Many conclusions can be drawn from this

[Horse with no Name]

Very interesting but not at all surprising. Now tell me which candidate's supporters actually SUPPORT the DEMOCRATIC party and which ones do not. My guess is a HEAVY republican crossover vote. A republican who wanted to sway an election wouldn't bother with voting for OTHER Democrats.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/030908dnpoldemvoters.3a5249f.html
>>>snip
Backers of both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton turned out with passionate support for their candidate in last week's Texas primary. But once they got in the voting booth, they did something different.

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

>>>snip
Garry Mauro, coordinator of the Clinton campaign in Texas, said he views the bigger drop-off rate among Mr. Obama's voters as a measure that they were more "candidate-oriented" than "issue-oriented."

"There are hundreds of people supporting Obama who don't have a clue why, so they can't vote for anybody else who they don't know anything about," Mr. Mauro said.


And this is for all of the obamites who SWEAR that Rush had something to do with CLinton winning the primary vote:

>>>snip
The biggest falloff was in Republican-heavy Collin County, which Mr. Obama carried by 55 percent. Four in 10 Democratic voters who cast ballots in the presidential race didn't vote in the Senate race.

Republican strategist Royal Masset said the Collin County vote illustrates a big reason for the voter falloff – Republican crossover voters who wanted to influence the outcome.

Although some conservative talk show hosts had urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to keep the contest going, there was little evidence that happened.

[susankh4]

1. Enlightening, indeed. K&R

[Bobbie47]

2. This is interesting

But the numbers suggest that many Obama voters were drawn singularly to him and might not return in the fall if he's not the nominee – blunting the flood of new voters who Democrats hope will help revive the party in Texas and sweep it into the White House.

"We wouldn't get a lot of those young voters that came into the process exclusively for him," said Dallas lawyer Doug Haloftis, a Clinton supporter.

[kikiek]

3. All the evidence showing the cross over for Obama not Hillary has been ignored.

[DemReadingDU]

4. Not necessarily

I live in a small town in SW Ohio. There were plenty of local candidates on the ballot, most running un-opposed for both Democrats or Republicans. I chose to vote for all of the Democrats, while spouse chose to vote only for Obama.

[TomClash]

5. How does Mauro know that?

Oh, wait. They're young so they must be stupid because they refused to vote in the Railroad Commissioner's race.

[Horse with no Name]

6. Another misrepresentation from an obamite

There was a full ballot--front and back--of GOOD Democrats running in these races.
It wasn't just the "Railroad Commissioner"

[TomClash]

7. I was using an example, McCain Lover

How do you know those voters won't vote for Obama and no one else in the fall? Which of the Democratic candidates represents change, compeling those voters to vote for them? How many of those voters did vote for Dems in addition to Obama? The article doesn't answe rthose questions . . . and many more.

[LostinVA]

12. HWNN is definitely not a McCain lover -- she's a Leftie

[Horse with no Name]

15. I love the smell of desperation in the morning

How are you Lost?
:hug:

[LostinVA]

18. Read my thread in the Lounge -- the neighbor's house burned down last night

Then, I read on here that you're a MCCAIN LOVER.

OMG.

[TomClash]

16. Ok, I was probably just being mean and grumpy

No need for that. I apologize to Horse With No Name.

[charlie]

8. I suppose many conclusions can be drawn from this, too

about who "actually SUPPORT the DEMOCRATIC party" and who is "candidate-oriented" rather than "issue-oriented."

Pew survey, Feb 28:

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The “defection” rate among Obama’s supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/398.pdf

1 in 4.

McCain.

Looks like maybe both sides have problems with star-smitten idealists and party defections.

[Horse with no Name]

9. Pew? You drug PEW here to back you up

OMFG we have really gone through the looking glass.

[charlie]

11. Heh. Knew that was coming

Feigned shock-horror at whatever source I might have "drug" in here. You'd best do an emergency mass-mailing and warn your fellow Hillary supporters, they're using Pew all over this forum. I got the link from a Hill backer.

[Horse with no Name]

13. another FOS obamite

Pew has NEVER been a legit source here and anyone that uses it is not legit.
Your "alleged" "Hillary did it too" defense doesn't work.
You drug a RW source here to back up your RW argument.
It doesn't surprise me.

[charlie]

19. Between swoons

and clutching the drapes, punch the search button. Go ahead, give it a try. I didn't say Hillary did it, I'm not one for high melodrama. I said your compadres use it. They do. You'd best get to rescuing them. Then you can educate all of us as to why Pew is no good for my "RW" argument.

I'm not bananas about Obama. I just don't think much of Hillary.

[JoFerret]

30. The unholy alliance of Hillary hate

...makes for uneasy bedfellows

[charlie]

32. That's good

Very goth-y.

[JoFerret]

33. Well - mixed metaphor

but it does get to the heart of who the Hillary haters among Obama supporters are actually aligned with - the Gingrichites of the GOP.

[Asgaya Dihi]

10. Wrong conclusion I'd think

Rather than suspecting repub crossovers why not examine the obvious, the media has talked about it enough. The new voters who are showing up in record numbers and don't have a party most elections.

We tend to think it's all in terms of dems vs repub and forget all about the largest group of voters out there, the ones who don't show up for either party most of the time. If he's bringing them in, and the numbers suggest that someone is, then he could well be the only one they know or care enough about to vote on.

There's been a bit of evidence of repub crossover for Hillary due to Rush and the others, one article I was reading earlier tonight talked about it. With luck we might even see charges filed.

http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2008/03/06/1348806-election-fraud-against-obama-in-ohio-more-comes-out

[Horse with no Name]

14. do you have a reading problem?

The last line said there was NO EVIDENCE that RW radio influenced the Hillary vote.
Maybe you can come back and play again when you learn to comprehend.
And what is even funnier--you source a slanted blog as a rebuttal to a major newspaper-of-record as a source.
You guys are pathetic.
Spin baby spin!

[Asgaya Dihi]

20. Spin?

If you read the article they aren't just claiming it, they are showing some who have admitted to it. That's a bit better than no evidence in spite of your claim to the contrary. It just happened, what do you want, convictions?

As far as spin, when you can talk to people without simply claiming that a blog, or a poll, or whatever else you don't agree with is just spin while your claims are some undeniable reality then we can talk about spin. At the moment I think you're a bit busy spinning yourself. You seem to be under the impression that hostility and hubris is the same as a real argument.

Have a nice day :)

[Horse with no Name]

22. Blogs are not credible news sources

Sorry to burst your bubble.
People lie.
People write blogs.
People writing blogs lie to further whatever cause they are touting.

No spin here--I posted one of the REPUBLICAN strategist stating in a newspaper of record that there was NO EVIDENCE of Republican crossover for Hillary as requested by Rush, none, yet stated that republicans DID cross over and vote for Obama to sway the contest.

The spin is YOU adding a slanted blog by a "nobody" stating otherwise.

[Asgaya Dihi]

27. This should be easy enough to check then...

If you doubt it then it's easy enough to check. First line of the post gave a solid indicator, "the Butler County Democratic Party increased in registered members by over 200% and now has more registered members than the Republican Party". There's plenty else in there as well which depends on nobodies word, it can be checked. If that happened or didn't happen is a much more solid point to attack than a simple "wahh, I don't like the blog".

Personally I never heard of it before tonight and don't care, either it's true or it isn't. If we were going to have a discussion that's the one we should have had. You know, issues. I've got things to do now and we've already wasted enough time so you'll have to do it with someone else if you care about things like, you know, if you're right or just spinning ;)

You assume too much. Spin? For what? Who? I live in Texas and our primary was recently, I didn't vote in it for either. Come the real election I'll probably show up but I don't like either of these two enough to make a choice between them. He seems to be too much hope and too few details so I'm afraid he'll let them down and break their hearts and she reminds me too much of the last few years, she's too much like them and can't admit when she's wrong. I've got nobody in the race to spin for, you just assumed and started attacking.

When you hear that this is what some don't like about the Hillary crowd, the aggression, this is why. Same as the Obama side has a weird starry eyed thing sometimes. Best advice I can find for the bunch of you is here. Read it, it might be worth the time.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obama-and-clinton-supporters-m.php

[BootinUp]

17. thanks for the post. interesting indeed nt.

[blogslut]

21. I'll tell you exactly what it means

New Democrats. I'd say a good million of them in Texas.

The Republicans would be perfectly happy having us believe that they affected our primary with cross-over votes. Hillary would rather have us believe that. Neither one wants to discuss the probability that millions of people are joining the Democratic party because of Barack Obama. These new Democrats aren't crossing over, the are switching parties.

[Horse with no Name]

23. but are they selfish new voters?

If they aren't willing to vote for ANYONE EXCEPT OBAMA on the ballot...then we stand to lose ground in the state.

[blogslut]

31. Look

In the reddest county in the state of Texas (next to mine) 333 Democrats showed up to vote early during the 2004 primary period.

In 2008, 2,295 Democrats in that county voted early in the primary - before Rush Limbaugh told his minions to cross over.

333 vs 2,295 in a primary, during the early voting period, in one of the reddest towns in the United States - Amarillo, Texas.

I know my home town. Two thousand Panhandle Republicans don't get their voter cards stamped DEMOCRAT just to cross back over in the fall. Things don't work that way around here.

These people switched parties. In fact, Hillary won Amarillo in the primary as well as the caucus. Probably because Bill Clinton campaigned here. I'd say she got roughly 2/3 of the Democratic vote in my Senatorial district.

The Democratic party in Texas woke the hell up and you should be thrilled.

[rodeodance]

24. "We will have more women voters to the polls if Hillary is the nominee," GOOD

By contrast, he said, Mrs. Clinton is driving large numbers of women to the polls in Texas, a constituency that could offset any erosion should Mr. Obama's newfound primary voters stay home in November.

"We will have more women voters to the polls if Hillary is the nominee," Mr. Mauro said. "There is a whole body of political science knowledge that when you have a disproportionate number of women vote, that's when Democrats win."

[rodeodance]

25. Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote in the Texas primary, but Mr. Obama has a good chance to take more

Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote in the Texas primary, but Mr. Obama has a good chance to take more convention delegates from the state, thanks to results from precinct conventions held after the primary. Those votes are still being tabulated, and the delegates won't be finally awarded until after regional and state conventions.

[mmonk]

26. How does that "conclusion" jive with my real experience?

Let's see, some analysis by someone or what I run into.....hhhhhmmmmm, I'll go my real life experience. This is a post I did:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4940746

[libbygurl]

28. Just what a lot of us have been saying for weeks here, only to be derided for it.

THANK YOU for posting this, HWNN!

[PATRICK]

29. I would have suspected

that negative GOP voters are far outnumbered by positive Obama GOP crossovers. In Texas those numbers with organization and instigation might have grown closer, but where is the clear polling when deceit enters the fray?

It still is hardly an argument against Obama since he wins the argument both ways and it certainly shows splits and harm done to the GOP is sharpened by his candidacy. It is true that ardent Obama supporters want a simpler evaluation than that and want to say the GOP spoilers lost them Texas. The truth may be more complex, but none of it boosts Hillary's chances in regard to the GOP. As to the Dem issue voters who slowed her slippage in Texas enough, it shows Dem voters are making thoughtful hard choices and what exactly is bad or unhealthy about that?

This current contest mentality will change in the fall. The new voters will take the whole slate and agenda more deliberately, but in any event, we should want them all to be there and honestly counted in the fall. Those who have nowhere to go but down are those negative GOP voters who have lost their "primary" motivation and are the ones most likely to give up at the prospect of a sure defeat.