Here's a little scorecard for you to ponder re. Spitzer: war or whore?

Yup, I do find it irritating that there are these vociferous calls to impeach Spitzer for hiring a prostitute while the calls to impeach Bush and Company for war crimes is paltry. That being said, Spitzer came in on the cleanus up ticket, and I disagree with prostitution, so her should buck up and resign. He'll be able to find a career doing something else. Will the prostitute be able to do the same?

Interesting stuff from the Dallas news article (this passage doesn't talk about the fall-off):

GOP crossover

...Although some conservative talk show hosts had urged Republicans to cross over and vote for Mrs. Clinton in order to keep the contest going, there was little evidence that happened.

According to exit polls, only 9 percent of Democratic voters statewide identified themselves as Republicans, and they went for Mr. Obama, 53 percent to 46 percent.

from race thread - OK; if you want my explanation, I'll email it in (just got the comment error and saw your comment).

Obama supporters were more likely to vote in the presidential race and then skip the other contests than Clinton supporters, who tended to continue voting down the ballot, a Dallas Morning News analysis finds.

As they suggest in the article, this phenomenon would be easily explained if they could control for age. Obama attracts younger voters, and this is probably how young, first-time voters fill out a ballot. Anyway, these observations just confirm what we already knew about young people, and they say little about other Obama voters. Not suprising stuff here, but there's potential for misleading analysis (ahem).

Ah, to be 18, and not remember things like: the soviets, the first gulf war, heck, life before terrorism threat levels... Jerry Springer chair fights...

The Limbaugh Effect in Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio

In Ohio and Texas, 9% of the voters were Republicans, and they split almost evenly between Obama and Clinton. These votes, more than doubling the percentage of Republican voters in earlier primaries, gave Hillary Clinton a big advantage since Obama typically won more than twice as many voters as she did in previous primaries. In other words, about 3% of the voters in Ohio and Texas were Republicans newly voting for Hillary Clinton out of purely tactical reasons, to try to ruin the Democratic race.

The "HillPublicans" (insincere Republicans voting for Hillary) became a much larger force in the Mississippi election. Fully 9% of the people voting in the Democratic primary were Republicans voting for Clinton. That means that almost one-quarter of Clinton’s votes in Mississippi came from Republicans, nearly all of whom hate Clinton but wanted to distort the results of the Democratic primary. By contrast, Obama’s Republican vote, at 3%, was similar to his historical average throughout the primaries.

One has to wonder why Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton 3 to 1 (75 percent) in Mississippi...

Not suprising stuff here, but there's potential for misleading analysis (ahem).

I only now noticed that Charles brought this up in another thread (look for "damning proof that many of Obama voters could care less about the Democratic Party"). For exactly the misleading analysis I hinted at, I suggest you go read his post -- and RedSeven's lucid response.

As an aside, those care-nothing voters happen largely to be the future of the political party. As curmudgeonly as that makes the rest of us feel, it's important to note that, at some point, we want them become more active in the party. Hopefully, we'll elect someone to effect that.

Norm, maybe you could add these to your list of logical fallacies.

In other news, Ferraro is leaving Clinton's campaign over those remarks. In response to Norm's question, I think they were fair, but dangerous and unavoidably speculative. Saying those things publicly was about as clever as discussing terrorist plots in the security line at the airport.

Amazing, by the way, how the media always find something other than the issues in this campaign to report on.

In Ohio and Texas, 9% of the voters were Republicans, and they split almost evenly between Obama and Clinton. These votes, more than doubling the percentage of Republican voters in earlier primaries, gave Hillary Clinton a big advantage since Obama typically won more than twice as many voters as she did in previous primaries. In other words, about 3% of the voters in Ohio and Texas were Republicans newly voting for Hillary Clinton out of purely tactical reasons, to try to ruin the Democratic race.

This is laughably inept analysis. And wrong, wrong, wrong!

Consider just Ohio for starters. If the 9% of the voters in the Democratic primary in Ohio who were Republicans were split evenly[see footnote(*) below] in their cast votes between Obama and Clinton; and if, as was the case, Clinton won handily overall (Republican voters plus non-Republican voters) in Ohio; then Clinton would have won by an even greater percentage if the Republican voters were removed from the calculation. The author cannot infer that "[t]hese votes", referring to the "9% of the voters [who] were Republicans", gave Clinton "a big advantage[.]" On the contrary, they reduced her winning margin in percentage terms, and almost certainly in terms of number of delegates.

Also, voter behavior varies from state to state and over time, and the author's extrapolation of voter behavior from previous primaries is utterly unjustified.

[...] misleading analysis (ahem).

Indeed.

————————————————————
*The spreadsheet linked to by the author shows an even (49% for Clinton and 49% for Obama) split among Republican voters in the Democratic primary for the state of Ohio. The split among Republican voters in the Democratic primary in the state of Texas is 46% for Clinton and 53% for Obama, making the author's argument even less valid for that state, if that were possible.

The difference is that Hillary is not encouraging Republicans to vote for her. Obama is asking Republicans to be "Democrats for a Day."

JoAnn, how can you suggest (one has to wonder) that Hillary is linked with Rush Limbaugh? Limbaugh has his own objectives and his are not different than the DailyKos' most asinine objective that of encouraging Democrats to cross-over and vote for Romney in the Michigan primary. I deplored that tactic then knowing full well it would come back to haunt us. It is Nixonian politics. And who has the DailyKos endorsed? Obama, my new Richard Nixon.

The evidence is overwhelmingly that Obama's campaign has engaged in shameful, deplorable and probably some likely illegal tactics, doubling dipping being one that is clearly voter fraud. I have pointed to it time and again.

those care-nothing voters happen largely to be the future of the political party.

If Republicans in Texas are the future of the Democratic Party then we are truly in trouble. Those who chose not vote in the Texas Democratic primary to determine a US Senate nominee weren't just punkish kids on a mission, they also came from affluent precincts in Dallas and Houston. The mission of the latter is to destroy the Democratic Party. Apparently that seems to also be the mission of more than one Obama supporter, if not Obama himself. This is a cult of personality. There will be no coattails to Obama but his cause is wrapped up in himself. Without Obama there is no Obamaism. I don't join cults.

Charles

I hope it isn't off topic to like to an insane religious person.

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4711

that's

link to

not

like to

This is a cult of personality. There will be no coattails to Obama but his cause is wrapped up in himself. Without Obama there is no Obamaism. I don't join cults.

When is this crap going to end, Charles?

Obama spent most of 2004 and 2006 raising gobs of money for candidates up and down the slate.

The fact that some new or infrequent voters says nothing about anything, except that they were new or infrequent voters that did not know enough about other candidates to cast a vote for them.

These folks generally only vote in presidential general. and 5- 15% of voters always drop off down the ballot.

The mission of the latter is to destroy the Democratic Party.

How on earth is not voting in a primary a plot to do any such thing? It's not even a race that's on the targeting radar.

Your statements shed light on nothing more than your state of mind and it is becoming apparent that the state is not good.

JoAnn, how can you suggest (one has to wonder) that Hillary is linked with Rush Limbaugh?

Hillary has failed to reject his support. That's how she can be linked to getting votes from his endorsement. A point that has been raised several times in at least one other post on this site.

How many times must an point be explained before you no longer fain outrage at its lack of an explanation?

And to be too the point on all this conjecture

More than 80 percent of Democratic voters in the Texas counties where Mrs. Clinton had her largest victory margins went on to vote in the U.S. Senate race, the leading statewide contest on the ballot after the presidential race. By contrast, only 71 percent of voters in Mr. Obama's strongest counties did.

Its pure conjecture!

It's a secret ballot, they don't even know which voters actually dropped off. The whole article is based on Correlation of counties.

Clinton winning the more rural and Obama the more urban.

Those who chose not vote in the Texas Democratic primary to determine a US Senate nominee weren't just punkish kids on a mission, they also came from affluent precincts in Dallas and Houston.

Affluent precincts don't have kids? Why would we also assume that young voters are punkish or on a mission?

If you're speculating, then say that you are. Otherwise, give us some evidence to go on. In the meantime, I maintain my assertion that your comments are not supported by that article.

Red Seven said:

How many times must an point be explained before you no longer fain outrage at its lack of an explanation?

Lemos never responds to these points as you and I and Adam and Magnolia understand all too well.

Lemos asked:

JoAnn, how can you suggest (one has to wonder) that Hillary is linked with Rush Limbaugh?

I have been posting link after link after link and yet you ingnore these links. Surprise, surprise!

Why is it that Hillary Clinton suddenly received a greater percentage of the Republican vote (75% in Mississippi!) after Rush Limbaugh encouraged the Rethuglicans to vote for HIllary?

Rush Limbaugh Urges Support for Hillary Clinton on O'Reilly Factor

The mission of the latter is to destroy the Democratic Party. Apparently that seems to also be the mission of more than one Obama supporter, if not Obama himself.

This is hysteria. Moreover, impassioned (and patently false) comments like these degrade the tone of the forum.

Without Obama there is no Obamaism.

Is this the latest tautology of the week?

I don't join cults.

Good for you, but supporting Obama does not ipso facto make you a cultist.

By comparison, I own an iPod, but I don't idolize Steve Jobs. Likewise, I like the Beatles, but you won't find me screaming and fainting like a prepubescent girl every time I listen to their music. (Hmmm... interesting image though.)

I do wish you would stop making this "cultist by association with cultists" insinuation. I can't tell if it's sophistry or if you actually believe it, but it's guaranteed to irk any Obama supporters reading these threads.

Quaternion said:

For exactly the misleading analysis I hinted at, I suggest you go read his post -- and RedSeven's lucid response.

RedSeven's lucid posts have been ignored again and again and again. No need to expect that RS's posts will be responded to now.

Inwit said:

This is laughably inept analysis. And wrong, wrong, wrong!

It's wrong in your opinion because you refuse to believe the facts. Republican voters in earlier primaries voted for Obama. After Limbaugh urged Republicans to vote for Hillary, suddenly the percentage of Republicans voting for Hillary increased to the point that in Ohio the Republican vote was split evenly between Hillary and Barack, it was close in Texas, and in the most recent primary, Mississippi, Republicans voted for Hillary over Obama 3 to 1.

And I refuse to join the Vote-for-Hillary-because- she's-a-woman" cult, the views of which are exemplified by Geraldine Ferraro. No thank you. I have never been a fan of this woman who voted with George Bush for the war in Iraq and I am still not a fan of this woman.

And who has the DailyKos endorsed? Obama, my new Richard Nixon.

Well Hillary Clinton is my new Richard Nixon. And she is no Democrat. She's a neocon warmonger suck up to corporate power.

It's wrong in your opinion because you refuse to believe the facts.

inwit's right to question the assumption that voter behavior is consistent over time and from state to state. Even if you make this assumption, it's still speculating to assert that Limbaugh's encouragement can account for the difference. So while you might still be right about all of this, it's hard to say anything conclusive.

The evidence is overwhelmingly that Obama's campaign has engaged in shameful, deplorable and probably some likely illegal tactics, doubling dipping being one that is clearly voter fraud. I have pointed to it time and again.

The evidence is overwhelming that Hillary's campaign has engaged in shameful, deploarable tactics. Many of us have pointed to those time and time again.

The only "tactic" that you pointed to re Obama was debunked, but you never responded to what anyone said, of course.

Talk about destroying the Democratic party, divisive tactics and childish accusations of "cults", that will destroy the party. Once the general election comes and you've all been trashing other DEMOCRATS, then we will see the results. What will happen in an election we should easily have won.

A few posts ago, Charles Lemos said "Who's really voting for Obama". Now we find out Republicans vote 3-1 for Hillary in Mississipi. But I doubt this dose of reality will do anything for Mr. Lemos. Both he and Norm have perfected the technique of posing a controversial idea with little basis in reality, and then, once that idea has been shot down by petty "facts", move on to the next controversial topic. It never ends, until in November John McCain somehow wins an election we should have won by a landslide, and you can all be satisfied.

How easily people can fall into these sort of traps in painting people as evil and horrid. I wonder, does Mr. Lemos really think of these two candidates as being so black-and-white (no pun intended) in terms of their morality and behaviour? Does he really believe that Obama is a horrible, evil person while Hillary is the great do-gooder?

About Ferraro, I don't think her comments would be completely off if she had stuck to reality - Yes, I do think Obama has gotten a boost from African Americans, but he has also gotten a disadvantaged from elements of the white vote as well because of his race. Similarly, Hillary has been boosted by female voters, but there may also be an element that works against her in this regard. This is reality. Both Obama and Clinton are new faces and they are rewarded and punished for it, both of them. But to suggest that Obama is "lucky" for being black. Yeah, because we all know how pleasurable it is to be a black man trying to get into politics.

Quaternion said

So while you might still be right about all of this, it's hard to say anything conclusive.

True. This is all speculative.

Talk about destroying the Democratic party, divisive tactics and childish accusations of "cults", that will destroy the party. Once the general election comes and you've all been trashing other DEMOCRATS, then we will see the results. What will happen in an election we should easily have won

So true. I used to be neither an Obama nor a Hillary supporter, although I was leaning towards Obama. The over-the-top attack on Obama had the effect of making me stick up for Obama and resulted in me having very negative feelings towards Hillary Clinton.

I should have not have jumped into the boxing ring, but I did, and I feel bad about it. :( If not for Charles Lemos, I would no doubt have much more positive feelings about HIllary Clinton.

For the record, I came to this string to comment on some religious fanatic and not politics. I then found Chas, once again spewing hate, that has repeatedly been disputed with facts.

Although I love a good political debate this is certainly not the one I would like to be having.

RedSeven on Limbaugh: Hillary has failed to reject his support. That's how she can be linked to getting votes from his endorsement.

Bill Clinton was even interviewed on Limbaugh's show the day of the Texas primary. Sort of.

Rush was out sick and the guest host (Mark Davis) had interviewed Clinton earlier and played it for Rush's audience.

And although Rush Limbaugh once compared Chelsea Clinton to a dog when she was 13 years old, Mark Davis never did. So it's okay - - Bill didn't completely betray his daughter to whore for a chunk of Limbaugh voters.

Link to the audio here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/wtf-bill-clinton-on-rush-limba.php

And although Rush Limbaugh once compared Chelsea Clinton to a dog when she was 13 years old, Mark Davis never did. So it's okay - - Bill didn't completely betray his daughter to whore for a chunk of Limbaugh voters.

Hmmmm did they discuss Rush's decade long obsession with Hillary's ankles and their relative "fattness". Perhaps the discussed Rush's view on Hillary's "Femi-nazi" status.

How do these people live with themselves?

How do these people live with themselves?

Truthfully, I think they're kinda dead inside. I'm not being flip (wilson). I mean, seriously, wouldn't you have to be 3/4 numb to carry on in the face of all the hate and vitriol they've had to absorb all these years? Shaking hands and smiling in photo ops with people who've said and done just vile things to you and your family? Strange business, politics.

Amazing, by the way, how the media always find something other than the issues in this campaign to report on.

Word.

Word.