Operation Crackpot: Part II

Myth #7 (continued).  While the Democratic Party has been attracting new registrants around the country at a record pace, some say the new registrants are just Republicans looking to thwart the Democratic nomination.

This week TPM published a piece by Jim Sleeper which states that, in a Pittsburgh Post-Tribune editorial, right wing noisemaker Richard Mellon-Scaife's endorsement of Senator Clinton was the beacon that summoned Republicans to re-register and vote for her in the Democratic Primary.

There's just one problem with this theory.  Mellon-Scaife's editorial ran on March 30th.  The voter registration deadline for the Pennsylvania primary was March 24th.

Comments

[J S]

Not so fast, that's a red herring of an argument...

Mr. Super:

What is the feeling among Supers about the possible effects of Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos"? Indiana has lots of Republicans, a.. 'unique' history of race relations, and an open primary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/17/many_voting_for_clinton_to_boost_gop/

"For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042402978.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"One little-noticed finding was that 6 percent of Clinton's own voters said that they would defect to John McCain in the fall against Clinton herself. These Pennsylvania Democrats clearly were not Clinton enthusiasts. They were voting against Obama."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Since "Operation Chaos" likely prolonged Sen. Clinton's campaign in both Texas and now Pennsylvania, I think the media is too shallow to look beyond simple vote totals.

[J S]

Red herring, meaning that it sounds like you might be painting over the whole "Rush Republican" issue as totally invalid, because Scaife endorsed after the registration deadline.

Scaife is just part of the "Right Wing for Hillary" brigade that's popped up since McCain functionally wrapped up the Republican nomination well before Texas. It's a legitimate issue that needs to be discussed if the Democratic party wants a legitimate nominee in August.

[Mr Super]

In my original Myth #7, I wrote about how Operation Chaos is really Rush Limbaugh's attempt to try to undermine the increase in Democratic voter registration totals. As I mentioned in that post, if Rush was really so influential, then why did the Republican he beat up so much end up getting the GOP nomination? It sounds to me like Republicans don't actually follow his lead.

As for the 6% number, it's hardly convincing to me.

I'm just not that willing to let Republicans try and take credit for the advances that the Democrats have made over the past year. I've worked too hard and have been tied too close to our organizing efforts to know better.

[J S]

6% would not have swung Pennsylvania to Sen. Obama, but it would have changed the media narrative substantially. This is based on exit polls for people that said they voted for Sen. Clinton, but would vote for Sen. McCain in the general election - even if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

There's a post over at Daily Kos that figures by taking that 6%, and applying the same standard to Sen. Obama's Republican vote (the effect is about 1/4 the size), the "10-point win" (actually 9.2%) would have ended up 54-46.

If you watched any of the media coverage, it was all about "can Clinton get double digits to stay alive?". Under their simple reporting, people think she did that, which just coincidentally keeps the battle/drama going another two weeks.

I feel there is ample opportunity and incentive for Republicans to cross over and impact the Indiana primary. If this turns out to be the case, (and is underreported) the pundits are going to go nuclear with "Obama can't win blue-collar states", and try to keep this going all the way to Denver.

Apparently you don't feel there is any need to worry - but would you be able to characterize if that is a typical Superdelegate opinion?

It may not turn out to be a problem, but to deny even the possibility outright seems cavalier. As always, your thoughts are appreciated, whether I agree with you or not.

[Kasturba]

Mr. Super,

I agree with you that there is a great increase in the Democratic rolls. And the republicans can't take credit for that (except for making so many people unhappy that they have switched sides). Which is why open primaries in the early stages were useful. They captured a part of the unhappy population that wanted to move over.

But I also don't think it is possible to dismiss Operation Chaos completely. It seems like this whole primary would have been over if Texas had not gone the way it did. And exit polls from there at least suggest that those crucial few percentage points might have been part of operation chaos.

Furthermore, everybody claims that Indiana is going to be really close. And it is an open primary. Doesn't that mean exactly that some folks can cause chaos by going over and making the close race swing one way or the other?

I do agree that the percentage of folks who are doing this are quite small. But maybe just enough to cause this interminable primary to never end.

[Mr Super]

My position is not cavalier. It is one based in reality because of what I do for a living. As I mentioned in my previous post on this topic, I have quite a bit of experience with polling and public opinion.

Six percent is a statistical margin of error.

I cannot speak for all Supers on this subject, but I can speak from my own experience.

Republicans re-registering as Democrats to intervene in a nomination produces short-term gains but long-term problems. Because if the GOP cannot identify who its hardcore supporters are (because they are now on the rolls with several million other Democrats), then how do they mobilize their base? This is an organizational nightmare for them.

As I mentioned earlier - Rush Limbaugh was John McCain's biggest critic, and could not mobilize Republicans to vote for another Republican.

So we're supposed to believe that he's able to mobilize them to vote for Democrats?

Smoke and mirrors, folks.

[Cranky Kate]

Mr. Super, you're right, and we should stop letting him take all of the credit! Here's part of a quote from one switcher:
"...I am one of the individuals that changed his/her party registration from Republican to Democrat...
"It is cute that Limbaugh saw that the electorate is upset with the Republicans and made up this Operation Chaos as a means of attempting to jump on the band wagon, but the underlying effect is clear. People are not changing from Republican to Democrat to assist the Republican Party in the fall. They are changing their party registrations because they lost faith in the Republicans to lead."

Whole post here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/operation-smoke.html

[Patrick]

Rush Limbaugh didn't even have enough sway over Republicans to influence the REPUBLICAN primary (he wouldn't have picked McCain). Why should I believe that he has any influence over the DEMOCRATIC primary.

This race is going on because we have two extraordinary candidates who each bring record-breaking numbers of voters to the polls. The vast majority of those voters will vote for the eventual Democratic nominee.

Operation Chaos, indeed.

[suekzoo]

Mr. Super,

I am not questioning your experience at all, or your position, and do believe that Operation Chaos is MOSTLY an urban legend.

But I do have a question.

If hardcore Republicans switched parties to create chaos, why would the Republican party have to go looking for their base? Wouldn't those "hardcore" types self-identify in some way like by making a campaign contribution or re-registering?

[Joe]

Someone posted this on the last story:
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/superdelegates.html

Mr. Super, what do you think of the idea of having undeclared SDs trickle in between the last two contests so that the Oregon voters are seen to put the candidate over the top?

It would make a lot of sense, IMHO, given the crazy way the media has been reporting things.

[Mr Super]

suekzoo - the hardcore Republicans probably would register back, but they no sense of urgency to do it until the fall elections. So there's no way the GOP can effectively communicate with them between now and then.

Joe - the premise of the Oregon idea is that 99 of the undeclared Supers will support it. At this point that seems like herding cats!

[Elizabeth]

You do have to see there is the slightest chance that Operation Chaos came into play in Buck County in Pennsylvania. The county switched from Republican to Democrat and everybody thought it was for Obama...and then it went for Hillary...is there any probable explanation except Operation Chaos...and Rush Limbaugh?

[Voter New]

I am 44 years old, live in Indiana, and have never voted in my life. I don't like JM but BO scares me and HC healthcare is scary. So it has to be JM...so I'm Chaos-ing and voting in the primary for HC. I work at a TV station and there is talk that Chaos may have a real impact in Indiana.

[AntonioMaceo]

Mr. Super, thanks for your insightful posts. Can you please post you opinions on the recent comments by Rep Jim Clyburn regarding the primary. In particular, I am interested in what message you believe he is trying to send by making such a public statement. thanks.

[Joe]

Scared is the wrong thing to be, Voter New. It makes you easy to control. Do you like being controlled by others? With any luck, that should scare you into thinking for yourself or paralyze you so that you don't vote on an irrational basis.

I'm the opposite, though. I'm not even 30, but I've never missed a vote for anything whatsoever, not even the mine inspector. I used to be a partisan Republican, but I just can't support what they've done in good conscience. And then Obama comes from nowhere with some of the most sensible policies I've seen from anyone, especially his tech policy. McCain doesn't have a clue there, Hillary's plan was misguided, and the GOP is so desperate, they had to try and float some ridiculous story about Laurence Lessig mentioning someone who made a video with a dancing Jesus or something in it that was supposed to be sacrilegious. I've been online long enough to remember when there was nothing but web pages of dancing Jesuses, but I've never seen a decent tech policy from a politician in recent memory. Well, Al Gore did pretty well in hindsight, but I wasn't voting yet at the time.

Anyhow, it looks like the 'chaos' story is picking up, though, now there's this new angle:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/us/politics/26ticket.html?ref=politics

With any luck, that will backfire on them. But maybe Rove is better at scaring people than I know...

[Laura]

Mr. Super, with respect, I understand your opinion on the Limbaugh effect, but I strongly disagree.

I live in Austin, TX, a liberal oasis in this very red state. In the two weeks leading up to our primary/caucus, not a day went by that I didn't personally hear Limbaugh voters talking about what they were doing. It was loud, obvious snickering and gloating, and I heard it at the grocery store, at school at my child's music studio, the post office, etc.

I voted on the first day of early voting. I stood in line for about 20 minutes. There were two separate groups of Limbaugh voters, seven people total out of about 60, openly talking and laughing about how they were "screwing the Democrats". I didn't get the impression any of them gave a whit about McCain, they just seemed to be energized by their power to mess with someone else.

My husband voted on election day and came back ranting about the Limbaugh voters he encountered. I don't know how many there were, but apparently there were people who challenged them and voices were raised.

I took my mother to vote that same day at a different location. The young man in front of her asked for a Democratic ballot, turned to the Republican pollworker and apologized, saying normally he'd vote Republican, but he was "doing the Limbaugh". The pollworker jokingly said that his job had been easy that day because all his business was going to the Democratic pollworker.

None of the Limbaugh voters I encountered appeared to be party activists. Almost all I would have pegged as fairly low income, low information voters. Every single one was white and male.

Later on election day, I went to my precinct convention (what the rest of the country is calling our caucus). As I'm sure you're aware, the ratios of Obama and Clinton supporters were quite different there from those recorded in the primary. I didn't notice any Limbaugh voters at the caucus. Hmmm. It's patently obvious to voters like me why Clinton won the primary and Obama won the caucus.

I also have two acquaintances, both Catholic, who voted for Obama in the primary and have said they will vote for McCain in the GE. Both like Obama and prefer him to Clinton, should a Democrat win the GE, but they are single-issue voters and will pull the lever for McCain because he opposed abortion, though they find him quite distasteful otherwise.

Just as a side note, voters in closed primary states who switch registrations for the primary don't have to switch their registration back to vote in the general election. GEs are not partisan - anyone can vote for anyone, no matter how they're registered. Yes, it's unhelpful to the party if they don't, but I really don't think Limbaugh gives a @#$% about that, do you?

[Kasturba]

I totally agree with Joe. Obama's stand on tech, media, ethics are all really good and why I am voting for him (I am a registered republican, but they have disillusioned me as a party. I gave them 8 years, and they had their chance. The Clintons had the 8 years before that. Time for new blood).

[Joe]

Technically, I'm *still* a registered Republican. But that's because I've been too lazy to switch registrations, and going Independent only means I can't vote in primaries here. It's better if I stay "republican" if in name only so that I can pick the least bad among them. And as far as mobilization, I'm on Obama's donor list, so that shouldn't hurt anything either. He's got quite the online setup. It's clear how well he understands the organizational power of the internet.

But it's not chaos or anything like that which gets me to vote for him, I chose Obama because I like where he stands on almost all the issues and I can't stand where McCain is on some ("let's let the free market sort out natural monopolies like internet service! and forget about the billions we gave the telecoms for stuff we never got! it'll work out great... for telecom executives.").

For all that talk about whether Obama is patriot enough, the Bush administration sure has no compunction about out-and-out violating the Constitution. But then, I report on online civil liberties issues, so it's not like I can fail to notice things like the abuse of the states secrets privilege, warrantless wiretapping, let alone all the other unconstitutionally excessive extensions of executive power.

Fortunately, Obama actually knows constitutional law. He taught it. I wish he'd give Bush some lessons...

I just went really far offtopic, didn't I? Sorry.

[Susan]

Mr. Super, I feel I must share my thoughts on this matter...I do so will all deep respect for your service...truly I do...but I feel compelled to speak...
Operation chaos,or so it has been called, is another important reason why I feel that a decision should be made sooner rather than later. If you think for one minute that the right is not taking advantage of our own chaos, you are not seeing the whole picture...Today we have a democratic nominee who is cheering the right wing chaos makers and right wing press on..she has become their main cheerleader....then goes on to excuse herself saying that that this is small change compared to what will happen in the general election...
My answer to that is this...why then, are you doing this now to a member of your own party? Is this some sort of sick initiation? There is nothing to conclude then, she is out to kneecap a fellow democrat...as far as I am concerned, that goes to show you what Clinton thinks of her own political party.
I would be a shame, a real shame if this party sits back and watches her destroy the a candidate and her own party...and that is what she is doing....
Her behavior has been nothing short of bizarre, and it has shown me that Clinton does not deserve to hold this nations highest office. She has demonstrated a total lack of integrity and honesty...
I for one will stay home on election day if McCain and Hillary are on the ballot, I couldn't vote for 2 people who don't have the integrity to hold the highest office. I will crawl back into my cave and give up..because for one brief shining moment I had thought that this country might have a chance to restore itself to some semblance of the great nation it used to be...Perhaps people might say I am being unpatriotic in my thinking or potential future action...nothing could be further from the truth...I ache for what we have lost as a nation, I long for that spirit to return..but today as I sit back and watch the Clinton's make a mockery of the political process I weep

[rubadubdub]

I'm a 40 year old Libertarian from Michigan and here is my promise: If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him proudly. If it's Clinton, I will vote Libertarian.

I've never voted for a Democrat in my life. You have a 50/50 chance of getting my vote this time around. Don't screw it up!

[eagleye]

Not sure if this news is already out there in blogistan, but here it is. Another SD for Obama-

http://thepage.time.com/...

[Trust]

First off; all of you saying you will not vote for Clinton/Obama if your candidate does not win the nomination, you are a disgrace. I’ve felt compelled to reply for political advantage, but we need honesty and unity. Those saying these things are the same type of people that allowed Bush to enter office in the first place. Claiming lesser of two evils Gore v. Bush back then would show how wrong you were in hindsight.

With Gore v. Bush & Kerry v. Bush in mind, please go to www.electoral-vote.com to deal with some facts.

Another fact is that the Republican infiltration into the primaries theory is just that. North Carolina would swing by a huge margin for Clinton if that was the case.

[Alicia]

Mr. Super:

There's a new article in Huffington Post stating that Howard Dean believes that one of the candidates needs to drop out of the race in June.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/howard-dean-obama-or-clin_n_98916.html

I've heard many people say that this should not go to the convention, but this seems to be one of the most strongest comments I have heard. Mr. Super, do you agree with this? Also, are you as optimistic as Howard Dean is that one of the candidates will not need "pushing" to drop out; that they will know when it's their time to go?

As for me, I'm certainly not as optimistic as Howard Dean is, considering the candidate who is losing the battle has repeatedly vowed to "fight all the way to the convention if necessary." What are your thoughts?

[=j]

My own personal anecdotes come in two flavors. Some of my Republican friends voted for Hillary because they thought she was the weaker candidate (I don't think this was directly Limbaugh inspired). An equal portion voted for Obama because they saw the Texas primary as their "only chance" to vote against Hillary.

[Sharon]

Sorry eagleye. If Hillary Clinton wins this, I will not vote for her. She's more of a Republican than a Democrat. I do not trust one single word out of her mouth. She's racist, untruthful, deceitful, underhanded and corrupt.

What part of no did I miss? If the supers support her after this smear campaign, then I'm no longer a Democrat either. I'm white and it's been perfectly clear to me what's happening here.