The 'Bogus' Democratic Primary Vote

[Democratic Hawk]

From what I can ascertain from the Pennsylvania primary (April 22) through to the Montana and South Dakota primaries (June 3), exit pollsters asked Democratic primary voters how they would vote in November be it Clinton vs McCain or Obama vs McCain and found evidence of 'bogus' voting, especially for Clinton

Pennsylvania

Total ballots cast: 2,307,759

1. Clinton 82% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 31% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.31x 0.10 = 0.031 x 2,307,759 = 71,541 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 73% - McCain 15%. Of that 15%, 10% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.10 x 0.15 = 0.015 x 2,307,759 = 34,616 'bogus' votes

Indiana

Total ballots cast: 1,278,268

1. Clinton 73% - McCain 16%. Of that 16%, 41% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.41 x 0.16 = 0.0656 x 1,278,268 = 83,854 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 71% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 12% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.12 x 0.18 = 0.216 x 1,278,268 = 27,611 'bogus' votes

North Carolina

Total ballots cast: 1,593,335

1. Clinton 75% - McCain 14%. Of that 14%, 48% votef for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.48 x 0.14 = 0.0672 x 1,593,335 = 107,072 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 74% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 10% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.10 x 0.18 = 0.018 x 1,593,335 = 28,680 'bogus' votes

West Virginia

Total ballots cast: 357,031

1. Clinton 74% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 38% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.38 x 0.18 = 0.0684 x 357,031 = 24,421 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 49% - McCain 29%. Of that 29%, 7% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.07 x 0.29 = 0.0203 x 357,031 = 7,248 'bogus' votes

Kentucky

Total ballots cast: 700,855

1. Clinton 77% - McCain 16%. Of that 16%, 55% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.55 x 0.16 = 0.088 x 700,855 = 61,675 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 50% - McCain 32%. Of that 32%, 7% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.07 x 0.32 = 0.0224 x 700,855 = 15,699 'bogus' votes

Oregon

Total ballots cast: 636,140

1. Clinton 85% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 25% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.25 x 0.10 = 0.025 x 636,140 = 15,904 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 83% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 10% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.10 x 0.10 = 0.01 x 636,140 = 6,361 'bogus' votes

Montana

Total ballots cast: 181,423

1. Clinton 73% - McCain 18%. Of that 18%, 27% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.27 x 0.18 = 0.0486 x 181,423 = 8,817 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 78% - McCain 16%. Of that 16%, 26% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.26 x 0.16 = 0.0416 x 181,423 = 7,547 'bogus' votes

South Dakota

Total ballots cast: 97,905

1. Clinton 84% - McCain 9%. Of that 9%, 29% voted for Clinton in the primary. By my calculation, 0.29 x 0.09 = 0.261 x 97,905 = 2,555 'bogus' votes

2. Obama 78% - McCain 10%. Of that 10%, 9% voted for Obama in the primary. By my calculation, 0.09 x 0.10 = 0.009 x 97,905 = 881 'bogus' votes

Total

Clinton: 375,839 'bogus' votes

Obama: 128,643 'bogus' votes

What is most telling is that given Clinton beat Obama by 14,198 votes in Indiana, these 'bogus' votes enabled her to pull out a win.

Are these findings evidence of 'Operation Chaos'? Did Limbaugh succeed in prolonging the Democratic primary to the end?

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

(2) The much bigger and more significant number, which is the fact that Hillary performed better than McCain in every single matchup in the states you listed except Montana, is conveniently ignored, even though the data is plainly out there for all to see.

I'm not disputing that; but it was not my objective

My objective was to ascertain those who voted in the Democratic primary for either Clinton or Obama but would not support their chosen candidate in the fall against McCain - and 74.45% of them were cast for Clinton

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My point, of course, is that it is, fundamentally, disingenous for any voter to cast a ballot for a candidate in a Democratic primary when they have no intention of supporting that candidate in the general against McCain

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

I think the way certain people have been discounting a wad of Clinton's supporters may come back to haunt us.

I'm not discounting Clinton supporters. My objective was to ascertain the extent to which those who voted for both Clinton and Obama yet would not vote their chosen candidate against McCain in November

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

There's a consituency of moderate/conservative democrats who feel they've been forced out of the party - and for the Obama supporters to have lambasted them (or anyone who didn't support their candidate) as bigotted rednecks kind of defeats the purpose.

And therein lies my next objective to ascertain the extent to which Democratic primary voters broke along ideological lines for Obama and Clinton. My objective being, of course, to refute the argument that Obama swept among liberals, with moderate and conservative primary voters overwhelmingly favoring Clinton

It is only too apparent that certain demographics tilted heavily towards one candidate or the other but were they polarised along ideological lines?

What I've ascertained thus far is:

1. Very liberal: Obama - 23 states (ranging from +4 in CT to +44 in MS); Clinton - 13 states (ranging from +2 in TX to +49 in WV); Tied - 3 states

2. Somewhat liberal: Obama - 19 states (ranging from +5 in CT to +41 in GA); Clinton - 19 states (ranging from +3 in TX to +48 in AR); Tied - 1 state

3. Moderate: Obama - 17 states (ranging from +2 in IA to +40 in GA); Clinton - 22 states (ranging from +1 in MO, TX to +46 in AR, WV)

4. Conservative: Obama - 15 states (ranging from +1 in FL to +49 in VA); Clinton - 19 states (ranging from +1 in OK to +55 in KY); Edwards - 1 state (IA +20); Tied - 1 state; No data - 3 states

I'll do it regionally: Central, North-Central, Northeast, South and West

I don't know about moderates and conservatives, as a constituency, feeling forced out of the party but, on first glance, it seems that a lot of moderates and conservatives cast votes for Obama. Not to mention the fact that both candidates secured congressional and gubernatorial endorsements from across the spectrum

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These aren't voters that Obama has necessarily lost. These are voting constituencies who prefered Clinton to Obama in a Democratic primary. It's Democrat vs Republican from hereon

I'm optimistic that in time Obama's 'visionaries' and Clinton's 'substantialists' can coalesce, for the most part, around his candidacy

Clinton swept Appalachia despite the fact that she is no more culturally populist than Obama, in no small part, because Clinton waged a substance-based campaign, which resonated much more strongly among white working class Democrats than Obama's more visionary-based campaign, which appealed to more upscale and higher educated white Democrats

And what these 'wavering' white working class Democrats need to know is that a President Barack Obama would be as much for their interests as a President Hillary Clinton would be and that is,  inevitably, going to require more policy substance from Obama on the issues that matter to these voters

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Either you're very optimistic... or I'm a horrible pessimist.

I'm somewhat optimistic that Obama could, potentially, bring more into his Democratic coalition as the general election campaign moves forward. Am I confident that he'll win? Not at all. Far from it

Because as well as having, potentially, the 'wider net' (i.e. stronger appeal among Independents and cross-over Republicans), Obama could also have the 'leakier boat' (i.e. a higher risk of Democratic defections to McCain) - and it's way too soon to even begin predicting anything yet

Dave