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 »
Allah the right side of HA is wiped out.
infidel on March 5, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Headlines you never in a million years thought you would see.
I’m reeling from the irony.
ronsfi on March 5, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Hillary Clinton. The conservative choice.
Hell must think Al Gore is coming.
NellE on March 5, 2008 at 12:21 PM
That stare she gave after the limbaugh question was enough to regrow glaciers in Antarctica.
lorien1973 on March 5, 2008 at 12:22 PM
And if she wins it all in November, we can all send a great big thank you to Rush for giving us yet another four years of the Clintonistas.
Dittohead my foot! Sometimes I think this guy thinks he is a legend in his own mind!
pilamaye on March 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM
At the end of the day, McCain will beat either one of the Extreme liberal democrats.
Chakra Hammer on March 5, 2008 at 12:24 PM
We did it, AP.
Vizzini on March 5, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I have never understood why states allow parties to cross over and vote in each other primaries, but in this case, I am glad it occurred.
bopbottle on March 5, 2008 at 12:26 PM
“Be careful what you wish for” is a very poignant point. Whoever the Democrats nominate, they would be a distaster for the nation…
amkun on March 5, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Rush just responded to the Hillary quote on his show. He said, “Waht? No ‘Thank you’??” And, “was that a threat?”
ToddonCapeCod on March 5, 2008 at 12:27 PM
No. Rush had little influence on Republicans swinging their votes for Clinton.
Lawrence on March 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I think Michelle Obama won it for Hillary!
SPCOlympics on March 5, 2008 at 12:28 PM
HEY! You stole my topic! I wrote a blog about this this morning at Town Hall (trying to impress Amanda:P).
My headline is: Conservative Talk Radio Regains It’s Voice for Hillary
ThackerAgency on March 5, 2008 at 12:30 PM
“Who made the Democrats the moral arbiters.” Rush striking verbal gold again! So it’s ok for them to give us McCain but lord help us when the tables turn! I love being dittohead lol.
brotherbell on March 5, 2008 at 12:30 PM
Rush will see that he has really screwed the GOP.
By injecting new life into Hillary, what we’ve done is make a Clinton/Obama ticket almost a sure thing.
We could’ve beaten Clinton/X or Obama/X but not both of them together.
Thanks El Rush-Bo!
Labamigo on March 5, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Conservatives still had the Republican messiah to choose, and they displayed anti-mormon bias. Rush is not a religious leader and so could not sway them.
JiangxiDad on March 5, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I’m not surprised that “Independents” go for Obama. I know a great many of them. Most left the Democrat Party because they are disgusted by (1) its radical left members and don’t want to be associated with them, and (2) the Party system in general. However, they are still liberals who will vote for a Democrat without even considering another candidate.
Kalifornia Kafir on March 5, 2008 at 12:33 PM
I’m going to disagree and say Rush had a HUGE impact here–primarily because crossing the aisle in a very focused, real-time fashion, along with the whole “taboo” feelings of doing such a thing is far more fun than trying to turn the tide for Romney in the big picture. It was a chance to put a spot on their collective lung, and I think it worked.
-T
The Therapist on March 5, 2008 at 12:33 PM
SECOND LOOK AT SNL
Also, Howard Dean might be very busy all of a sudden.
Also, wouldn’t want to be Richardson, KP, and a few others who’d concluded too soon that it was over.
Also, Obama might still win. It turns out that the superdelegates (a purely liberal disease) are all bought like whores, and he’s been filling their coffers way more heavily than her. On LA’s KFI 640 AM, this morning. Hillary is talking about a joint ticket, only if she’s on top. He will not pick her.
Entelechy on March 5, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Yes we can!
Make them go all the way to the convention.
Theworldisnotenough on March 5, 2008 at 12:35 PM
McCain doesn’t have the final election wrapped up yet.
The Clinton and/or Obama platform:
(Yadda, Yadda, Power, Change, Yadda, Yadda).
The McCain platform:
(Yadda, Yadda, Power, Change, Yadda, Yadda).
Lot’s of people are going to vote for Power and/or Change.
But a lot of other people are going to vote for something they consider more substantial and vote for anybody but Clinton, Obama or McCain. This is why Romney dropped out so quickly and why Huckabee did as well as he did well.
This election is like watching two heavyweight boxers trying to prove who can loose first.
Lawrence on March 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Rush only endorsed Mitt at the very last minute. I believe it was after he had already lost in Florida, so it was too little, too late.
On the other hand, he had been working this vote for Hillary in the Texas primaries thing for weeks now.
