Conservatives For Obama

Any reason given?

Posted by Mark from NY | February 12, 2008 3:54 PM

So they're voting for him because they think he'll be the weaker general election candidate? Interesting.

Of course, the "senior staffer's" conclusion doesn't follow at all, given that the Republican nomination is, mathematically, a foregone conclusion, but I have no doubt that he's merely trying to advance his agenda with this email. Can't blame a guy for trying.

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 12, 2008 3:59 PM

I understand their thinking. If I were a conservative I would want Obama.

Many Americans will not vote for a black man for President. It is that simple. I suspect that is why the two Democrats groups Obama can't crack are working class white voters and older voters. I suspect race is an issue.

Secondly, John McCain will run on experience. What better person to contrast himself with but an inexperienced young man, with no national security credentials.

Lastly, two names. Tony Rezko and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Posted by Dick Flatts | February 12, 2008 4:05 PM

Dick Flatts

- racist red necks will not vote for a black man.
- "many" is an overstatement.

Last time I checked, most of those live in the rust states and will vote Republican anyway.

Obama will win the North East and the West Coast then hopefully a few states in between - enough to win the general.

Posted by Phil | February 12, 2008 4:20 PM

"Many Americans will not vote for a black man for President."

Nice to see you here today, Governor Rendell. I'd be interested to see support for the conclusions that (i) "many" people would take such a position, (ii) assuming that were true, that a significant portion of those people would be willing to vote democractic if the candidate were white, and (iii) assuming that were true, those people would be willing to vote for a woman (but not an African American).

With regard to your second point, change versus experience works for Obama both against Clinton and McCain. Clinton, on the other hand, loses the experience battle with McCain. Why on earth should we democrats seek to frame the debate precisley on the terms on which we lose?

Posted by Chunche | February 12, 2008 4:26 PM

Interesting. If *I* were a conservative think tank person, I would definitely go vote for Hillary and my reasoning would be based on the calculus that Hillary will not do as well against McCain as Obama. Hillary's argument for "experience" will fall flat against McCain. However, I suppose the other side of this is that conservatives are unhappy with McCain as their choice and are voting for Obama cause they would genuinely prefer him to McCain. In either scenario I guess it bodes well for Obama's appeal in the general.

Posted by jsc2008 | February 12, 2008 4:26 PM

I don't know why everyone assumes they're voting for him strategically, thinking he'd be a weaker candidate in the general, especially when the polling data we have indicates otherwise. Equally likely is the possibility that they know a loss is forthcoming in the general no matter which one the Democrats nominate, so they're voting for Obama as the more palatable option b/w the two.

Posted by DRinOH | February 12, 2008 4:27 PM

I think conservatives unhappy with McCain are unlikely to genuinely prefer Obama, especially conservatives who work at a think tank and thus actually know something about Obama's positions. I saw a post on RedState the other day arguing that Obama's actually the weaker general election candidate, and while I've long been a proponent of the reverse hypothesis, I'm kind of starting to come round.

Posted by Derannimer | February 12, 2008 4:30 PM

And racist redneck yahoos won't vote for a woman. Big deal. Obama has shown that he can attract Democrats, independents, and Republicans. All polls in the last week show him beating McCain. His campaign is humming along at a good clip, gaining money and momentum and enthusiam. Hillary's campaign is in shambles. With the success and vibrancy of Obama's grass-roots volunteers in all 50 states, he will be well poised to mount an impressive general election run.

And what do we hear from Clinton supporters? America won't vote for a black man!!

Except, of course, that they are.

Posted by Craig | February 12, 2008 4:30 PM

Sounds to me like the "calculus" being employed is that the democratic nominee will win the general, so a conservative staffer might as well vote for the democrat they'd prefer as president. Reminds me of my ultra-conservative uncle who lived in NYC who registered and voted as a democrat because, at least back then, that was the only way you had a voice. Read in context, I don't think this email has anything to do with who is the stronger or weaker dem candidate, but rather it's based on the assumption that McCain probably won't beat either one of them.

Posted by TSB | February 12, 2008 4:32 PM

DRinOH -- I agree. Not all voters are selfish, venal partisans who vote purely on calculation of what is best for their own narrow interests. I always root for both parties to nominate the candidates who would make the best presidents, even if that poses a bigger challenge to the nominee of my own party. I would rather work harder to beat a qualified candidate, than worry about the risk to the country if an unqualified candidate were to win a major nomination, and make it all the way to the White House.

Posted by DT | February 12, 2008 4:36 PM

I am a conservative and I would vote for Obama in the primary AND in the general election.

Posted by Nate | February 12, 2008 4:37 PM

Obama will win the North East and the West Coast then hopefully a few states in between - enough to win the general.

Hillary, too, will win the NE and W Coast, and she'll perform stronger than Obama in the SW purple states (she does MUCH better among Hispanics) as well as culturally conservative/moderate purple states like Missouri, Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, etc.

Obama looks great until you look at how we actually pick our presidents, namely the Electoral College.

There are ten or twelve purple states up for grabs in November. They're all either heavily Latino, or culturally moderate/conservative, or both. I don't see how Obama is the stronger candidate in such a scenario, especially given the fact that the GOP will do everything in its power to (quite correctly, unfortunately) point out the fact that Obama is the single most left-wing member of the United States Senate. Obama's been able to muddy the ideological waters up till now (ever wonder why he stresses the issues so little?) but this scenario won't last forever, and it certainly won't obtain in November.

Posted by Jasper | February 12, 2008 4:45 PM

How can presumably Republican conservative think tank staffers vote in a Democratic primary anyhow?

Posted by huh? | February 12, 2008 4:53 PM

Not all voters are selfish, venal partisans who vote purely on calculation of what is best for their own narrow interests.

But surely staffers at a "PROMINENT CONSERVATIVE THINK TANK" are among the most likely to fall into this category.

Amirite, folks?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 12, 2008 4:54 PM

Believe it or not, there are plenty of educated white people who hate blacks. Most of these are male, and some of them you might call Reagan Democrats. But they are smart enough to know that Obama does not fit their stereotypes of blacks as naturally unintelligent, ignorant, willfully helpless leeches supported by "misery merchant" politicians.

There are all kinds of other people who hate blacks: Asians, some hispanics, white working class in the east and midwest, and traditional southerners. But Asians and hispanics typically don't vote very much. Traditional southerners live in deep red states, unless you actually think Dems are going to contest Virginia.

And of course, among older white working class (especially women), Obama will have problems. But these are not the types of voters who agree with McCain on much of anything. And they tend to hate the idea of staying in Iraq. And if these are ordinary Democrats who won't vote, the increased black turnout will probably make up for them.

Posted by Jeff K. | February 12, 2008 5:02 PM

"There are ten or twelve purple states up for grabs in November. They're all either heavily Latino, or culturally moderate/conservative, or both."

Swing states that look better for Obama based on election results so far: IA (+17 vs. McCain), CO, VA

Swing states that look better for Clinton: NV, OH (basing this only on the latest SUSA poll, let's revisit this Mar. 5).

Swing states that look similar for both: NM, MO

States that we probably don't win either way: AZ, FL, NC, WV, AR, KS

States we probably hold either way: PA

Posted by John M. | February 12, 2008 5:27 PM

The fact is that Obama is simply very likeable, and because many conservatives have no love for McCain, and don't trust him on the *one* issue that could swing them to vote for him--the appointment of judges--Obama is not that unattractive of a candidate.

In fact, I can imagine Obama in the general election arguing that the policy of interventionism undertaken by Bush and the neo-conservatives is an anathema to *real* conservatives such as Buckley, etc. He may be able to convince enough of these paleo-cons to vote his way.

Posted by wj | February 12, 2008 5:40 PM

I would rather work harder to beat a qualified candidate, than worry about the risk to the country if an unqualified candidate were to win a major nomination, and make it all the way to the White House.

The last 7 years are all the reminder we need about unqualified candidates.

Posted by Tiparillo | February 12, 2008 6:35 PM

I wouldn't be so quick to argue a lack of experience is hobbling...

Elections haven't traditionally favored long-time Senators as candidates. See Kerry, John; Gore, Albert; Dole, Robert; Mondale, Walter; McGovern, George; Humphrey, Hubert; Goldwater, Barry;

The only striking example to the contrary is Johnson, who had a variety of factors working for him, He was running against another Senator. He had only been a Senator 2 years longer than Goldwater. He was the sitting president at the time, and the nation had only recently recovered from Kennedy's assassination 1 year earlier.

Posted by Seth | February 12, 2008 6:54 PM

I think the message is pretty clear: Conservatives would rather run against Obama... in 2012 (not in 2008). There are several reasons but most compelling one is Jeb Bush. The country would be pretty sick of the Bush/Clinton duopoly by 2012 to elect Jeb. On the other hand if we had a break of the pattern, it makes Jeb's chances much better.

Posted by Krassen | February 12, 2008 6:56 PM

I think the message is pretty clear: Conservatives would rather run against Obama... in 2012 (not in 2008). There are several reasons but most compelling one is Jeb Bush. The country would be pretty sick of the Bush/Clinton duopoly by 2012 to elect Jeb. On the other hand if we had a break of the pattern, it makes Jeb's chances much better.

Posted by Krassen | February 12, 2008 6:56 PM

A reporter (I think from the Post) was interviewing voters in Northern Virginia today and I was struck by and elderly couple (in their 70s) who said they were Republican but decided to vote for Obama today. They were white. And the reporter asked them who they would vote for in November and they said that although they liked McCain, they would still vote for Obama.

I am an African American who as recently as 2 months ago would assume that those 5 voters were voting for Obama as part of some scheming plot. But now, call me naive but I think that they might actually like him.

Until I get proven wrong I am now willing to believe that most people out there are basically decent and don't want to throw their vote away.

Or maybe they just can't stand Hillary.

Posted by MAB | February 12, 2008 6:58 PM

These staffers probably live in DC--where one has to register as a Democrat in order to have a meaningful vote in local elections (No. Va and MD are similar). There are alot of Republicans that are registered Democrats in DC (I bet there are quite a few RNC staffers that are registered Democrats). This is much ado about nothing.

Posted by rtb | February 12, 2008 6:58 PM

"I don’t think anyone in this building will vote for Obama in the general, but I would take it as a sign that conservatives are less than motivated by the name at the top of their ticket."

- The second part of that sentence trumps the first part, IMHO any may very well in the general.

What employee is going to tell another employee at a conservative think-tank that they voted for Obama because they are enthusiastic for him and his message? Doubtful...

Posted by Jon C | February 12, 2008 7:00 PM

I'm now rethinking what I wrote in my previous post because of this interesting discussion at Politico:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0208/How_many_of_your_apparatchiks_are_voting_strategically.html#comments

Posted by MAB | February 12, 2008 7:05 PM

Jasper:

I don't understand how you count Hillary's LOSS in MO as sign of her greater strength in purple states. Ohio is still up for grabs. Arkansas was her second political home and Florida's results are partially nullified by the kooky date politics.

There's simply no way to keep spinning that Obama is less electable when he has the MAJORITY of election/caucus delegates.

Black people have a large presence in a FRACTION of the states he's won. Further, his winning margins against Hillary are ON AVERAGE much greater than his margins over him.

I get that you're a Hillary fan, but some of your talking points are ringing awfully hollow.

Posted by AltonDarwin | February 12, 2008 7:06 PM

It's funny how when conservatives express praise for a Democrat, most people assume they have a nefarious motive at hand.

Unless large groups of conservatives are having secret meetings underground in the sewer system below DC, I think it's better to go with the simplest explanation.

Also, doesn't "I don’t think anyone in this building will vote for Obama in the general," mean "I don't think anyone in the building likes Obama enough to vote for him in the general", which would mean "They like him better than Hillary, but not enough to vote for him in the general."

This is much more about liking Obama and hating Hillary than the overly complex, Machiavellian motives we are assuming they have.

Posted by Jason | February 12, 2008 7:25 PM

Dick Flatts:

Two names: George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole.

So much for military experience.

Posted by bob | February 12, 2008 7:42 PM

To Dick Flatts:

The hypothetical general election match-up polls have pretty consistently shown Obama beating McCain... and McCain beating Hillary. I think you've got your electability analysis all wring

Posted by Colin F. | February 12, 2008 8:19 PM

I don't understand this ridiculous issue about "experience" as some kind of measure of effectiveness in the White House.

Remember that other guy from Illinois who was elected President with only 2 years in the House of Representatives, and just 8 years as a state legislator? Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by Marshall Jaffe | February 12, 2008 8:31 PM

I think they are saying:

We can't stand Hillary Clinton! Obama, eh.

Posted by AxelDC | February 12, 2008 9:53 PM

Lincoln, of course couldn't get his party's nomination nowadays.

Posted by A Bedford | February 12, 2008 10:00 PM

lovjypxrf nfyc krwql twlz roglemb hxtosrijw wbcvpdyrx

Posted by gsklbrinf bcevpg | June 16, 2008 11:12 AM

Comments (34)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives