Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why Republicans have "shifted" towards Hillary
It's funny how news outlets are trying to "interpret" why Last Tuesday and yesterday, so many Republicans started voting for Hillary... where in the previous primaries, the few Republicans who voted in Dem contests went for Obama.
'It's a curious shift' they say... 'It's hard to interpret what that shift means.'
Umm... HELLO!?!! It's obvious why Repubs are now voting for Hillary 3 to 1. Because Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts are telling their listeners to do it!!!
And WHY are they telling them to do it? Well, duh... it's because:
A) the longer Hillary can stay in this race, the more the Dems stay splintered apart and focused on each other rather than the GOP, and
B) Republicans would MUCH rather face Hillary in the fall than Obama. They're practically salivating at the possibility... McCain has secured the nom and doesn't need their vote, so they can use it to vote for Hillary - prolonging Dem infighting and giving McCain a fighting chance in Nov.
It's really no big secret. Sometimes the major news outlets amaze me with their stupidity...
Comments (12)
Excuse me, but here in Texas, where voting actually started on February 19, there was heavy voting in predominately republican districts where the vote was about triple the usual. As I am old, female, and most of my friends are likewise, but republican to the roots of their blonde hair, I know from actual conversation that they were voting en masse for Hillary, whom they detest. "Because McCain can beat her." I posted this gem a while back, and it was vehemently denied by Hillaryites. Sorry 'bout that, but thems the facts, here in West Texas. Now, Hillary did win by about 100K votes in the Texas primary. Deduct the votes from the "Valley" region of Texas, which went solidly (mostly) for Hillary, but would vote democratic in the fall election if an old yellow dog was the nominee, and then the votes that were republicans voting for Hillary, and her "victory" gets right dubious. FWIW, about 40% of the primary vote in Texas was early voting.
March 12, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES!!! And if (as seems obvious) 9% of the vote in Mississippi was Republicans voting for Hillary just to mess with the process, they made a significant impact. The narrative currently being spun re Obama's poor showing among whites and his inability to bridge the black/white divide - not to mention the number of additional delegates he would have won yesterday - would be considerably different. Instead of the vote being interpreted as undercutting his claim to be able to put Mississippi in play in the general election, the numbers would support that claim. Remove that 9% of Republican "false flag" vote, and the percentages appear very differently than they do now.
March 12, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton wins the cynic vote in Mississippi, according to CNN exit polls.
About 10% of the voters went for Clinton by a large margin in certain categories, maybe these were the 10% Republicans?
Here are the stats:
Category % HC BO
Vote by Party ID:
Republican (12%) 75% 25%
Satisified with Win:
Dissat. With Both (7%) 74% 10%
Who Inspires You About Future of Country:
Neither (11%) 76% 9%
Who is Honest and Trustworthy?:
Neither (15%) 77% 13%
Has Clear Plan for Country's Problems?
Neither (16%) 65% 28%
Opinion of John McCain
Strongly Favor (13%) 70% 25%
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MSDEM
March 12, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. There are all kinds of Texans, and no one speaks for all of them. I know many white, well-educated and affluent Republicans who who voted for Hillary -- not because they think McCain can beat her -- but because if anybody beats McCain they don't want it to be Obama. They hate him and everything he stands for.
March 12, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why Republicans have shifted toward Hillary:
Because she's a goddamn racist.
March 12, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try LeroyS. you don't change her real history by these silly charges out of Axelrod's mouth. It's he and your frat brothers here at TPm and the big O who are desperately race baiting. Why not? It has consistently worked-so far.... like the death threats to shut up Tavis Smiley.
It's six long weeks to PA. His second act needs to be better than this. Trying to paint the Clinton's with the racist brush won't hold up that long and will come back to bite. Where's the hope?
March 12, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is overwhelming statistical evidence of a Limbaugh effect -- ever since Limbaugh started talking up voting for Hillary so that anti-Obama attacks would continue and spare John McCain from having to carry them out, something Limbaugh thought McCain too nice to do.
