A closer look at the so-called ‘Limbaugh effect’

March 17, 2008

We’ve all heard quite a bit of talk lately about Republicans crossing over to vote in Democratic primaries, largely to help Hillary Clinton, which some have started calling the “Limbaugh Effect” (the far-right blowhard has encouraged listeners to back Clinton, in the hopes she’ll undermine Barack Obama before the general election). I’ve only seen a few reports here and there about whether this “trend” is real, and whether it’s actually made any difference.

The Boston Globe’s Scot Helman tackled the subject today. (thanks to reader E.S. for the tip)

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show. […]

Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.

But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties’ contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.

There seems to be some disagreement about what, exactly, Republicans hope to accomplish. Some apparently want to help Clinton get the nomination because they believe she’d be easier to beat; some want to help Clinton stay in the race so she’ll attack Obama; while some don’t much care who gets the Democratic nod, they just want to keep the process going because they think it helps the GOP in general.

But whatever the motivation, it appears this strategy is having at least some effect.

A fair amount of the Globe piece was anecdotal — a lot of conservative Republicans talking about why they backed Clinton — but the data points to crossover voting making a difference.

Limbaugh’s exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races. […]

In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot – their biggest proportion in any state yet – and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin…. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.

It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

In Ohio, it appears that Clinton would have won anyway, but by a smaller margin (which would have translated to fewer delegates), while in Texas, Republican voters may have very well given her the edge in winning the primary.

But there’s one angle that often seems to get overlooked in this: Limbaugh & Co. could be wrong. They’re assuming a) McCain could beat Clinton easily; b) Clinton will spend the next several weeks attacking Obama instead of McCain; and c) the whole Democratic process will hurt the party’s chances in November.

But the right might want to be careful what they wish for. All three claims may ultimately prove to be false.

March 17, 2008 at 1:51 pm

I think a McCain-Clinton GE is actually win-win for Limbaugh. If McCain wins, he’s got a Republican president, more wars, etc. He owes his career almost entirely to the Clintons, so if she wins he gets to spend the next four or eight years channeling anti-Clinton rage like he did in the 90’s.

On the other hand, his bigoted tendencies would probably get him in a great deal of trouble if Obama were the president, especially considering that Obama actually gets a fair amount of respect from many Republicans. Launching racist attacks on a popular POTUS, if that ends up being the case, could potentially end his career in a hurry when Clear Channel and such are staring down the barrel at a hostile FEC. At the very least, they’d be likely to keep him on a much shorter leash.

I heard Bill Clinton was on Limbaughs Show the DAY of the Texas ans Ohio Primaries! Check THAT out! Can you say PANDERING?

Please forgive my ignorance and apologies if this has been addressed in another thread — could someone explain to me why exactly members from one party are allowed in some states to vote in the opposing party’s primaries? It just doesn’t make sense. For the record and to be fair, I’ve heard of these kind of shennanigans happening on the flip side — with Dems affecting Republican votes.

Regardless, it’s a foolish practice and whatever the rationales were made for implementing it were off base.

Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

and

Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.

Doesn’t sound like the GOP tipped things to Obama then.

I like Obama, I’d LOVE to say the enemy is the only reason HRC is doing as well as she is.

The numbers don’t seem to support such a claim though.

Regardless, Clinton is likely to (has already) argue that she has simply improved her appeal to moderate Republicans.

Limbaugh’s other stated rationale for favoring Clinton over McCain is that he’d rather she get the blame for failures than McCain get the credit for success, assuming either one becomes president.

Actually I think that does lend some credence to the claim. The previous line talks about how prior to Limbaugh’s exhortations and the Texas-Ohio fracas, she was polling much worse then Obama amongst republicans. Pulling even was a huge increase for her. Now is it definitive? Not particularly, but it is definitely curious.

Tom —

In Texas, you don’t claim a party when you register– you claim a party when you vote in that party’s primary. In 2000, I crossed over to the Republicans to vote for McCain because I knew Bush would make a rotten president.

So if the argument is that the GOP is engaging in a campaing to drag out the primary my question is why doesn’t anyone who makes this argument understand that i follows that the prior GOP votes that were going to Obama were most likely similarly intended to be disruptive. Indeed, Rush was coming out with Pro-Obama statements earlier in the year. So these early cross-over votes were just as likely to be disruptive Anti-Clinton as opposed to any meaningful Obama support.

And if you claim otherwise, you admit that you actually have no idea why any of these republican voters voted and are relying on unfounded speculation based on anecdotes and wishes.

Hillary’s surge could just as likely be about GOP women wanting to vote for her.
as a Rush effect.

This silly season speculation isn’t really worth anyone’s time.

And remember that if you want to limit the primary and cuacuses to only democrats- then a lot of Obam’s victories would be erased.
Hillary has done better in the CLOSED primaries and Obama in the open ones.

Lastly, Bill Clinton didn’t go on Rush’s show. Rush had a guest host that day who played an unrelated prior interview that he had with Clinton on another show. Clinton didn’t appear and had no control over the replay of his interview.

toowearyforoutrage,

I’m not sure the two statements you highlighted point you to that conclusion.

The article is saying that there was a noticeable shift in the trend following Limbaugh’s call to arms.

Look at it this way: Hillary made significant gains in a demo that Obama had previously won handily.

Of course, the question is, because of the timing: Is Hillary’s support from the GOP real or intended to prolong the primary? I’m guessing that since her GOP support shored up only after Limbaugh called for it, after McCain wrapped up the GOP nomination, and at a critical point where a loss for her would’ve awakened her to the reality that the race is over, that it is all a ruse.

Cass (2):I heard Bill Clinton was on Limbaughs Show the DAY of the Texas ans Ohio Primaries!

This story has floated around the liberal blogs, but what is interesting is that none seem to appear until 3/10, a week after the Texas primary. I find that a bit suspicious.

Tom (3): “could someone please explain to me” (crossovers)

The theory is that it welcomes Independents and even people of other parties to participate and thus grow the party. Here in West Virginia, the Reps have allowed Independents to vote in their primary, but Dems have not. Result- Inds tend to lean Rep. Starting this year, the Dems decided to allow Inds. to vote in our primaries as well. But occasionally, this mischief does occur in a close race, as it did in Michigan in 2000 when a lot of Dem’s crossed over to vote for Wrong-way McCain (Double Dubya). It should be one more factor that superdelegates take into consideration this year.

Maybe because until March 4 the Republican primary wasn’t locked up for McCain?

Hillary’s surge could just as likely be about GOP women wanting to vote for her. as a Rush effect.

Sure it could. Because Rush’s listeners don’t ever do what he tells them to.

if you want to limit the primary and cuacuses to only democrats- then a lot of Obam’s victories would be erased

Wow, you kicked that strawman’s ass! Good job.

You’re pathetic, and you know it.

Indeed, Rush was coming out with Pro-Obama statements earlier in the year. -Truthsquad

Evidence? I’ve not heard of Rush in any way complimenting Obama or even suggesting Republicans for him to prolong the primary.

Your suggestion that the GOP supporting Obama is intended to disrupt the primary is belied by the fact that his support has maintained throughout the contest. If they were truly interested in manipulation, then you’d see a shift in nearly all crossover votes, but you don’t. You see Barack’s support stay steady and Hillary’s change dramatically.

Obama’s support from crossovers has been fairly consistent, suggesting a pervasive reason for that support.

Hillary’s support from crossovers happened suddenly with very specific catalysts, not the least of which was a well known conservative radio host calling for his cattle to fall in line.

The Clinton campaign is making noise about suing the TX Democratic Party to try to get more delegates from those assigned by the caucuses. This seems to have some legitimacy since Hon. Sen. Obama performed so much better in the caucuses than in the primary. Another explanation for this disparity is that GOPers went out to vote for Hon. Sen. Clinton, but were much less enthusiastic about hanging out with a crowded room full of Dems for hours.

We have to remember that exit polls–although usually more accurate–are still just polls.

Nobody knows which candidate can and will win in November. Nobody knows whether campaigning the whole primary is helpful or hurtful to Democrats. So all these tricky machinations could be totally misguided.

Mainly the speculation is just puffing up Limbaugh’s reputation.

So be careful what you trick for (something I also told Kristen.)

