Obama camp blames Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” for Indiana results

Tuesday night, as the Indiana votes are being counter, the Obama campaign put out an email crediting Rush Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos” with giving Clinton the slight lead in Indiana. Limbaugh’s plan was to ask Republican voters to cross over and vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. As a result, the race would go on and on damaging the party.

The report from Fox News:

Barack Obama’s campaign issued an e-mail on Tuesday night that appeared to relegate Hillary Clinton’s lead in Indiana to efforts by Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc in the Democratic presidential primary contest.

In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote: “According to the latest exit polling data, 17 percent of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain match-up. Forty-one percent of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7 percent of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a Limbaugh Effect.”

“The Limbaugh Effect” referred to “Operation Chaos,” which the conservative radio talk show host launched early in the primary season to create “balance” in the 2008 primary contest after he said liberal influences helped John McCain emerge as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Limbaugh has said his scheme to tilt the Democratic primary exceeded his expectations.

“I see the Obama campaign is saying Operation Chaos accounted for a 7-point bump for Hillary in Indiana. I think they are just jealous that I out-organized them,” Limbaugh told FOX News Tuesday night. “I am extremely proud of Operation Chaos volunteers. I never doubted they would triumph and it is a delight to see.”

Obama might be correct, Indiana is typically a “red” state during general elections meaning they have a lot of Republican voters. More than a few of them may have taken the idea to heart and voted for Clinton in hopes of continuing the Democratic race.

  • Fris

    I can see this coming back to hurt Republicans, especially if Obama goes on the offensive and shows this as splitting America by party lines. Whether he will have a public news hearing on it or just mention it at a rally remains to be seen, but if he gets supporters and swing voters to see this as the scheme that it really is, Limbaugh could become volatile to McCain’s rather calm and sometimes unitive demeanor.

    Any opinions on this?

  • Dam1en

    Call me dramatic, but to whoever participated in this, shame on you.

    Seriously.

    If you just voted to just cause mischief, I hope you carry that for the rest of your life. I’m only 20 years old, but I know how some people sacrificed EVERYTHING for us to be able to vote and have a voice. To just go into the polls just to cause mischief, and manipulate the will of the American voters, is simple outrageous to me.

  • Dam1en, unfortunately it swings both ways. I’m reminded of the Michigan Republican Primary when liberal activists urged Democratic voters to cross over and vote for Mitt Romney over John McCain in hopes of keeping the Republican race going. That is, of course, because Michigan wasn’t going to count on the Democratic side so the voters had good reason to switch.

    It has come from both sides and, technically, it’s not illegal or fraudulent in any way, just sort of using loopholes in the system.

    I personally think party primaries should be closed only to registered party members. I think that makes the most since they are choosing party nominees.

  • Michel

    I agree with Dam1en on this.

    I also don’t think that Obama should point this out very much. And it seems he won’t. His campaign just stated that in the next month Obama will be campaigning in some of the general election states.

    “I don’t think we are doing to spend our time solely in primary states”, those are the words of David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist.

    When asked whether that means Obama will campaign in general election states, he said: “I guess you can infer that from what I said.”

    Axelrod said the campaign would still visit each of the remaining primary states, but there is limited ground yet to cover. There are more undecided superdelegates up for grabs than pledged delegates in the remaining states.

    “Sen. McCain has basically run free for some time now,” Axelrod said. “Everybody is eager to get on with this. We are not going to take anything for granted. But we are also going to spend time addressing broader issues.”

    Those were the words I’ve been expecting to hear for some time now. There’s no time to waste when it comes to aiming at McCain.

  • Michael

    I think people are overplaying Rush’s part– and that’s not good, since the man already has a large enough ego. There were Republicans who crossed over to vote for Democratic contenders because they wanted one of the candidates– or felt that they would like to vote for their second choice for president of the United States. Both of these options, from my perspective, are viable.

    Now, there are probably some Republicans who followed Limbaugh’s game plan, but since the GOP race is over, I think just as many probably voted for Clinton OR Obama because they wanted one of them over the other.

    It’s really time that we start trying to encourage strong candidates on either side of the fence. Limbaugh’s “trench warfare” strategy only weakens one of the two options, and that option might become the president.

  • rd

    If Limbaugh’s intention was to push Hillary over the top so McCain could run against Hillary instead of Obama, it hasn’t happened. In fact, it looks like Hillary will drop out soon.

    Please, let’s not give this buffoon Rush Limbaugh any more attention than he deserves.

  • Jeremy

    I know of some people that are Republicans but live in a primarily Democratic state. Instead of registering Republican, they register Democrat so they can vote for the Democrat that they think has the most likely chance of loosing against the Republican party.

  • Dreadsen

    How do you establish proof? Right now with out proof Obama’s camp looks like sore losers.

    Why are they pointing this out now that it was a close contest?
    I was suspicious of this in Texas. I forget what news channel i was watching but someone asked and gave a phone number and an email address to contact them if they were a republican and called because of this. Something like 1200 emails came in. They didn’t specify if ALL 1200 were participants from what I recall. I believe this has made a difference all along. Even with out Rush saying anything. I don’t believe this is the first time this tactic has been employed.

    But lets say it was Ron Paul vs McCain and the democrats already had their nominee in February.

    Do you think democrats would get involved to push the weaker candidate?

  • Dreadsen

    Here’s some proof of Democrats doing it. But also proof that Republicans have pulled this off before.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/10/2713/87225/55/434206

    I guess here are some numbers of Operation Chaos actually causing Obama some REAL damage.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/06/exit-polls-limbaugh-effec_n_100488.html

    and some stats of operation chaos

    http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/OperationChaos.htm

  • Christopher Schwinger

    I agree with Nate. Democrats and Independs cross-voted to nominate John McCain, and Rush Limbaugh can legally work to weaken the Democratic Party. I just hope McCain doesn’t come out on top. We need to replace him with Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Alan Keyes, or Ron Paul. McCain believes in amnesty for illegals and in sacrificing our sovereignty for a North American Union. That, the Founding Fathers would say, is treason. Treason demands capital punishment. McCain and others don’t get capital punishment because power elites inhibit justice from being done (the FEC is a perfect example).

  • Michael

    Christopher, I respect your views as to which candidate you like more, but when you start invoking “Founding Fathers” I would ask you to either support your claims, or avoid making grandiose overtures.

    If you want to look at our “Founding Fathers” such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, substantiate these claims. You would find, in the end, their writings support both current day liberal and conservative leanings.

    Perhaps the one vein you could draw out from these early thinkers is their racist disposition, indicative for example of leaving out the abolition of slavery in the very proclamation of “independence.” People were endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness so long as they were White Anglo-Saxons. This bias could certainly fit your bill for their view on illegal immigrants today, but I do not see much other ideological roots or predilections to support your argument otherwise.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    What I am talking about is the North American Union (NAU), which, if it is not stopped in the next couple years, will have its own police force and be able to override the individual countries’ constitutions and laws. President Bush met with the presidents of Canada and Mexico to discuss the creation of this. David Rockefeller is one of the financial giants pulling the strings, setting this up. THAT is what the Founding Fathers would have fought. Bush is a traitor, I now am willing to say, even though I thought I’d never consider a Republican President that!

    http://www.thompsoncoalition.com/globalization.html – info on the NAU.

  • Michael

    Again, I would ask you to support your stateement. Look at the capital letters you are using there for “Founding Fathers.” You are summoning up a strong degree of nationalism and idealism, but I don’t see the substance.

    If you believe there is globalization occurring, then you could certainly see how the world is becoming one place. If this is indeed what is happening, political alliances and mergers (like the EU) are inevitable.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Do you want me to support my statement that it is treason or that the NAU intends to override the Constitution? (Same thing, as far as I’m concerned.)

  • Michel

    Pardon my ignorance, but how would a North American Union override the Constitution or be a threat to oursovereignty. Didn’t see that happen with the European Union, but I haven’t paid much atenttion. Could you tell me more about it?

  • IndiMinded

    Not to distract everyone from the looming threat of the NAU (which Ron Paul voiced concerns about too if I recall!)

    But washingtonpost.com had an interesting blog on “Operation Chaos” today, in which it is pointed out that thanks to the miracle of exit polling, we can actually remove all GOP identifiers from the voting pool and witness that it really doesn’t change the margin of victory for Hillary.

    So this “Limbaugh Effect” theory probably doesn’t hold much water – more likely the Obama campaign would like to make a slight loss look more like a win. Anyway, if anyone’s interested http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/05/more_sincere_crossover_1.html

  • Christopher Schwinger

    http://www.thompsoncoalition.com/globalization02.html
    If you have time, watch the videos on that page–the four-part video “Coalition to Block the N.A.U.”. The World Bank, Trilateral Commission, etc. are very instrumental in creating the EU, the African Union, and the soon-to-be North American Union and Asian Union. Who is likely to be in charge when these unions merge? The financial giants!

  • Christopher Schwinger

    That’s interesting, IndiMinded. Thanks for posting that.

  • Michel

    Indiminded, I don’t think either that the Limbaugh effect had much impact on Indiana.

    BUT (there’s always one of those) that W.Post article is assuming that all the GOP voters told the truth in their exit pollings. I don’t believe all of them indentified themselves as republicans.

    Aynway, as I said, I don’t think that made a major impact in the primary. Hillary won by a 1.8, yeah, but to me that’s as valuable as plain defeat.

    By the way, I found this line very interesting (I saw that info in some other article in Politico):
    “Not only did Clinton win Republicans in Indiana by eight percentage points, but about six in 10 of those who supported her in the primary said they would vote for McCain over Clinton in a hypothetical general election match-up. (Most Republicans voting for Obama said they would stick with him in the fall.)”

  • Michael

    Indiminded– thanks for the post, and that in many ways reaffirms my initial post on here. You should probably post that on CG’s most recent commentary as well.

    Christopher, it is one thing to invoke the Founding Fathers. Another to talk about the Constitution (and then you get into Constitutional Law). Any government that seeks to alter its parameters and negotiate power with another government would have to amend their constitution (if they had one).

    So, stick with the treason one and run with the Constitutional Law angle.

  • Christopher Schwinger

    According to the Constitution, one of the legislative branch’s powers is “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. Bush met behind closed doors with the presidents of Mexico and Canada in 2005 to discuss “free trade” and a North American Union without a word of approval from Congress. Furthermore, he was not properly held accountable for it. The NAU, even in its current, incomplete phase, is not an agreement to modify the individual countries’ Constitutions with the permission of the people. It just is above the reach of our constitutional process, because the people in charge intimidate our politicians. The NAU will be able to supersede the Supreme Court, as well. I know that it will be allowed by our current government because our government has already allowed numerous violations of our freedom: the IRS, with impunity, breaks and enters into people’s houses for dubious reasons and holds people at gunpoint. (But don’t get me started on the IRS!)

  • Dreadsen

    Michel

    Here is all you need

    North American Union and VCHIP truth ( if you like spooky conspiracy Lex Luther type movies like “loose change” then you’ll like this link) The rest of the links support the verifiable things on North American Union

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuBo4E77ZXo

    CNN reports on the North American Union

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA&feature=related

    More from CNN on the North American Union

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U&feature=related

    CNBC covering the Amero currency

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98&feature=related

    Fox News covers the American union and one currency

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mzJro8F44E&feature=related

    Ron Paul talks about the North American Union and a one way highway from Canada thru USA and into Mexico on Meet the Candidate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ccxQRaLIOM&NR=1

    Private “CONSERVATIVE” show talks about the dangers of the North American Union

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxzs46Nxohk&feature=related

  • Christopher Schwinger

    Thanks for listing the videos!