Lots of New Democrats in Pennsylvania

[sigh]

This is not about the meaningless PA primary. This is about the general. These registration rates point to a Patrick Murphy win, to a tsunami in the House and Senate.

That's the story here.

"interestingly 64% of those who've switched parties since the beginning of the year are in the state's 12 largest, urban counties"
=============

Why is that interesting?

The question in my mind are these new registants Obamacans or Dittoheads for Hillary.

Contrary to the CW, a closed primary in PA might help Obama with Rush Limbaugh's mischief somewhat controlled.

I think it's Obama, mama.

How many dittoheads do you think voted Clinton in dem primaries with the express purpose of keeping her in it? How many do you think will vote in PA?

I was going to ask RKA's question:
How many of these are Limbaugh-zombies out to ruin the Democrat primary?

Another David,

I think that there were major effects in TX, OH, and MS.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/125327.html

There is no way to know for sure. Exit polls suggest a significant Limbaugh effect, but I also think a dittohead going to the polls to cause mischief will lie to an exit pollster too.

So there is no way to gauge the effect entirely. There's a lof of anecdotal evidence, but nothing definitive.

What I don't know is how many dittoheads wouldgo through the trouble of changing registration a month in advance...that seems like a much bigger committment then just showing up the day of an open primary.

Thus, I think Obama could beat some expectations, but likely not win, in PA because there will be less Rush mischief this time.

I find it astonishing that people seriously believe the Democratic Party might be thwarted by division caused by two candidates who ultimately have relatively similar platforms. There is some ideological difference, but mainly isn't it just clashing egos?

So, "RKA", how many?

David and RKA,
See this great story from the Globe's Scott Helman on R's switching to D in Ohio and Texas to vote for Hillary.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

Most of the political science professors and Pennsylvania pols that i spoke with felt that it's one thing if it's easy to do it as it was in Texas and Ohio -- just mark a different box in the booth -- but the likihood decreases sharply if they are forced to fill out two pages of forms to switch their registration and another two pages to switch it back for the general as they would have to have done in Pennsylvania.
JNS

I find "RKA" astonishing. Are you a parody person?

Significantly, 64% of those who changed parties were in the 12 largest counties — urban areas that have large African American and educated white populations, demographics that are Obama's strength.

You put the above in your article, Jay, but not the post above. Too bad it wasn't reversed because the information is wrong. Maybe just that old Eats, Shoots and Leaves thing, but you seem to say that the 12 largest counties have both large African American and educated white poplations. I think you will find that Philadelphia and Allegheny counties fit that but that the five suburban counties that ring Philadelphia county have majority white populations.

"See this great story from the Globe's Scott Helman on R's switching to D in Ohio and Texas to vote for Hillary."
============
It's funny how what one person perceives as a "great story" is just a baseless piece of sensationalist crap to another. I suppose it depends on your POV.

Like I said, for TX, OH, and MS there are tea leaves but it is impossible to know exact numbers.

For PA, sorry, another david, but I misplaced my crystal ball.

I'll let you know when I find it.

No, Another David, I am not a parody person.

I am a regular commenter on this board widely considered insufferable, occasionally insightful.

Welcome to Swampland!

It's a hoppin, rockin place...

There is no question Republicans helped Hillary in the "big states" she won. Just Google "Operation Chaos"--Limbaugh is behind it.

"About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show." See [url]http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004303769_clinpublicans25.html[/url].

"It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes."

The actual numbers of Limbaugh inspired GOP voters mischievously voting for Sen Clinton were as follows:
TX - 1,247
OH - 476

The Pennsylvania number will be between 736 and 912.

As you can see, hardly a significant factor against the votes of millions.

Observer:

It's more likely the sound of one ego clashing.

I'm starting to wonder how many Dems have been so turned off by the nouveau-Roves in the Clinton campaign that they wouldn't vote for her in November - or in 2012 either.

Dude, that's awesome.

How'd you read the minds of all those millions of voters to divine their past and future motivations?

With clairvoyance like that, you must be making a killing in the stock market!

Sorry, "nouveaux." Temporary hangover from the official prohibition of all things French.

PS Another David,

I don't know if you are new to the internets, a rather magnificent network of hollow tubes. But the term for a "parody person" is "troll"

Just being helpful!

You're welcome in advance!

So, RKA, how are the approximately 800 voters who comprise the PA branch of operation chaos going to a "significant Limbaugh effect" on the Dem primary? Are they all uber-alpha types who will lead marches in the streets and preach to gatherings of thousands in public squares? Otherwise, the math just doesn't work, does it?

The Page, CNN, Yahoo, NYT--all have Clinton's Wright comments in more prominent position than the sniper lie, or the latter is absent from their main pgs. entirely.

Jay Newton-Small:
Interesting link above--how come this isn't factored in when journalists talk about Clinton's great win in Ohio??

Another David,

Where are you getting these exceedingly precise numbers? I mean, was there a poll done, or are you just being a "parody person?"

Sincerely,
one of many Pauls

This is bad news for Democrats, clearly.