Buy Danish on March 5, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I say again:
This election is like watching two heavyweight boxers trying to prove who can “lose” first.
Lawrence on March 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Allow me to be the first to say:
Congratulations Allah!
infidel on March 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM
I laugh at everyone who is saying that Rush has screwed the GOP and given us Hillary.
If the GOP would have actually given us a GOOD CANDIDATE, us conservatives wouldn’t have to engage in such strategery! If we had someone just a bit better than Juan McShamnesty (isn’t he like 115 years old?) we wouldn’t feel a compunction to vote for someone we revile just to get a more favorable matchup (or at the very least, a protracted Dhim primary that spills blood and bleeds campaign coffers).
I blame McShamnesty, the Republican party, the MSM for influencing the Pub primary WAY before I put any blame on Rush. Hell, I had been planning on switching to vote for Cankles next month in PA. It seems now I won’t have to.
Rush hasn’t decided the Dhim candidate, if that’s what people are implying. He just helped drag the fight out. This IS a good thing.
Darksean on March 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Begrudgingly asking for people to vote for a candidate late in the process who will be their nominee is a lot different than asking people to do something that will benefit the party in November after their own nominee has been decided. This request resonated with people, it made sense to them and the Romney request did not. This request also got very, very wide redistribution and discussion.
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM
For the record, I have a brother, sister-in-law, daughter, son-in-law who live in the Dallas Tx area. Each are very conservative and would typically vote Republican. Based on what they told me, all four voted fo Hillary yesterday.
My brother called me on his way to work yesterday and allowed as how he was going to first stop off at home and shower with a Brillo Pad now that he voted for Hillary, but he was glad he did.
By the way, none of them got the idea from Rush. This represented independent action.
Onager on March 5, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Why can’t we vote strategically in our own primary?
Well, I guess McCain has the best chance to win…
frankj on March 5, 2008 at 12:43 PM
It was always going to be Clinton/Obama until she faltered and it looked like it was going to be Obama/X (not Malcolm, by the way). Not Rush’s doing if it’s Clinton/Obama.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 5, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Rush’s intentions were to cause a little chaos on the other side, hoping for a brokered convention.
During the past week or so, the press is finally starting to make it a little tougher on Obama (the so called “SNL effect”), effectively causing a little chaos of their own.
This is good. Hopefully the country now will be able to look long and hard at both HRC and most importanty, OHB.
garry on March 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM
As my Jewish friends sometimes say, “from your lips to God’s ear…”
I don’t think I agree, though. I’d like to revisit some statistics on primary turnout this year compared to previous elections, but I have an overwhelming sense that the dems are turning out in record numbers. I am expecting that the dem candidate in the general is going to benefit from a wave of dem participation that the GOP with a lukewarm candidate is going to be able to compensate for.
I pray I’m wrong, but…Primary turnout has been at record-setting levels - and it ain’t because republicans are on fire for their candidate.
Midas on March 5, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Rush’s intentions were to cause a little chaos on the other side, hoping for a brokered convention.
During the past week or so, the press is finally starting to make it a little tougher on Obama (the so called “SNL effect”), effectively causing a little chaos of their own.
This is good. Hopefully the country now will be able to look long and hard at both HRC and most importanty, BHO.
garry on March 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM
People can walk and chew gum at the same time without Limbaugh or any other pundit directing them on how to do so.
Blake on March 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM
I decided to go Dem and vote for the Glacier some time ago. But it wasn’t Rush that put the idea in my head, it was a commenter here at HA. (Apologies for not remembering who.)
OTOH, my immediate disaffiliation doesn’t take effect for 90 days, so I’m a freaking Democrat until June. Oh, the sacrifices I make…
Pablo on March 5, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I don’t see how Obama can ever say again he’s for change if he would accept being on the ticket with Clinton (in any capacity)
garry on March 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Caller to Rush: Obama robo calls requested voters, regardless of party, to pick up a Democratic ballot and vote for change.
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2008 at 12:52 PM
It was the blogs that got this ball rolling.
What troubles me, and I don’t know why others here phoo-phoo or ignore it, are the massive turnouts. Yes a boat load of Reps have crossed over in several states, that I get, but that can’t have anything to do with the big voter turnout. The turnout in Texas was the most ever. 4-1 over 2004. I can’t see how that is a plus for the Republicans. The dems are fired up.
Someone pull the wool away from my eyes.
