It's hard to avoid the memes: Despite the fact that Barack Obama has won 29 states (and two more, if you are more honest than CNN and MSNBC) he didn't win the "important states" (Ed Rendell, MTP). Or he didn't win the states that actually elect women ("Take that, Mississippi!"--Hillary Clinton). Or he didn't win the "swing states" that will count in November (Bill Clinton et al.)
Let me suggest a more logical explanation....and then a little March Mischief. Barack Obama won the "closed" primaries, because the Republicans are messing with the election already. Hillary Clinton wins open primaries that are conducted in private (voting vs caucus) because the Republicans are "Kossing" us.
No one ever suggested that Rush Limbaugh was bright. Thick, maybe...but once something goes in his ears, it is seldom hindered by much brain matter as it makes its way to his mouth. When he told Texas Republicans to vote for Clinton to keep the Democrats at each others' throats, he was saying something that other behind-the-scenes thugs had probably been telling people for weeks. (Why? John Hapwood, MTP: Hillary is the only way they can motivate Republicans to vote in November.)Only in March, with absolutely no reason to give McCain another vote, his call became more effective.
I did a little data check this morning. (Disclaimer: The meaning of "open" varies among states. In some states you have to be declared in advance, in others you declare on the spot. So don't consider this a dissertation and if you want the footnotes go to http://www.fairvote.org/... Clinton won the open primaries in Arkansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, California Ohio...and the "open" portion of the Texas Primary where she had an edge of about 3% or 98,000 votes. But about 10 percent of those who voted in the Texas primary were crossovers.
Obama has won every closed primary or caucus except Arizona, New Mexico (a very, very thin margin), Oklahoma and New York. Obama won a bigger percentage in Clinton's home state than she won in his.
Here's another assumption I'll make without pressure to footnote it: Some caucuses may be technically open, but they are psychologically closed. Senator Clinton again slammed her own constituency when she said: "I never caucused. I don't know how. And my voters don't know how either." The fact is, it's one thing for Joe Republican at the Donut Shop to show up and vote for Clinton in private, but to go into a caucus and stand up for her when everyone in town knows he hates her, is another thing entirely.
If you look at Clinton's margin of victory in Texas, it's a small fraction of the Republican cross-over votes. So here's my suggestion for mischief.
Voting records are public. So are party affiliation lists. To all of you who did such a great job in the run-up to Texas making phone calls, remember your monthly minutes are probably refreshed now. Find 10 or so crossover voters at random from the public records. Give them a call (that's why God made computers) and thank them for becoming Democrats. See what they say! (This is really a local challenge. It would be really hard for someone from Alaska to do this.) Then report it on the open thread.
It's unlikely that Move-on or any other agency is actually going to research this, but my guess is that we'll have a significant body of anecdotal data to prove my point.
Then moving forward, we need to establish some sort of way to suggest publically that the same thing is about to happen in other open primary states (i.e. Florida.)