Voters in WI who are satisfied with Bush, vote for Edwards. (yes, linked)

[funky_bug]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html

Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry

Voters who are enthusiastic about * Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry

Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards

Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.

Factual evidence - link provided.

This "freeping" the polls is not an elaborate conspiracy theory. "Polliergate" didn't knock Kerry down in WI; the people who love Bush and are pro-war did try though.

[WilliamPitt]

1. As I said earlier

GOP voters are gaming the race in WI, voting Edwards to keep it close and bleed Kerry. Democrats did this to Bush in MA in 2000 by voting McCain; my mom had to re-register as a Democrat because she registered GOP last time to vote McCain and tag Bush.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. Agreed.

.

[Frances]

Do you really think it's bad that Edwards is still in the race?

Since Edwards focuses his attacks on Bush, it seems to me that it's good he's still in the race.

[WilliamPitt]

26. My observation carried no judgment. It was simply based on facts.

[spooky3]

7. well, that's one hypothesis, but there is an equally plausible one

that you cannot reject based on these data. That is, that Edwards appeals to moderates and even conservatives who are not extremely dissatisfied with Bush but want a better candidate, e.g., someone who is more committed to balanced budgets.

That does not describe myself, but I know a LOT of people who are in this category.

A strong traditional Democrat commented to me that Southern liberal/liberal-leaning Dems (such as Clinton and Edwards) always benefit from the misperception that they are more moderate than they really are. I think he has an excellent point.

[Taeger]

33. Blue collar Republicans ...

They hate NAFTA too. I bet these folks would vote for Kerry in the general election.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. That's why I voted fo r McCain in the primaries in 2000

In Montana we don't have party registration so you just vote in whichever primary you want. McCain had actually already dropped out but it just felt good to vote against Bush anyway.

[KittyWampus]

16. They Did It To Clark. Now They're Doing It To Kerry

[Skwmom]

17. They've been gaming the system since Iowa. e/o/m

[feistydem]

27. It sure looks "gamed"

Anyone know how many other states ahead allow cross-over voting in their primaries?

The Republican 'leadership' keep showing up in these primary states on behalf of Bush before a Dem primary. So are they working their own Get Out the Vote angles in these primaries?

Whew! This is a nasty bunch we're up against.

[ShaneGR]

28. Only 17% of the independents or Republicans were excited about Bush

Totaling only 5% of the vote, so much for that meme.

[funky_bug]

29. I'd say that counts for a lot when they're sitting within 4% of each other

:tinfoilhat:

[madmax]

2. Did you hear William Krystal on MSNBC

say that those who voted for Edwards earned 75-100K, had college degrees. Whereas, those who voted Kerry earned 50K and under, High School or some college. Kind makes ya go hmmmmm.

Matthews called Edwards voters 'limousine liberals'.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. The fact is that Kerry always wins the working class voters.

.

[George_Bonanza]

10. Yes, that great face always goes willingly unnoticed by some

Because it would be a very inconvenient suppressor of the "Kerry is the rich, elite status quo boring uptight uncool starch-collared..." Hmm, the normal folks don't seem to think that way.

[spooky3]

15. that's not exactly right, if you look at the exit polls

there just is a slight tendency in that direction. It also was not that way in many of the prior states.

[madmax]

25. Thanks - I didn't see the exit polls

just listening to Krystal bs'ing. Just goes to prove once again you can not trust anything that comes out of a neo-cons mouth.

[BootinUp]

5. Oh oh

atten hut!

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[funky_bug]

11. One step ahead of ya

:tinfoilhat:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. Obvious strategic voting by crossover Rethugs, imho

[jpgray]

8. Again the INTENT is not apparent, one can only interpret

Some of these folks might genuinely WANT to vote for Edwards over Bush, and therefore vote for him. The truth is probably some of each, and we'll never know which is the case. But plenty here will want to tell you which one is true. :D

[spooky3]

12. I agree with you.

[eileen_d]

13. Now THAT'S an honest analysis!

But black and white thinking is SO much more fun... ;)

[funky_bug]

14. Quite possibly

But they are "enthusiastic" with the Bush admin. Why would they vote for someone they want to vote against Bush for? (oh my aching head.)

[spooky3]

20. "extremely satisfied" was NOT a response option on the exit polls

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html

the choices were "angry", "dissatisfied", "satisfied", and "enthusiastic"

note that a lot of the "enthusiastics" voted for Dean. Did they tell the truth about how enthusiastic they were about Bush, or are they Republicans who wanted Dean because he would be an "easier target" for the Repubs? We don't know from these data.

[funky_bug]

23. I stand corrected: changed "extremely satisfied" to "enthusiastic"

Though I'm not quite sure there is a great difference. Thanks for the heads up. Accuracy first!

[jpgray]

21. Why are they voting Edwards? That's exactly what we don't know

They may be enthusiastic (33%) towards Bush but prefer Edwards, they may be satisfied with Bush (52%) and want Edwards instead. Or both of those groups may in fact be voting to skew the results. We don't know.

Anyhow, one could easily postulate that a true disruptor wouldn't answer the exist poll in an honest fashion, but again, this is all just guessing and interpretation. We do know that Wisconsin primaries are open, so the R and I voters are a factor, disruptors and honest voters alike. We can't really blame them for anything--what's done is done. Kerry's still in great shape, and now Edwards folks have something to be excited about.

[NV1962]

18. Other tidbit: Edwards is most liked by white men

Does seem to furthen the impression that Edwards is a candidate most popular among the white socio economic elite. In general elections, that is not much of a demographic basis to build on.