Limerick on March 5, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I’m betting Rush won it for her in Texas. Yes, it’s a risky bet, but justified IMO by the conflicts it creates within the Dem party.
Shrillary is more beatable than Obama, since half the country already hates her.
Worst case scenario seems to be a Shrillary-Obama ticket. But hopefully after seven more months of fighting, that option won’t be feasible.
petefrt on March 5, 2008 at 1:00 PM
End of thread.
freevillage on March 5, 2008 at 1:03 PM
I know of a few Republicans who voted in the Ohio Democrat primary. I have no idea how many did it because of Rush. I voted in that primary, but mainly because there was a Dem that I wanted to support.
It is always hazardous to cast a spoiler vote in an opposing party’s primary. It is better to cast a vote for the candidate that you would have the least regrets for if they defeated your preferred candidate in the fall.
hugh59 on March 5, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Wooooo!!!! We did it! Okay, I have my own exit question. I’m in PA, and I have a choice in my congressional district, do I stay GOP and vote for my choice for congress, or do I re-register Democrat and vote strategerically?
doubleplusundead on March 5, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Well consider the amounts of money that the Dems are throwing at these contests. Add to that the fact that most years nobody cares in these states because there is already a nominee and you’ll get an increase in ‘year over year’ participation.
The Republicans basically know who the winner will be so they won’t participate. Huckabee never had enough money to buy enough air time to get people out to vote. McCain was 5 million dollars in debt at the beginning of January.
I wouldn’t worry about voter turn-out. Many R’s are voting D. R’s aren’t raising and spending 100’s of millions of dollars to ‘get out the vote’.
At the end of the day, some people vote for Hillary because they are racist, and some people vote for Obama because they are sexist. . . The R candidate will benefit from both of these phenomenons no matter who wins the nomination.
ThackerAgency on March 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM
How contested his his/her race (your congressman)? If he is a shoo-in then it won’t matter if you crossover.
Limerick on March 5, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Already planned on voting for her before Rush brought it up, but I did do the crossover vote thing. No one asked me anything after I voted or after my caucus. After 2004, I’m not much of one for exit polling. Personally, I think more crossed over than anyone is going to be able to count.
NeoconNews.com on March 5, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Good points. Thanks.
Limerick on March 5, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Gracious to a fault!
“Thank you Rush! Thank you Republicans!”
After all the sabotage in our Primaries it’s nice to see it back on them for a change
Hobbie on March 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM
We have two guys looking to unseat the Democrat (who won as a fluke because our last congressman was a scandalous dirtbag), one is more conservative, but the other one has a money advantage. Either one has a decent shot at taking the seat back, as long as McCain doesn’t get his ass handed to him.
doubleplusundead on March 5, 2008 at 1:14 PM
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.
Blacklake on March 5, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I’m in what would be called a non-border border county in Texas — predominantly Hispanic, single party Democrat in the primary, but which voted for Bush over Kerry in 2004. Just from an unofficial survey of people here, I’d say you really need to look at a group of non-Rush listeners — female Hispanic voters — and do the exit poll break-out on that demographic to see where Hillary won it in Texas.
The margin of victory in that group by Mrs. Clinton over Obama was huge locally, and my guess is the break-out for border counties from the Brownsville to El Paso areas would show the same thing. Obama got killed there, and odds are in a general election, Hillary would rack up the same numbers in the demographic in a race against McCain, which would be a far less important factor come November in Texas, since Kerry won most of the border counties in 2004, but couldn’t win anything else besides Austin.
Of course, Republicans should be checking to see if this group voted for Hillary because she was the more conservative of the two candidates, or because she was a woman. If it’s the former, McCain can probably pry a few votes away by the fall, based on what the Democratic Party rhetoric will be between now and November. If they’re voting solely on gender, and that trend also shows up in other border states, that could be more problematic for McCain down the line.
jon1979 on March 5, 2008 at 1:18 PM
OH please, Rush had nothing to do with the election results. Get a grip, people have minds of their own, how many crossed over who don’t listen to Rush. Just really,really, tired of the long election cycle. As of now I vow not to read or listen to anything do to with the election.
calgrammy on March 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM
Wrongo, Al. The problem with the McLame vs Romney scenario is that Rush didn’t back his horse early enough, and as such let that withered dolt gain momentum.
When he was prompting listeners to participate in a primary where NEITHER candidate represented their views to ANY degree, it was easier to get them to “waste” their vote for strategic purposes.
Spanglemaker on March 5, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Mars trip planned? :)
Limerick on March 5, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Well that was odd–my quote of AP went through, but not my actual comment…
The comment was that conservatives are far more emotional about Hillary and Obama than they ever were (or likely will be) about McCain or Romney. It’s negative emotion, but it’s emotion just the same, and that’s what motivates people to act.
Blacklake on March 5, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Two things wrong with your statement.
1. Rush didn’t tell conservatives to go out and specifically vote for Romney.
2. The dynamics were completely different then. The GOP had a chance of rescuing itself from people like you who hate conservatives and evangelicals with a passion. Your type has ruined the party and created Democrat-lite alternative to the real Democrats who are going to win big in November because getting back at the “Jesus Freaks” was a higher priority on your agenda than the well-being of the nation.
highhopes on March 5, 2008 at 1:26 PM
A continued fight along the DEM lines.. how could we ask for a better result.
AbaddonsReign on March 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Agreed.
funky chicken on March 5, 2008 at 1:33 PM
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk; the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
I have read about that kind of strategy before. George Custer tried something similar. How did that work out for him?
MB4 on March 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Well, duh. By the time our primary comes around, the nominees are usually foregone conclusions. Strategery is the only thing we have left. Personally, I voted Nader in 2000. And Heillery yesterday, just to keep the contest going.
iurockhead on March 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Allahpundit’s opening line ignores the democrat cross-over votes negating earlier conservative outcomes. Rather than dismissing the Rush, more appropriately, question your or HotAir’s influence or lack thereof in your loss. MSM tag-alongs aligning and re-aligning to attract more popularity are bumped off more often than not.
For those given the exit poll, considering the secret ballot principle, why give a straight answer to those who want to project their own vision for the world to follow, using you as bait? Bait the poll.
maverick muse on March 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM
So tell me why it does not benefit the McCain to keep the Democrats fighting all the way to the convention, damging easch other and draining their treasuries along the way.
Explain to me why a convention Bob Shrum called, “1968 without the blood” does not benefit McCain.
Explain to me how Hillary Clinton going after Obama tooth and nail for the next several months (something McCain already said he will not do) does not benefit McCain.
Explain to me how Hillary Clinton could possibly win the nomination at this point without splitting the Democratic coalition for a generation. Do you think Africa Americans in this country will accept anything less than Obama being nominated if he goes into the convention with a lead (which is a virtual mathematical certainty)?
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Agreed. Her big mouth was definitely a factor according to some of my liberal co-workers.
labrat on March 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM
4 points to ponder…
1. The Osama-look-a-like photos won TX and OH for Clinton. They will continue to win it for her the rest of the way.
2. This contest will continue until FL and MI primaries are rerun. Think about that….
3. The loser of the Dem primaries will never win another public office.
4. This primary battle is a Death Match. Clinton can’t win
without totally destroying Obama.
faraway on March 5, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I keep seeing “its Rush’s fault” or “it XXX’s fault” or “Rush didn’t back Romney soon enough”blah blah…. It’s the candidates job to win the primaries and the general election, not Rush. Republicans nominated McCain and we conservatives are left with pretty much nothing. Rush did everything he could to help the conservative movement, don’t see how anyone could blame him for our candidate and what is probably going to be a 2008 loss of the White House.
Big Orange on March 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Whatever keeps the Dems beating up on each other is good for us. Doesn’t matter WHO is responsible.
tickleddragon on March 5, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I agree completely.
tickleddragon on March 5, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I wouldn’t say that Hillary is a weaker candidate, just a more predictable one. If she was the nominee, you know it would be a close race like the last two, with the national vote within a point or two of each other and the race hinging on a few swing states. If Obama is the nominee it has the potential to be a blowout in either direction.
BuzzCrutcher on March 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Exactly and it’s scary how many people can’t grasp that simple fact especially since the only way Hillary can possibly win would be to destroy the party for a generation.
TheBigOldDog on March 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM
To all North Carolinians, by law, if one wants to “cross over” and keep up the Rush Strategy, must do so by APRIL 12th! PRIMARY DATE IS MAY 6. Remember, you must register as UNAFFILIATED(Not Independent). Obviously, you will be entitled to vote for whomever in the general.
I encourage my fellow Hotair readers to post your states’ specific election laws regarding “crossing over”. I WANT TO SEE THE CHAOS AT THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION!!!!
THE CHOSEN ONE on March 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM
For the record, I had decided to crossover and vote for Hillary before Rush started promoting the idea.
Kafir on March 5, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I’m betting that Obama will win the dim nom and that Juan McVano will be the forgotten liberal Republican Hombre by then. Already almost twice as many people are voting democrat as are voting Republican.
