Anecdotal Evidence, or, Pleading with Chihuahuas
March 5th, 2008 by Wulf
More on open primaries.
Jan’s response to my last post implied disbelief that anyone would vote in the primary of the opposition party just to promote a more beatable candidate. I know it happened, though, and the only question is on what scale.
The anecdotal evidence I have is from listening to Hugh Hewitt on my drive home yesterday. He was taking calls from republicans in Texas and Ohio. Of the three calls I listened to, two people had crossed over and voted for Hillary because she would be easier to beat. One of them said that his polling place had large stacks of forms to change your party affiliation on the spot to do exactly this, and people were waiting in line for the opportunity. The third was very proud that she had voted for McCain, but said her son had crossed over, and “felt so dirty he had to go home and take a shower.”
And well he should. Again, I know it’s tactically sound, but shouldn’t democracy be more about getting the best candidates, and not about ensuring you can force your will on others. The country as a whole benefits from making sure the two major candidates in November actually represent the people who voted for them. The “crossing over” technique cheapens and already cheap process.
More evidence comes from a Cleveland Plain Dealer article:
“I voted for Hillary,” said Republican Eric Klieber, 56, of Cleveland Heights. “John McCain has a better chance of beating her than Barack Obama. . . . If the Democratic race was decided, I’m sure a lot of them would vote for the candidate less likely to win.”
Clinton was the defector’s choice in Cincinnati, too. In Hyde Park, an affluent neighborhood, a volunteer for Clinton said a number of Republicans told her they voted for Clinton in hopes of seating a Republican in the White House in November.
“It doesn’t bother me,” Brenda Weaver said, while passing out campaign literature outside a church. “I say, ‘Way to go, more votes for her!’ ”
I’m not sure what’s more disturbing, here. The utter lack of recognition of this process by mainstream media (I had to search long and hard to find the Cleveland article) or the fact that the Clinton Campaign is okay with this. Either way, I would really like to see demographic studies done to see how much of Clinton’s win in Ohio came from such tactics. It would be much harder to track in Texas, but it’s a question that needs asking.
I’d like to believe that if such information became public, Clinton would give up the ghost and do what’s best for her party, but then, I’ve already pointed out that democrats are retarded, and I don’t think it will ever happen. She’s really like a chihuahua clamped down on the jugular of the Democratic primaries. At this point, if she wins the nomination, McCain wins. Even if she loses, her dragging out the nomination only bleeds democratic resources and splits the democratic vote. Either way, McCain wins.
So a plea to the Chihuahua–let go.
To know a man, observe how he wins his object, rather than how he loses it; for when we fail our pride supports us; when we succeed, it betrays us.
–Charles Caleb Colton (1780 - 1832)
9% of democratic primary voters self-identified as republicans. They broke for Obama. I guess you could argue that those who voted for Hillary because she’s an easier target would not identify in exit polls as Republicans, but if they’re proudly calling in to radio shows, then I doubt they’re lying to exit pollers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23394070/
“Best for the party” — you know I love you, but I find this to be bogus. Why should she step aside and do that? It isn’t like she is Mike Huckabee, or some other spoiler candidate — she has 1428 delegates….she is still in this. It ain’t over and I am happy for that. I am tired of the idea of a “presumptive” candidate and primaries not mattering after Super Tuesday…a person’s vote, regardless of affiliation is always important. Always. People can play with those votes, but the outcome is what matters.
I also think she can beat McCain. I really do.
Maybe I am grumpy because I am in our Nation’s capital and they got mad at me for smoking by the gate of the White House. Shut up lackeys!
She can beat McCain, but it’s less likely. It’ll be a good race either way. I fully admit that part of why I want her to end this is because I like Obama much better (we should discuss sometime–when are you back in the Southwest?)
And yes, “a person’s vote, regardless of affiliation is always important”. I really wouldn’t mind if all the primaries were moved up to within a couple weeks of Super Tuesday. The problem comes when Democrats are left duking it out long after the Republicans have an heir presumptive. At this point, D’s may not know who is going to be on their ticket until May or June. In the meantime, McCain has a comparative eternity to amp his warchest and amass his defenses.
And tell the White House lackeys to f— themselves!
Regards,
Wulf
Clark, look again at the Article you are citing. It came out before the election, and were projections only. I would also point out that the consensus seems to be that Republicans voting for Obama are doing so because they favor him as a candidate. Those Republicans who are breaking for Clinton appear to be doing so because they favor her as an opponent. There’s a big difference there.
Wulf
When are we going to have a political night? We should all get together when the debates are televised.
Jamie:
I agree…completely. Let’s “duke” it out ourselves
Also, it could be later than June…possibly a brokered convention.