More exit polls: Did Rush win it for Hillary?
posted at 12:10 pm on March 5, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
I’m going to guess no, for the simple reason that a man who couldn’t sway enough conservatives to tip close primaries from John McCain to Mitt Romney probably isn’t capable of getting them excited about Hillary Clinton. But just because Rush’s fingerprints aren’t on it doesn’t mean something didn’t happen last night. Have a look at the party ID/ideology numbers for three of the closest contests thus far — New Mexico, which Hillary (barely) won, and Connecticut and Missouri, both of which were won by Obama.
The Messiah always does well with independents. In fact, sometimes he even does well in states where Hillary blows him out. Here are New York, New Jersey, and California:
New Jersey’s the only one where he doesn’t break 50%, and Hillary never does better than 43%. Now, here are Texas and Ohio:
47% of Texas Republicans broke for Hillary Clinton? That PPP poll last week showed them breaking 76-20 for Obama. What could explain the late shift? Dare I say, a little old-fashioned strategery?
Let’s look at breakdowns by ideology. Again, the three close contests — New Mexico, Connecticut, and Missouri:
And now a little Texas and Ohio nuance:
Hillary’s natural base: “very conservative” Texans.
Exit question: We did it, didn’t we?
Update: Dave Weigel concurs and notes a Sharpton-related data point from 2004 showing that Texans have a history of voting strategically.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
You need to remember, that Republicans and Democrats ARE different..
Psychologically A totally different animal, conservatives more often use reason, logic and are also pragmatic, liberals are more often swayed by emotion, trends and idiocy. >:}
An Obama “loss” or even him playing second fiddle would discourage, some of the younger turnout and could depress the black vote.
A Clinton “loss” or even her playing second fiddle would discourage women that feel Obama has no experience and no business being in the White House as Commander-in-Chief.
In both of these scenarios, McCain has a very good shot of Gaining democrat votes.
Chakra Hammer on March 5, 2008 at 7:30 PM
This may have been said by someone else already; If so, my apologies.
Isn’t ironic that the first time there ever actually was a real “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” regarding the Clintons, it actually was to HELP Hillary keep her Presidential dreams alive?
LegendHasIt on March 5, 2008 at 7:36 PM
It’s funny watching the Left go nuts (more nuts!) thinking he DID help Hillary win, though! I love it!
SouthernGent on March 5, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I think there’s only one way to prove the Limbaugh effect. For the remaining Dem primaries he should tell listeners to vote Obama… then Clinton… then Obama… then Clinton. Keep alternating and see if he can swing a couple more elections. That would be really cool.
miles on March 5, 2008 at 10:58 PM
I thought talk radio was dead and didn’t matter anymore… remember?
Seven Percent Solution on March 5, 2008 at 11:54 PM
I think that most people listen to Rush because he espouses their conservative beliefs. Conservatives are, by definition, not followers.
Johan Klaus on March 6, 2008 at 12:11 AM
It was fun listening to Rush crow today. Go Rush!
Mojave Mark on March 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM
Of COURSE Rush won it for Mrs. Clinton! Don’t forget, Rush is the man that runs America…
ocbrat on March 6, 2008 at 1:29 AM
From 2002:
After comparing Mr. Limbaugh to a “circus clown,” the Arizona Republican [John McCain] apologized. “I regret that statement,” he told an interviewer on Fox News the other night, “because my office has been flooded with angry phone calls from circus clowns all over America. They resent that comparison, and so I would like to extend my apologies to Bozo, Chuckles and Krusty.”
MB4 on March 6, 2008 at 2:48 AM
Well, let me see now, the liberal party, the democrat party, is going to nominate a liberal as their nominee and the conservative party is going to nominate a
conservativeliberal as their nominee.Hello.
MB4 on March 6, 2008 at 2:54 AM
Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first drive mad.
MB4 on March 6, 2008 at 2:56 AM
Juan Plantation McShamnesty:
“Americans wouldn’t pick lettuce for even $50/hour”
Murmurs from the crowd turned to booing. “Pay a decent wage!” one audience member shouted.
“I’ve heard that statement before,” McCain said before
threatening to leave.
. . .
But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.
McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.
Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain’s job offer.
“I’ll take it!” one man shouted.
McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. “You can’t do it, my friends.”
There is a stupido party, a really really really stupido party, and it is not the democrats.
MB4 on March 6, 2008 at 3:02 AM
No, my friends, it is not the democrats. Not this time around, for sure.
MB4 on March 6, 2008 at 3:04 AM
I take a back seat to no one in wanting the democrats to be able to continue fighting each other and spending gobs of money to do so, but this cross over voting by Republicans troubles me, and here’s why.
Unless your state and federal Republican candidates are in solid safe seats, Republicans who are contemplating crossing over and voting democrat in the remaining primaries may be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. We are very lucky that cross over voting in Ohio and Texas didn’t end in a Republican primary election fiasco. There are lots of good Republicans running for office at the federal and state levels on down the Republican tickets so when Republicans cross over and vote democrat they are denying election help to these same Republican candidates. We need as much Republican help in both houses of Congress as we can vote in no matter which party wins the White House.
Lecie on March 6, 2008 at 5:42 AM
I think the hard lesson being learned here, with McCain’s nomination, is just how small the influence of New Media actually is, at least compared with the hype about it we all want so desperately to believe. The watershed point, where new media shatters the MSM stranglehold on reality, has not yet been reached.
Halley on March 6, 2008 at 6:23 AM
IMHO I don’t think you will ever see that day. Primarily because the new media is not willing to spend its money on developing the reporting resources to get the news.
If you really think about it the blogosphere wouldn’t exist without the mainstream media. The blogosphere largely opines on news reports and occasionally debunks a story. But more often than not, it creates echo chambers at many sites. It absolutely relies on the MSM to feed it the news it makes an opinion on.