I'm worried about JNS and AMC. I mean, this is cool and all, them feeling comfortable picking on Sen Clinton. She is, after all, a demon. What happens if, come the general, they fall under the spell of Sen McCain's manly charms. I believe AMC has already swooned on national TV a time or two. I think it's a bad idea to encourage this sort of unprofessionalism, even when it feels good. Maybe, especially when it feels good.

By the way if 64% of the party switches occur in those counties that hold roughly 64% of the state's population, is that "interesting"? JNS says it is, I wonder why.

RKA, I had been hearing that Limbaugh might come under investigation for voter fraud:

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=222094

Hope it happens. Limbaugh has gotten a free pass on hate far too long.

That oxycontin moron, er, oxymoron contin, er whatever...

Another David:

Do you have a source for these numbers? They seem very low. I've heard 12,000 documented crossovers in the Cleveland area alone. Most quote much, MUCH higher numbers than yours.

Oregon JC,

Didn't you know that when the Clintons want a story spiked, whether it is from the pages of GQ or the leads of the evening news casts or the internets, the media dutifully complies?

We've seen this movie before, my friend.

The Clinton-Media-Industrial-Complex decided that they had to limit the Bosnia feeding frenzy and go back to Wright.

It's only fair, you know?

RKA & Oregon JC - the top two Clinton stories circulating right now are about her comparison of a prominent black preacher to Don Imus and her being caught in a lie about her "experience." If she really did say what she said about Wright to try to push the Bosnia "mis-spoke" off the front pages, she's not as bright as I'd given her credit for. It's only half effective, and the cure is not that much better than the disease.

Hillary has to win PA by a landslide to keep any justification for her campaign alive. Even Democrats who are very anti-Wright aren't going to like seeing her resort to an ersatz "Southern strategy." No voter in Pennsylvania who would be persuaded by these comments was going to vote Obama anyway. In contrast, she has further alienated black voters and probably not a few whites who felt Obama has addressed this issue and it was time to move on. The best she could have hoped for is to damage Obama slightly more than she damages herself - a very dumb strategy.

Thank-you JNS for a very well-done, fact-based and cliche-free overview of the situation in Pennsylvania.

I would still prefer that Time covered less of the horse race and more of the substance, but given your brief, I thought it was done as well as could be done.

Would like to hear some of your speculation on the dynamics behind the new registrations.

It really doesn't matter how bad or good Wright is, anyway.

The marker for hypocrisy is clear: If Obama doesn't get a pass on guilt by association, when Hillary has, and McCain has, that's on hypocrite territory. When he gets the same treatment as them, then we can say things have a modicum of fairness.

He comments are hypocritical because they can apply just as easily to her and Ferraro. Her attempt to dodge it by the caveat about "...choosing your pastor..." is nothing more than a weak attempt to avoid classification as a hypocrite, and ignores the fact that Wright was a father figure in Obama's life, in EXACT accordance of the claim she made about not being able to choose your family.

Because Hillary has elected to sing in the same chorus as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, she is a fair target for accusations of demagaguery (spelling?).

The "Enemy of My Enemy is My Freind" philosphy so alive in the Hillary camp is leading her down paths she never should have taken.

Hillary believes patching things up with Black voters is a bridge she'll cross when she gets to it, appearantly, AFTER she kills their newest hero. A lot of Hillarites are deluding themselves on this too.

I think, when she finally wanders over to the THAT yawning canyon in her political landscape, she'll find them on the other side, laughing at her. Hell, they just might build a bridge for McCain, given it will a choice between one demogague and another.

AND, I just don't see the younger voters getting excited over a 60 something women with a sly tongue and a questionable sense of honesty.

The feminists may gather around her, but even the feminists must realize that you can't just trade one form of bigotry for another and then sit smugly and try to rationalize away the whole thing.

In November, she will pay the piper. As far as I am concerned, until the Democratic party purges itself of racial hypocracy, I might just join them in building a bridge for McCain!

"He comments ..." should read "Her comments ..."

BTW, for the all hate Hillary all the time group -- I know you have a hard time extending any fairness to her, but it seems to me she could have confused these incidents when she spoke about her trip to Bosnia.

"Here is an AP story from March 1996. One of the posts she visited was quite dangerous. Trying to make mountain out of a molehill?

-------------------
…She did visit two outposts outside of the base camp in Tuzla without
the celebrities there for the USO tour.

Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a
military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal
"thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
…
But this was a day of celebration and celebrities - a day for the U.S.
troops helping to uphold the Bosnian peace accord. Mrs. Clinton hosted
a USO show with comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow and briefly
addressed the gathering.
…
But the highlight of her trip were visits to two fortified posts
outside the U.S. base in Tuzla. Even President Clinton, restricted to
the base by bad weather in January, did not see as much of this
war-wracked region as Mrs. Clinton did Monday.
…
Riflemen rushed to the brush line as the helicopter landed and
surrounded her as she walked into the post. Located in a "separation
zone," the U.S. outpost nestles between two tree lines. Just months
ago, one was Serbian territory, the other Bosnian.

