Anecdotal evidence of substantial numbers of Republicans crossing party lines in Ohio. As in other states, the anecdotes have some voting for Hillary because they think she's easier to beat, and others voting for Obama because they hate Hillary and want to see her beaten. Interestingly, you rarely hear Republicans thinking it would be easier to beat Obama.
« Wow | Main | Rumors, Exit Polls »
Crossovers
04 Mar 2008 05:04 pm
Comments (40)
Maybe some of them are anti-McCain Republicans who actually prefer Obama (or Hillary) to their party's nominee.
HUGE NEWS!!
EARLY EXITS FROM AN INSIDE SOURCE:
OH: 51 Clinton, 49 Obama
TX: 54 Obama, 51 Clinton
Hillary looks to be toast
In the end, though, this is a non-factor. As the anecdotes reveal, who knows how many people are voting strategically? And even more so, how many strategic voters would it take to turn the election? Too many for it to actually happen.
I have a friend in PA who is religiously conservative, but is very much an Obama supporter. I don't think she'd be registered as a Republican (if she's even a citizen yet) due to the racism and parochialism of the GOP, nor do I know if PA allows crossover voting, but Obama does seem to have potential for crossovers.
That being said, there are some people who, even as they claim proudly to lie outside the right-left political spectrum still, when it comes down to brass tacks, would support HRC over Obama, because "he's too liberal" (even if he's actually more liberal in ways in which these same people claim they agree with the Dems. over the GOP ... somehow they've decided they disagree with him on these very issues -- and these are not uneducated people, believe it or not!). Moreover, McCain kinda owns the "independent" and "maverick" (ol' Maury must be rolling in his grave) vote, so who knows how well Obama will do against McCain (as compared with HRC) in the general ...
Unfortunately, rank-and-file Republicans-- even the most boneheaded bible-thumpers with issues that a century of therapy couldn't solve-- still seem to have better political instincts than a lot of Democrats. Must be that sort of tribal mentality that's attuned to compelling myths and narratives, or something along those lines. They just seem to be more instinctively political creatures than our people are... even when I think their tactics are childish and their movie-plot fantasies laughable, they manage to connect with voters while our guys are diligently clicking on bullet points.
Matt is turning into a slightly more moderate version of Andrew Sullivan. There must be some way of supporting Obama without trashing Clinton, but Matt clearly hasn't found it. And every time I read his blog I get madder (unjustly) at Obama.
Maybe some of them are homeless people hoping the Plain Dealer reporter will buy them some sauce.
Same-day exit polls are notoriously inaccurate. Informal anecdotal reporting like this is even sillier. (Albeit we're starved for something to talk about in the next couple hours while we wait for actual results, so it does have a purpose if not much value.)
Matt! Your blog used to be so even-handed and snark-free -- a big reason why I liked it! I still do, obviously, or I wouldn't be here.
That said, it can't be both ways -- if Republicans hate Hillary, it's because they think she'd be the President most antithetical to their interests. In other words, a liberal's/Democrat's/gay-communist's dream and their nightmare. If they like Obama, could it be because they think he's truly more moderate and more of a push-over? I would buy that line of thinking in a second over the "finally the nice liberal has come along that can allow me to vote Dem!" idea that Obama supporters keep pushing. No, it not inherently wrong to try to attract moderates in the other party during a primary campaign -- it certainly will help in the general and is a good way to amass delegates in open primary/caucus states. But if you take a step back and realize that it's possible that a majority of Democrats will end up voting for Hillary Clinton but she loses the Democratic nomination, I really don't think it's all good news. As stupid as Republicans are, they're not that stupid. If they like Obama, there's a reason.
Ken - 54-51 is the score of a basketball game, not exit poll results.
The numbers have to add up to 100% or there is a problem with your data.
TX: 54 Obama, 51 Clinton
...what
I just have trouble believing that these anecdotes really add up to much in a state of 11 million people. It's like the proverbial "friend of a friend who wanted to vote for Kerry but it was registered as a vote for Bush."
