Via Marc, I think that the explanation Mark Blumenthal advances to explain why increasing numbers of Republicans are pulling the lever for Hillary Clinton - that they're taking the opportunity to express a strong preference for a Clinton Presidency over an Obama Presidency, even though they might ultimately go for McCain in the general election - makes a lot more sense than the "Limbaugh effect" theory, in which GOP voters are cynically trying to prolong the Democratic race and ensure that the Dems nominate the least electable candidate. Obviously, these two explanations aren't mutually exclusive: One could prefer having Hillary in the White House and believe that she'd be easier to beat come November, especially after a bloody primary campaign. But if we're hazarding a guess as to which motive matters most, I'd plump for the more straightforward one, and assume that in most cases someone who votes for Hillary over Obama does so because, well, they prefer Hillary to Obama.
« What's The Big Deal About Sex? | Main | The Politician and the Preacher »
The Obama Effect
14 Mar 2008 09:49 am
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/19952
Comments (15)
Yeah, the fact that this only started happening after Limbaugh started to promote this idea (and Bill Clinton endorsed the idea on the show) does make it kind of suspicious, especially in two states as culturally different as Ohio and Texas.
What frightens me is that for the past few years, we've been warning right-leaning executive power fetishists about the possibility that Hillary would enjoy the fruits of their labors. And now we learn that they're okay with this--they are so attached to the idea of empire that they don't care who becomes the emperor.
I really hope the Limbaugh effect is the true explanation. This is a damned scary country to live in, otherwise.
I'm a Republican. I voted for Hillary in the Virginia primary (which was open) on the simple premise that she would be a better president than Obama.
My reading of Mrs. Clinton is that her instincts would be better than Obama's; she would govern more as a centrist than Obama; she would know who to call in a crisis.
Most importantly, she would know who not to call. If I had to use a single word to describe their differences, it would be “realist.” Hillary is; Obama is not.
Now, barring great and unforseen events, I will vote for John McCain, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. He, and only he among the three candidates, brings personal honor and national security experience to the vital task of protecting our nation.
Actually, if you look at Feb 5. exit polls, well before Limbaugh "endorsed" Clinton, she already did well among Republicans in the South, though not elsewhere. Her strongest showings recently among them have been in Mississippi and Texas. In Ohio Obama stilll did better among Republicans than Democrats. Yes he did worse than among Wisconsin Republicans, but he did worse among Democrats and independents in Ohio too.
So in part I think Republicans for HRC is in part a Southern thing. Also, in early primaries Republicans had their own race to worry about. The kind of Republican voting in a Democratic Primary when his/her own party's nomination is still up for grabs is maybe a different breed. Maybe not much of a Republican at all.
I think it's pretty obvious why Republicans voting in the Democratic primary in Mississippi overwhelmingly supported Clinton whereas Republicans voting in the Democratic primary in Wisconsin (and almost every other state) overwhelmingly supported Obama. What do Republicans in Mississippi hate more than Hillary Clinton? Black people. The trend will reverse itself in Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, and North Carolina, if not in Pennsylvania and Indiana as well.
The idea that Republicans prefer Hillary Clinton to be President doesn't pass the laugh test. Yes, they may prefer her to be the Democratic nominee because they delusionally think they can beat her, but actually want her to be President after 16 years of demonizing her nonstop? Nonsense.
Partisan people vote in their own party's primaries to determine their own party's nominee. The Republicans who crossed over in the earlier primaries -- when their own party's nomination was still in contest -- were the more independent-minded Republicans who were crossing over because they genuinely liked a candidate, namely Obama. But once the Republican nomination was settled, the more partisan Republicans had little reason to vote in their own primary, since the outcome was preordained -- so they took it upon themselves to vote in the Democratic primary, and to do so in the way they expected would cause the most mischief. They voted for Hillary because (A) they see her as the weaker general obstacle for McCain, and (B) they think that prolonging the Democratic race will weaken the Democratic nominee, no matter who it turns out to be.
I'm with John Rich-- Hillary's far more acceptable than Obama-- she seems to be a foreign policy realist, and we have at least some sense of what her style of governance would be based on both her senate career and her tenure as First Lady.
I hate to agree with Bubba, but voting for Obama really is like rolling the dice; he's a loose cannon. His constituents are such a mishmash of leftist fringe groups that we cannot even imagine the kinds of policy proposals he might push, and who he would nominate for various positions. We do at least know that he'd pull out of Iraq the moment he takes office, and that in itself is alarming because it basically means our troops will have died in vain these past 5 years.
Also, this is completely off topic but people should check out David Brooks' NYT column today-- priceless.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/opinion/14brooks.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
and that in itself is alarming because it basically means our troops will have died in vain
these past 5 years.
Like I said above, I would actually feel better about Republicans if the Limbaugh effect were real.
The alternative is just madness.
Had some drinks with a Republican friend of mine the other day, who feels there's no substance to Obama and basically feels more comfortable with the idea of a Clinton presidency. He has reservations about McCain, but of course, will pull the lever for the GOP come November anyway.
All of this jives with your post, but really doesn't mean anything for the Fall considering all of these "pro-Clinton Republicans" are still loyal Republicans.
At first, the thought among independents and Republicans was anyone but Hillary. That is why many of them were voting in Democrat primaries and voting for Obama. Then, as they learned more about Obama, they realized that there are worse things out there.
While the Rebublicans were doing that, there were Democrats, unhappy with their choices, as well as moderate and liberal independents crossing over and voting for John McCain.
The final result is that the Democrats have chaos on their hands and the Republicans are stuck with a Presidential nominee that they don't want.
Whatever republicans think now, it would change the instant hillary was installed. A lot of them want to go back to the 1990s, too.
jxanzrm zklebqmi xltvo ulweg qdpewsy habdjws jgzkxsvf
jxanzrm zklebqmi xltvo ulweg qdpewsy habdjws jgzkxsvf
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
The reason that theory cannot be so simple is that Republicans voting in the primary used to prefer Obama in huge numbers.
That the numbers would come down a bit after coverage of Obama gets more precise is understandable but there is no reason for such a shift to happen between WI and then OH/MS
Posted by Benjamin | March 14, 2008 10:22 AM