Watch the Clinton campaign claim that now they have a broad coalition of support: they're even winning among Republicans!

This is all just re-confirming what we already know: the Republicans fear an Obama candidacy.

On Cohn and Judis' reasoning (primary support = general election support), this is CLEAR evidence that Hillary will receive massive republican support from republicans in the fall.

Cohn and Judis, please take note: it's time to retire exit poll analysis altogether. The data is bullshit.

A Wired magazine blog has more here, including a sample of an x-over voter bragging about switching parties to vote for Hillary,  online.

Read here:

blog.wired.com/.../did-ohio-crosso.html

Just more evidence that if Hillary DID win Ohio because of some Rush Limbaugh/GOP-style shenanigans (or Texas), then Ohio (or Texas) is filled with latte drinking, effete, PH.D. educated African-Americans who kiss gay people while they are dropping their children off at Al Queda-sponsored madrassas.  

While there's indication that the Republicans may have played a role, and that they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, there's no indication that they actually netted her an extra delegate in CD10.

The Mississippi data indicates about a 75-25 split of Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary. This means that if the numbers for Mississippi hold true for CD10, Hillary got about 12000 extra votes to Obama's 4000, which nets her about 8000 votes. If you then "discount" the Republicans, that impacts her lead significantly less, so that she still has above 60% of the popular vote. Which, if you plug into the calculator, means she still would get 4 delegates to Obama's 2.

However, if she wants to consolidate her newfound "base," she could easily start talking about her early experiences as a volunteer for the Goldwater campaign before being a Republican was cool. "John McCain is a traitor to the conservative cause. Vote for Clinton, the true conservative choice."

Dear Barron,

"An estimated 24% of Hillary's support in the Mississippi primary came from Republicans. In light of the evidence, it's probably safe to say Hillary's expectation-defying victory in Ohio benefited from a similar dynamic."

Why not just check? Here's the exit poll data for Ohio: www.msnbc.msn.com/.../21226001

It says that Republicans made up 9% of Democratic primary voters in Ohio, but they split evenly between Obama and Hillary 49%/49%.

I.e., if no Republicans had been allowed to vote in the Ohio Democratic primary, it would have had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the primaries, since Obama would have lost as many voters as Hillary.

Moreover, a quick recalculation shows that Republican cross-over voters voting for Hillary made up 4.4% of the total number of primary voters (49% of 9%), and that the exit poll data by partisan identification have Hillary in total at 53.6%. Which means that Republican cross-over voters constituted 4.4 / .536 = 8% of Hillary voters. Nothing like 24% at all, then.

I'm a little annoyed by this kind of thing, to be honest, so that's why I may sound a bit short. Why speculate on the basis of what other blogs say about other races, when you can simply quickly doublecheck the data yourself and find your speculation to be incorrect? (And I'm an Obama supporter!)

On the same count, Josh Patashnik made a simple mistake in reading the exit poll data in his item "The Democratic Rift Is Not Widening". I pointed it out in the comments and sent him an email to warn him about it, I hope politely enough, using the contact form yesterday morning; but the blog post still stands as it was. I'm probably just too impatient, but seriously, what's up with you guys and exit poll data?

So we have three possibilities.  I'll list them in my order of likelihood:

1) Many republicans, their primary being over, don't want to miss the fun, crossover and vote their preference.  Some of these vote racially, some vote because they see the Clintons (plural) as closer to their politics than Obama.

2) Many republicans are actually reconsidering their allegiance given the last 8 years and at least don't have a problem taking a Dem ballot in the primary.

3) Many republicans are political obsessives who would happily give up an hour of their lives and follow the instructions of their mightly leader El Rushbo in a Machiavellian scheme to help elected their Beloved John McCain.  

jobeek--

Nice try, but for the most part this new webpage format seems to assure that no one among the editorial staff have the foggiest idea what their own readers are saying. On the other hand, they can access people like Matt Yglesius quickly and easily because he posts on a functional site.

On the other hand, MSNBC works pretty well too. Maybe they just don't know how to use their computers?

To range wide of the topic at hand, Hillary Clinton was interviewed on "Morning Edition" this morning, and she seemed to be laying the grounds for a new delegate argument. Asked if she was comfortable with the idea of the superdelegates overturning the will of the voters, she said that people become delegates "one of three ways": Through caucuses, which she described as "small party gatherings"; through primaries; and by being appointed. The next logical step is to claim that only delegates chosen by primaries really reflect the will of the voters, while delegates chosen by caucus are just another form of party insider appointment like superdelegates. Brazen stuff, though I'm willing to entertain bets on when we first hear pccostello and other Hillaristas make the caucus delegates = superdelegates argument.

Also, Hillary reiterated her claim to have been instrumental in the Northern Ireland peace talks. Again, almost breathtakingly brazen. Anyone who has enjoyed the truth stylings of George W. Bush these last seven years is just gonna love President Hillary.

rhubarbs -

I heard the same interview this morning and had the same reaction. What frustrated me was that (I think it was Bob Edwards) never really pressed her to answer his question about the superdelegates, i.e., whether she was asking them to pledge to her in spite of the fact that BHO has the lead in every category, thereby "overturning the will of the voters." Then he let her make her argument unchallenged about the geography of the general election - that she would be the better candidate to win in the purple states. Just another illustration of how the media are being so "tough" on her, I guess.

Rhubarbs:

As much as I hate the caucuses, Hillary's parsing is ridiculous.  Her only hope is to have more total votes, in which case she actually deserves the nomination.  

I'm surprised Clinton doesn't have some of her surogates make Pat Buchanan's argument (as the campaign can't make it themselves): the big state votes are a better reflection of the electorate than the caucus states -- the only rational way to explain the difference is that Hillary's campaign has been mis-run, they wasted their money and didn't have the necessary ground organization -- in other words, money influences caucuses more (which is why she came closer in Iowa and won in Nevada -- she still had money then).  But if she's winning big states, frequently in the face of being outspent by Obama, that's saying something.  

The question is, how many of the Republicans who voted for Hillary in March will vote for her in November? My guess is not many.

lymon, I have two qualms about the "total vote" argument. First, there's a chance that argument could end up favoring Hillary, and there aren't many people I think would be worse presidents. I mean it seriously when I say that she wouldn't make my top hundred-million list of adult Americans I who would be good presidents.

But more substantively, Democrats won the popular vote in 2000 yet failed to win the White House because Gore couldn't assemble the requisite slate of "delegates" in the Electoral College. John Kerry came close to repeating that failure. Structural factors in the Electoral College make Democrats highly susceptible to losing the presidency despite winning the popular vote.

So why would we look favorably on a candidate who wins the "total vote" but cannot win the contest for delegates? Doesn't Hillary's failure to win the presumptively decisive pledged delegate majority demonstrate that tell us that she doesn't have what it takes to win the much more daunting Electoral College? Simply put, you don't become president by winning the most votes, you become president by winning the most pledged electors. So I find claims that Hillary should get the nomination if she wins the "popular vote" but loses the contest for pledged delegates to be unpersuasive. Worse, actually: That argument strikes me as being something close to a death wish for the Democratic Party. "Hey, let's nominate the candidate who's proven her ability to lose!" Ugh.

Rozenson, the Clinton campaign is already making that claim (that they have a "broad coaltion" by virtue of these new Republican votes). You have to wonder what happens when you so lose your grip on your reality that you can make statements like this with a straight face. I know that Wolfson is truth-challenged, but c'mon -- this is ridiculous.

lymon1,

You note in your post above listing the most likely order Republicans voted in the Democratic primary, put those voting to 'game' the system last.  Did you skip over Wired blog post?  At least one voter did just that, with the (signed) Wired blog claiming that was a small sample.  If you read the blog post it clearly implies that there wasn't a Democrat in sight of that particular polling station.  If there's one, there's bound to be more.  I'm not sure the third choice should be third, but higher up the list.  So maybe a significant portion of Jobeek's 49% for Hillary number were actually taking the time to vote Hillary.  I don't think it's to be ignored.

I don't know.  I am leery.  When Republicans vote for Hillary it is only because of Rush, but when they vote for Barack it is because they like him?  

Actually, given Hillary's status among Republicans that does make sense, but it is a tough argument to make because it involves a lot of mind-reading on both sides.  It is a fair assumption, but it does make us mindless, prius-driving Obamatons seem a little bit cocksure.

Rhubarbs,

"Simply put, you don't become president by winning the most votes, you become president by winning the most pledged electors. "

Why? Is your statement a fact,  proposal, a matter of opinion, a  dream, or an empty chatter?

"First, there's a chance that argument could end up favoring Hillary, and there aren't many people I think would be worse presidents"

You might be correct, however Barak Obama is certainly one of few people I think would be worse presidents.

Jet:  Oh, I'm sure *some* people were voting per Limbaugh, but wouldn't you expect those voters to be the ones most likely to crow about it (they'd be the uber-partisan, highly engaged types)?  You may be right, but it seemed from the comments that people were just assuming all these crossover Hillary votes are completely illegitimate.  Also, consider these categories might overlap: Instapundit links today to one of these voters who primarily voted strategically, but stated that if one of the two dems are in office, he'd prefer Hillary.  People forget that the Clinton Administration had a relatively centrist record -- I don't believe Obama is the leftist his enemies paint him as, but his roots are in one of Illinois' most lefty voting districts and his record to date is pretty solid.  I'm not a Republican but I am fairly blue-dog and would have voted for Clinton but-for the post-SC shout-out to white voters.

jacob, try reading Article Two and the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution and then come back and we'll talk about whether you become president by winning the most votes or the most electors. You might pay specific attention to these clauses:

"Each state shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."

"The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed."

And fair enough on your opinion of Obama -- I just wanted to put my biases out there before I argued the substantive point that just happens to agree with my preference among the candidates.

lymon: some vote because they see the Clintons (plural) as closer to their politics than Obama.

ha ha ha funniest thing I have read all week. For the vast majority of Republicans the Clintons are about as close to the anti-Christ as possible. Let me put it this way, Guiliani was far closer to me than most other Republicans but I would have sooner cut off my hand than pull the lever for him in November, to cause mischief now, why not since I am sure he would have been roadkill in Nov.

bone, I am a swing voter, I know many middle of the road people like myself who would be happy with either Obama or McCain (for different reasons), but am sick and tired of the hyperpartisanship of the Clintons. Of course when Republicans vote for Obama it is because they like him, do you really believe any Republican is afraid of Hillary, or even prefers her over McCain? Absolutely hard core Republicans love causing mischief, those are the breaks. It won't work in Pa. though because that is a closed primary.

rhubarb, tsk tsk, taking candy from a baby. shame on you. how dare you present facts as being worth more than opinion.

Rhubarbs, you write:

"Doesn't Hillary's failure to win the presumptively decisive pledged delegate majority demonstrate that tell us that she doesn't have what it takes to win the much more daunting Electoral College? Simply put, you don't become president by winning the most votes, you become president by winning the most pledged electors."

There is a problem with this equation of "winning most pledged delegates in the primaries now" = "winning most electors in the Electoral College in the general elections".

It is true that in both the primaries and the general elections, the outcome is not decided by the popular vote per se, but by a process of indirect selection - votes are translated in delegates who vote the winner.

But the proportions of delegates accorded by state in the Democratic primary are very different from the proportions accorded by state in the general elections. Thats because in the Democratic primaries, states with a great many Democrats get more delegates than states with the same population size but many fewer Democrats.

E.g., in the general elections, New York and Texas both send about as many electors to the Electoral College (31 and 34 respectively). But in the Democratic primaries, New York is good for 281 delegates, and Texas for 228.

So if you would really like to try out your theory that it's best to nominate the candidate who would win the electoral college - and you would be OK with using the outcome of the primaries in the respective state as indicators of who *would* be better placed to win them in the general elections - then what you'd need to do is use an interactive map like this one: http://www.270towin.com/. Click in the states that Obama and Hillary won, respectively, so far, and see how the Electoral College would add up if they'd won them all in the generals too.

The outcome is somewhat surprising. If you dont count Michigan but you do count Florida, and you go by the popular vote in every other state, the electoral college division would by now have been: Clinton 246; Obama 202.

So perhaps not the best argument to use for an Obama supporter.

Luckily, there are at least two very good reasons why not to use this argument:

-> The only states that arguably count, in this kind of reasoning, are potential swing states. So let's subtract, from the above numbers, states in which Bush or Kerry won by at least 10%. The relevant states, Electoral College-wise, that would be left would then be WA, NV, CO, NM, MN, WI, IA, MO, OH, VA, DE, NJ, NH, ME and FL. How do they add up? Clinton 76 electors, Obama 82 electors. Better.

-> There is no actual reason to assume that the politician who wins the primary in a state would also be best placed to win the general elections in that state. In the end, the general elections outcome is decided by a great number of independents and swing voters, who overwhelmingly will not have participated in the primaries. And there is no reason to assume that the inclinations of primary voters are necessarily representative of those of these indies and others who did not take part in the primaries, but will be voting in the generals.

"For the vast majority of Republicans the Clintons are about as close to the anti-Christ as possible"

Vast majority?  Forgive me blackton for thinking that's an overstatement.   But I'll offer another possibiilityfor the future: some, hearing Obama's pastors latest reported comments ("God bless America?  No, God damn America or somesuch thing" and blaming the U.S. for 9/11 might think anyone who doesn't leave that church but instead keeps throwing out the loveable-but-crazy-uncle line, might be motivated to cast a ballot in the primary.  

jobeek, that's the must-read post of the day. I'd just like to clarify that I did not mean to posit any direct relationship between ability to win specific numbers of delegates nw and specific numbers of electors later. Simply that both processes use indirect selection, and in both processes the candidate knows the rules going in. A candidate's failure to win a majority of delegates despite winning the popular vote -- and Hillary is losing both right now! -- strikes me as a poor indicator of his or her ability to cope with a campaign for victory in the Electoral College.

The electoral college argument is a bit weak, for a couple reasons.  The first is that the actual method states use to choose their electors is totally different from the Democratic nomination process, in that it's winner-take-all everywhere except ME and NE (which have never split their votes anyway), so it doesn't make much sense to extrapolate from Hillary's failure in one system to failure in the other, unless you're making the more general point that she doesn't know how to win within the preexisting rules of the game.  The other thing is that in the vast majority of Presidential elections, the popular vote winner does end up winning, so I'd hardly say that means she has a "proven her ability to lose."

I think the better point against the popular vote argument is that, as a practical matter, it comes very close to Hillary's "well, if you  don't count the caucus states" argument.  Most of the popular vote estimates literally don't count Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine because they haven't released vote totals (unless you want to count Washinton's beauty contest primary).  Even in the states that do release vote totals, the vote margins in caucuses are smaller than primaries, even when the percentages are bigger, so caucuses just end up counting for a whole lot less.  For example, Obama's 14% win in Alabama netted 77000 votes, while his 34% win in Colorado netted 41000, even though the states are about the same size.  I suppose Hillary supporters would argue that caucuses *should* count a whole lot less, but I doubt the states that chose to run them would agree.  If all of the states had primaries, I think it would be legitimate to look at the popular vote, but since they don't, it's sort of misleading.

Let me throw another factor into the pot:

The district mentioned in the PD's article is Kucinich's.  Dennis! is up for reelection this year and there is a Democratic challenger, Joe Cimperman.  The cities mentioned in the PD article are all Republican strongholds, and Republicans (and most Independents, like me) HATE Kucinich (as do many Dems - he keeps getting re-elected because of inner-ring neighborhoods packed with blue-collar Dems still loyal for what he did years ago.)

The practical upshot of all this is that I personally know erstwhile Republicans who have bragged about crossing party lines to vote for Cimperman.  I suspect the thought then goes, hey, while I'm at it, why not F up the Dems a little further, by prolonging their race and/or helping nominate Hillary, who doesn't have a chance against McCain?"  What this says about November is, well, nothing.

lymon, I am Catholic so please don't ever equate with me something any priest ever did as being my responsibility. Fair enough? OK, not vast majority, but I figured since the anti-Christ line as an exaggeration for effect than why not vast majority too, in for a penny right?

Nice work, Jobeek. nice to see someone dig into the numbers instead of just linking to someone's blog-rumination that links to someone else's rumination that links to....

If the blogosphere is merely a starting point for serious investigation of real, hard data, then these speculations serve a purpose. TPM does real reporting and investigtion; bravo. In this case, there is without question a serious-- deadly serious, in fact-- issue as to whether Hillary is battening on Limbaugh-GOP dirty tricks.

A serious accusation deserves a serious, fact-based, logically defensible case. Still waiting for that from our journalistic corps. A pity that it's left up to the TalkBackers to do all the digging.

Rhubarbs said:

"So why would we look favorably on a candidate who wins the "total vote" but cannot win the contest for delegates? Doesn't Hillary's failure to win the presumptively decisive pledged delegate majority demonstrate that tell us that she doesn't have what it takes to win the much more daunting Electoral College?"

The "presumptively decisive" pledged delegate majority is only decisive if you have a MAJORITY (i.e. 50% plus 1), not a PLURALITY.  At the moment, Obama has a plurality - he DOES NOT have a majority based on pledged delegates, and it is virtually impossible for him (or Clinton for that matter) to get a majority by the time all the states have voted (even if Florida and Michigan do have a revote).

As for don't the results so far prove that Obama would do better in the Electoral College, well, in a word, no.  Once you start talking Electoral College and winner-take-all balloting, the situation changes completely.  Clinton has been kicking Obama's butt in that kind of election.

Electoral College:

Clinton: 219 (263 if you give her Michigan and Florida)

Obama: 202

Delegates if the states were awarded as winner-take-all:

Clinton: 1308 (not counting Michigan or Florida)

Obama: 1235

Look, I'm NOT trying to change the rules in the middle of the game - Obama's got whatever pledged delegates he's got so far fair-and-square.  But it is entirely possible to game up situations where Clinton can make a very legitimate claim, based SOLELY on the numbers.  Especially when those numbers are generated the same way that they are generated in the General Election.

And if you're an unpledged delegate, you are perfectly entitled to consider all the various ways of slicing and dicing the election results, and then make your choice accordingly.  If you (or any super delegate) think Obama having a plurality is decisive, I've got no problem with that.  But that's one person's opinion.

buffaloboy:

I basically agree with you, the super delegates can vote based on anything they want.  They like Obama's nose better, Hillary's husband, whatever.  Obviously a lot of super delegates have already decided who they prefer based on something other than the total pledged delegates, popular vote, or any other contrived metric that we can come up with.   So suggesting that  'it is entirely possible to game up situations where Clinton can make a very legitimate claim' to the candidacy is kind of fun, it's not very productive.  She can't make a legitimate claim on anything unless she has the 2025 delegates required to win.   Making (debatable) statements that she would have done better if all the states are winner take all, or based on popular vote, or "I won all the big states" is equivalent to saying you should win a baseball game for getting the most hits or a hockey game for taking the most shots on goal.

If you want to look at numbers though, assuming that the rest of the primaries will be more or less even from here on out (I'm just basing this on the fact that they pretty much split all the primaries in March), Obama will be around 1870 and Clinton will be at about 1750.  That means that Clinton would need the support of 275 of the remaining 330 (like 80%) or so remaining unpledged super delegates while Obama would only need 155 (46%).  If Clinton only gets 75% of the super delegates she loses.  Given that the supers have about a 50/50 split so far what are the chances that she can swing 80% to her side?  It's starting to look like a Huckabee situation to me.

wyllie, right. and don't forget that many of these people need black votes to survive. If they are white they can spin voting for Obama easily enough, and if Obama loses in november, then it won't be on account of them. If they take Hillary and she loses, the revenge will be on them. Hillary will be done for good, but they don't want to be.

Are there enough superdelegates around who will defy the delegate lead in favor of a woman whose base is trending older, who represents the past? For a sure thing, maybe, but ain't no sure things.

Obama can still lose if he tanks from here on out, perception of a prolonged losing streak will kill him, but does anyone believe he will lose North Carolina, or Oregon?