Tales from the Trail

Did Rush help Hillary in Indiana?

May 7, 2008

DALLAS – Has Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton improbably emerged as the favorite of the “Guns and God” crowd?

The U.S. media and blogosphere has been ablaze with speculation that conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have contributed to Clinton’s narrow victory in Tuesday’s Indiana primary over Barack Obama by urging Republicans to vote for the former Guns and God favorite?first lady.

The speculation is that the “Rush for Hillary” is seen as a way to extend the Democratic nomination battle and further damage the eventual winner.

Limbaugh has also said in the past that he thought Obama needed to be “bloodied up politically, and it’s obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it and don’t have the stomach for it.”

Obama chief strategist David Axelrod, speaking to reporters on Obama’s plane on the way to Chicago from his rally on Tuesday night in North Carolina, said he saw a Rush factor at play in Clinton’s win.

He said Clinton ought to “call a press conference and thank Rush Limbaugh for the victory.” He said the margin of victory for Clinton was so narrow, there is a good chance Limbaugh might have tipped the scales for her. 

“Eleven percent of the total electorate were Republicans. She got 52 percent of those. A large percentage of them said they would favor McCain in a race against Clinton.” 

Indiana has one of the more open primaries which allows independents and Republicans to also request a Democratic ballot on the day they vote.

Do political bedfellows get any stranger than this?

(With additional reporting by Caren Bohan) 

Click here for more campaign coverage. 

Comments
3 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Hillary Clinton appears to suffer from multiple personality disorder with her consultant-prescribed persona du jour. Her new base is retirees and rednecks–who’d have thought? She will say anything, tell any lie, launch any vicious and distorted attack and hopelessly wound the inevitable nominee to get a long shot at the presidency. She’s a narcissist with no concern for the consequences of her self-serving actions, which may well be another 4 years of neocon rule.

Posted by AlexLawyer | Report as abusive
 

Mrs.Clinton “won” Indiana by 1.1%–and Rush clearly has a hand in her “victory.” The Rush effect was also evident in Texas and Pennsylvannia. For the Dem Party elders NOT to intervene at this point when it is obvious that Mrs. Clinton CANNOT win the nomination and allow her to spoil not only Obama’s BUT the party’s chances for a true victory in November is pure cowardice. The Clintons are not a caricature of power-lust gone mad. They are now a demented couple, caught in their cocoon of insane dynastic entitlement and denial, who are tearing down the party, the American citizens and the republic as they continue to tear down Obama.

Posted by lin | Report as abusive
 

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Reader…

The county-by-county results of the Obama v. Clinton contests in most states (including Indiana) appear on the whole to show urban v. rural majorities, i.e., urban majorities for Obama and rural majorities for Clinton.

Isn’t this pretty much the way things turned out when looking back on the general election maps of 2000 and 2004, i.e., urban majorities for democrats and rural majorities for republicans?

Are these rural majorities of late actually republicans voting in democrat primaries? Nobody seems to know…no matter how often Rush Limbaugh rushes in to toot his fast fading horn.

I’m willing to go with a flip of the even-odds coin that it really won’t make much difference how rural democrats vote in the 2008 presidential election. They will be outnumbered by rural republicans for the most part…as they have traditionally been in recent years. That being the case, Mrs. Clinton’s rural base of support would be for the most part meaningless when pitted against the usual rural republican base of support, the latter for the most part going to Mr. McCain this November no doubt.

I’m willing to go with another flip of the even-odds coin and say that Mr. Obama will be the democrat presidential nominee…and that his fortunes will rise or fall depending on the usual democrat urban majorities.

It’s too bad, but I don’t think that Mr. Obama can overcome the polarization of the American voting electorate, e.g., rural v. urban; working class & lower middle class v. upper middle class & lower privileged class.

If Mr. Obama wins in November, it will be urban democrat majorities that put him over the top. If Mr. McCain wins in November, it will be rural republican majorities that put him over the top.

The real question is (and always has been) which way will the so called independent swing voters go?

Best Regards,
Oklahoma Jack

Posted by Oklahoma Jack | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/