Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Republicans gave Clinton Texas
Scott Helman at the Boston Globe
summarizes the exit polls and finds this: 119,000 Republicans voted for
Clinton in Texas, where she won by 101,000 votes. This is clear
numerical support for the argument that Rush Limbaugh has been making
and no one in the Democratic Party seems to want to say out loud:
Republican mischief is the reason Clinton's candidacy is still alive.
Helman's
numbers also suggest that, without GOP votes for Clinton, her victory
in Ohio would have been a slim 5%, and that Obama would have picked up
several more delegates not only in those states, but as many as five
more in Mississippi.
Republicans cross over to vote for Clinton
because they believe she'll be easier to beat in November. So remind me
why her victory in Texas and "big margin" in Ohio are supposed to show
that she should be the Democratic nominee?
Comments (7)
Thank you for making this critically important point. This will increasingly be a factor in states that allow crossover, since the Republican nominee is set and Republicans are being urged to crossover. I've been trying to recommend it, but my recommendation doesn't stick. I hope it stays on the front page long enough to generate discussion.
March 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you still worried over Texas? Let's move on, please.
March 19, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe, it ain't about Texas! It's the fact that the Clinton campaign may be kept rolling by Republicans who want her to win because they think she'll be easier for McCain to beat. North Carolina and Indiana are "open primaries" too, so we may see the same thing. The Democrats don't need to be choosing a nominee based on who the GOP wants to face. (Of course, post-Wright, a lot of Repubs may think Obama will be easier. Here's hoping they just stay home in confusion!)
March 19, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd, isn't it, how quiet McCrazy has been about Sen. Clinton. Seems like he's taken every chance to slag Obama.
It's like... he WANTS to run against Sen. Clinton.
If Clinton-supporters would look around, it's pretty clear who the Republicans think would be "more electable."
March 19, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she won Texas then why is she fighting the rules there to.
March 20, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ tried this same salbt the other day, with the same misleading article. Everyone has concluded that the Republican vote was negligible in Texas and Ohio and, in fact, Obama got more of the Republican vote. Now, it could be argued that Missouri states were thrown to Obama by the Republicans and his delegate count was padded in some other states. But it's not really an issue if you can't argue Obama is being robbed, is it?
March 20, 2008 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the perspective, Don. The argument here is that the Republicans who've voted for Obama (and those who voted for Clinton earlier in the race) were actually voting for the candidate they preferred, whereas the "Limbaugh effect" involves the GOP giving a boost to the candidate they think will be easier to beat. That's a significant difference for superdelegates to consider as they weigh recent results: GOP votes for Obama (and for Clinton, earlier) are a measure of cross-over appeal, where votes for Clinton in Ohio and Texas have to be read as virtually the opposite. It's not about being "robbed," it's about the way the numbers are interpreted by the politicians who have to choose the nominee.
March 31, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment