The 'Bogus' Democratic Primary Vote

[Democratic Hawk]

From what I can ascertain from the Pennsylvania primary (April 22) through to the Montana and South Dakota primaries (June 3), exit pollsters asked Democratic primary voters how they would vote in November be it Clinton vs McCain or Obama vs McCain and found evidence of 'bogus' voting, especially for Clinton

Pennsylvania

Total ballots cast: 2,307,759

1. Clinton 82% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 31% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.31x 0.10 = 0.031 x 2,307,759 = 71,541 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 73% - McCain 15%. Of that 15%, 10% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.10 x 0.15 = 0.015 x 2,307,759 = 34,616 'bogus' votes

Indiana

Total ballots cast: 1,278,268

1. Clinton 73% - McCain 16%. Of that 16%, 41% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.41 x 0.16 = 0.0656 x 1,278,268 = 83,854 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 71% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 12% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.12 x 0.18 = 0.216 x 1,278,268 = 27,611 'bogus' votes

North Carolina

Total ballots cast: 1,593,335

1. Clinton 75% - McCain 14%. Of that 14%, 48% votef for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.48 x 0.14 = 0.0672 x 1,593,335 = 107,072 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 74% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 10% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.10 x 0.18 = 0.018 x 1,593,335 = 28,680 'bogus' votes

West Virginia

Total ballots cast: 357,031

1. Clinton 74% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 38% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.38 x 0.18 = 0.0684 x 357,031 = 24,421 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 49% - McCain 29%. Of that 29%, 7% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.07 x 0.29 = 0.0203 x 357,031 = 7,248 'bogus' votes

Kentucky

Total ballots cast: 700,855

1. Clinton 77% - McCain 16%. Of that 16%, 55% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.55 x 0.16 = 0.088 x 700,855 = 61,675 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 50% - McCain 32%. Of that 32%, 7% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.07 x 0.32 = 0.0224 x 700,855 = 15,699 'bogus' votes

Oregon

Total ballots cast: 636,140

1. Clinton 85% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 25% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.25 x 0.10 = 0.025 x 636,140 = 15,904 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 83% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 10% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.10 x 0.10 = 0.01 x 636,140 = 6,361 'bogus' votes

Montana

Total ballots cast: 181,423

1. Clinton 73% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 27% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.27 x 0.18 = 0.0486 x 181,423 = 8,817 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 78% - McCain 16%. Of that 16%, 26% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.26 x 0.16 = 0.0416 x 181,423 = 7,547 'bogus' votes

South Dakota

Total ballots cast: 97,905

1. Clinton 84% - McCain 9%. Of that 9%, 29% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.29 x 0.09 = 0.261 x 97,905 = 2,555 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 78% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 9% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.09 x 0.10 = 0.009 x 97,905 = 881 'bogus' votes

Total

Clinton: 375,839 'bogus' votes

Obama: 128,643 'bogus' votes

What is most telling is that given Clinton beat Obama by 14,198 votes in Indiana, these 'bogus' votes enabled her to pull out a win.

Are these findings evidence of 'Operation Chaos'? Did Limbaugh succeed in prolonging the Democratic primary to the end?

Dave

[Alcon]

This is actually quite interesting.  I've been waiting for someone to do it.  Thanks.

[Torie]

It is interesting, but I don't know what "bogus" means. SD was a closed primary for example. And maybe some Dems had McCain as their first choice, and one of the Dems as their second choice. Does that make them bogus?  And even where Republicans were voting in open primaries, maybe they were really voting for their second choice, rather than trying to create mischief. All of this is not in my little opinion a good proxy for the efficacy of "operation chaos," which I think was mostly hype myself. But hey, I am open to being further enlightened!

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd say a fair number are democrats who genuinely prefer McCain. However, a fair number are also, Republicans trying to get back at the Clintons and Operation Chaos participants. It could also be evidence that Clinton supporters are more alientated from Obama than Obama supporters are from Clinton.

[Jacobtm]

There have been many registered Democrats who've voted for Republican candidates, some 30% of Kentucky Democrats voted for Bush in '04.

[Nym90]

Calling them "bogus" votes is going a tad far, but it's as close as we can come to quantifying the effects of the "Republicans for Clinton" drive.

Standard caveats about exit polling applies, of course.....namely that people aren't always overtly honest.

Would be interesting especially to see if the percentage of people who voted for Clinton in the primary but said they'd vote for McCain over Clinton in the general increased in the later primaries versus the earlier primaries, and if so, by how much.

[Beet]

Fantastic number crunching, Demo Hawk. But like the typical member of the amateur political class, you draw the most superficial conclusions from the quick and dirty analysis, which just happens to fit the corporate, media narrative.

(1) There is no evidence that the pattern you are pointing to is a result of 'Operation Chaos'. All you have are McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama matchups and the number of people who voted for the candidate they did not support in November. To find actual casual evidence, you would have to interview the people and specifically ask whether they were aware of such an 'operation' and whether their vote was due to it. I suspect that if you did, most of the 'bogus' voters you 'identify' would not be aware of the term and if aware of it, they would not have heard it from Limbaugh but from a MSM source.

The counter-theory to Operation Chaos is that the meme was promoted by media outlets with much broader reach than Rush Limbaugh, such as CNN and MSNBC, as well as by Obama supporters, to undercut the legitimacy of Senator Clinton's support. The idea was to get it into the heads of loyal Democrats that they ought not to vote for Hillary even if she was their choice because doing so would be aiding the Republicans & Limbaugh (as absurd as that is); as well as demoralize Clinton supporters from volunteering. In short, the media was attempting to tell Democrats how to vote. There is no way of measuring such an effect from your analysis.

(2) The much bigger and more significant number, which is the fact that Hillary performed better than McCain in every single matchup in the states you listed except Montana, is conveniently ignored, even though the data is plainly out there for all to see.

(3) The reasons for the above should be all quite obvious. Hillary was supported by more conservative, and lower income Democrats. It makes sense that, given (a) the Democratic nominee has a significant chance at winning the nomination, and (b) you do not want Obama to become President, and (c) the Democratic primary is still contested while the Republican primary is not, (d) those who prefer McCain > Clinton > Obama will rationally vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. This is no fake vote. These people genuinely prefer Hillary to Obama, which is the matter at stake on the ballot.

[Mr. Morden]

Right, as others have said, you have to differentiate between two different kinds of "mischief":

Type 1: Voters whose top choice is McCain, but whose second choice is (say) Clinton.  They truly prefer Clinton to Obama, and since the GOP nomination race is already decided, they'll cast their vote in the Democratic primary to help Clinton get the Dem. nom., because they genuinely think she'd be a better president than Obama (though they'd still prefer McCain to either one of them).  Whether this even counts as "mischief" is debatable.

Type 2: Voters who vote for Clinton specifically because it either draws out the Democratic nomination fight or because they think she'd be easier to beat than Obama.  Either way, the goal is to weaken the Dems' chances in November, not to pick which of Clinton or Obama they think would be the best president.  Votes cast for this reason aren't necessarily being cast as some part of organized effort like Operation Chaos.  Plenty of people would think to do this on their own.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Right, as others have said, you have to differentiate between two different kinds of "mischief":

Type 1: Voters whose top choice is McCain, but whose second choice is (say) Clinton.  They truly prefer Clinton to Obama, and since the GOP nomination race is already decided, they'll cast their vote in the Democratic primary to help Clinton get the Dem. nom., because they genuinely think she'd be a better president than Obama (though they'd still prefer McCain to either one of them).  Whether this even counts as "mischief" is debatable.

Type 2: Voters who vote for Clinton specifically because it either draws out the Democratic nomination fight or because they think she'd be easier to beat than Obama.  Either way, the goal is to weaken the Dems' chances in November, not to pick which of Clinton or Obama they think would be the best president.  Votes cast for this reason aren't necessarily being cast as some part of organized effort like Operation Chaos.  Plenty of people would think to do this on their own.

I agree with all of this.

I think the way certain people have been discounting a wad of Clinton's supporters may come back to haunt us.

[Democratic Hawk]

(2) The much bigger and more significant number, which is the fact that Hillary performed better than McCain in every single matchup in the states you listed except Montana, is conveniently ignored, even though the data is plainly out there for all to see.

I'm not disputing that; but it was not my objective

My objective was to ascertain those who voted in the Democratic primary for either Clinton or Obama but would not support their chosen candidate in the fall against McCain - and 74.45% of them were cast for Clinton

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point, of course, is that it is, fundamentally, disingenous for any voter to cast a ballot for a candidate in a Democratic primary when they have no intention of supporting that candidate in the general against McCain

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the way certain people have been discounting a wad of Clinton's supporters may come back to haunt us.

I'm not discounting Clinton supporters. My objective was to ascertain the extent to which those who voted for both Clinton and Obama yet would not vote their chosen candidate against McCain in November

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the way certain people have been discounting a wad of Clinton's supporters may come back to haunt us.

I'm not discounting Clinton supporters. My objective was to ascertain the extent to which those who voted for both Clinton and Obama yet would not vote their chosen candidate against McCain in November

Dave

I wasn't commenting specifically - what I was saying is that even if we can siphon off a few republicans who are sick and tired of the way things are, we win.

Big deal if Hillary sucked up some voters who have no intention of voting for a Democrat against McCain - but even if a few so, it's a huge victory.

There's a consituency of moderate/conservative democrats who feel they've been forced out of the party - and for the Obama supporters to have lambasted them (or anyone who didn't support their candidate) as bigotted rednecks kind of defeats the purpose.

The Clinton voters (as difficult as this might be to handle) are the constituencies who abandoned Gore and especially Kerry. Women, latinos, white-working class voters. These are valuable votes to win, and Obama is going to have to work INCREDIBLY hard to get them back.

[Democratic Hawk]

There's a consituency of moderate/conservative democrats who feel they've been forced out of the party - and for the Obama supporters to have lambasted them (or anyone who didn't support their candidate) as bigotted rednecks kind of defeats the purpose.

And therein lies my next objective to ascertain the extent to which Democratic primary voters broke along ideological lines for Obama and Clinton. My objective being, of course, to refute the argument that Obama swept among liberals, with moderate and conservative primary voters overwhelmingly favoring Clinton

It is only too apparent that certain demographics tilted heavily towards one candidate or the other but were they polarised along ideological lines?

What I've ascertained thus far is:

1. Very liberal: Obama - 23 states (ranging from +4 in CT to +44 in MS); Clinton - 13 states (ranging from +2 in TX to +49 in WV); Tied - 3 states

2. Somewhat liberal: Obama - 19 states (ranging from +5 in CT to +41 in GA); Clinton - 19 states (ranging from +3 in TX to +48 in AR); Tied - 1 state

3. Moderate: Obama - 17 states (ranging from +2 in IA to +40 in GA); Clinton - 22 states (ranging from +1 in MO, TX to +46 in AR, WV)

4. Conservative: Obama - 15 states (ranging from +1 in FL to +49 in VA); Clinton - 19 states (ranging from +1 in OK to +55 in KY); Edwards - 1 state (IA +20); Tied - 1 state; No data - 3 states

I'll do it regionally: Central, North-Central, Northeast, South and West

I don't know about moderates and conservatives, as a constituency, feeling forced out of the party but, on first glance, it seems that a lot of moderates and conservatives cast votes for Obama. Not to mention the fact that both candidates secured congressional and gubernatorial endorsements from across the spectrum

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These aren't voters that Obama has necessarily lost. These are voting constituencies who prefered Clinton to Obama in a Democratic primary. It's Democrat vs Republican from hereon

I'm optimistic that in time Obama's 'visionaries' and Clinton's 'substantialists' can coalesce, for the most part, around his candidacy

Clinton swept Appalachia despite the fact that she is no more culturally populist than Obama, in no small part, because Clinton waged a substance-based campaign, which resonated much more strongly among white working class Democrats than Obama's more visionary-based campaign, which appealed to more upscale and higher educated white Democrats

And what these 'wavering' white working class Democrats need to know is that a President Barack Obama would be as much for their interests as a President Hillary Clinton would be and that is,  inevitably, going to require more policy substance from Obama on the issues that matter to these voters

Dave

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hmm...

Either you're very optimistic... or I'm a horrible pessimist.

These are not voting groups that Obama lost - these are crucial voting blocs that Gore was losing and Kerry lost.

The Republicans have had the amazing capacity to convince people to vote against their interests.

I'm not saying he can't win them - but he needs one mother of a PR campaign to show people he's not what he's being presented as.

What hasn't helped was the dismissive attitude of many during the primaries. These are groups that decide the election. He built a rock-solid primary base... Clinton went GE from the start... which did her in - now Obama has to win them over.

[Democratic Hawk]

Either you're very optimistic... or I'm a horrible pessimist.

I'm somewhat optimistic that Obama could, potentially, bring more into his Democratic coalition as the general election campaign moves forward. Am I confident that he'll win? Not at all. Far from it

Because as well as having, potentially, the 'wider net' (i.e. stronger appeal among Independents and cross-over Republicans), Obama could also have the 'leakier boat' (i.e. a higher risk of Democratic defections to McCain) - and it's way too soon to even begin predicting anything yet

Dave