[spooky3]

30. au contraire--we've had many threads at DU about "how to bring

the white guy back onto our side"

[NV1962]

34. I really don't think Edwards draws the NASCAR or wrestling crowd - n/t

[spooky3]

40. he may not, but that isn't what your first post said

[MurikanDemocrat]

19. Ruh Roh

I'm not so concerned that Edwards got some mileage out of this. I hope my fellow Kerry supporters don't exploit this in a negative tone toward Edwards. But freepers fucking with the primaries DOES concern me.

Wonder how many of the Super Tuesday states have open primaries?

[funky_bug]

22. I hope so too

It's interesting to suppose this or that, but ultimately, the votes will count for Edwards/Kerry/Dean no matter who cast them.

I like Edwards, and I've got no axe to grind.

[dansolo]

31. Take a closer look at the numbers

Only 5% of the voters classified themselves as enthusiastic about the Bush administration. If the breakdown was 33% for Edwards and 10% for Kerry, then that equals 1.67% additional votes for Edwards, and 0.5% additional votes for Kerry, or basically 1% difference. There was no freeping going on here.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. But Edwards got half of those "satisfied" with Bush (or 6% of all voters)

add that to your 1% and pretty soon you're talking real votes.

[DancingBear]

43. California and New York have closed primaries

Democrats only - they should be very telling.

[mb7588a]

24. This happens in every WI primary, i reckon. nt.

[incapsulated]

35. In an "open primary"

Weird things can happen. Shady things, too.

That's why I'm against them.

[krkaufman]

36. Edwards late surges

The biggest thing to study/understand is why Edwards tends to get late/same-day deciders, those voters making up their minds in the last couple days of a race.

I'll skip guessing as to the meaning; just think it's as big a factor as freeping.

[krkaufman]

37. Weighting the freeps... 17% of WI Dem Primary voters satisfied with Bush.

The effect of freeping, though, in relation to the "Bush admin enthusiasm" needs to take into account the relative weight of this group of voters. According to the CNN exit poll numbers, 17% of Wisconsin's Dem Primary voters were at least "satisfied" with the Bush Admin.

Dean/Edwards/Kerry distribution among Bush-fans:

Satisfied (12%): 20%/50%/23%
Enthusiastic (5%): 32%/36%/10%

[spooky3]

41. you don't know that these are "freepers" and

it is also possible that they are voting for the person that they would find most palatable if Bush does not win in the fall or someone they would like better than Bush. That's legitimate.

A story linked in Yahoo today pointed out that there were some local issues on the ballot that brought out a lot of Republicans and Independents. So this also casts doubt on the implication that the non-Democrats were there to be disruptive of the Dem's primary. I think there probably were a few of those nuisance voters. I am just objecting to the idea that they comprise most or all of those who supported Edwards. They could also have been less than honest in their exit poll answers. We just don't know without interviewing them.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040218/ap_on_el_pr/democrats&cid=694&ncid=716

"The strong GOP turnout was boosted by city government elections in Milwaukee and a controversial referendum on casino gambling by an Indian tribe."

[krkaufman]

42. Oh, certainly not "most or all"

> A story linked in Yahoo today pointed out that there were
> some local issues on the ballot that brought out a lot of
> Republicans and Independents. So this also casts doubt on
> the implication that the non-Democrats were there to be
> disruptive of the Dem's primary.

Personally, I think the final crossover/freep vote may have been higher than it would have been without the other ballot measures. I would think that people would be less likely to go out of their way to freep/crossover, and that the other ballot measures brought them to the polls -- and then they then opted to cast a Dem Primary vote since they were already there.


> it is also possible that they are voting for the person
> that they would find most palatable if Bush does not win
> in the fall or someone they would like better than Bush.
> That's legitimate.

Well, it's certainly legal since that's what Wisconsin law and their Dem Primary rules allow. Whether it's "legitimate" or not depends on your perspective of whether someone who will definitely be voting for Bush in November should have a choice in who Bush's opponent should be.


> I am just objecting to the idea that they comprise most
> or all of those who supported Edwards.

Oh, certainly not. I didn't explicity state the effect I thought any crossover/freeping might have played, but I would think the freepage would only amount to a few percentage points drift one way or another -- possibly enough, though, to give one candidate a much-needed "moral" victory.

Doing some total-crap math on the CNN exit poll numbers, Edwards' boost from the Bush-fans could account for 4.5% of the total.

Satisfied (12%): 20%/50%/23%

Dean 2.4%

Edwards 6.0%

Kerry 2.8%
Enthusiastic (5%): 32%/36%/10%

Dean 1.6%

Edwards 1.8%

Kerry 0.5%
Total Bush-fan percentages:

Dean 4.0%

Edwards 7.8%

Kerry 3.3%

[Kahuna]

38. Uh huh. So hanky panky was afoot. I thought so.

nt

[adadem]

39. Open primaries have

always bugged me when it comes to presidential races. I strongly believe the states should not have complete control over the primary/caucus process in the presidential race where one person/entity can change the entire country. I think there should be separate rules for the presidential race that each state must follow for the nominee selection process and the general election.

[edzontar]

44. Whatever their motives, they are doing us a favor

By keeping this thing open.

Contrary to the wishes of the DNC, DLC, Terry McAuliffe, Donna Brasile, and other friends of the American people, I do not want to see a coronaton of Kerry anytime soon.