The three key statics that make the case are:
1) A higher percentage of Republicans, by far, voted in TX, OH, and MS than in any previous contests. Before TX, the very high-end percentage would be 7, but after Limbaugh that number shot up to 12-13.
2) Whereas Obama was winning the smaller percentage of crossovers pre-TX by HUGE margins, post-Limbaugh, he either barely won the Repub vote or lost it. That never happened pre-Limbaugh.
3)A diarist over on Kos explains the calculations, but if you look at the exit polls, an astonishingly high number of voters told exit pollsters in MS that (a) they voted for Hillary, and (b) they would be disappointed if she won. There is also a high number that told exit pollsters that (a) they voted for Hillary, and (b) they do not think she is honest or trustworthy.
The percentages for Obama are about 3% for those numbers, yet for Hillary they are in the 15-25 range. I've never bought the idea that a lot of strategic voting takes place, but it does.
March 13, 2008 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was in Dallas from Wednesday through Sunday before the Texas primary and, being politically interested, I talked to LOTS of people all over the city. I heard 2 comments over and over: (a) older people of all races and both genders and parties saying they had already voted, and it was for Senator Clinton and (b) people of both genders who said they were Republicans but had or were voting for Senator Clinton because it looks like Democrats are likely to win in the general election and Senator Clinton would be a much more qualified president given her experience, her respect in the world, and her ability to work with Republicans in the Senate for significant legislative efforts.
March 13, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto!!!
100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
March 13, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Texas and Ohio showed similar patterns of why Clinton got so many republican votes as tomj showed in Mississippi. From the same exit polls:
The biggest question to look at would be:
Who is More Likely to Win in November?
If you want the Democrats to win you'll vote for the person most likely to win. Obvious.
Ohio thought Obama was most likely by 50% to 46%
Texas thought Obama was most likely to win 52% to 40%. Not quite how the vote went.
Of the 46% in Ohio and the 40% in Texas that said Clinton would win in November 93% voted for Clinton
But of the 50% in Ohio and the 52% in Texas that said Obama 18% still voted for Clinton.
She had a lot of voters who thought she was the least likely to win. Sounds like republicans to me.
March 13, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This post and all the comments fail to confront the major flaw of open primary voting (LincolnDuncan's analysis touches on the issue). Because of the number of Republican and Independent voters casting votes in the Democratic primary, the results are already skewed. The non-Democratic voters in early states voted heavily for Obama. Obama continues to win Independents by a large margin, and "cross-over" Republicans, though by a decreasing margin. Moreover, Obama amasses his margins in the Democratic vote in states that no Democrat can reasonably expect to win in the general election: Mississippi, South Carolina, Wyoming, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana. One might even argue that Obama is competitive only because of the Republican and Independent vote. By contrast, Clinton is winning the Democratic vote and is competitive because of the Democratic vote.
I challenge each of you to confront this fallacy:
"B) Republicans would MUCH rather face Hillary in the fall than Obama ..."
Who do we want selecting the Democratic nominee and who is getting the benefit of "cross-overs" or "spoilers?"
March 13, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know several Republican women and a few men who voted for Hillary. I spoke with a father and son in Danville Ca ( upscale bay area) who never voted for a Democrat before Jerry McNerney in '06. They like Jerry and like Charlie Brown (CA-04) and Like Joe Wilson and Like Hillary. They are embarrassed by Bush because they voted for him)and think Hillary brings the change we need. Mccain is a hero to them from vietnam but not enough of a change on Iraq.
I like Obama. he's just too much of an unknown. A significant part of why I like him is because he is black ( I've lived long enough to have seen several powerful speakers) and I want to see a strong, successful black leader. . I want the barriers broken down. That is truly all Ferraro was saying.
found this quote today that says it all:
“The House Republican brand is so bad right now that if it were a dog food, they’d take it off the shelf,” said retiring Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (Va.)
March 14, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment