It may sound crazy, but David Weigel has an analysis that would seem to indicate that anti-Clinton Republicans are the ones that voted her to victory yesterday (http://reason.com/blog/show/125327.html). Why you might ask? Because they see her as the weaker candidate in November. Hillary as the opponent is the best hope for a McCain victory, particularly because she cannot hang Iraq around his neck - BECAUSE she voted for it TWICE. Again, why can't Democrats see what the GOP sees so clearly?
It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.
Ohio didn't wind up being very close, but Clinton won the Texas primary by about 98,000 votes out of 2.8 million cast. If the exits are right, about 252,000 of those voters were Republicans, and about 618,000 were conservatives. Clinton truly might have won the Texas primary on the backs of Rush Limbaugh listeners.
What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP. Logistically, it might mean the end of GOP crossover voting if the Democrats get their game together and pass new primary/caucus reforms when this Ragnarok draws to a close. (In the short term I can't decide if it's better for Hillary or Obama, but it's a probably a relief to both campaigns that Pennsylvania will be Democrats-only.)