Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Wingnuts show their hand, now that Clinton is "TOAST"
As I write this I'm bracing myself for the vicious barrage that will undoubtedly land on me for daring to rain on the Obama fairytale. But did anyone take note of comments by Rush Limbaugh, reported by CNN just a couple of hours ago?
Operation Chaos (encouraging Repugs to cross over and vote for Hillary) is nothing more that a wingnut strategy designed specifically to divide the Democrats into warring camps, hissing and spitting at one another until both sides are so disgusted with each other we cannot bring ourselves to vote for the other. The wingnuts want to drag this thing out as long as possible, obviously it's to their benefit.
But dig this. Now that it seems pretty much a foregone conclusion that Obama will be the nominee, that Clinton will lose, Limbaugh admits that the wingnuts actually want Obama to win because he's the weaker of the two, the one most likely to lose in November. This isn't really news, I've been saying it for months now. But it's facinating to see it broadcast, out in the open.
If this is their strategy for the primary elections, how accurate do you think the polls are that show Obama beating McCain (albeit barely, by just a few points) in the fall? Do you think maybe, just maybe, the wingnuts being polled might .. gasp .. LIE and say they prefer Obama over McCain, helping to ensure he, the one it will be easiest to defeat, is our nominee?
I feel like I'm watching a horrible accident unfold in slow motion and everyone around me (in the progressive movement) is blind to it.










Comments (33)
Or maybe, just maybe, Limbaugh, seeing the writing on the wall, is just trying to preserve some illusion of influence. "Uh, yeah, this is what I wanted all along! That's the ticket!"
In any case, I don't give a damn what Limbaugh or any of the other right-wing nutjobs think.
May 8, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I thought too. It reminded me of when I was little and would be sent to my room, and I'd huff off announcing,, "I'm going to my room because I want to go, not because I told you too!"
Of course, I suspect there's a bit more to it with Limbaugh. By saying he wanted Obama all along, he may be playing to the superdelegates, to those who are considering contributing to the Obama campaign, and so on. IOW, Operation Chaos continues.
May 8, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Screwed that up. Make that: "... and not because you told me to!"
May 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it was just me that missed the last years of the Clinton presidency...
But kudos for pushing your version of the Rush Conspiracy.
May 8, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
May 8, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Forsythe. This is Rush's version of Rove's "I have THE math" in the days before the 2006 election. He's just trying to sow FUD and preserve his own vision of himself as a kingmaker.
May 8, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, what a privilege to be you.
Here's an alternate hypothesis: Most democrats aren't stupid enough to take their talking points from Limbaugh for a very good reason. They actually know what they are doing, and it is you who are blind.
May 8, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they wanted Obama to be the nominee because he'd be easier to beat, shouldn't Rush have encouraged his dittoheads to vote Obama during the primaries? It seems awfully convoluted to encourage Republicans to vote for Hillary in order to get the weaker candidate as the nominee. I don't think you've thought this completely through.
May 8, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let me get this straight - when Rush Limbaugh says that Obama is the easier candidate to beat, you are prepared to take his claim as frank and honest. When anonymous poll respondants (who only may or may not be, as you style them, "wingnuts") say that they prefer Obama to McCain, you infer that they are lying in order to build up a false confidence among Obama supporters. In other words, when the evidence suits your prefered conclusion you will trust it and when it does not you will dismiss it. I dare say that there is no conclusion which cannot be vigorously defended if one is prepared to adopt that approach to the data. Suffice it to say, this good faith skeptic is not much swayed by your argument.
May 8, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Spade. Maybe I haven't thought it through completely, but I don't think it's convoluted to think that the wingnuts want this primary contest to be dragged out. As long as we're focused on beating each other up our resources are not going against McCain. So they encourage their supporters to prolong this battle by voting for Clinton. Result: Obama, who they think is the easier one to beat, is bloodied and further weakened for the fall campaign.
