How Operation Chaos Caused Obama to Lose Indiana and Vote Shares Everywhere Else

[tiptoe]

How Operation Chaos Caused Obama to Lose Indiana and Vote Shares Everywhere Else
TruthIsAll     http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/OperationChaos.htm

The latest media myth is that Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos  ()  had no effect on the Indiana primary.  Their argument is that the Clinton-Obama (53–47) share of the 10% Republican crossover vote is virtually the same as the (51–49) split in the total vote. This analysis will show that were it not for Operation Chaos, Obama would have definitely won Indiana and very possibly Texas.  Well, at least one blogger gets it.

The media fails to recognize that since March 4, there have been two sets of Republican crossover voters:

1. The first group consists of moderates who are strongly for Obama.
2. The second group includes 40–50% who were driven by Operation Chaos.

Final Exit poll data shows that since Operation Chaos began on March 4 in OH and TX, the percentage of Republican crossover voters () has risen from 6% to 9%.  The increase has been almost totally to Clinton's benefit.

Prior to March 4 (before Operation Chaos), seven primaries allowed Republicans to participate. Obama won their vote by an average of 59–28%.  He won all 7 primaries by an average 58–37% share.

Since Operation Chaos began on March 4, five primaries have been open to Republicans. Clinton won their vote by an average 57–41%.  Obama won 2 of the 5 primaries (but should have won 4). He had an average 51–47% share in the 5 primaries.


Republican Share of Democratic Primary Vote:   Pre  vs.  Post March 4   (Operation Chaos)

Final Exit Polls
 PRE  MARCH 4 
               PartyID      Total Share         Share of Repub         Difference   
                Repub        HRC    OB            HRC    OB            HRC     OB
       AL         5%         42%    56%           52%    45%            10%  -11%
       SC         4%         27%    53%           20%    37%           - 7%  -16%
       IL         6%         34%    65%           36%    60%             2%  - 5%
       MO         6%         44%    54%           21%    75%           -23%   21%
       LA         5%         37%    56%           17%    53%           -20%  - 3%
       VA         7%         35%    64%           23%    72%           -12%    8%
       WI         9%         40%    57%           28%    72%           -12%   15%
         	       
           Avg    6%         37%    58%           28%    59%            -9%   +1%
                                                                         
 POST MARCH 4    
               PartyID      Total Share         Share of Repub         Difference   
                Repub        HRC    OB            HRC    OB            HRC     OB
03/04  OH         9%         54%    44%           49%    49%           - 5%    5%
03/04  TX         9%         51%    47%           46%    53%           - 5%    6%
03/11  MS        12%         38%    60%           75%    25%            37%  -35%
05/06  IN        10%         50.1%  49.9%         53%    47%             3%  - 3%
05/06  NC         5%         42%    56%           61%    32%            19%  -24%
          	       
           Avg    9%         47%    51%           57%    41%           +10%  -10%
        	       
__________________________________________________________
 
PARTY ID
Pre March 4
 
AL            HRC    OB     JE                               
Dem    82%    40%    58%    1%                               
Rep     5%    52%    45%    3%                               
Ind    13%    48%    48%    3%                               
Total         41.6%  56.1%  1.4%                             
 
 
SC
Dem    73%    28%    57%    14%                              
Rep     4%    20%    37%    43%                              
Ind    23%    26%    42%    32%                              
Total         27.2%  52.8%  19.3%                            
 
 
IL
Dem    79%    36%    63%    1%                               
Rep     6%    36%    60%    4%                               
Ind    16%    22%    72%    4%                               
Total         34.1%  64.9%  1.7%                             
 
 
MO
Dem    73%    50%    47%    2%                               
Rep     6%    21%    75%    4%                               
Ind    22%    30%    67%    2%                               
Total         44.4%  53.6%  2.1%                             
 
 
LA            HRC    OB                                      
Dem    83%    38%    57%                                     
Rep     5%    17%    53%                                     
Ind    12%    36%    53%                                     
Total         36.7%  56.3%                                   
 
 
VA
Dem    70%    38%    62%                                     
Rep     7%    23%    72%                                     
Ind    22%    30%    69%                                     
Total         34.8%  63.6%                                   
 
 
WI
Dem    62%    46%    53%                                     
Rep     9%    28%    72%                                     
Ind    28%    33%    64%                                     
Total         40.3%  57.3%                                   
 
__________________________________________________________
 
Party ID
Post March 4 (Operation Chaos)                                                          
 
OH            HRC    OB                                      
Dem    69%    56%    42%                                     
Rep     9%    49%    49%                                     
Ind    22%    48%    50%                                     
Total         53.6%  44.4%                                   
 
 
TX
Dem    66%    53%    46%                                     
Rep     9%    46%    53%                                     
Ind    25%    48%    49%                                     
Total         51.1%  47.4%                                   
 
 
MS
Dem    71%    30%    67%                                     
Rep    12%    75%    25%                                     
Ind    17%    43%    53%                                     
Total         37.6%  59.6%                                   
 
 
IN
Dem    67%    51%    49%                                     
Rep    10%    53%    47%                                     
Ind    23%    46%    54%                                     
Total         50.1%  49.1%                                   
 
 
NC
Dem    76%    39%    60%                                     
Rep     5%    61%    32%                                     
Ind    19%    50%    45%                                     
Total         42.2%  55.8%       

[shenmue]

1. It just kills you that people wanted to vote for Clinton, doesn't it?

You just will not admit that not everybody out there is in love with Saint Obama.

[ingac70]

2. You are right. Repukes do not like Obama.

Thats why they openly laughed about voting for Clinton on Rush Limbaugh's show.

[democracy1st]

3. 90%-10% estimated rightwing advantage over the radio airwaves

[melody]

4. The problem is people voting for Clinton who don't want her elected

Surely you get that.

[TexasObserver]

5. that's the reality: His R voters are real crossovers. Hers are faux crossovers.

This is a coordinated, underhanded scheme to foul major primaries, and it has succeeded. I don't think there's any doubt that Operation Chaos votes gave Clinton the perceived popular edge in Indiana and Texas.

[tiptoe]

22. well put. nt

[Triana]

7. No one has any problem with Republicans voting Clinton if they simply WANT TO however

....doing so just to deliberately skew the vote and keep a damaging race going per Rush Limbaugh IS a problem.

You LIKE that they did this?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/is-limbaughs-op.html

You APPROVE?

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Actually Triana it has a name .... STRATEGIC VOTING

It happens in Europe ALL THE TIME

I draw the line at limpballs calling for riots, murder and maybhem at the convention

That is a felony

Slight difference

But Operation Chaos is classic strategic voting... and though underhanded, respected as a tactic

By the way... these are the kinds of tactics used in more advanced (politically that is) countries

[dbmk]

16. What? Where?

Can you be a bit more specific than "in Europe?" - because I sure can't see anything like it happening around here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. The UK...

France, especially in early phases for the presidential election

[dbmk]

18. Can you be more specific on the proces?

You've piqued my interest and now I need to know. :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Sure, france doesn't have a winner take all

but phases. Basically in the first phase you have quite a bit of folks running... many of them from fringe parties that could never, ever win the election

They create alliances with other small parties and they vote strategically for strong candidates of main parties to try to influence the result

Hell think of them as primaries, where you go from sixteen to eight to four, and finally two. Since they use run off elections, it is a tactic and zarkozy ... he being in place might be the small fringe very right wing party members voting for him early on...

It is done, and nobody is too shocked

:-)

That is why I draw the line at.... riots

And the voting is either done to get somebody more aligned to you who is strong, or to ensure a weak candidate for your preferred candidate to run against

[tiptoe]

21. good info! nt

[mod mom]

8. Here's some stats to digest:

Thirty-six percent of primary voters said that Clinton does not share their values. And yet, among that total, one out of every five (20 percent) nevertheless voted for her in the Indiana election. Moreover, of the 10 percent of Hoosiers who said "neither candidate" shared their values, 75 percent cast their ballots for Clinton.

These are not small numbers. By comparison, of the 33 percent of voters who said Sen. Barack Obama does not share their values, only seven percent cast their ballots in his favor. Basically, more people who don't relate to Clinton are, for one reason or another, still voting for her. These are not likely to be loyal supporters.

On a broader level, among the 17 percent of primary goers who said they would choose Sen. John McCain over Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up, 41 percent of that group came from Clinton's own camp. In essence, roughly seven percent of Clinton support in Indiana (40 percent of 17 percent) said they would defect to the Republican should she end up the nominee. That would be a difficult punch to stomach in November. In 2004, nearly 1 million Indianans voted for John Kerry. A seven percent defection rate would have meant 70,000 less votes.

-snip
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-limbaugh-effec_n_100488.html

[mod mom]

9. Here's a good video to explain this to you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x129008

[Kurovski]

10. shenmue , all of these nice people took the time to respond to your post...

and you have nothing to say? People offer you facts and data...and not even a thank you?

shenmue, your shitty little hit and run wasn't even worth a response, and yet a number of DUers took the time and politely pointed you toward another point of view, one with actual information behind it rather than emotional speculation.

Shame on you.

Goddamit. Just fucking shame on you.

[Faryn Balyncd]

6. There is all the difference in the world between a Susan Eisenhower and a Rush Limbaugh. . . . .

. . . . and between thoughtful former Republicans who will vote Democratic in NOVEMBER, and "Operation Chaos" Dittoheads whose stated intent is to vote in McCain in November:

Why I'm Backing Obama


By Susan Eisenhower





Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower bid farewell to a nation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address, Ike famously coined the term "military-industrial complex," and he offered advice that is still relevant today. "As we peer into society's future," he said, we "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America's heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may be over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly, unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging and increasingly needy population.

I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.

Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.

The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.

No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.

The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.

It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.

Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.

Susan Eisenhower, a business consultant, is the author of four books, most recently "Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War."


www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621_pf.html

:kick:


:kick:


:kick:

[tiptoe]

11. Thank you for that! nt

[tiptoe]

19. kick!

[Lord Helmet]

12. those super delegates should end this now for that reason alone

[Kurovski]

13. Kick. (nt)

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. What shocks me is that STRATEGIC VOTING has not been used this effectively

before in the US.

It is used all the time in places like oh European Countries

It worked, I expect to see more of this in years to come (and if the dems have any brains about it... from both sides)

Underhanded, sure....

Valid as a tactic, yes

I draw the line at calling for riots... that is a felony

[tiptoe]

23. Does strategic voting phenomena get analysed/exposed 'over there' like how TIA does here?

[karynnj]

24. It's never been promoted as it has this time - because to most it is unseemly

Before this year, I had heard people propose doing it, but usually in a kind of joking way.