For all the people like Danp who can’t believe Bill would appear on Rush’s show on March 4th:

http://www.wbap.com/Article.asp?id=606119&spid=6051

Whether he wanted to be on Rush’s show or not, I guess I’d say the burden of proof is obviously on the people who would want us to believe that Bill was somehow tricked into it. I’d say it’s unlikely, but let’s see the proof.

Another explanation for this disparity is that GOPers went out to vote for Hon. Sen. Clinton, but were much less enthusiastic about hanging out with a crowded room full of Dems for hours.

Ya think???

THIS STORY IS BS…

Republicans have been crossing over and voting for Obama WAY MORE since voting in this primary season began, mostly out of dislike for HRC.

Even with Limbaugh’s lame attempt to get Republicans to vote for HRC, they did not do so in such great numbers as to affect the outcome.

The REAL STORY would be to determine just how much difference there would have been from the beginning if Republican influence was removed.

When you look closely at all closed primaries & caucuses, Obama is only winning by 6 delegates.

When you look at all primary contests (remove all caucuses) you find he only has a 16 delegate lead.

I believe that HRC will win overwhelmingly (probably 70-80%) in Pennsylvania, and she will go on to win the rest of the contests, and then you will see superdelegates going for HRC en masse.

Nobody knows which candidate can and will win in November.

Yeah, and nobody knows which of the two is bringing in waves of new voters, who will be highly energized this fall in every state to elect a ton of Democrats.

Oh wait, yes we do.

It’s irrelevant whether or not Limbaugh and his supporters who cross over are right or wrong about it hurting democratic chances for success in November. What is relevant is that it is happening, and to the degree that it influences the nomination, it is hurtful to the primary process of the democratic party. Aslo, it is playing into Clinton’s spin that she has taken the momentum, and to the degree to which that influences future voters, the media, and superdelegates, that is also harmful to the democratic process. The primary process is about democratic voters choosing the most popular and viable candidate- and that determination cannot be fairly made if voters who chime in to vote for someone they don’t like and have no intention of voting for in November are allowed to highjack the process- whether or not they ultimately succeed in carrying the white house through these tactics. It should be reported qaccurately and widely and taken very seriously.

and nobody knows which of the two is bringing in waves of new voters, who will be highly energized this fall in every state to elect a ton of Democrats. – Racer X

Oooh, oooh, let me guess… I know.. was it Louis Farrakhan? No… Ok.. Oooooh, wait, I know.. was it Reverand Wright?

No, damn.. It had to have been somebody who thinks just like them though.. that would be the only plausible explaination..

Republicans have been crossing over and voting for Obama WAY MORE since voting in this primary season began, mostly out of dislike for HRC. -Greg

I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

But Obama’s performance in that demographic has been consistent, and Hillary’s performance spiked in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi.

We’re just speculating on why it spiked suddenly

Do you have a reasonable hypothesis as to why this occurred?

“THIS STORY IS BS…”

are you talking about cb’s story? or your comments that followed?

My hypothesis is that voters in TX and OH made up their own minds.. those damned free thinkers!

Whether Bill Clinton wanted to be on Rush or not, there are timeslots, demographics, etc. Why was he there at all?

C’mon, wise up. Bill Clinton is FAR from a stupid person (yes, he is one who rules with his penis, as many other powerful men have…who hoo, he got a blow job! He got a blow job! From a bunch of WATB’s who wish they could get a hummer of their own.) Do you think he doesn’t have a clue about where he was and all that? Please.

Oh, and Racer X. Right on, man. On every point you have made.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that. -doubtful

I should clarify. I don’t think anyone is disputing that Obama has been consistently getting support from Republicans. I certainly don’t think it’s because they dislike Clinton. I think it’s because they do like Obama.

My hypothesis is that voters in TX and OH made up their own minds.. those damned free thinkers! -Greg

Don’t imply that anyone here even remotely suggested they not be allowed to vote however they like. Your glib remark doesn’t explain the marked shift in the demographic.

Greg: I believe that HRC will win overwhelmingly (probably 70-80%) in Pennsylvania, and she will go on to win the rest of the contests, and then you will see superdelegates going for HRC en masse.

80%??? I believe that you’ve been in the koolaid, buddy. And here’s my prediction: When she doesn’t win by over 70%, and when she doesn’t “win the rest of the contests”, I believe that you will still want the superdelegates to give her the nomination. And when they go for Obama, you’ll whine about that.

Remember when she “needed” a “big win” in Texas to continue? Hillary threw her hail-mary pass, came up a few yards short, and now she’s suing to move the goalposts. And if that kind of person wins the nomination, previously fired up Democratic voters are going to be staying home in droves. But who cares, right?

I believe that HRC will win overwhelmingly (probably 70-80%) in Pennsylvania, and she will go on to win the rest of the contests, and then you will see superdelegates going for HRC en masse.

Just when I think you’ve reached your apex of delusion, you come up with something like this that just kicks the bar up higher. Belief is a funny thing, isn’t it? You’ve shown without any doubt that it can be completely untethered to reality.

Here’s what can track down. Bill Clinton did a phone interview with Mark Davis on WBAP in Dallas. Mark Davis did a guest stint on Rush Limbaugh. The most that seem to have happened was that Mark Davis played a tape of that radio interview on Rush’s show. So Bill didn’t go “on” Rush’s show per se.

And it sounds like Rush engineered the whole thing by getting conveniently sick that day so Mark could play his phone interview on the show.

For what’s it’s worth. (I would do more research but on a commenter’s salary I just can’t afford it.:-)

Here’s the audio:
http://images.radcity.net/5155/2461772.mp3

You’re wasting your breath talking to Greg, people. Don’t feed the trolls.

maybe their disaffected republicans … moderates really pissed and embarassed and disgusted with george bush and his cronies .. his policies .. his smirk .. his studied determined ignorance .. and are walking acroos the political roadway .. and quite naturally they are cognizant of the inherent unfairness of the republican witch hunts against ther in the 90’s that they now .. as a matter of atonement are giving her a sympathy vote .. stockholm syndrome updated ,,

nawwww …

uhhh ..make that “they’re” in that first line … arrrgghhhh !!! lol

31.
On March 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm, TR said:

Here’s the audio:
http://images.radcity.net/5155/2461772.mp3

Yeah, I just can’t find anything to tie that clip to Rush Limbaugh. No lead in music or visuals or mention of the Rush show. I think it was probably a setup. An interview for the WBAP that was played on Rush’s show. Those rightwing radio asses stick together, specially down there in Texas with all that humidity.

Bill Clinton has been on a number of right wing shows, not so subtly asking people to vote for his wife. You’d think after 8 years of the grief he got from them, he’d be a bit more circumspect. But then you have to factor in the obsession factor on his part. He’s still the boy who wanted to grow up to be president, who never grew up.

One bit of good news is that over the course of this campaign, the more people see of Billy Bozo, the more they’re reminded how much they dislike him.

That he does this sort of thing is further proof that he was never a Democrat. He was always a BIB (Believer In Bill), who worships in the Church of Bill and presides over the POB (Party Of Bill).

That Hillary tries to spin all this as people showing how much they really really do support her is proof she’s delusional.

Racer X (16) Thanks for the link. Mark Davis even sounds like Limbaugh.

Sorry, but this is one of the rare cases in which Limbaugh is correct. The dragging on of the nomination process is a disaster for the Dems. Whoever emerges will be very weakened in the general.

Yeah, I just can’t find anything to tie that clip to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, I agree. I think your sense of it is right, Dale.

You’re wasting your breath talking to Greg, people. Don’t feed the trolls.

Yep, a few weeks from now we’ll only see him crawling around in a back alley somewhere, sobbing over Kool Aid-stained Hillary campaign leaflets.

And I definitely agree with Tom about the Clintons; a fair share of the blame for the state of the Republican party can be laid at Bill’s feet for how he ran against the Democratic party during his 90’s triangulations. It really is strange he and HIllary are so cozy with a lot of the right wing now, especially Daddy Bush, and apparently even one of Limbaugh’s cronies. Their own special brand of Stockholm Syndrome.

a fair share of the blame for the state of the Republican party can be laid at Bill’s feet for how he ran against the Democratic party during his 90’s triangulations

Ack, that should “state of the Democratic party can be laid at Bill’s feet for how he ran against them during his 90’s.” Damn that lack of coffee.