Security was tight - fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to
Tuzla - but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks
on the trip.
Lexis - By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press, March 25, 1996

No extraordinary risks, but I would tend to remember that level of security and it's TWELVE years later with many trips before and since.

But, nevermind, no breaks for Hillary.

ivb:

It's ok. She doesn't deserve any.

BTW, why don't YOU advise her on how to make up to the voters she tossed under the RR Tracks, eh?

But, then again, hypocrites can only remain hypocrites as long as they are blind to the facts, such as the very inconvenient fact that Ferraro is a racist.

Oops! There I go again, bringing up the past! I know, I know, she's ALREADY gotten a pass on this, so WHY keep digging it up!

Eh, hypocrite?

Hypocrisy = insincerity. I'm not insincere. I try to be fair and look at facts and what people really say. When I pointed out above the fact that there was a reasonable explanation for the Hillary / Bosnia story, you changed the subject. That seems to me that you are the one being "blind to the facts."

You keep bringing up Geraldine Ferraro. What happened was that she was giving an interview to a reporter from a small paper in Torrance CA about a speech she was going to give in the area. Unfortunately that interview is no longer available without charge, but I read it (and posted it in a comment here) when it came out. In the third paragraph she said she thought that he wouldn't be where he was in THIS campaign if he weren't black. She also said in the next paragraph that if she were not a woman, she would not have been chosen by Mondale. Don't you agree that is true? What happened next was that someone took that sentence wrote a Daily Kos diary about it and it became a racist hallmark. You don't think that Obama chose this as a good year to run because he thought he would take the African American vote away from Hillary? I don't think that is evil (as you would if it related to Hillary), I think it is just politics.

Below is Bob Somerby's take on the Ferraro incident.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031408.shtml

"this is part of what Geraldine Ferraro was talking about in Jim Farber’s Daily Breeze profile. You know? In the parts of Farber’s profile which everyone knew to ignore? Why was Ferraro feeling “emotional” about the current campaign? She explained: "For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media.”

Other statements by Ferraro were, at least, clumsily worded. By contrast, these statements were perfectly accurate—and by some peculiar act of agreement, they were completely ignored.

For ourselves, we wouldn’t say that any of this was necessarily worth discussing; Ferraro was a minor player speaking to a very minor newspaper. But like that Ingrid Bergman character, we can sometimes read a tell—and yesterday, the tell was quite obvious. It’s not unlike what Ferraro may have been saying: Our pundit culture is very careful about issues of race (good). But then, it seems to feel quite free to gender-trash certain women. Indeed, watchdogs don’t even seem to see such conduct when it occurs.

Many boys in the pseudo-liberal world tolerated this for more than a year. This week, these fellows have been crying real tears about Ferraro’s poorly-worded statements. They also knew which of her statements to skip right past as they composed their high-minded briefs. Fellows like this have always been with us. On Thursday, they gave us a tell."

----The Media and all the other Party's is Laughing and Talking about US----

FIGHTING AND DIVIDING over OBAMA and HILLARY---

NEITHER is PERFECT...

Yet WE are acting like WE don't have GOOD SENSE

---- ---THINK---THINK--- DO YOU HATE each OTHER that much that you will allow MCcain/the Republican to WIN----

Do YOU hate the U.S. that much that You are willing to DESTROY the U.S.A. with 4 MORE YRS. with ANOTHER Bush----

COME TOGETHER---and THINK---STOP letting the MEDIA PLAY US---

VOTE Democratic---NO MATTER WHAT---PROVE THEM WRONG--

IF WE LOSE--- DON'T COMPLAIN WHEN THINGS GET WORSE---

No, ivb:

Hypocrisy is clearly demarcated. Clearly explained.

You can attack Obama on his taxes, his platform, his ideas, his mistakes, etc. Fair enough and fair game.

BUT, when you don't give him the same pass Hillary got, or McCain got on guilt by association, particularly when the other voices ARE racists (Ferraro is a racist, a real one.), then sincere or not, your unwillingness to give Obama a pass on this is hypocrisy.

You cannot avoid it.

You see, ivb, I can even give you, for the sake of argument, that Wright is as bad as you wish to characterize him, but:

My point STILL stands. It really DOESN'T matter even what kind of indiviual Wright is.

Neither side will have enough votes to clinch the nomination without the "superdelegates", and we all know they can change their vote right up to the time of the vote at the convention. But is everyone aware that the "pledged" delegates can also change their votes "in all good conscience". Or are we going to reinstate the ROBOT RULE from the 1980 convention?

You see, ivb, I can even give you, for the sake of argument, that Wright is as bad as you wish to characterize him, but:

My point STILL stands. It really DOESN'T matter even what kind of indiviual Wright is.

53_2 -- I know this is a dead thread, but ... if nothing else, this shows why there is no point in having a discussion with you. I did not say one word about Wright. You are too eager to rant about your side without even listening to what others have to say. I spoke only about Hillary and Bosnia and Geraldine Ferraro, trying to point out what she actually said. As to Rev. Wright, I would say the same thing about him as I did about Ferraro. His words were taken out of context and mercilessly used by partisans.