MB4 on March 5, 2008 at 2:05 PM
From both a political and policy standpoint, Obama is the weaker of the two candidates. McCain could easily beat him. Polls are already trending favorably toward McCain in a head to head match up.
Who cares what Bob Shrum thinks? Has the man ever been right about anything?
Um, hello? What kind of “tooth and nail” attacks do you want McCain launch? Do you want him to accuse Obama of being a Muslim? Maybe mock his middle name?
Wrong. They’ll close rank as they always do. In their minds they’re locked in a life and death struggle with racist, “Rethuglican Christofascists”.
Mike Honcho on March 5, 2008 at 2:07 PM
MB4 on March 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Latest RCP averages for general election:
Obama 47.1
McCain 42.9
And I don’t think that even takes into account the much greater democrat turnout and enthusiasm, nor the economy becoming the main issue, which it likely will, and which most Republicans seem pretty much oblivious to.
MB4 on March 5, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Rush is an idiot. If Republican crossovers were the margin of difference in Texas for Hillary, then shame on us.
The premise of further chaos debilitating the democrats is ridiculous. A golden opportunity to possibly finish off a great cancer in the American politics has passed, arguably resuscitating the Clintons. If she wins the nomination, she will have as good a shot as our hapless nominee, and likely the POTUS. Incalculable damage.
For those who think this was shrewd, how many passes do you give the enemy that will stoop to anything to beat you. She could care less how bloody it is until the convention, and in the general election she is much more dangerous than BO.
Starlink on March 5, 2008 at 2:22 PM
I crossed over in Ohio yesterday to vote for Hillary. I had to register as a Democrat to do it. My goal was to help Hillary become the nominee. Of the three possible candidates, McCain and Hillary are least objectionable, because they both are moderates.
I wanted a Conservative, but it wasn’t in the cards.
IMHO, either Mc or Hill will nominate the same type of person for JOTSC, so it doesn’t matter which of these two wins the Presidency.
tgillian on March 5, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Moderate (Updated): Someone who only wants half the people in Mexico to be in the U.S.
MB4 on March 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I’m always suspicious of polls that average averages, particularly when the data points include Pew Research, CBS News/New York Times, AP-Ipsos and the LA Times. I would be more inclined to accept Rasmussen at 48 McCain and 43 Obama.
rplat on March 5, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Rasmussen does not exactly have a very good track record this year. None of them are really very dependable, but if you take the averages, rather than just pick and choose which one you like best, then at least you have got a bigger sample and their errors may cancel out anyway.
MB4 on March 5, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Oh yes, Allahpundit did it, Mr Irrelevant.
WoosterOh on March 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
History shows that disagreeing with Rush makes you wrong, but I’m gonna go ahead and do it anyway.
What was supposed to be a hilarious democrat war may very well turn into a unified democrat party, and maybe even a single ticket.
This was a bad move.
Never Play With Fire, You Might Get Burned.
Dorvillian on March 5, 2008 at 4:26 PM
He sure seems to think that he did.
29Victor on March 5, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Four of those numbers show Obama up by 10 and they were all taken 2 1/2 weeks ago before some air was let out of obamamania. Obama and McCain are probably neck and neck now.
ninjapirate on March 5, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Rush is going to be on Fox talking about this, in this next hour (5-6pm edt).
rockhauler on March 5, 2008 at 5:03 PM
by 10by like 10Also, McCain was winning among likely voters vs Obama’s registered voters.
ninjapirate on March 5, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Still think it was a big mistake to cross-over for Clinton. Would’ve been better to put her away for good IMHO. Unfortunately AP and Rush think they’re smarter than the rest of us “doofuses”. I actually hope they’re right, but I have a bad feeling about it. I think they’ll come to regret this. I have no doubt Obama’s base would join Hillary’s camp when/if the time were to come, where I think Hillary’s would fracture and McCain would capture at least some of them.
