Early on in the primary season, Republicans were crossing over to vote for Senator Obama, and open primaries were seen as a distinct advantage for the junior senator from Illinois.
Now, the Boston Globe cites exit polling in this story about GOPers voting for Clinton.
The story goes so far as to suggest that in Texas, where the popular vote margin was around 100,000, the 119,000 GOPers that voted for Clinton won it for her.
I'd be interested to see further demographic breakdown of the regions in Texas where Senator Clinton apparently benefited the most from this crossover support.
But first, let's re-visit our favorite Clinton surrogate, Geraldine Ferraro, who said this in an op-ed published just over three weeks ago in the NYT:
Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.
If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate.
More important, although many states like New York have closed primaries in which only enrolled Democrats are allowed to vote, in many other states Republicans and independents can make the difference by voting in Democratic primaries or caucuses.
In the Democratic primary in South Carolina, tens of thousands of Republicans and independents no doubt voted, many of them for Mr. Obama. The same rules prevail at the Iowa caucuses, in which Mr. Obama also triumphed.
So, given that little bit of posturing, which is it? I understand the DLC supports open/semi-open primaries, with which I happen to agree. But where's the Clinton spin on this? It's now the Conventional Wisdom that Senator Clinton benefits from open primaries more than Senator Obama, at least if you follow the exit polling results from Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi.
I'll throw in some anecdotal observations, just for kicks: I worked a couple of rural counties in Texas in the week leading up to the primary there, and there was absolutely, 100% no evidenced support of Senator Clinton. Early on the morning of the primary, as I was dropping signs all around a town of about 16,000, I noticed a few Clinton signs...actually, four in total. Obama lost that county by around 14 points. I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.
I'm curious what the Clinton rationale for these voters is, and further, I wonder if the so-called Limbaugh effect has actually prolonged this primary. After all, even Pres. Clinton stated that if Senator Clinton lost Texas, she'd be out.