The Limbaugh website states that Mark Davis was the guest host on March 4th.

Mark Davis’s Blog states he was guest host for Limabaugh on Mar 4th.

To listen the Archive of Mar 4th you apparently need to be a paid subscriber.

Please….Anytime there is a surge for Clinton you must come up with some stupid reason besides she is a better Canidate then Obama. Nice try no cigar……

Here is one though..Why would Obama have a complete section dedicated to “African Americans” on his web site if we are all equal to him. i didn’t find an all white section in Hillary’s or McCains…Things that make you go – Hummmmmmm.

Racist? or Just pandering for the black vote? That is the question.

And Hillary has a “Women for Hillary” section, but no “Men for Hillary” section.

Sexist? Or just pandering to the women’s vote? That is the moronic question.

Just another corrupt method the Republicans are using to get into office. The biggest losers here are the American people and Democracy itself. If McCain is elected, the country will be in even more trouble than it is now. True ignorance and zero values.

From the electoral-vote website:
Rush Limbaugh has been encouraging Republicans to register as Democrats (temporarily) to vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prolong the Democrats agony and possibly give him a dart board for the next 8 months. However, a false switching parties with your fingers crossed may actually be illegal in Ohio and perhaps some other states. The hard part is proving it, however.

As usual, the daily posting is worth reading in its entirety, especially the part about the Senate races. Which tend to forget about in all the hoo-hah surrounding the Obama/Clinton battles but which are going to be *vitally important* no matter who wins the White House.

The person that everyone talks about eventually wins. Even bad press is good. Obama clearly has the momentum. He _is_ the standard.

Think: nobody cares about Clinton. She has huge name recognition! Yet Obama is getting all the press. Everyone wants to know about Obama.

The first thing you need is name recognition. You need focus. You need everyone wanting to know that you think.

All of this bs plays right into Obama’s hands, not because he is scheming to do it, but because he isn’t afraid to take the risk of exposing himself.

The meme is that his speech tomorrow will not put everything to rest. And the meme is that this is bad for Obama. It isn’t! The more we have to consider our own situation in reference to Obama’s, the more empathy we have for him. He brings us together by keeping the dialog open. He keeps everyone in the discussion. Everyone! He doesn’t say something that cuts off a measurable percentage of the people. This is the key. We are all in this together. We all have flaws. Do our flaws destroy us completely?

One thing I like about New York State is that we have closed primaries. If you want to vote in the Democratic primary, you have to have registered as a Democrat!

Moronic Question TR? Women section vs a section for just one Race….Hummm…Your moronic to even think that the two compare. Please, if Obama would have a section for blue collar workers etc. I would get that just fine…We all know the two are different. Are you aware of the difference or just ignorant?
Racist
Sexist
Look it up….Daaaaa

You know, if Clinton got the nomination, it would likely be a good thing for Limpbag’s ratings. For eight years he could rail, froth at the mouth and gnaw the microphone as he so famously does to the delight of his minions. But what about those hundreds of thousands of dittoheads for whom Clinton in the White House is their worst nightmare become reality? Aren’t they going to be asking themselves, “What the hell have we DONE?” Just a thought, albeit a pleasantly amusing one.

So, when Republicans cross over to vote for Obama, that shows Obama’s cross-over appeal, but when they cross over to vote for Clinton, it is because they don’t want Obama to be the Democratic candidate. Can’t they get it straight? If it weren’t for these confused Republicans, would Obama be behind in delegates or even further ahead? I’m confused.

The GOP couldn’t win this cycle with the zombie Reagan. They have given life to Clinton with the potential for here to destroy the party. I have faith that Dean and company wont let that happen.
The d) that you omitted is the dems dont want Clinton. As Kos pointed out yesterday, they(Clintons) are divisive, bad for the down-ticket, and ran a horrid campaign. Since March 4 the super delegate count is 48 Obama/ -7 Clinton. the pledge delegate count including all Clintons ballyhooed victories is plus 5 for Obama. The race is a sham. Her only route to the nomination is to usurp it. She’ll need more than 2 to 1 to have a chance, that will never happen.

Comments are closed.