I don't think Hillary needed shenanigans to win Ohio. Outside of New York, it's hard to imagine a better state for her. One thing Ohio has that a state like Missouri (which Obama barely won) doesn't have is a contingent of working-class white voters who are just not reachable for any black candidate (in Missouri, those voters exist but they're Republicans). There's a reason the only Democrats who lost statewide races in Ohio in 2006 were the two African-Americans on the ballot.
Re Ken
Mr. Kens' Texas results add up to more then 100%. Are people arising from the grave to vote?
"...you rarely hear Republicans thinking it would be easier to beat Obama."
Matt has just noted the dog that did not bark. Republicans know how to compete with Hillary, but they are scared of Obama. They fear a liberal Reagan. Reagan had the "Reagan Democrats" and Obama has a real appeal to "Obama Republicans."
Please note that Reagan threw rhetorical bones (quoting Kennedy or Roosevelt) to Democrats but didn't govern as a moderate. I believe the converse will be true for President Obama; he will quote Republicans (Reagan?) and govern as a progressive Democrat.
My source at the polls says that Republican women are voting for Hillary, and that independents are declaring their party as "Obama" here in Ohio.
Hillary has the fat chick vote sewed up in Ohio.
This will work as well as when Rush Limbaugh tried to get Republicans not to go for McCain. Even if cross-over voting were in large numbers, the guy couldn't even swing a Republican primary...
Republicans want the Obama-Clinton fight to continue, which isn't exactly surprising.
According to Ken, Obama is kicking butt.
Go Obama!!!
I'm as cynical as they come, but I definitely enjoy the schadenfreude of seeing the cynics proven wrong. Love seeing the "shorters" screwed over by reality.
Definitely celebrating TONIGHT!
As much as I want to believe Ken, bottom line is exit polls SUCK.
Remember New Jersey and Mass. !
Obama winning 54-51 would be evidence that Texas doesn't count. Or can't count.
joejoejoe, do you ever comment on baseball blogs?
Why the fuck would anyone even consider treating something like that Ken post as if it had any credibility? Get a grip. It won't be that long before we have some real results.
Seriously, who the fuck is Ken?
On the other hand, in the tea leaves department, I find it very interesting that the first data from the exit polls the AP chose to leak is how big of a chunk of the electorate the independents represent today.
Mmmmm ...
I think the extent of crossover voting to pick the worst candidate on the other side is overestimated. My view is that people find it very, very hard to vote for someone they don't actually like. Crossover voters will, however, vote for one candidate of another party who is more favorable on issues than the other or one whom they like.
I am confirmed in my views by Brian's anecdotal info that Republican women are voting for Hillary (whom they like or think has been mistreated) and independents are voting for Obama, whom they like. I think women are particularly unlikely to engage in strategic disruption of the other party, but maybe that's just the women I know.
I am confirmed in my views by Brian's anecdotal info that Republican women are voting for Hillary
All three of them?!?!
Ken rulz!!!
I wish to endorse some but not all of the views expressed by the other Ryan at 5:22 above.
Gotta get a new name...
From THE FIELD ...
Fox News just reported the exit poll responses to the question of which candidate could better defeat the Republican in November…
Among Ohio voters:
Obama: 52 percent
Clinton: 44
Among Texas voters:
Obama: 52 percent
Clinton: 41
From the AP via OpenLeft:
Early exit polls show independents are a sizable chunk of the electorate in presidential primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont.
In all those states except Rhode Island, Tuesday's primaries were ``open,'' meaning all voters could choose which party's contest to vote in. In Rhode Island, only registered independents could choose between parties.
The surveys for The Associated Press and television networks found self-described independents were about one in five voters in Ohio's Democratic primary, one in four in Texas, a third in Rhode Island and four in 10 in Vermont.
How much can exit polls tell when there was so much early voting?
In an article I read in my local Ohio paper, it states: For Ohio, where you simply ask for the primary ballot you'd like...
"...a registered Republican who wants to vote a Democratic ballot must swear - under threat of criminal prosecution - that he "desires to be affiliated with" and "supports the principles" of the Democratic party...."