I didn’t cross-over here in Texas because we have a very important Congressional race to fight for in my district (Tom Delay’s old seat that was lost to the Dems), and if you cross-over then you forfeit the possibility of voting in the run-off races, which is crucial to winning the seat back. Choosing our best candidate in the run-offs is not something I’m going to game away to some silly notion of tinkering with the Presedential race. I’m disappointed that so many “conservatives” regard their voting rights so lightly.
pecan pie on March 5, 2008 at 5:07 PM
To my knowledge, Rush never tried to sway any votes in the Repub primaries. Though his preference could be surmised, Rush did not exhort anyone to vote for a particular candidate in the primaries. He did just that for the Dem primaries and it looks like he had some impact. Bravo.
horatio on March 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM
This is a little off-topic, but there’s no doubt in my mind or most others that Rush did endorse Romney. He can claim that nuance all day, and you can buy into it. I’m a fan of his too, but I’m not buying that, we all know he tried to push for Romney in the last hour.
pecan pie on March 5, 2008 at 5:25 PM
True, especially when you’re a candidate that accepts votes from dead people, illegals, and felons.
- The Cat
P.S. I wonder how many of “the stay at homers” will have their vote go to the Dems this November. Went the name is on list but stays away the pollsters will play.
MirCat on March 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I have always been a fan of Rush, but there is a big difference in his analogy of democrats meddling in ours, so we will meddle in theirs.
The dems do not consider McCain a strong candidate, so meddling cost them little and denied the reps a conservative candidate as a contrast. On the other hand, while contradicting the prevailing babble these days, Clinton is much more formidable than the ‘Glass Jaw’ for one simple reason — ruthless, insatiable desire for power.
I don’t consider it wringing my hands either. I hope I am wrong and poked fun at for the next four years, but if she ultimately gets sworn in, they will look back to Texas as the turning point.
Starlink on March 5, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Entelechy on March 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM
I don’t think so - not this time. If Hillary walks away with this it will be through the biggest back door deal in the past 100 years of elections. As a result the African American voter will feel robbed, we are not talking about Jackson or Sharpton, some token candidate. Obama is the real deal and THEY know it. Now, if Hillary goes into the convention with the delegate lead but not the number required to win your prediction may come true, but Obama mania is so strong I am not sure that they ever will forgive the person who destroyed the “messiah” - and that includes all of those inspired college kids too.
Govgirl on March 5, 2008 at 5:49 PM
It doesn’t matter even IF they join forces with a Hillary/Obama or a Obama/Hillary ticket one of them is going to lose, the supporters of the loser will be upset and will probably vote for McCain, or NOT even vote at all.
IF Obama wins the nomination, McCain will gain lots of dem hillary women, that believe that Obama doesn’t have the experience, also IT would give Hillary another shot in 2012.
Same goes for Obama.. If Hillary wins the nomination, Obama supporters will vote for McCain to give Obama a shot at 2012.
Chakra Hammer on March 5, 2008 at 5:59 PM
True, SNL helped, but in my view only solidified her base and late deciders. The rep conservatives who intentionally crossed over based on this ‘grande sportif’ of Limbaugh’s could care less about her on SNL, and based on the exit polls, arguably made the difference.
The Clinton’s own the Democrat Back Door Company, and will simply promise and pay Jackson, Sharpton, The Rainbow Coalition, the Congressional Black Caucus, and any other aggrieved party the moon. I can see the press conference of “Atonement” now.
I do agree with Rush, to them, there are no rules and they will simply deal with BO now and the rest later. We are too nice and have values. They have neither. We have let the cat out of the bag to fight another day.
Starlink on March 5, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I hope you’re right, but I disagree. There may be a small amount of that, but I think the majority of Dems will support whoever their nominee turns out to be, no matter how “bloody” the fight is to get there, just like the Republicans have had to settle with. When it comes down to it, and the intial shock and awe subsides on the Republican side, most will vote for McCain over the Dems, even if we did have thoughts of sabotage in our initial disbelief of a McCain nomination.
Obama’s supporters are far left-wing and are much more likely to vote for Hillary than McCain. I think McCain stands a better chance of peeling off voters from Hillary’s camp than Obama’s. And I think Obama is a weaker candidate in the general once the press catches on to his emptiness. I could be wrong in all of that, but I haven’t yet been convinced the other way.
pecan pie on March 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Me neither. And look what it got us. The HRC supporters in the early primaries crossed over to give us McCain.
Only fair that we Texans crossed over to muddle up the democrats’ convention.
Heh.
Texas Nick 77 on March 5, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Simple answer: You are an individual citizen, not a party. You reserve the right to change your loyalities, affiliations or political philosophy at any time. They are not going to quiz you on your real intentions. You simply get a choice which primary to participate in from one election cycle to the next.
pecan pie on March 5, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Exactly what I said, wrong move Rush.
AprilOrit on March 5, 2008 at 6:41 PM
No, that’s not what I meant. It was the spoof SNL did on the media’s laziness and bias.
Entelechy on March 5, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »