NYTimes "Republicans Crossing Over to Vote in Democratic Contests"

There's a good story in today's Times, which has dug up some very good news for Democrats in Indiana:

... this year Mrs. Morgan exemplifies a different breed: the Republican crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary. Not only will she mark her ballot for Senator Barack Obama in the May 6 primary here, but she has also been canvassing for him in the heavily Republican suburbs of Hamilton County, just north of Indianapolis — the first time she has ever actively campaigned for a candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

The article dives into the fairly predictable expectations of why:

“I used to like John McCain, but he’s aligning himself too closely with what Bush did, and that’s just not what I want for this country,” Mrs. Morgan, who is 56, said when asked to explain her rejection of the presumptive Republican nominee.

but also brings up the possibility of malicious inent:

Clouding the picture, however, is a campaign by Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk show host, urging his listeners to cast their ballots for Mrs. Clinton “if they can stomach it,” in order to prolong the Democratic race and weaken the eventual winner.

But fear not, according to the article, this does not seem to account for the primary motivation behind the crossovers, and they find many (at least 4 here) voters in Indiana, with logical and reasonable assessments for why they are voting Democratic this year: (out of touch with the middle-class, squandering money on Iraq, and the economy in general) .  They even found someone who likes Hillary over McCain for the economy too.

And while the state's party chair was interviewed for the article and did his best to minimize the phenomenon, he was forced to admit a “heightened interest” by Republicans in this year's Democratic contests.

But whatever conclusion one may draw from this, you'll just love the gem the article closes with, from 70-year-old Becky Kapsalis of Carmel:

“I respect McCain for what he’s done, his patriotism and devotion,” Ms. Kapsalis said, “but I just don’t think he has the heart to lead us, and he doesn’t speak to my heart the way this Barack Obama man does."

Just wanted to share a positive note on a rainy Saturday.  Anecdotal evidence, yes- but cheering news at the end of a long, hard week, which may help us through the many more ahead.

•  Tips for "this Barack Obama man"

  and any and all voters for Democrats.

  by NYFM on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:12:56 AM PDT

  •  Rec'd for hoping that the crossovers

    are really for Obama and not part of Operation Chaos.

    That is what has been concerning me -- that Clinton gets a really sizable percentage victory because of the Rush-holes.

    An Obama victory would be optimal, but to be honest, I would take Clinton winning by only a few percentage points. With everything else going on, I would consider that a victory.

    by billssha on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:18:10 AM PDT

    •  Most of them are

      but the Limbaugh "Democrats" will almost eliminate Obama's edge in independents and Repubs.  

      Basically what happened in TX and OH was that as ususl Obama dominated among Repubs and Independents who came there to vote because they liked a candidate.  But because of the Limbaugh voters, his margins among indies and Repubs were really down.  

      I do suspect though, that some of the Repubs who come there for mischief making will vote for Obama because they believe he is the weaker candidate.  I've heard this sentiment quite often among Repubs.  It is no longer clear to Repubs who is easier to beat in November.  Limbaugh admitted as much last week, and even discussed at some point the possibility of telling his listeners to vote for Obama.

      by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:23:13 AM PDT

      •  Electability doesn't matter in Operation Chaos

        It's about taking it to the convention.  They know that either candidate could beat McCain, and that the only way the Dems lose is by being stupid enough to take it to the convention.  That's why a vote for Hillary is best for OC - it keeps the primary battle going.

        by billysumday on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:28:04 AM PDT

        •  Integrity Matters

          A great many Republicans, including my father, are decent people to whom integrity matters deeply.  The more that they directly compare McCain and Obama, the more they see in Obama.  Kudos to these folks.

          by ScientistSteve on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:31:16 AM PDT

          •  Don't mean to slur folks like your dad

            I may not agree with the views of Republicans, but I do know there is a great deal of difference between legitimate heartfelt Repubs and those who seem to get their marching orders from Limbaugh and Hannity.

            I'm trying to think of a comparison on the Democratic side, but can't come up with one.

            by billssha on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:49:29 AM PDT

          •  An honest question ...

            ... which will come across as a rhetorical attack, which is not my intent here.

            George Bush has ordered torture (there just can't be any question about this from anyone who has bothered to pay attention).  Torture is a war crime.

            George Bush and his staff lied repeatedly in order to commit the war crime of aggressive war.  (And for Republicans, one needs to add that the 16 of the nineteen 9/11 bombers were Saudi Arabians trained in Afghanistan -- these was NO LINK between the 9/11 bombings and Saddam Hussein or Iraq.)  Aggressive war was codified at Nuremberg as not just a war crime, but as "the supreme international crime."

            George Bush is, and has acted as, the head of the Republican Party since he became their nominee for President in 1999.

            How can any person, including your father, be considered to be "decent" or to have any integrity whatsoever, when they have supported and continue to support (even if only by allowing George Bush to remain head of their organization) a torturer and war criminal?

            Decent people do not support torture and war crimes.

            I honestly don't get it.

            by Yellow Canary on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:13:00 AM PDT

            •  Don't you know that that's all just librul lies?

              None of it ever happened and george bush was really a trojan horse for the Democratic Party and not a "real" republican at all anyway...

              That's the sort of crap I hear from the republicans I know, even the "decent" ones...

              I've come to the conclusion that republicans are delusional, all of them... even the decent ones.

              by MichiganGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:52:55 AM PDT

              •  I'm trying to not tar with a janitor's broom ...

                ... and I think it is vital that every American face this.  There is a huge and vital difference between "We were wrong" or "We were misguided" or even "Mistake were made" and "We ordered, supported, and cheered torture and other war crimes".  The difference, of course, is that people were (and continue to be) tortured, and that people were murdered.

                The question every Republican must answer is this:  Do you support torture and war crimes, and if you do not support torture and war crimes, why have you not spoken out against the torturers and war criminals who have led and continue to lead your political party?

                Bush may not be a "real" Republican -- and I, too, know Republicans -- but he is REALLY head of the party, and he REALLY decides which policies the party pursues, and he REALLY decides on what the Republican Party spends money.  

                Any Republican who claims that Bush isn't a real Republican is lying to themselves.  Bush is wholly and completely what the Republican Party is today (and has been for seven years of unchecked criminality).

                by Yellow Canary on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:22:36 AM PDT

        •  You're right in a way

          but they don't want Clinton to get too much momentum due to this Wright stuff either, which would cause superdelegates to ditch Obama in droves, Limbaugh alluded to that last Tuesday.    

          Secondly many Rethugs who do this still have a modicum of independent thought, and are still thinking in terms of electability, and for many that means voting for the less electable person.  And Repubs are very divided on it, I've seen many who think that Obama is less electable.  

          by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:32:58 AM PDT

    •  I honestly think

      That while there probably are a small fraction of crossover GOP-ers who are voting to try to throw a monkey wrench into things (and in a state like Texas, which was very close, a small fraction might affect things), for the most part that's too much trouble, particularly in closed primaries.  

      I think that if people are going to go through the trouble to register to vote in a primary, particularly the trouble to switch registration, most of them are doing it because they want to vote Democrat for actual idealogical and practical, not mischievous, reasons.  And, I agree with the people who made the point that those relative few who might be doing it to vote for the "less electable" candidate, are by now perhaps not so convinced they even know which candidate that is.  Republican higher-up operatives and party leaders, I think, know it's Obama and are already acting like he's the nominee.  But dittoheads and Hannity watchers and the like, are probably all caught up in this Rev. Wright crap and just don't know anymore.

      by classico on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:01:37 AM PDT

      •  There are a significant number

        of Repubs who believe that Obama is the weaker candidate after Wright, and they believe that Clinton will cheat and steal if need be and will do anything to get elected.  

        by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:16:25 AM PDT

•  You can add my mother to that list

  62 year old white woman, lives in a small town in Northern Indiana, grew up on a farm about 30 miles away, has never voted for a Democratic president in her life, but will be casting her ballot for Obama on Tuesday.  Along with two of her friends who are very similar but have formed a little Obama fan club, apparently.

  by billysumday on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:16:35 AM PDT

  •  Why is it that

    many independents and moderate Repub whites have less of a dislike to Obama than do lower income Democratic ones?

    by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:34:40 AM PDT

    •  30-40% of lower income Dems

      Have been voting for Obama.  We're not giving those people enough credit.  When push comes to shove they'll vote for Obama in November.  They liked the 90s and didn't care about the political fights in Washington - they just remember the economy being pretty decent.

      by billysumday on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:37:27 AM PDT

    •  I think they are responding to Hillary's ads

      I heard one on a country radio station in Indiana yesterday. It was designed for the truck driving contractors who are rightly worried about gas prices.

      On the surface it sounded very reasonable. But knowing what I know about Obama's positions, I knew the ad was deeply misleading (and that's giving it the benefit of the doubt).

      Just like the call I received from the Clinton campaign that flat-out lied about Obama's position on health care.

      Both infuriated me because I'm afraid that they are hitting the target - undecided, low-information voters - dead on. And quite possibly giving latent racists cover (even to themselves).

      I've really had my eyes opened in this election and I've lost all respect for the Clintons.

      by annan on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:47:43 AM PDT

      •  Places like KOS and some other sites via

        the internet have made it alot easier to get your eyes open and keep them open. Without them we would be totally in the dark if we had to rely on TV and print coverage of the actual issues.

        by flatford39 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:33:38 AM PDT

•  There is no question

  that the open primary helps Obama even with the Limbaugh voters.  But the addition of the Limbaugh voters will take Obama's Repub advantage from 70-30 to 50-50, and his independent edge from 60-40 to 55-45.

  by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:18:13 AM PDT

  •  Surely you jest

    or exaggerate, or something....

    by NYFM on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:23:25 AM PDT

    •  Obama's problem

      is with rank and file Democrats.  I don't think outside the South, he has won them in more than a handful of states.

      He hasn't won white Democrats in any state other than Illinois.  (Utah was tied)

      by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:29:45 AM PDT

      •  Black people aren't "rank and file Democrats"?

        Young people? People with college degrees?

        Since when are these groups not "rank and file Democrats"?

        by BrighidG on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:17:07 AM PDT

        •  As Bill Clinton said

          these people don't need a President...

          But many of these people are independents or new voters.

          by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:18:28 AM PDT

      •  Really?

        Really?  I've taken about 2 minutes to look it up, and I see a "win" for white democrats in Vermont and New Mexico.  He "lost" in Wisconsin by 2 points.  

        The big gap is apparently by education level.  Make of that what you will.

        by Sparky McGruff on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:27:35 AM PDT

        •  I thought he won that Demographic in

          Iowa as well.

          by flatford39 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:36:21 AM PDT

          •  I stopped after I found two

            by Sparky McGruff on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:38:21 AM PDT

          •  Here's a thought experiment...

            Since we're now apparently defining "core democrats" as Whites in Rust-belt states..

            There might be, say, one or two people in this country who are racist.  People who wouldn't vote for Obama, just because he's black.  It may sound a bit far fetched, but stay with me.

            Where might you see this effect the greatest?  Would there be certain parts of the country that might historically, say, have more issues with this than others?  Might you see it in certain age groups more than others?  Might it show up when you separate by education status to some extent?

            Obama does very well among educated white voters, not so well in those who haven't finished high school.  He does well in some areas, but in others (particularly in Appalachia) he does poorly.

            In contrast, Obama is polling spectacularly well in Oregon, a state that has very few minorities.  Oregon, outside of Portland, is very poor, and not particularly well educated.  Strangely enough, Obama is weakest in Portland, which is the wealthiest and most educated portion of the state.  Oregon has a much different history with regards to race, than, say, rural Pennsylvania or Ohio.

            But, as Steven Colbert notes, we don't see color any more.  That can't be a factor at all.  Every one loves Hillary, except for the people who hate women.  There are no racists, but all Obama voters are, in fact, sexist.

            by Sparky McGruff on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:53:18 AM PDT

            •  My 80 year old mother bless her heart

              who is a die hard democrat won't vote for Obama for only one reason. He is black. No matter how much I try to explain the issues to her and how important it is to not only her but her beloved grandchildren she will stay home for the first time in her life if Barack is the nominee. I am sure that my deceased father would be the same way.

              My parents were not college grads nor did they even graduate high school but they are/were extremely informed about the issues facing the country.

              They just can't get over race issue. How they raised me to see above it I am still not sure. There are six of us kids and only the two oldest, my sister (61)and I (57) are the only two that have totally distanced ourselves from the racist background we grew up in.

              by flatford39 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:04:36 AM PDT

      •  you forgot Wisconsin n/t

        by Wisteacher on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:49:03 AM PDT

        •  Obama won Whites in Wisconsin

          but he did so by winning independents 70-30, and narrowly lost white Democrats.

          by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:32:12 AM PDT

•  Relatively speaking, in Nebraska caucuses

  we had huge Independent and Republican cross over registrations.  And, they voted for Obama.  It is inconceivable to me that there are hordes of Limbaugh stooges throwing away their votes by voting for HRC.  Perhaps there is evidence of this in Texas, but still, Obama won Texas.

  by JFinNe on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:31:29 AM PDT

•  Thanks for this

  It's hard not to be depressed after watching the MSM savage Obama.

  by minerva1157 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:40:31 AM PDT

•  I think that Republicans know

  That their party is done in government for the time being.  Maybe for a long time, maybe forever.  Bush has done a LOT of damage.  It's hard to look at a country where 71% of the populace DOES NOT LIKE the Republican President and think that the Republicans have a future.  He was the guy that was supposed to put the finishing touches on the Reagan Revolution.

  I think they also see that Obama is a leader who transcends parties.

  by slippytoad on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:57:12 AM PDT

  •  And despite this

    I think McCain has a 50/50 chance of winning in November.

    by IhateBush on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:12:03 AM PDT

    •  True

      But this far out, before we've settled on a nominee, the polls are pretty unreliable. At this time in 1992, Bill Clinton trailed the very unpopular George H.W. Bush and continued to do so, up until the Democratic Convention.

      by metal prophet on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:07:59 AM PDT

  •  The big polling number is the one I saw

    a couple weeks ago where 81% think the country is going in the wrong direction. The more McSame ties himself to bushco the greater he will be beat.

    He is going to have to denounce bush & he knows it, but for now as the Dems battle it out he can continue to embrace his supporters for the funding that bushco can still raise from the upper 1%.

    McCain will throw bushco under the train as soon as a Democratic nominee is decided.

    by flatford39 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:40:08 AM PDT

•  disinformation campaign?

  I've been watching the coverage of Republicans crossing over and it has me wondering if part of this "Rush effect" might not be part of an effort to defuse the massive defections to Obama.

  In actuality it might be a trend that scares the hell out them and they're trying desperately to stem the tide with disinformation. There are probably a lot of Republicans that want to switch but don't want to go out on the limb first. They will however follow a trend if it looks safe.

  The media seems to be following the Republican lead and it might be a good idea for the Democrats to start giving them cover.
  "The Republican party leadership (and Rush) seem to be implying that the Republicans we see switching party affiliations to vote in the Democratic primaries are doing so to influence our primaries, but our internal research would appear to indicate that they are, in fact, disaffected Republicans looking for an sane alternative to 4 more years of Bush."

  by sceptical observer on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:03:29 AM PDT

•  Juan Williams was talking about this yesterday

  on NPR's Day to Day.  Williams suggests some five to fifteen percent of the Dem vote could be Republicans, and that five percent of the Dem vote in PA had been Republicans.

  He thinks it's because the Dem primary is more exciting than the Repug one, and he's not real convinced that much of it responds to Limbaugh's Operation Chaos.

  It starts about fifty seconds in.

  by litho on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:03:38 AM PDT

  •  I've lost all respect for Williams since he went

    over to the dark side. I just don't trust him any more.

    I used to look forward to his show on NPR before the jump to Fox.

    by flatford39 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:43:17 AM PDT

    •  Talk of the Nation

      Williams came off as fairly rightwing and a decided Bush supporter when he moderated Talk of the Nation.

      by Fabienne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:11:27 AM PDT

•  Primary crossovers

  What is needed is for the Federal government to pass a law concerning the Undecided/Independent vote during primaries. The only ballot that Republicans can get during a primary is their own. The only ballot a Democrat can get during a primary is their own. Independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary without changing their affiliation, for all 50 states.

  This would allow for increased strength for the Independent vote. It would also stop the possibility of spoilers from diehard Republicans or Democrats who wish to damage the other party's chances by voting in an inferior candidate to run in the general election. While some spoiler-voters would just shift to Independent as a result, they wouldn't be counted in determining the strength of that party in polls and the like.

  by Tangent101 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:05:44 AM PDT

  •  That's more or less the current law in MA

    except that after an indie votes in a primary they become a registered voter in that party.  The paperwork to change back to indie though is pretty simple and my indie friends tell me you can do it right there at the polling place after voting.

    by litho on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:09:27 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for including Democrats in this

    It would also stop the possibility of spoilers from diehard Republicans or Democrats who wish to damage the other party's chances by voting in an inferior candidate to run in the general election.

    We mustn't forget that kos himself advocated a crossover vote for Romney in MI.  Hard to claim the high moral ground if we are doing the same thing.

    by SottoVoce on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:39:06 AM PDT

    •  I can stand on the high ground

      I don't advocate crossover votes. I'm an Independent with Libertarian leanings, not Democrat or Republican. Thus I disagree with Kos's point of view about Romney (especially as he was governor of my former state, and among the worse governors we'd had, including Dukakis) and feel it is irresponsible for people to do this.

      Of course, a side-effect of my policy would be that far more people would register as Undecided/Independent, but I honestly don't see that as an issue... and it would make both mainstream parties far more honest as a result.

      by Tangent101 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:43:13 AM PDT

      •  Bad karma

        to vote for someone you believe would make a bad elected official, no matter what the motivation behind your vote.

        by Fabienne on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:13:15 AM PDT

      •  in my state, NY, we cannot cross over

        I was registered as an Independent, and was unable to vote in the primaries.  I was not able to change my registration in the weeks leading up to the Democratic primaries.  I would have had to change many months before in order for it to "take."  This aggravated me, and seemed to thwart my desire to participate in Democracy.  I think you may be right.

        BTW, I was aghast at kos' suggestion.  There is much tut-tutting here on dKos about Clinton's willingness to engage in Republican-like tactics to stay in the race.  I think Democrats should never engage in lowball politics, if we can help it, and felt kos' glee in advocating "trouble-making" for the MI race was just that.

        by SottoVoce on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:15:20 AM PDT

  •  It's how it's done in Illinois

    as well, but you get to chose your party when you go to vote in the primary. Doesn't matter how you are registered. If you ask for a GOP ballot & your a Dem your gonna get a GOP one. And vice versa.

    Referendums or special elections in your district tend to keep the voters honest but there usually isn't enough of them to control crossover.

    by flatford39 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:46:55 AM PDT