Did Clinton win Texas because of Limbaugh's call to Dittoheads to vote for her? Evidence...

[ourbluenation]

snip

"It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time since Super Tuesday, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.

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.

What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP.

snip

UPDATE: The Texas theory is being challenged in the comments, so I'll add one data point. In 2004, Al Sharpton got 3.7 percent of the vote in Texas. Among the Republicans who crossed over to vote in the race, he got 10 percent. He got 2 percent of liberal voters, 4 percent of moderates, and 7 percent of conservatives. There's no way to explain this unless you assume some eventual Bush voters were making mischief for the Democrats.

UPDATE II: An e-mailer to the Corner has the most persuasive evidence yet. An astounding number of voters took Democratic ballots, voted for president, then left the rest of their ballots blank.

The undercount in the D primary was almost 700,000 ballots out of 2.86 million. By contrast, the undercount in the R primary was about 164,000 ballots out of 1.38 million. In the 2004 general election, the dropoff from president to railroad commissioner (the next race on the state ballot) was less than 400,000 out of 7.4 million.

It's reasonable to assume many of these voters were "screw the Dems" Limbaugh listeners.

http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html

[saracat]

1. Except the evidence shows the GOP vote went to Obama!

[ourbluenation]

8. But NOT conservatives. They went for Clinton. n/t

[DURHAM D]

10. Facts - Damn Facts. eom

[ingac70]

2. Of course...

The GOP had already held it's coronation of McCain when Romney exited the race.

Unhappy Repubs who don't like McCain didn't have anything to do yesterday, so they fucked with the Dem race.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. by voting for Obama?

[ingac70]

6. Dittoheads? No they followed Master Rush's advice. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

15. More Republicans voted for Obama than for Clinton

[ourbluenation]

18. SHE WON CONSERVATIVES 53-43. Of course there were dittoheads in there. n/t

[ingac70]

19. There's a difference...

between those disgusted with Republicans and those who have been ordered to disrupt.

There have been no Right wing pundits calling for followers to elect Obama, because his presence in the GE won't rally the base.

[whistle]

3. Limp-nuts does not have that kind of influence, sorry

[ourbluenation]

5. sorry, but you are fooling yourself. especially true of texas. n/t

[MzNov]

16. You must be kidding! nt

[surfin]

7. Becareful

Hillary and Obama had robocalls I am told asking repubs to come over and vote for them so that could have happen also. Someone post last night that their was a huge cost to doing that and not sure if true. He said they could not vote for repub issues and candidates that day and some said also in Nov.

I am sure Rush will want to get the credit but we had robocalls out asking the same thing.

[MojoMojoMojo]

9. "Obama won the Republican vote 52-47"

Obama was supposed to get 9% of his support from Republicans.
Maybe limbaugh took some of that advantage away.But it wasnt Obamas to begin with.It was only Republican spoiler votes that were diminished.

[ourbluenation]

12. Clinton won the conservative vote. It was the dittoheads who pushed her over the edge. n/t

[DURHAM D]

11. You wasted a lot of time posting a false scenario - too bad.

Keep up the good work.

[ourbluenation]

13. come again? n/t

[MzNov]

14. Clinton might not have WON Texas because of the GasBag,

but Thom Hartmann this morning announced he has 1,200 email from Republicans to Limbaugh confirming that they did what he asked them to do. It is evidence that the drug addled gas bag got results.

Hartmann is on the RNC email list so he gets updates on what the scum suckers are up to. I'm sure there are more than 1,200 out there.

It all smells.

[ourbluenation]

17. thank you. of course they put her over the edge. they had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

of course they mattered in such a close race.

[MNDemNY]

20. .

:nopity: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :nopity:

[ourbluenation]

21. listen here. I'm an edwards voter in calif. so you can take your violins and shove it...

I like them both.

[MNDemNY]

22. Listen here...good for you, but just the same...

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :rofl: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[ourbluenation]

23. I don't even know what that means, but you go. n/t

:shrug:

[MzNov]

27. Tell it to Limpballs

[MzNov]

25. There are no tin foil hats or violins that can substitute for just plain facts.

[ourbluenation]

28. fo sho.

[rinsd]

24. RW analysts say rw influenced Dem election. Hillary haters lap it up.

[ourbluenation]

26. Yglesias is a right winger? who knew! Thats a gorgeous pic of her, btw.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/the_rush_factor.php

[rinsd]

31. You posted Reason magazine relying upon the National Review blog

And all Yglesias does is cite them as compiling the evidence.

Yeah her myspace page put the pic up the other day.

[ourbluenation]

33. Yglesias endorses that view. n/t

[New Dawn]

29. The GOP wants Clinton to win because they know McCain will crush her.

The corporate media loves John McCain and the extreme Republican base will turn out en masse to vote against her.

[MzNov]

30. I used to agree with that. But I think HRC is mean and nasty enuff

to beat McCain too. Especially when she starts throwing sinks, tubs and other appliances at him. The right wing is so sure they can beat her. I don't think so.

[tokenlib]

32. It was close enough to have an impact and...

..mischief has worked before. Michigan repub primary 2000--McCain won from dem crossover.

[Igel]

34. "252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives"

252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives

So of the conservative crossover, 360,000 weren't Republicans? How does that work again? 360000 conservative dems left the Democratic Party to cast a Democratic ballot? (Does TX even have other parties? And, yes, I live here.)

"The undercount in the D primary was almost 700,000 ballots out of 2.86 million. By contrast, the undercount in the R primary was about 164,000 ballots out of 1.38 million...."

I'm also not quite sure what that means. Are they saying out of 2.86 million ballots, with maybe a score of votes to cast on each ballot, there were 700,000 candidacies or measures left unmarked on dem ballots, only 164k on repub ballots? Are they saying that many ballots were simply somehow uncountable? I'll go with the former.

Let's think this through: More conservatives in rural areas, simpler ballots, fewer things to vote for; more dems in larger areas, more offices, more complex ballots, more things to vote for. Fewer chances for undervotes in conservative areas. Ah, the numbers are what we expect. I skipped some offices when I cast my ballot--I just couldn't vote for somebody who I'd never heard of, preferring him (or her) over somebody else I'd never heard of for an office I never knew existed.

Let's continue thinking. New voters screw up: They're inexperienced. Also many come out for their man, and only really for their man: They have little interest in who's running for dog catcher. McCain brought out lots of new voters? Um, no. Clinton? Not so many. Obama? Many. It's one of his claims to fame. So we expect far more novice voters casting dem ballots. And so we expect far more undervotes. The numbers are what we expect. In both this and the preceding paragraph it's clear that the 800k vs. 164k might be expected, *all things being equal*. In other words, we might not expect either to result from an arch-conservative crossover vote. We might. But it's not my job to show that it's impossible: It's enough to show that the claim doesn't necessarily follow, that at least this part of the claim is weak.

(I'd also note that many Texas conservatives have also been dems in the past. Clinton just might simply appeal to them at this point in American politics, however impossible that may seem to BO supporters.)