May 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
. So they encourage their supporters to prolong this battle by voting for Clinton. Result: Obama, who they think is the easier one to beat, is bloodied and further weakened for the fall campaign.
You're missing a step in your logic. How does anything that you've mentioned allow you to conclude that they think Obama is the easier one to beat? The only evidence you've given is the most recent spew from a drug-addled radio guy, who just changed his story. Not very convincing. On the other hand, plenty of Republicans (for what it's worth) have said that Clinton would have been easy to run against.
May 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since this is not a pro-Clinton post that does not disparage Obama, it is not eligible for Grackling. You'll have to leave.
May 8, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mistake. Cheers.
May 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Limpbuagh is taking credit for a common phenomenon, voters crossing over to cause a little mischief in the other party's primary when the candidate their party has already been determined.
I did it a number of time in Washington state primaries.
Here's what Jason Kinney, an Indiana native, had to say on the subject.
The “Limbaugh Effect” is a myth -- and the national media, urged on by the Obama campaign, are just throwing gasoline on this blowhard’s already raging ego. A large percentage of Indiana Republicans “crossed over” and pulled a Democrat ballot because most of the contested primary races (President, Governor, CD-07) were on the Democratic side. It’s a fairly common practice in the state and smart campaigns build specific GOTV strategies around it. And guess what? According to exit polls, Republicans who pulled a Democrat ballot voted for Clinton over Obama by a similar margin as the state as a whole. So what’s all the fuss about? Limbaugh points to the seven percent of HRC voters who said they’ll be voting for John McCain in November, a higher number than Obama’s 2.2 percent. But is this a statistically-significant difference when looking at an exit poll with at least a four-percent margin of error in a state that’s hard to exit poll? And isn’t this simply a direct function of HRC’s counterprogramming pitch to working-class moderates, some of whom are undoubtedly anticipating a return home in November? Silly reporters . . . tricks are for kids.
May 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm agnostic on the Operation Chaos theory, but I do have one problem with the analyses: To make the case requires not just relying on exit polls, which may have a margin of error of, say, 3-5 points, but very tiny subsamples of those polls. And when the sample sizes get smaller, the MOE goes way up. So I think your point is well-taken.
May 8, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back atcha Economides. With regard to how utterly stupid Democrats can be. How many Democrats do you suppose voted for Ralph Nader in 2000? If starry eyed, high minded, idealistic, left wing Democrats hadn't thrown their votes away on Nader we could have been spared this disaster we call the Bush Administration.
May 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or if Gore hadn't run precisely the same type of campaign which Clinton has run this year, a DLC strategy concocted in the 1980s.
The electorate has changed considerably since the 1980s and Obama and his camp have been realigning the democratic coalition, just as Reagan realigned the republican coalition in 1980, running a hope based campaign.
I agree with whoever above noted that it's a bad year for republicans, in general. I would add that McCain is a very weak candidate and Hispanics are moving toward the democratic camp in substantial numbers.
As Joe Klein put it "....the media — like pollsters and political consultants — tend to look in the rearview mirror and pretend to see the future."
May 8, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Love that Klein quote, though he is as guilty of it as anyone.
May 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that, Forsythe, is exactly why we will lose in the fall.
May 8, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is going to lose in the fall? Pretty much every democrat that runs for office is going to win in November. The Republican Party is slowly imploding, and it's going to get worse. Obama will win, Senators will win, Reps will win, Governors will win. Quit your hand-wringing. You can't bring Clinton back, we must press on together and with confidence.
May 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My state of NC and VA both have a very good chance of being turning blue in 2008 with Obama.
Though that must hurt Clinton ears to hear that a state that been red for a while might be going blue, that just the facts. NC has been slowly turning more Blue by the year, there has been a very large increase in population here mainly with younger adults with education since there is a lot of jobs for them in NC. From NC voter website: Voter Registration as of 05/08/2008 Democratic: 2,633,490 Republican: 1,933,645 Unaffiliated: 1,244,787 Total: 5,811,922.
I also would like to put out that out of the 13 congressional districts in NC 7 of them are already D. If you look at the map of those districts and compare them to population trends you will notice that the Democratic districts are the ones that are growing in population at a much faster rate then the republican districts. Not to mention that the current governor of NC is a Democrat and is most likely going to be replace by Perdue who is running as the Democrat to fill his place and won the primary here this Tuesday. Sadly both senates are controlled by Republicans, since they haven't ran any strong candidates against them yet.
Another nice thing to remember about NC going blue is that over 1.5 MILLION people voted in the NC Democratic primary (Republicans were not allowed to vote with a Democratic ballot in NC) With only 1.9 million registered Republicans and 1.5 Million people voting in the Primary for Democratic i think Obama chances of turning NC blue is quite high, VA to our north also looks good for him since the demographics are very similar and might even be more favorable to turn blue compared to NC.
VA is worth 13 electoral votes and NC is worth 15.
Lets look nationally for a sec, http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May08.html
I think Obama will win all the states that map shows him winning plus having a very good chance at NC, VA, NM, MO, NV, NH, OH. TX/AK also could swing blue in the fall.
For Obama to win he only needs to get 7 more electoral votes from any of those states above. Toss him NC or VA and its already over. He could even lose PA-FL-OH and be fine if he picks up NC and VA.
My prediction though is 300+
May 8, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? Just because I don't cower in fear over every little thing the right-wing smear machine says and does?
Obama's strong performance in Indiana and North Carolina, despite two solid months of attacks from Republicans, the right-wing smear machine, the media, and even members of his own party, has proven to me that he has the capacity to to withstand whatever Limbaugh and his ilk can dish out.
It's time to stop being afraid.
May 8, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Indiana, a state that Clinton should have won easily based on demographics, Obama lost by 1%. Maybe he would have won without the Limbaugh voters. Either the way, the point is that Obama exceeded expectations and not even the marching army of Operation Chaos could stop him.
The primary is over, Obama has won, now let's go kick McCain's butt in November.
And let's not be too hard on the wingnuts - meddling in this election is the most fun they're going to have for the next 8 years or so, as their party continues to dismantle and break apart at the seams.
May 8, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else is he going to say. Oh shucks, now we've really lost in the fall?
May 8, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The doped-up pedophile couldn't get his boy Romney nominated even while bashing McCain nonstop and commanding his zombies to support Mittens. He is not as powerful as people think.
May 8, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Especially the doped-up pedophile part.
May 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
DOH! Curse you, Rush Limbaugh! Once again, your evil genius has triumphed over our simple, naive goodness!
May 8, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Snarkalicious comment!
May 8, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We must also remember that if Gore had won his own state then Florida (and Nader) would not have mattered and Gore would have been president.
May 8, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Limbaugh and the wingnuts think doesn't matter. they may think that A or B is the weaker candidate, but they might well be wrong.
Some Democrats actually wanted Reagan to win the nomination in 1980 since he'd be a fringe figure who they could demonize. Be careful what you wish for!
Democrats should always pick who they like best and can get excited and rally behind. If they do that, they'll have better chances than trying to pick based on "electability". (We tried that in 2004 and it didn't work so well)
May 8, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quote: "I feel like I'm watching a horrible accident unfold in slow motion and everyone around me (in the progressive movement) is blind to it."
And I feel like I'm the Queen of England and nobody knows it but me.
May 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kills me are the basic unspoken premises of your comment:
a) The wingnuts are a monolithic, perfectly uniform conspiracy. They are all of one mind on which Democrat would be easiest to beat.
b) Rush Limbaugh is the official spokesman of this conspiracy, rather than just some fatheaded pill popping blowhard, a self-described entertainer, who will say whatever the hell he has to say to keep his dimwitted fans tuning into his fatuous program.
c) You have a special ability to tell when Rush Limbaugh is telling the truth and when he's just talking out of his ass and, surprisingly, it turns out Rush is telling the truth whenever he says something you already agree with.
d) Now that Obama has been nominated, the Vast Wingnut Conspiracy has finally broken its once strictly held code of silence and authorized Limbaugh, its Minister of Propaganda, to taunt us with a supervillianish "buhahahahaha, blind fools, you've played into our hands!" Oh, the horror.
e) And, of course, the definining symptom of the mass case of PTSD suffered by many of Hillary's (and some of Obama's) supporters, the belief that those perfectly monolithic men in the Vast Wingnut Conspiracy are omniscient and omnipotent. If they believe Obama is the weaker candidate, it must be true. They know all and can do anything, have the power to permanently cloud minds and can fool all of the people all of the time. It is not even remotely possible that they're just a bunch of self-deluded dopes who are desperately denying the extent to which the ground has shifted beneath their feet since Katrina and the Schiavo debacle laid bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their politics and their philosophy. No, it is, and always will be, 2002. Nothing has changed in the country since then. Nothing at all.
Kindly spare me the defeatism. Hillary's campaign is over. Obama is the nominee. The only question is whether you want to pitch in and help us win or whether you'd rather sit on the sidelines and try to Chicken Little us into defeat with a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom, as Democrats had been pathetically prone to do for the last twenty years.
I once again recommend to everyone's attention the motto on the T-shirt worny by extremely tough looking woman who voted at the early voting site I monitored for Obama on Saturday: "Are you gonna cowboy up or just lay there and bleed?"
(Those shirts availible at the link below, by the way. Please buy one for every Democrat you know.)
http://www.rusticranchtack.com/catalog/item/1100818/623812.htm#image_1
May 8, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Hayden, at the risk of alienating you with my first sentence, you seem quite bitter! It's understandable. Perhaps you've invested time, money, and emotion in Senator Clinton's historic candidacy, and you're justifiably sad to see it end. Senator Clinton has indeed been quite a strong candidate, and she's attracted a powerful base of support.
But you're reacting exactly as Rush Limbaugh wants you to do, lamenting that the Clinton could have won in November, but believing that instead Obama will be ground up by the vicious GOP attack machine.
I have no doubt that had Mrs. Clinton won the nomination, Limbaugh would be saying the exact opposite, that the GOP wanted to face her all along, rather than face Obama, who is raising more money, energizing young voters, and whose youth and anti-war positions stand in stark contrast to McCain. Limbaugh is trying to evoke reactions just like your blog post - he wants the chaos to continue. His hope is to keep the divisiveness going as long as possible, and to alienate at least some of the loser's supporters so they stay home in the fall. What matters to him isn't so much which candidate they have to face, but that he can keep Democrats fighting each other, instead of Republicans. Please don't fall for his bait.
I don't doubt that Senator Clinton would have been a formidable candidate in November, but she also has significant weaknesses, as well. The Clinton campaign has done almost too good a job of pointing out Obama's weaknesses, while (understandably) failing to mention hers. So you can see lots of ways how Obama might be beaten, but probably aren't as aware of the many attacks that they could launch against Hillary.
Either the first woman nor the first African-American would have to overcome a significant "ism", either sexism or racism, and yes, it will be a handicap. But most of the voters motivated by either are far less likely to be in the Democratic camp anyhow. Each candidate will be facing attacks over sideshow issues, be it over pastors, flag-pins, associates, decades old "scandals", or otherwise. I personally think on balance this would make Hillary a weaker general election candidate, but I'm quite possibly wrong here; I trust that while you seem so sure Hillary would be stronger, you at least consider the possibility that you, too may be wrong about that.
I do know this: if too many Hillary supporters (or, should Mrs. Clinton win the nomination, Obama supporters) stay disillusioned, that will make it far easier for McCain to win in November. So even though you're probably sure Clinton would have been the better candidate, and better president, put that aside and help support Obama for the fall, even if only to prevent McCain from winning a third term for George W. Bush. The differences between Obama and Clinton, while real and significant, pale in comparison to those between either and McCain.
May 8, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment