Operation Chaos worked in Pennsylvania

One statistic from the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania was not widely reported.  CNN exit poling showed that 15% of those voting in the Democratic primary plan to vote for McCain in November. Of these voters, 90% reported voting for Hillary Clinton.  

Since Clinton reportedly won by 9.2%, the actual margin - without interference from CHAOS voters - would have given Obama a narrow victory

What can we expect in Indiana?  Probably MUCH more of the same. Indiana is a highly republican state - and with no meaningful race on the Republican presidential side, they have little to lose by manipulating the Democratic vote. Moreover, unlike Pennsylvania, which was a closed primary, Indiana is open.

Another reason that Republican voters chose to interfere with the Democratic voting process is that they are highly dissatisfied with their own candidate.  

On the Republican side, running basically unopposed, McCain was able to garner only 73% of the vote with 16% going to Ron Paul and 11% sticking with Mike Huckabee.  Not a very solid endorsement.  

--------

Correction (see below)

If 15 out of a 100 voters (15%) were operation chaos voters and 13.5 voted for Hillary, and 1.5 for Obama.

Hillary got 55 votes to Obama's 45 votes initially, but since 13.5 of Hillary voters (15 times 90%) would not vote for her again and only 1.5 of Obama's voters would not vote for him.

Without Operation chaos, the final vote would have been 42.5 Hillary and 43.5 Obama which would have given him a 51 to 49 victory.

•  I'd imagine

  If Republicans didn't like their candidate, they wouldn't bother interfering in a Democratic primary, they'd just not vote in the general.

  by NMLib on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:15:40 PM PDT

  •  Did Dems not vote Romney in MI?

    Just saying, both sides play the game. I think the difference is if Republicans did it in PA, it was illegal, since PA was a closed Primary.

    by pakaal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:23:18 PM PDT

    •  I don't like it either way

      That doesn't stop it from happening, but I think that we shouldn't have done it in Michigan. Now, tactically speaking, it makes sense which means that it will continue, but that doesn't mean I like that both sides do it.

      by NMLib on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM PDT

    •  How could you tell?

      A law making it illegal to vote disingenuosly? How would that be enforcible?  I suspect that there is quite a bit of this going on.  The Texas primary was clearly affected by crossover voters from the Republican party.

      by biotecchie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM PDT

      •  Switching registration in order to deceive....

        ...or something like that.  I'd never say it would be easy (or even possible) to prosecute, most likely it would be done by checking registration on both sides?

        Can't find a law story describing it, but here's one link that provides a little detail on illegality.

        by pakaal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:35:28 PM PDT

      •  yes, TX was affected by crossovers in the primary

        I worked as an election judge and a few of the voters either said they were voting Republican in November or were confused about why their Republican judges weren't on the ballot...they were asked if they really wanted to vote in the Democratic primary rather than Republican (open primary in TX) and they said yes, they wanted to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate but expected their Republican picks for judges would have been on the same ballot. Of course they weren't.
        -----------------------------------------------------
        Re: Indiana a Republican state:
        Ms Yellin on CNN today made the point that while the Clinton campaign trumpets their win among white, low income workers in PA and Ohio, those voters are the "Reagan Democrats" and no one in the Democratic party has yet successfully won them over. So in November either Democrat could lose these voters to McCain if they don't find a way to appeal to them.

        by eve on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:51:48 PM PDT

        •  Of course

          In Texas, it was very easy for Republican voters to take a Dem ballot, while in Pennsylvania, you had to have your registration changed and done so several weeks before the election.

          Lots of people voted for Clinton who are feeling quite partisan about the race. Some of them will end up voting for Obama in spite of what they said; perhaps some won't.

          by brittain33 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:47:58 PM PDT

    •  Did Dems not vote Romney in MI?

      I don't think anybody knows whether they did or didn't, as no polls were taken about that.

      by William Domingo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:33:21 PM PDT

      •  In an open Primary...

        ...it's probably impossible to tell for sure, although I guarantee you some did.  Probably not enough to make any difference.

        It'd be an interesting poll though!  

        10. Did you vote in the Democratic primary in order to let the least-favored candidate win so the Republican party would have a better chance of beating them in the General?

        by pakaal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:18:52 PM PDT

    •  Some simply re-registered before the deadline

      which was about a month or 6 weeks before the primary. The rest may simply be Dems who vote for Republicans, so-called Reagan Democrats.

      by Nimbus on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:34:34 PM PDT

•  And how many repubs are voting for Obama

  and have voted for Obama. You cannot pin it on one candidate and not the other. It was what it was.

  by Owllwoman on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:16:18 PM PDT

  •  While I don't necessarily agree with the diarist

    I do think there is a big difference between a Republican who voted for a Democrat in the primary if they do intend to support him/her in the primary and one who's just trying to cause trouble. It just feels to me that differentiating between the two is important.

    by NMLib on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:23:17 PM PDT

    •  But how do you really know what is in

      their heart?

      by Owllwoman on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM PDT

      •  ...

        Since I'm not a psychic I can't answer that question, however, I can make a few guesses:

        Look at the Honest and Trustworthy question, 11% of those voting in the primary believed that neither Clinton nor Obama are honest and trustworthy. Of that group, Clinton won it with 71% (which basically translates to Clinton getting 8-points from people who believe that neither candidate is honest and trustworthy) while Obama only got 29% (or roughly a 3-point boost). Basically, Clinton netted 5-points from voters who don't believe either candidate is honest and trustworthy (which should be fishy).

        by NMLib on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:42:09 PM PDT

    •  yes----there is a huge difference in Repubs who

      vote for Obama and those voting for Clinton.  Repubs voting for Obama, as evidence supports, believe him to be the best candidate.  Repubs voting for Clinton are just following Rush's orders----I have seen zero evidence of Repubs sincerely wanting another President Clinton----even Repub women----all the ones I know run off screaming if you mention her name.

      by dotster on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM PDT

  •  According to the exit polls ...

    about 1.5% of the voters in the Democratic party primary - those who voted for Obama - were planning to vote for McCain in the fall.  

    By comparison, 13.5% of the voters in the Democratic party primary (90% of 15%) - those who voted for Clinton) were planning to vote for McCain in November.

    A total of 15% of the voters on the day of the Democratic primary were planning to vote for McCain in November.

    by biotecchie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:36:48 PM PDT

•  This late in the game..

  Republicans who want to sow chaos probably ought to be thinking about which of the Dem candidates they could live with if elected. At least, that's how the few Repubs I talked to in Indiana are feeling.

  by Saska on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:17:43 PM PDT

  •  right - I talked to a few today

    while canvassing.   They recognize that McCain doesn't need their votes right now and they really detest Hillary.   So some will vote for Obama.

    Another thing that might have some effect in the 2nd Congressional district in Indiana is that on the Republican side of the congressional race, one of the candidates is Tony Zirkle, who got some notoriety last weekend for going to speak to a Nazi group.   That may keep some of Republicans voting Republican, to support his opponent, instead of interfering in the Democratic race.

    link to story about Zirkle

    by indybend on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:27:24 PM PDT

•  It's tough

  We love that independents can vote in the primaries. If they didn't Sen. Obama wouldn't be where he was. But with that there is no way to stop Republicans from Limbaughing the vote.

  by jkb246 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:18:40 PM PDT

•  The idea of chaos voting is quite different

  from the idea of voting for a candidate because you share their values or support their program.  Anyone who votes for a candidate in the primary for the express purpose of distorting election results lacks integrity.

  While I agree that it is difficult to identify which is which, especially since one group out-and-out lies, that doesn't mean there isn't a difference.

  by Fasaha on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:19:50 PM PDT

  •  It's a tactical

    vote and it goes on in legislatures all the time.  No reason regular people can't have some fun.  The irksome thing is the mystery.  Not knowing what the effect really was.

    by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:46 PM PDT

    •  BTW,

      I'm pretty certain Limbaugh put Hillary over the top here in Texas.  can't prove it, but it's very easy to cross party lines here.

      by bugscuffle on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM PDT

  •  Those are Rush's Ditto heads. That says it all.

    by Engine 08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:23:48 PM PDT

•  Hopefully the supers are aware of this...

  Why do I keep feeling like Samwise: "What are you waiting for..."

  by Losty on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:20:28 PM PDT

•  here's my jetpack on project chaos

  with info on how it affected voter turnout in other states

  by boatsie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM PDT

•  Don't want to look like I'm slumming....

  ...but I wrote a diary on the that very same exit poll a few days ago. It's one of the stranger sets of numbers on there, to be sure.

  PA was a closed Primary, so if Republicans really did register Dem just to spike the punch, that's illegal.

  Just saying.

  by pakaal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:30 PM PDT

•  Limbaugh is a troll.

  Do we really believe his "chaos" crap?
  I mean, isn't it just as plausible that many Republicans are sick of their party and switching their registration accordingly?

  by ludwig van brickoven on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:37 PM PDT

•  3% of HRC's PA will not vote her in November. So

  the chaos theory worked some what in PA. It did not affect because delegates are based on solid Democratic voting pattens.

  by Engine 08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM PDT

•  Won't work in NC. They have contested GOP primary

  for governor there.

  by Engine 08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:25:00 PM PDT

•  operation chaos

  is your math correct?
  If 15 out of a 100 voters (15%) were operation chaos voters and 13.5 voted for hillary, and 1.5 for Obama

  then does that not mean that

  Hillary got 55 votes to Obama's 45 votes initially? but since 13.5 of Hillary voters (15 times 90%) would not vote for her again and only 1.5 of Obama's voters would not vote for him

  then without Operation chaos, the final vote would have been 42.5 Hillary and 43.5 Obama

  which would have given him a 51 to 49 victory. Where am I wrong

  by ddoston on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM PDT

  •  perhaps you are right...

    My math could have been wrong.  I applied the difference to the vote margin.

    The polling statistics are a bit confusing.

    by biotecchie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:03 PM PDT

•  Rush Limbaugh Claims Victory in Pennsylvania

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  by William Domingo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:45:24 PM PDT

  •  This should be evidence enough

    "Of the final primaries, Indiana and Montana are both "open" elections - where members of any party can vote for any candidate. In Indiana and Montana, Limbaugh's Republican crossovers will be out in force to sabotage Obama by voting for Clinton."

    by biotecchie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM PDT

    •  Indiana and Montana are both "open" elections

      Yes, that worries me too. Another revealing part of the article was about how Clinton "political hitman", James Carville's Republican wife is a close associate of Rush Limbaugh. It wouldn't suprise me to find out that the slimy James Carville asked his Republican wife (Mary Matlin) to set this up with Rush on behalf of the Clintons. James Carville has been known to use his wife to back-stab Democrats before.

      by William Domingo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:59:06 PM PDT

•  it's not "chaos theory" LOL

  it's "operation chaos"

  by lmenshevik on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM PDT

  •  perhaps it was a play on words...

    by biotecchie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM PDT

    •  lol.........ok

      sorry im a math major and this makes no sense to me.

      by lmenshevik on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM PDT

•  Ridiculous

  This is why the primary needs to come to an end. It's turning into a joke... I would put money that Obama would have won the TX primary if it wasn't for Operation Chaos voters.

  Even with "closed primaries" the problem is not solved, as many Republicans change their registrations temporarily - who really cares what party you're officially registered to?

  Why are we as Democrats letting Republicans prolong the nomination and give Clinton false "momentum" and keeping her afloat and cause schisms between groups of people? And the media just goes along with it, and Hillary seems to actively encourage it.

  I think there ought to be a NYT article about this phenomenon, using poll data, demographic data, etc to make the point that Obama would have likely won more contests if it wasn't for bogus Republican crossover votes.

  The superdelegates really need to end this thing!

  by drmavis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:20:16 PM PDT

•  I don't think your numbers add up. At all.

  ...I'm loathe to give Rush Limbaugh credit for a bobdamned thing, so I checked the CNN exits you linked to.

  I don't see the 15% of Pennsylvania voters in the primary planning to vote for McCain, for starters.  In fact, on page 5 of the exit polling data, we see that 87% of the voters in the primary were already registered Democrats in January of 2008.  5% of those who voted were registered Republicans, and they split their vote 50-50 between the two candidates.  The other 8% were made up of registered indies and non-registered voters.

  From that I extrapolate that 2.5% of former Republicans were among the total vote for Hillary Clinton.  I figure maybe 1% of those voters were sincere, so in reality, 1.5% of the total vote for Hillary seems to have come from Rush Limbaugh's shenanigans, unless I'm missing something.  (Did you mis-interpret the exit poll question on the first page of the poll, possibly?)

  by drowner1 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:44:47 PM PDT

  •  The table appears on Page 4 of the exit poll

    Unfortunately, the link goes to page 1 of the poll.  There does not seem to be a way to correct it.  On page 4 on the second question, you will see the following:

    Vote for President in November

                                           %  Voted for
    Response (% response)       Clinton      Obama
    Obama               (73%)             41%         59%
    McCain               (15%)             90%         10%
    Would not vote      (9%)            98%         2%

    The pollster has already determined whether the voter voted in the Democratic or Republican primary.  The question is, "Who do you plan (or expect) to vote for in November?" Of the respondents, 73% said Obama. Of those, 41% voted for Clinton and 59% voted for Obama.  Of those responding "McCain", 90% reported voting for Clinton and 10% for Obama. Of those responding "Would not vote", 98% voted for Clinton and 2% voted for Obama.  

    Clearly these are disaffected voters who are unhappy with McCain and are voting for Clinton in the primary.  

    by biotecchie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:22:14 AM PDT

•  Before giving The Bloviator too much credit

  It's fairly common in open primary states for voters of one party to vote in the other, where there's still "action"; I'm not convinced that many TX and OH Republican voters wouldn't have come up with the Hillary idea on their own, so how many did he convince to do so, who wouldn't have if he'd kept his yap shut? Not that much. He gets too much credit for this individually is my point.

  by newdem1960 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM PDT

•  One question

  You state that "CNN exit poling showed that 15% of those voting in the Democratic primary plan to vote for McCain in November. Of these voters, 90% reported voting for Hillary Clinton."

  How does this statistic compare to other states that Obama won? I am curious.

  by oceanstar17 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM PDT

•  Hate To Say It

  But a lot of that 15% is dissatified Democrats that had nothing to do with Operation Chaos.  I don't think Rush had much of an affect in PA.

  by fpcom on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM PDT

  •  How are you so certain of that?

    by Psyche on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:53:21 PM PDT

•  A classic example of crossover is Mckinney

  The Republicans really did a number on Cynthia Mckinney as they crossed over to take her out. Mckinney was Bush's strongest critic. She filed a Impeachment resolution....and incured the rath.

  In the present race Obama/Clinton....25 pct of the Hillary vote in Missasippi was rep. crossover. Penn,NC,Ind all will be targets.

  Just shows that the all-time major weapon after a dismal presidency....has always been the change candidate. There is no doubt that Obama owns that moniker in this election. Hillary's biggest problem is her baggage....pulling a 18 wheeler in tow.

  by Parisgnome on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:54:02 PM PDT

•  Thx - I wondered about this n/t

  by 1BQ on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:41:11 PM PDT

•  Not buying this diaryist numbers

  First of all , i SERIOUSLY DOUBT that up to 13% of the PA democratic primary electorate were "operation chaos" VOTERS...

  That is a large number..You're talking about 100k limbaugh-voters..And for all those republican to vote so heavily for Hillary is not believable.

  This was a close primary , which made their job harder , so i just dont believe about 100k of them did so so easily.

  If you are right , this would mean that Hillary won the republican votes who voted in the PA primary by large margin.

  But in Texas , it was a tie and TX had an open primary , so i dont buy it that so much limbaugh=operation-chaos-voters went through the re-registering stuff just to vote for Hillary.

  At best , my guess is that republicans who truly re-register to vote for Obama , was equal to the limbaugh=operation-chaos voters who voted for Hillary.

  The problem here is , before the operation chaos thing , Obama used to win the cross-over republicans by about 10% , but now , because of limbaugh , Hillary is able to cut this strengh that he had earlier on.

  by BlueStateLiberal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:41:57 PM PDT