Another op. chaos num from CNN: 4.3% in IN

I know that there have been a lot of diaries about this, and I apologize if someone has already flagged these numbers. But the best calculation I can find of how many dishonest Clinton votes is from CNN's exit poll.

First, a definition. I am counting voters who voted for Clinton even though they intended to vote for McCain over Clinton in November. This is probably dishonest in the sense of Indiana law - in Indiana, to vote in the Democratic primary, you should have voted more Democrats in 2004 or intend to vote more Democrats in 2008. It is not necessarily dishonest in the sense that some fraction of these people may honestly prefer Clinton over Obama. Technically I suppose you could have been a true-blue democrat in 2004 but now prefer McCain, Clinton, Obama - but there are maybe a dozen voters like that.

Conveniently, CNN asked a question in their exit poll which fits my definition exactly.

Their table says:

Vote for president in November	Clinton	Obama
Clinton (73%)	60%	40%
McCain (16%)	41%	59%
Woud not vote (9%)	4%	96%

In other words, if the options were Clinton and McCain, 73% of the voters in the Dem primary would vote for Clinton, 16% would vote for McCain, and 9% would not vote. Here's the crucial number: 41% of those who would vote for McCain in that situation, voted for clinton. 41% times 16% is 6.5%. These are the dishonest Operation Chaos voters.

Here's the corresponding table for Obama:

Vote for president in November	Clinton	Obama
Obama (71%)	35%	65%
McCain (18%)	88%	12%
Woud not vote (8%)	98%	2%

Doing the same math, we have 2.2% dishonest (and and/or lawbreaking) Republican voters who are voting for Obama, presumably because they think he is the weaker candidate.

6.5% - 2.2% = 4.3%. Sampling error aside, this is the true, exact advantage that HRC got from Operation Chaos. (Since these voters should be eliminated from the primary, not switched, you do not multiply this number by 2.)

In other words, Obama should have won by 2 or 3 points.

•  It matters for Hillary really didn't win in IN,

  by drmah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM PDT

  •  I know a few Obama Republicans

    who will be voting a Republican ticket, but, voting for Obama to be President.  So, I'd say from this perspective, Operation Chaos is even stronger than 4%, perhaps as high as 6%.  I don't think Republicans voting for Obama do so because he's a stronger candidate.  They do so because they really want him to be president -- or they just really really dislike Clinton.   The latter group is one who will really be energized to get out the GOV vote if Clinton somehow manages to twist superdelegate arms.  Bring up a blue dress and lots of fellas around here will give up their beer for a month, or three.

    by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:13 PM PDT

    •  I'm one of those and know other reg. Repugs who

      really like Obama.  

      I have to tell you about one Obama supporter. My Pizza man told me he voted Democratic for the first time in his 60+ years of life.  He owns his shop and is upset about the rising cost of flour.  He was activiely recruiting people to cross-over and vote for Obama.  He explained to his customers how to do that in the Indiana primary.  He was quite convincing and I'll bet he made a difference in the 60% who went for Obama in Hamilton County.

      It's the economy and will be even more fo in November.

      by drmah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM PDT

•  You can also

  see in those tables which of the honest supporters are threatening to vote for McCain if their candidate loses the primary. Hillary voters claim to be a few percent sulkier, but I think it would fall under the MOE.

  by homunq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:55:23 AM PDT

  •  that was the tip jar n/t

    by homunq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

    •  You want Monopoly money?

      I'm tipping the tip jar and the tip to tip the tip jar, and, no, I'm not tipsy!

      The Universe is a big place ... perhaps the biggest. -Kilgore Trout

      by fugitive on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:00:05 PM PDT

•  It does matter.

  But only to the unpledged delgates (well actually the pledged ones can change their pledges....)

  I think most people won't get the nuance.  Or don't care to get the nuance.

  by espresso on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:56:15 AM PDT

•  Interesting analysis

  I've got to digest this, but this is one of the few quantifiable links to the effect of "Operation Chaos" I've seen. Their might be others, but this is news to me.

  Now, you might be wrong, but I like your approach (and I don't think you're wrong).

  Number wonks. Ya gotta love 'em.

  The Universe is a big place ... perhaps the biggest. -Kilgore Trout

  by fugitive on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM PDT

•  Hillary really needs to denounce Limbaugh

  by drmah on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:59 AM PDT

  •  He would love that attention n/t

    by throughaglassdarkly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

    •  You should have heard him

      gloating this morning. He is openly cheering Hillary on and supporting her call to have MI and OH counted. Yes, he loves the attention and was whining about not getting more media coverage for "Operation Chaos".

      I doubt very much that Hillary would ever denounce him.  He's her best ally.

      by ryder92111 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM PDT

      •  In other words, what he is saying is...

        Attention all superdelegates, Hillary didn't really win Indiana.  
        Go ahead and throw your support behind the Obama now.

        by God loves goats on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:09 PM PDT

        •  Basically.

          by Yoshimi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:14:25 PM PDT

•  There's an alternative, somewhat less nefarious

  account of what these McCain-favoring voters may be doing:  Voting for the candidate, of the three, who would be their second choice to be President (after McCain).  

  These voters are simply voting in the Dem primary because that's the only competitive one; why vote in an uncontested R primary?

  It's hard for me to see this as especially evil, since my dear departed Democratic grandma did this for decades in New Hampshire, trying to pick the least offensive Republican in the primary.

  by throughaglassdarkly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:00:58 PM PDT

  •  People in MI have done it for years

    happens almost every primary, especially when one side is decided.   It's nothing new.  I don't regard it as evil. If a state wants to stop it, then close the damn primary or hold a caucus!  Simple solution.

    I don't see it as having any major effect and I don't give limbaugh any more credit for the tactic than I gave Kos for advocating the same thing in MI (didn't work here btw, mccain got more Democratic support than romney did).  People are gonna do it regardless of any marching orders from supposed media figures.  

    by dougymi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:35 PM PDT

•  People tried this last night.

  But it doesn't work. These are the same numbers for past primaries where opo chaos wasn't in effect.

  It's simply the numbers of people who are upset. Now that McCain has said that he will nom SC justices like Scalito and Roberts I'm hoping those supporters will regain their sanity.

  by Mike S on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM PDT

•  The numbers are actually higher.

  It was actually 31-50,000 votes, by insincere Republicans.

  Clinton, won by only 22,000 votes.

  Obama should of won Indiana. Though it doesn't really matter.

  by Excelscior1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM PDT

  •  That's what the diarist is saying

    4.3% of 1,200,000 is 51,600.

    by kosophile on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:22:45 PM PDT

•  mindless speculation

  Maybe "Operation Chaos" is a cover for actual defections from the Republicans?

  by Choom Gang Vets for Truth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:04:17 PM PDT

•  Means she actually LOST Indiana absent OP Chaos.

  Which would have made today a different day.

  by revgerry on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:05:05 PM PDT

  •  instead

    they'd be squawking about possible voter fraud in Gary (the Republican county chair saying that there were no irregularities notwithstanding).

    by Choom Gang Vets for Truth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM PDT

•  No, disagree with your assumption

  People who voted for Obama or Clinton but would rather have McCain in many cases are simply picking their "second choice" should their preferred candidate fail in the election.

  This is sensible and patriotic, even if technically illegal in Indiana.

  I think a portion of Clinton voters were making mischief, but it's hard to tease out the exact amount.

  by eumaies on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:06:32 PM PDT

  •  Sensible, patriotic, and illegal...

    reason #231248 we need election reform. If you could vote your preferences (IRV or Range Voting), the reasons for strategizing like this would just evaporate.

    by homunq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM PDT

•  There is something missing

  People who voted for Clinton may have voted a sympathy vote, meaning they know that she may not make it to the GE, but they voted for her anyway. Since they do not like Obama, they will vote for McCain. These people could be Democrats. So, I do not think you can use just the numbers presented to make the analysis you are trying to make.

  by sweetliberty on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM PDT

•  It seems incredibly unprofessional

  that a radio personality would attempt to sway election results in this manor. Shouldn't his broadcast license be revoked by the FCC or something?
  We can not listen, urge his sponsors to no longer advertise on his program or inundate him with emails and phone calls. Personally, I think he needs to be tarred and feathers, ridden out of town on a rail and put in the stocks with a 10 pound weight tied to his tongue. Rush can then be set off on an ice flow in the Arctic to be food for starving polar bears, never to be heard from again.  

  by moose67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM PDT

  •  Kos asked us to do the same thing in Michigan.

    I'm more concerned about Rush provoking a riot in Denver.

    by Yoshimi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM PDT

    •  Kos's request was pretty . .

      dumb -- and inconsequential (the DKos universe is not 13 million -- and here there is real give and take.  No one is following anyones marching orders).

      Kos is also not using the public airwaves.  There are more restrictions on Limbaugh's speech than Kos's.

      by NotGeorgeWill on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM PDT

•  What about Michigan?

  For the naysayers, why did DK tout keeping Romney in the primaries via their work in Michigan and come to that assumption by similar analysis as we see here, but when it comes to Rush's influence on the Dem primary in Indiana so many say 'couldn't be!'

  by whereisboblafollette on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:52 PM PDT

  •  Most of us disagreed with KOS on this.

    by moose67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM PDT

    •  Where's the poll

      that shows that a majority disagreed with it?  You're trying to use your own hunch  as to what the consensus of what probably hundreds of posters had to say on the matter, and further still, possibly a million people or more who were tuned into the issue at the time.  You have no evidence of that.  Even less than any commenter in this thread have on what happened in Indiana.

      Seriously, everybody is spouting their own version of how to interpret this statistic or that statistic, but the reality is both Kos and Rush had an impact in these two elections.  We don't need exact statistical proof of the matter to know it's true.

      by whereisboblafollette on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM PDT

      •  exit polls in MI showed that mccain got more

        support from Democrats than romney did. Kos' advocating it was a big washout.  Not to mention the fact that limbaugh's audience is far bigger than the number of readers here.  

        I don't give limbaugh much credit, though.  I think people would do it regardless of whether limbaugh advocated it or not.  People are pretty feisty and have their own minds when it comes to their vote.  Maybe a few of the true red dittoheads with no real minds did as the master told them to do, but I doubt it was very many.

        by dougymi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM PDT

      •  Several polls were taken in the week or so

        proceeding the Michigan primary....most people here on Daily Kos didn't go for the scheme and spoke out freely about it being unethical....

        by moose67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:16:59 PM PDT

  •  Kos was wrong.

    He only influenced one primary. Limbaugh is wrong. And he was defeated as well. His ego won't allow him to admit his failure. Obama is the nominee.

    by kitebro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM PDT

    •  Wrong about what?

      Wrong in the factual sense or wrong in the moral sense?  It doesn't really matter.  My point goes to the factual sense.  In the factual sense, you admitted that Kos influenced the outcome in Michigan, and my point is if that was possible it was also possible for Rush to influence Indiana.

      The degree of Limbaugh's failure or success is determined by what you think his goals are.  His goal is not to make Hillary the nominee, IMO.  That's as impossible in his world as it is in ours.  His goal is to game the works, and by allowing Hillary and the punditry to declare last night a split decision, it lends to her argument and the punditries excuses for carrying on.  That's achieving the goal of gaming the works, like it or not.

      by whereisboblafollette on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM PDT

      •  Doesn't matter.

        His goal in 2006 was to have a GOP majority in Congress. His ego is massive. His influence is marginal.

        by kitebro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:13 PM PDT

        •  You're speaking around the issue nt

          by whereisboblafollette on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:12 PM PDT

          •  What issue?

            by kitebro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:45:48 PM PDT

•  My brother-in-law is a McCain supporter

  and he voted in the Democratic primary just so that he could have the joy of voting against a Clinton.

  I think we give Rush too much credit.

  by Yoshimi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:12:13 PM PDT

  •  He is one of the 2.2%

    I accounted for that.

    by homunq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM PDT

•  JedReport covered this.

  See his post from this morning:  McCain Supporters Deliver Indiana To Clinton

  by vbdietz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:13:24 PM PDT

•  I heard Chris Matthews

  this morning scolding people for participating in Operation Chaos.  He said they were unpatriotic.  This is not a new trick (I vaguely remember someone suggesting that Democrats do that in Michigan this year), and it's something that people have done for probably the entire history of primaries.  It works both ways.  It's annoying and somewhat damaging, but not as bad as a lot of other shenanigans that go on during election season.

  by myrealname on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:14:22 PM PDT

  •  Funny

    (I vaguely remember someone suggesting that Democrats do that in Michigan this year),

    by Yoshimi on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:28 PM PDT

  •  MI has a history of this.

    Kos mentioned that when he wrongly urged Kossacks to vote for Romney. Ain't karma a bitch?

    by kitebro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM PDT

•  I agree, with one caveat

  I did the same calculation last night and it resulted in almost 50,000 extra votes for Clinton.

  The one caveat someone else raised, which has some validity in my view, is that those participating in Operation Chaos, or some significant portion of them, might also lie in the exit polls.  Of course, that would make Operation Chaos harder to detect and would mean that there were more Operation Chaos voters than you estimated.

  by kosophile on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:18:01 PM PDT

  •  My gut says

    that when there are no consequences people mostly tell the truth. I'd say the exit-poll liars are at most 20-30% of the dittoheads, so the real number is probably not over 6%.

    by homunq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:49:50 PM PDT

    •  But here, there are consequeces

      I'm sure that many of the faux Democrats realized that their answers could be analyzed and dissected in just the way that we're trying to do here. It would make sense for them to lie about their November choice, so as not to give themselves away.

      by Nowhere Man on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM PDT

      •  Have you ever

        planned to lie, then just blurted out the truth? Lying is harder than you expect, for most people. Limbaugh himself is quite practiced at it, but most dittoheads are simple folk.

        by homunq on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:17:57 AM PDT

        •  That's why I stick to what I'm good at

          I'm a lousy liar, much to the relief of Ms. Nowhere.

          by Nowhere Man on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM PDT

        •  But that doesn't mean

          that other folks aren't better at it than I am.

          by Nowhere Man on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:09:34 PM PDT

          •  heard "takes one to know one"?

            if that's true, than dittoheads must be the worst liars on earth, or they would see through him.

            by homunq on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:32:19 AM PDT

•  There's actually no way to estimate these numbers

  Maybe those voting for Hillary are voting for their second choice behind McCain, rather than voting for Hillary to intentionally mess up Obama's chances. That's completely plausible.

  Don't get me wrong, I do think there are some true "op chaos" people out there who are causing problems. But without a way to know exactly how many people we're talking about, it's just going to be seen as speculative.

  by pointsoflight on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:19:01 PM PDT

  •  In any state but Indiana, I agree.

    In Indiana, that is illegal, so either way, they are crossing a line.

    by homunq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:32:39 PM PDT