Rush will forever claim he was responsible for Texas results because it is to his advantage to do so. If McCain doesn’t win the general Rush will never admit his role in helping him lose because it will not help increase his listening audience.
Bradky on March 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Bradky on March 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM
I’m not sure I understand your point.
If McCain does win the general, are you claiming that Rush will take the credit?
Saltysam on March 6, 2008 at 8:11 AM
The watershed point, where new media shatters the MSM stranglehold on reality, has not yet been reached.
Halley on March 6, 2008 at 6:23 AM
I’m not altogether disagreeing with you…but:
The new media has shattered the stranglehold, but it hasn’t destroyed it. Imagine the MSM without the new media?
The sign that the MSM is powerful?
People that think McCain’s win was due to a huge following among GOP voters, and seem unaware of the sky high probability that Democrats crossed-over in key primaries to elect a nominee they felt they could beat.
Saltysam on March 6, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Agreed.
How many voters in Texas agreed on this strategy, voted likewise, but disagree with Rush on other points?
This is the type of “critical” question that the talk radio “critics” will NEVER contemplate in a public, MSM style forum. The results would shake their fragile hold on “reality”.
Saltysam on March 6, 2008 at 8:50 AM
I agree that many liberals tend to vote based on emotion, however don’t forget that much of their hatred is aimed at GWB and they are already stating that they view (wrong or right) that McCain would be a third term of Bush. The Dems and the media will do everything in their power over the next several months to make McCain = Bush. Thus, don’t underestimate the turnout from liberals to vote against McCain, which is all very ironic since most Conservatives don’t feel cozy with either Bush OR McCain.
pecan pie on March 6, 2008 at 9:10 AM
I actually did some of the math on my blog site, and concluded that we’re just on the line of being able to say that the difference between how Republican voted in Texas and how they said they were going to vote a week before the primary is enough to account for all of Clinton’s margin of victory.
It’s too close to say definitely yes or no, but clearly Rush Limbaugh was a major force in the Clinton victory.
philwynk on March 6, 2008 at 1:31 PM
SaltySam wrote:
Are you sure it was a nominee they felt they could beat, and not a nominee they felt they could live with as President?
I need to see some evidence showing Democrat thinking on this topic, but in the absence of hard evidence, or even of a reasonable number of relevant anecdotes, I’m assuming they were voting for the only Republican they could stand.
(Unrelated to this topic, please visit my political blog, “Plumb Bob Blog: Squaring the Culture,” at http://www.plumbbobblog.com. Thanks.)
philwynk on March 6, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Don’t accuse the liberals and the MSM of using Nazi Propaganda! >:}
http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html
2. Propaganda must be planned and executed by only one authority.
7. Credibility alone must determine whether propaganda output should be true or false.
13. Propaganda must be carefully timed.
18. Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.
19. Propaganda cannot immediately affect strong counter-tendencies; instead it must offer some form of action or diversion, or both.
Chakra Hammer on March 6, 2008 at 5:22 PM
In New Hampshire, for instance, Democrats vote in the GOP primaries when they’re without their own nominee?
Give me a break.
The MSM was the issue, and I’m sure the MSM will support your assumption as a relevant anecdote.
Saltysam on March 6, 2008 at 7:30 PM
In a subtle way - not blatantly. “I helped pull him back to the base and his “roots”.’
Bradky on March 6, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Bradky on March 6, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Your version of Rush is the MSM’s version of Rush.
Interesting.
They don’t listen too him either.
Saltysam on March 6, 2008 at 8:15 PM
…too……to…
(sorry!)
Saltysam on March 6, 2008 at 8:16 PM
It is regrettable that you are unable to recognize the difference between a huckster and a principled believer. Rush is a successful marketer and you are part of his market.
And your rather funny reference to the MSM and I glosses over how the Rush supporters treat his every word, burp and fart as scripture. Who is really being led by the nose?
Bradky on March 6, 2008 at 11:38 PM
“…a man who couldn’t sway enough conservatives to tip close primaries from John McCain to Mitt Romney…”
I respectfully disagree with you. Rush did way to little, way too late.
waterfall on March 7, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Bradky on March 6, 2008 at 11:38 PM
That’s a simple question to answer.
You know little about how many times I’ve screamed at the radio in disagreement with Rush, or nodded in agreement. Only a real listener would know that feeling.
Your branded version of Rush is marketed, sold and distributed by the MSM…very powerful stuff. One needs to be careful around you, or one would be listening to a parrot expecting an opinion.
Saltysam on March 7, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Needed a little editing.
Bradky on March 7, 2008 at 1:03 AM
Bradky on March 7, 2008 at 1:03 AM
LOL!
I rest my case.
ROFL!
Saltysam on March 7, 2008 at 1:16 AM
Of course its good to know what actually happen its really not whether or not Rush and Laura and us and other Conservatives affected the the outcome of Democrat Primary elections, its the perception that Conservatives helped Hillary make gains against Obama and at this point some Democrats believe thats what happened.
Speakup on March 7, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Funny, I have been listening to Rush now for almost 20 years. I don’t agree with him all the time but the same is true with my wife and I. And as much as I love my wife I am not led by the nose by her much less by Rush.
jimbo2008 on March 7, 2008 at 7:54 AM
I really believe that too many of you libs ARE being led by the nose by the MSM and aren’t bright enough to know it.
jimbo2008 on March 7, 2008 at 7:56 AM
Sounds suspiciously like a Rush/Coulter talking point. Do you actually pay for their talking points or do you run around like the Moonies at the airports spouting them off for free?
Bradky on March 7, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Saltysam on March 7, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]