree that would be a supremely stupid thing to do?
Imagining "conservatives" to be stupid is a mistake people have been making for more than 40 years, its time to stop.
A very silly argument from an otherwise very intelligent man.
-matti.
The trouble is, Hillary is a serial liar, and you can't trust her at all. I keep reading the theory that her advisers have told her to destroy Obama's chances of winning this year so she will have a better chance in '12. That sort of opportunism, sadly, fits the Clinton mold.
hilliary won PA fair and square.....but that does not mean she will win in november against mccain...nobody can see into the future...OBAMA has just as much of a chance to win the presidency as hilliary or mccain......and another thing...hilliary and mccain have no more foreign policy experience than obama...just because you've been inside the beltway for so long,....does not mean you have more experience...all of them are running for president for the 1st time...so if you never been president...you don't have presidential experience
Rich___It`s no use, the Obamamamiacs have gone nuts. A few mischief makers started demonizing Hillary , and the rest thought it was a new game, try to out do the last poster with more slime. Sure does make the CD posters look like deep
thinkers, and they complain about negative campaigning.
What's wrong with Obama supporters? Clinton's position papers are much closer to the needs for working class voters. There is a huge amount of ELITISM and they favor Obama. You are blind to it, Obama supporters. Take a close look in the mirror. It's a CLASS issue!
All I have to say is that I am a voter from a small town and I am sick and tired, and I am absolutely BITTER of politics as usual. I am sick and tired and bitter of candidates like HILLARY CLINTON who offer nothing but platitudes and generalized promises. I don't care what you've done Hillary, you've lost your way a long time ago. I am so sick and bitter over your campaign, I have no choice to but go to church and pray for you and all politicians because you are all in a big puddle of mud together haggling over power. We have so much in this country we should be grateful for. Stop bickering Hillary. You make me so bitter.
I believe that most of the "new registrations" who voted for Hillary did so because they were mischief-making Republicans seeking to give their "Manchurian Candidate" the easiest possible opponent come November.
This is why even closed primaries don't work when one party has already selected its candidate because that party's regulars have absolutely nothing to lose by reregistering.
what is particularly puzzling, given the clinton record of voting corporately, is why working people are voting for her. what's wrong with kansas? has turned into what's wrong with democrats? democrats. . .the new republicans.
She gets the swing voters; he gets the new voters. She gets the voters that are a MUST for a win in November. He could potentially have coattails for other Democrats but only if he doesn't get slaughtered by the republican attack machine - but he also jeopardizes some MUST win states. The Democrats have an interesting quandary.
Thank you areader!
This little fella seems to have missed the move to rural areas by the educated and upper income folks. There is quite a mix in rural areas now.
The demographic's he portrayed for cities, he must have seen in a dream. By the way if anyone got a college degree in the last 20 years I wouldn't be so sure how educated I was.
The real point you all seem to be missing is that Obama is losing the Democratic core voters. The Independents are not coming in for him either.
You can't win with leftists, students and an effete elite base. Its really as simple as that. The core of the Democratic party are exactly the people you guys seem to scorn.
Its not always a scam when you lose nor has someone cheated. Sometimes someone just made a mistake.