As a sabermetric stat-head, kudos for identifying a metric by which we might meaningfully identify the rate of crossover mischief-making in a primary election. Makes a strong case that at least 11 percent of Hillary's support came from Republicans who actually oppose her. That's neither here nor there as far as the merits of Hillary versus Obama is concerned, but it's a much more significant rate of "false flag" voting than I would have thought plausible.

Gee, ya think?  White southerners trying to foil the black candidates chances to win.  Sounds pretty right to me!  This whole Democratic slug-fest is so damaging.  I was excited, now I am just pissed.

I think it is very true and probably smart for them. It is no secret that Republicans would much rather face Hillary than Obama. I just cannot understand why super delegates would not know this and start moving en masse to Obama's camp and end this ridiculous "nuclear option" spectacle by the Clinton campaign.

Hm, I don't buy it.  Tempting as it is to believe, I don't think that much of Hillary's support came from Republicans.

If you look at the exit polls for the past few races, she's pretty consistently gotten above 10% in the "dissatisfied but I'll vote for her" category.  For example, the same Daily Kos post cites Tennessee's 11%, but while TN was indeed an open primary, it was also a Super Tuesday state locked in a very close battle between Huckabee and McCain.  I doubt you had a whole lot of Republican crossover.

A more likely explanation would be that Clinton's support is in fact softer than Obama's; that is, there are less "true believers." They don't like Obama for whatever reason (former Edwards voters, maybe), and Clinton is their only alternative.

Besides, do you really think Mississippi Republicans could even physically move their arms in the motion required to vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)?

Hm. Then again, that Jed Report link is pretty convincing.  Damn those dastardly Republicans and their wily strategery!

thetraytiger, I had previously thought that the "could committed Republicans actually bring themselves to cast a legally binding vote for Hillary Clinton for president" argument to be adequate dispoof of the threat of "false flag" voting for Hillary. I mean, come on. I don't care how much easier George Allen would be for Democrats to beat in November, there is nothing on this earth that could cause me to cast a vote for him.

But the statistical case here is strong. Still a circumstantial case, but a very strong one.

Turns out the numbers disprove a lot of things I used to believe. Intentional walks never make sense. Sac bunts are a fool's game. And even if he's your team leader in home runs and couldn't steal a base at 45 feet, your best on-base hitter really should bat leadoff.

A simpler explanation is that former John Edwards voters in southern states shifted to Hillary rather than Obama, but they are nonetheless dissatisfied with the Hillary option. In other words, yes, there was originally a white male candidate for them to choose, and one whose rhetoric was geared towards the rural  or working class vote.

Man, I must haved missed all the items TNR wrote when Republicans were voting for Obama by wide margins in February. If you look at the numbers, Obama has received more primary votes than Clinton from voters who identified themselves as Republicans. That's fine, but to hold this now against HRC is lame.

Why would a person who is trying to sabotage a primary feel compelled to tell the truth to an exit poller?

Peter1943, it's not lame to hold it against it against Clinton; her increased Republican voting share post Feb. 5th supports the contention of mischievous GOP partisans.

The Jed Report link has a bunch of interesting graphs on this.  The most interesting one shows that, while Obama's Republican support held relatively steady throughout Feb. and March, Clinton's Republican support jumped up after the GOP race became uncompetitive.  

Because Clinton has always polled lower than Obama in likeability among Republicans, it's not much of a stretch to suspect nefarious meddling, likely at Rush Limbaugh's instigation.

peter- you did miss those articles.  I remember them.  I'm sure most people do too.  And no-one is holding this against Hillary.

See Rhubarbs: "That's neither here nor there as far as the merits of Hillary versus Obama is concerned, "

Quit projecting, guy.  

Also, Rhubarbs, I agree about the baseball stuff.  Intentional walks now make my blood boil, and sac bunts and aggressive stealing are idiotic.  Unfortunately, the manager of my team is Ozzie Guillen, who thinks doing those things is brilliant.

I imagine you are a Firejoemorgan fan?

liamvt poses an interesting question, which I think can be explained using one of three models.

Ernst Stavro Blofeld Model- The James Bond villian.  So proud of their crimes they feel compelled to explain it, or at least drop hints.  

Raskilnikov Model: They want to get caught.  They are compelled to do so.

Elliot Spitzer Model: Just fucking stupid.

Rhubarbs and Boneill-

If you guys were real baseball nerds, you would spend half your day reading Baseball Think Factory or Baseball Prospecuts.  Of course, you might be "harder working" or "more professional" or "less pathetic and lazy" than I am.  Either way.

I'd like to see more historical comparisons within each state before I buy this thesis. Specifically, look at turnout and cross-voting, county by county, in 2000 and 2004 and compare to 2008.

Also, it's not at all clear to me that HRC's support does _not_ contain an element of good ol' blue-collar white racism, but I think there are many more things going on here than simple racial bias. The Reagan Dems were concerned about a wide variety of issues: economic, social, f-p and local political issues. It's simply false to say that racism was the #1 concern for voters who'd been screwed by their support for a reformist, newbie Democrat who proved to be incompetent.

One can with some justification view Obama as another Gary Hart: an upstart from nowhere, a yuppie whippersnapper who's jumping the queue, hasn't paid his dues. I'd be surprised if this were not a common view among older blue-collar folks for whom seniority is a core principle. Hillary's husband is a Bubba; she spent most of her formative professional years in Little Rock. Obviously they have some credibility with white southerners and transplanted southerners in OH, PA, IN, MI etc.

Let's see the historical analysis before we leap to incendiary conclusions that would cripple the party, depress turnout in the fall and, unbelievably, sabotage us and transform victory into defeat _again_.

Bone: The truth is that it all depends. Bunts and sac's that is. Sometimes a squeeze is exactly the right thing to do. Speed will also dictate the use of these strategies. As a lifelong Cards fan I had the opportunity to watch this kind of game executed to perfection during the 80's. The opposition at times didn't know whether to shit or go blind. Don't throw away a pliers just because you prefer a crescent wrench. There will be a time and circumstance where the pliers is just what is required. I like Guillen. I think you're lucky to have him.

Oh yeah. I have adopted the Twins as my American League rooting interest. What with living in Minnesota and all. But it did make 87 a real schizo pain. I say the Tigers are the team to beat in the central this year.

jumrph- BP is awesome.  I love it, mostly because I am a computer who hates baseball.   And for the record, I bow to no man in the laziness and unprofessional categories.

The Left is always creating powerful bogeymen on the Right:  Rove, Gingrich (at one time, anyway), Cheney, Limbaugh.  Diabolical manipulators who can crush the Left on a whim.

Influential as Limbaugh is, I doubt his ability to get sufficient numbers of his listeners to cross over and do his suggested too clever vote for Hillary move.

By the way, Gingrich is on record as a Fox talking head saying he thinks it's misguided and wrong to try to manipulate the other sides nomination process.

By the way, to tepluk's general point, middle aged, middle income or working class Dems are far more likely to vote for Hillary than Obama.  

Forgetting the racial component, and I don't deny it's in there to some degree, Hillary is just an older, more established, less adventurous brand.

Hillary is a Ford or a Chevy.  Obama is a BMW or maybe an Audi or a SAAB.

There are just lots of cultural and demographic reasons why regular white bread whites in the South or the Midwest, are going to lean Hillary.

boxo-  There are times when a squeeze is a good move, for sure.  We used one to perfection against the BoSox in Game 3 of the ALDS.   I nearly wept with joy (Aj Perisynjyzzsky was at thrid- it was amazing).   But my problem with Ozzie is he thinks using them just to use them is a good idea, which drives me crazy.   The manage with your gut and nothing more.

I mean, we won the WS with him, and I loved him growing up, but the dude drives me insane sometimes.  

And I agree about the Tigers.  My stomach sank when they got Dontrelle Willis and Miggy Cabrerra.

Bone, there's a _movement_ to dump Joe Morgan? Heck with Hillary vs. Obama, that's the movement I want to join.

And Guillen is nothing. You try having Frank Robinson manage your hometown team for two years. Swear to god, the man would have made Barry Bonds sac bunt with a runner on, second empty, and no outs. He once walked the pitcher (!?) with a runner on second, first empty, and one out. Urgh!

Tep and Chan, I totally agree with the blue-collar Seniority Rules argument to explain HRC and BHO's  cultural divide in support.  

But you didn't address the original factoid.... why would _15%_ of Hillary voters in MS be dissatisfied if she were the nominee, compared to 4% for Obama?

Ahh... you smell that? Baseball's in the air... Go Sox!

Why would the Clintons align themselves with Limbaugh, Hannity, Ailes, Gingrich, and so on?

It's the old "the enemy of my my enemy..." bit. In this case, the enemy of my enemy is very white.

Check out bluedogs.us.

Those self-identifying Blue Dogs that Atwater courted aren't so fond of Barack, gays, immigrants, gun control, a woman's right to choose, and so on.

Odd that the Clintons would sidle up to them...but not really.

Droppin' those Gs in Ohio, Texas and Mississippi wasn't any grammatical slip. It was a siren song to all those folksy and friendly while people looking for an anyone-but-Obama choice.

Bill Clinton called into Limbaugh's show while he was barnstorming Texas. He sounded like Chet Atkins. The Clintons, Rush Limbaugh, Blue Dog Democrats, hmmm...what could these strange bedfellows possibly have in common? Try skin color for starters.

Rhubarbs, go to firejoemorgan.blogspot.com.  A bunch of SABR-nerds, with the goal of ripping apart shoddy baseball analysis.  THey are really smart and insanely funny.  I guarantee you that you will spend hours going through the archives.  Amazing stuff.

Which Sox, traytiger.

Sorry all political commentators, for hijacking the thread.  But...baseball is a welcome repsite from this maddening nonsense.

Oh, hah! Not White Sox, as you were hoping, boneill... I must have a word in defense of sac. bunts and int. walks.  Cowardly? Yes.  Statistically injustifiable? Yes.  

But it's *pro-active*!  The manager's not *rolling the dice*; he's taking matters into his own hands... making a move.  Essentially, he's covering his ass.  Which is a good a reason as any, I suppose.  Now let's see if Francona can work his magic one more year....

There's no need for Limbaugh to be diabolical.  There's a portion of his audience that is dimwitted and easily manipulated enough to vote just as he tells them to.

"Man, I must haved missed all the items TNR wrote when Republicans were voting for Obama by wide margins in February. "

I missed them, too.

Also, Clinton has done well with white independent/Republicans throughout the south. She won them in South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee long before Rush got involved.

www.theperfectworld.us/.../exitpollsum.htm

I *think* she won Republicans in all those states (as opposed to the combination) but I'd have to check to be sure.

firejoemorgan.com is awesome. And I don't even follow baseball.

the reason for Hillary supporter dissatisfaction in MS, thetraytiger, is that she has a lot more negatives than Obama.

People vote for her with their misgivings because they know here.  She's been around 16 years on the national scene which translates to a known quantity.  But, they don't love her.

They might like Obama more on a "personal" basis.  But, it just feels like a roll of the dice to older voters to give a guy who's so unknown a shot at leader of the free world.

firejoemorgan.com: Another Beane worshipper. Pshaw. The Beaney boys morph from one statistical certitude to the next in order to maintain his hot on the grail rep. The game lives, man. It's not reducible to stats. Any more than the reality of you can be summed by a chemical survey.

Santana strikes out north of three hundred this year. I say he eats up the nationals. The guy can hit, too. The Mets are going to love this guy. Likely another Cy.

Bone- Yeah. Most managers can drive a guy nuts. Ozzie is just a little more colorful about it I guess. Sometimes he makes the issue about him as opposed to whatever it should be about. That said, he's quotable and not shy about talking hard nose work and hustle as to being the keys to success. Piercynski is a prick....but I sure loved it when he played for the Twins. As a matter of fact prickishness was part of his charm as I'm sure you know.

Make that AJ Pierzynski. proper and all.

24% of Hilary's vote came from Republican thats an Unusually high number. Here's something else interesting 20% of Hilary voters say that Obama is more likely to beat McCain than Hilary compared to only 5% of Obama supporters. Now if 24% of her voters are republicans it explains this discrepancy and to me its implicative proof that republicans do believe Obama is the bigger threat to McCain and hence why they are voting for Hilary.

Carol

boxofrox, did you read Moneyball?  Seems to have worked for him.

Of course Obama is a bigger threat, harriscr.  Half the Democrats hate Hillary for God's sake.  Much less the Republicans and independents.

Not everybody is for Obama, but I don't know anyone who hates him.

rice: Yeah. Moneyball is just peachy. Exploring ways of exploiting under appreciated perofrmance. The stat guys have gone loco though. As if a ll you have to do is find the proper algorithm and thereby discover the holy grail. That's my beef with these guys. They are also likely to insist that reducing the world to a reducible composite description holds a great sway in rendering truth.

Like I say. The game lives. Statistics don't. Most players of a higher competitive level will tell you that.