Fraudulent crossovers are rare, and indictments extremely so, but can't a case be made that broadcasters are conspiring or inciting voters to commit fraud. Conspiracy is still illegal right?
Tony - I comment on the Baseball Toaster blogs (mostly Bronx Banter) and some NBA blogs like Detroit Bad Boys and Need4Sheed.
A close family member of mine from Massachusetts (let's just call her "mom") crossed over and voted for McCain (whom she loathes), because she wanted Romney to lose Massachusetts. Didn't do anyone any good in the end, but it happened.
She's just one person, though.
I do wonder whether Ohio Republicans might be more responsive to Clinton's 3AM ad, what with their pavlovian response to fearmongering, though.
In general, I think open primaries are a good thing.They increase participation in the process and foment interest in the overall electorate. They can be problematical at times in certain rare situations.
For example, look at the democratic primary result in the state of Michigan in 1984. Reagan was running unopposed and had the nomination in the bag. A large group of motivated Republicans, knowing this, made a concerted effort to organize to vote for Jesse Jackson. I can't say for sure what their motivation was at the time, but I don't think it would be much of a stretch to assume that it wasn't that they thought that Jesse Jackson would be a fine president.
In this regard, Sen Obama should be eternally grateful that Mike Huckabee has stayed in the race this long to minimize this sort of thing up to this point. However, after the results this evening likely make McCain the official nominee, I suspect that you are going to see more republicans crossing over for Clinton in open primary states.
I am only saying this because, if in the future the democratic party decides to alter their nominating procedure, I think that one of the priorities should be placing the more open primary states toward the beginning of the process and putting any closed primaries at toward the end. However, I think most of us agree that the first priority should be replacing most caucuses with actual primaries in the first place followed by reducing the role of super delegates (even though super delegates could, in theory, override state outcomes that may have been determined by republican cross-overs with bad intentions).
According to Ken, Obama is kicking butt.
Yeah, he's really giving 105%.
To the people who were griping about what they see as anti-Clinton snark: Matt Yglesias IS even-handed. I have come to respect his work. This is not a Hillary-bashing blog. So don't try to slay the messenger, folks.
In general, I think open primaries are a good thing.
Not I.
I believe that the only vote to which a voter is entitled without qualification is for the office itself --the general election, in other words.
If I don't like the way that a major party (or even a minor one) selects its nominees, then I'm free to go with a different one in the general --simple as.
I'd rather see nominees chosen in smoke-filled rooms than by Republican and "independent" crossovers and similar shenanigans. There's some fine-tuning to be done with regard to local and statewide races, but as for presidential primaries, here's the plan:
--To vote in a presidential primary, one must be registered with the party whose ballot one chooses on primary day
--One must complete registration paperwork prior to the first-in-the-nation Iowa Caucus (including those who will turn 18 after the deadline)
Save all of that motor-voter, register-at-the-polls-on-election-day stuff for the first Tuesday after after the first Monday in November.
They're voting for her in order to extend it and reap the benefits. Those would be the benfits of her tearing him apart for 7 weeks and then possibly tearing the party asunder at the convention.
Black folk have voted Republican before; they can do it again if they choose.
I appreciate your criticism, Precinct Captain, but I have to disagree.
I personally believe that about 40% of the body politic is predisposed to voting republican and about 40% are predisposed to vote for democratic party. Personally I would rather have an indication of which way the other 20% are likely to vote now versus finding that out in late October.
Hardcore democratic voters gave us McGovern. Hardcore democratic voters gave us Mondale. Hardcore democratic voters gave us Stevenson twice. Hardcore democratic voters gave us Carter. Hardcore democratic voters gave us Kerry. Hardcore democratic voters gave us Dukakis. Hardcore democratic voters would have delivered us Brown over Clinton in 1992 if they had had their say.
All I am saying is that it might be beneficial occasionally to look outside of the hardcore base in order not to cut off our nose to spite our face.
Comments closed March 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
In Wisconsin, talk radio had told republicans for several weeks in advance to cross over and vote for Clinton. Didn't do much good.
Posted by MikeJ | March 4, 2008 5:13 PM