Did Rush Help Hillary Win Texas?

[Brainster]

There's a lot of talk about this today. Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics:

It's a close call, but unless the vast majority of Republicans who voted for Clinton (more than 80%) did so at Rush's suggestion, they probably didn't put Clinton over the top. They may have given her a point or two bump in the end, but it seems unlikely they were the deciding factor for Clinton last night.

But Dave Weigel of Reason Magazine comes to the opposite conclusion:

Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.

Of course, it's a difficult argument for Obama and his supporters to claim "Hey, we usually cream Hillary with Republicans, and we only barely won them in Texas, which is the only reason we lost."

 

[NoZed Avenger]

IIRC from the radio this morning, the exit polls in Texas (inser major qualifiers concerning any exit polls' accuracy in the last 10 years) were showing that of people croosing the aisle, Obama had the edge with 53% or so of their votes.

It looks like the Rs who wanted to vote against Hillary "just in case" canceled out the Rs who wanted to keep her in the race to keep the fight alive.

Unless the claim was that Obama would have gotten 90% of the cross-over vote in the absence of Rush, I doubt it had any impact whatsoever.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't know, but I do know that in Virginia, Obama got 70% of the self-identified Republican vote.

Delegate-wise I don't think it made a big difference, however. By RCP's count Hillary got one more delegate in Texas than Obama. So Texas was essentially a push.

 

[Sefarst]

Even if that plan did work, I don't see why Rush gets credit for it. We've known for a while that Republicans have been crossing over and voting for whichever Democratic candidate they thought would be mostly easily beaten by McCain. The only reason Rush made the news at all was because the media wanted the shock value of a headline like, "Rush Limbaugh says to vote for Clinton." Then, afterwards, he gets credit for an idea that's been floating around and utilized for a several primaries so far.

 

[ZenFountain]

I honestly don't believe there were enough "nefarious" voters to make a difference, but it makes a story for cries of foul play.

It was very stupid for Kos to call on Dems to vote for Romney in Michigan for the same reasons, because it it only opened the door for the Republicans to try the same tactic later (i.e. Texas) and then call Dems hypocrites if they criticized it. There will always be a certain degree of cross-party shenanigans in the nomination process, but I doubt the actual impact is much. Michigan, Texas and future open Democratic primaries present(ed) a unique opportunity though because the opposition has nothing to vote on and can afford to use their vote to undermine the other party. One of the reasons I believe open primaries are not a good way of assigning delegates.

 

[steverino]

Even if that plan did work, I don't see why Rush gets credit for it. We've known for a while that Republicans have been crossing over and voting for whichever Democratic candidate they thought would be mostly easily beaten by McCain. The only reason Rush made the news at all was because the media wanted the shock value of a headline like, "Rush Limbaugh says to vote for Clinton." Then, afterwards, he gets credit for an idea that's been floating around and utilized for a several primaries so far.

I think this observation has the ring of truth to it. I'm going with this one.

 

[BPSCG]

Rush doesn't deserve all the credit. (BPSCG rummages through backpack, finds Coulter grenade, pulls pin, tosses into middle of thread, runs away )

The mainstream media said she was finished, but our brave Hillary soldiered on to wallop B. Hussein Obama in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday night. I don't know what the MSM is so upset about-- we let them pick the Republican nominee. Did they want to pick the Democratic nominee, too?

Not only that, but after some toothsome appearances on various madcap comedy shows this past week -- "Saturday Night Live," "Late Night With David Letterman," "Hardball With Chris Matthews" -- Hillary's "likability" quotient is soaring! According to the latest CNN/CBS News poll, she's just been upgraded from "Utterly Loathsome" to "Execrable."

The percentage of registered voters who would rather disembowel themselves with a wooden spoon than vote for Hillary has just slipped below the magical 50 percent mark. We're surging, Hillary! If you want to be even more likable, you should go on "The View." Next to those four harpies, you seem almost agreeable.

(...snip...)

If Hillary is serious about becoming president, she's got to make some changes. I say this as a Hillary supporter and strong opponent of divorce. Hillary: You've got to divorce Bill. You've already fired one campaign manager. Now it's time to get rid of your No. 1 buzz-killer.

Not only is the media's group-lie about Bill Clinton being a "rock star" over, but -- one can hope -- the use of the excruciatingly stupid phrase "rock star" to refer to wonky politicians is over. It's become such a cliche that music critics have begun referring to actual rock stars as "leading Democratic contenders."

(...snip...)

In a period of just a few short months last year, "news" articles in The New York Times cooed -- I mean "said" -- the following about Bill Clinton:

-- "Elvis is here, Clinton version. Having Bill Clinton campaign for you, as Mr. Ford learns, is a mixed blessing. You are bolstered standing next to this outsized Democrat, but still seem puny by comparison."

-- "Mr. Clinton is one Oscar-worthy supporting actor who can sometimes upstage his leading lady simply by breathing."

-- "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been trying to capture Bill Clinton's old political magic and lay claim to his legacy and popularity."

-- Tony Blair's charisma "ranks second only to Bill Clinton's."

Not to be a stickler, but Bill Clinton is the guy who could never get as much as 50 percent of the country to vote for him. And that was in two presidential elections that the Republicans basically sat out (as they are doing this year).

(...snip...)

You can stop lying for the voters now, Hillary. This is me, Ann Coulter, your supporter.

This charade of a marriage has gone on long enough. Even if you were stupid enough to marry him back in the '70s, Bill is just so over, girlfriend. He can't even get Holiday Inn cocktail waitresses anymore. Last I heard, he was hitting on the Motel 6 housekeeping staff.

You're too good for him, Hillary. Obama has now denounced and rejected Louis Farrakhan. It's time for you to denounce and reject Bill Clinton.

Obama excites voters by offering to be the first black president. You've got a chance to make history by becoming the first divorcee to win the White House.

Actually, that last isn't quite accurate. Reagan had been divorced.

 

[gtc]

I wonder what is the optimum strategy for McCain supporters.

In Australia we have instant run-off voting which lets us rank the candidates in order. If the ballot had McCain, Clinton and Obama (the three remaining contenders for President) then McCain voters would give their second preference to whichever of Obama or Clinton they prefer. If McCain came third then their vote could help elect either candidate. If McCain came first or second then the second preference wouldn't matter.

Translating this process to the American system means Republicans would vote in the primary for the Democrat they would prefer to see win.

However, it seems Republicans are being encouraged to vote for their least favoured Democrat on the off-chance that a majority in November would prefer McCain to Clinton. In effect they are betting that either some Obama supporters would prefer McCain to Clinton or that the prospect of a Clinton presidency would get out the Republican voters who would be indifferent between McCain and Obama.

Are they wrong?