Democratic Defection Rates

Is this so hard to understand? Who would want to vote for an angry, unpatriotic, racist, Muslim black man who was a Manchurian candidate hell-bent on punishing whites and surrendering to al Qaeda?

Oh, and: REZKO!!!!

Posted by Craig | March 26, 2008 10:52 AM

Wow, I guess we better pick Hillary then. Funny how her supporters seem to share a lot of her qualities: angry, vindictive, utterly unconcerned about the fate of the party. You have to wonder about what the mood of the country would be under an HRC presidency. But no matter. If we don't vote for her, there's going to be hell to pay, so I guess we'd better suck it up.

Posted by alex | March 26, 2008 10:52 AM

And last year we would have nominated Giuliani and Clinton.. Polls between Obama v. McCain or Clinton v. McCain right now are irrelevant. Once the DNC focuses on McCain the number will change. The economy is horrid. People are dying in Iraq and we need healthcare. Anyone that frets over polls in March should just relax and have a drink.

Posted by Ann | March 26, 2008 10:53 AM

It's easy to get worked up for your candidate and develop a hatred for the other. In the end most Democrats will come home whoever the nominee is... Now, independents and Republicans who have become disaffected with their party are another issue. I don't see them coming out to vote for Clinton. (Except those on orders from Rush in the Pennsylvania primary.)

Posted by Steve K | March 26, 2008 10:55 AM

Craig, that was excellent snark, but it usually helpful if you indicate such in your comment. Some people might think you were being serious.

The Clinton campaign has always claimed to represent the base of the Democratic Party. I guess they are not really Democrats after all.

Posted by john m | March 26, 2008 10:55 AM

I think that the defection rate is probably largely a generational gap: older voters prefering McCain to Obama. I also think that it would likely be older women who were defecting at higher rates; and that's based purely on anectodatal information.

Obama's is probably younger voters who are bitter but proably would be more likely to stay at home.

I think that both candidates can solve their problems before the convention in this case with their VP picks. But the dirtier this gets and the bitterer the fight, especially since it seems to all be personal and not issue based, the harder it'll be to bind old wounds. That's why Obama, I think, needs this to end at NC/Indiana.

HRC imo is screwed either way right now and the party isn't going to give her the nomination and commit suicide with their base of African American voters. Especially since Obama can offer her or another woman the VP slot.

Obama, however, can't win if the bitterness hardens with the voters on her side of the aisle. It makes life that much harder.

The sooner this ends, the better for the party. But every day it seems clearer to me that Clinton can't win. Every attack is another nail in the coffin for her come the fall, imo.

Posted by Rhoda | March 26, 2008 10:56 AM

Most of it is due to the need to lash out and punish the democrats and nominee. Some cannot get past the fact that more democrats are not showing proper gratitude and loyalty to the Clintons for running.
They are like Carville was about Richardson. That same mindset.
So, they feel the need to punish everyone for not falling into line.
On the Obama side, many are very ticked off over the rightwing style that HRC has adopted and the feeling that she doesn't care about the party or hurting a fellow democrat against a republican.
The cozying up to Mellon Schief is just one more thing to send them even more over the edge as they see it as a betrayal of the party in general.
They feel, hey, if HRC wants to get into bed with the far right, then at least McCain is not as fringe like.

Posted by vwcat | March 26, 2008 11:00 AM

I think a lot of that is just frustration on both sides in the heat of the battle. A fair amount of those people will change their minds in November and vote for the Democratic nominee, although perhaps reluctantly.

But there's a second part of this equation to consider. Let's see there are defections of Democrats to Republicans. The Democrats would need to attract some defections the other way -- as well as attract the majority of independents -- to offset that. I can see Obama pulling that off. But can anyone really argue that there is going to be any significant number of Republicans who would vote for Clinton over McCain?

Posted by Fred App | March 26, 2008 11:01 AM

The problem with polls of possible future defection rates is that there is a large incentive to lie. If you really, really want your candidate nominated, why not claim that you will defect if the other candidate wins? That should improve your argument of electability and this improve yur candiates chances in the short term. And nothing requires you to actually do so in the fall.

On balance, I'd discount any such numbers by at least 3/4, probably more. Unless, of course, the poll also includes questions about who the individual voted for in past elections, and he turns out to be someone who routinely has voted for the other party's candidates. THOSE people might defect . . . or, more accurately, return to their usual practice.

Posted by wj | March 26, 2008 11:04 AM

Obviously there's some degree of 'won't vote for a black man' effect being seen here. I'd like to see an age breakdown.

Posted by neil | March 26, 2008 11:05 AM

Fewer Obama supporters would support McCain because Obama supporters tend to include the progressive wing and younger voters.

My conservative estimate: 20% of Obama voters would stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee. That counts for something too. A lot, actually.

But I also think that Clinton supporters will come around once we get into the general and their despair over the demise of "their girl" dies down. Lots of bitter women out there who wanted to see a woman president, but at the end of the day when they take off the blinders and remember what's at stake this cycle, they'll come around.

Posted by TH | March 26, 2008 11:07 AM

The big unknown is to what extent the eventual runner-up publicly and enthusiastically will support the eventual nominee. Assuming Obama is the nominee, Hillary can undo a lot of the bridge burning by publicly embracing Obama and actively campaigning on his behalf, and the 28% would (or should) go way down. In the meantime, though, I'm waiting for Petey to remind me that Clinton is the choice of "true Democrats".

Posted by Ready for change | March 26, 2008 11:10 AM

These numbers are hard to believe. Since Obama is bringing so many new people to the table I wonder if they are being polled, identified, or even part of the equation? I would assume that a certain portion of the Obama base, including youth, indies, and blacks, who would just walk away from the political process...stay home on election day...quit.

In terms of institutional leadership, status quo, political power brokers, I don't see much difference between McCain or Clinton...why vote for either?

Posted by heather | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

Look, Clinton's closer to Scaife and the right-wing smear machine than McCain will ever be. I'd feel a lot less sleazy voting for McCain than voting for her.

Also, voting McCain would let me piss on a bunch of old people I really dislike. Ha! Ha! Take that, effing oldies!

Posted by Monstertron | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM

I'd be curious to see a combination of their vote for McCain and stay home numbers. I suspect, for instance, that many African Americans might stay home, but wouldn't vote for McCain.

It seems like its time to talk about which candidate has better reconciliation options at their disposal.

Posted by Dirk | March 26, 2008 11:18 AM

One reason for this is the fact that Obama supporters are very, very sure that Obama will be the nominee, thus are magnanimously disinclined to support McCain, knowing they won't be forced to choose that option.

Posted by KathyF | March 26, 2008 11:19 AM

I'd be curious to see a combination of their vote for McCain and stay home numbers. I suspect, for instance, that many African Americans might stay home, but wouldn't vote for McCain.

It seems like its time to talk about which candidate has better reconciliation options at their disposal. I mean Obama could pick Kathleen Sebelius as his VP to woo back the party's Ferraro's and Richardson as Sec State to make up for his weakness among Latinos.

I don't see how Evan Bayh helps Clinton with an Obama group?

Posted by Dirk | March 26, 2008 11:22 AM

It's hilarious to Obama supporters desperately attempt to rationalize or otherwise explain away these numbers. As usual their conclusion is clear: It's ALL Hillary's fault.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 11:22 AM

It is all Hillary's fault. A certain percentage of people wouldn't have voted for her before the whole process began. There are Democrats that just don't like the Clintons as people, or have a real problem with the dynastic element of another Clinton administration. She has turned people against Obama, mostly after she had lost a realistic hope of winning, so it's probably all for naught. Basically, she sucks.

Posted by TH | March 26, 2008 11:27 AM

This is just the temporary result of a hard fought and close primary campaign. Get back to me after the Democratic convention with new polling data and maybe I'll believe there is something real and care.

Posted by Ron | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM

TH:

You sound like a spoiled child. Suck it up, princess!

Liberal bloggers do not dictate the Democratic nominee, and thank goodness for that.

I hope the Netroots - no, how about the NETWEEDS - do challenge Clinton in 2012 if she remains in the Senate... so the "Clintons" can kick their asses.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 11:43 AM

This is expected. She has hit him hard. The group most likely to believe her criticisms are her own supporters.

BUT it highlights why the "toughening him up" argument is so fatally flawed. The difference between Clinton attacking and Republicans attacking is that Democrats are likely to blow off the Republicans, but some will actually believe Clinton.

This is why it is so damaging to both candidates to keep killing each other.

Posted by Lance | March 26, 2008 11:57 AM

lol. i love how the obama people think that clinton caused us to oppose obama. maybe we just doint like your candidate.

Posted by tony | March 26, 2008 12:06 PM

"I wonder whether the different demographic coalitions that the candidates are putting together are in some ways responsible."

Or maybe it's that the only premise remaining for HRC's campaign is that Obama is unacceptable as the nominee.

If he's good, but not as good as she is, she has to drop out. Only by persuading herself and anyone she can that he cannot be President can she stay in. (See, e.g., the infamous "commander-in-chief" test.)

Posted by TL | March 26, 2008 12:06 PM

When have the dem's won a presidential election with the left wing of the party? I think there is a very good chance that the lunch bucket blue collar workers will find McCain more attractive than Obama. The deserted over McGovern and it isn't a race thing. Obama needs to lose the lefty label if he can. Wright didn't help in that regard.

Posted by linda | March 26, 2008 12:13 PM

Rusbbish. What people say and what they do aren't identical. Clinton's last chance to win the nomination is to push the meme that she's mroe 'electable' than Obama. That means she has to encourage her supporters to claim their second choice is McCain. Why do you think she keeps saying McCain is poatriotic, ready to answer the phone at 3 am, etc. etc. etc.?

Posted by Tom J | March 26, 2008 12:19 PM

This is becoming a repeat of 1988. The Democrats were so confident that Americans were sick of Republicans after 8 years of Reagan (evidence by their re-taking of the Senate in 1986) that they thought they could nominate a liberal governor from New England. Now the Democrats only seem to win national elections is when the party gets so tired of losing they manage to beat back the left-wing of the party and nominate a centrist willing to violate enough liberal sacred cows to be able to actually win.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 12:21 PM

"white men have higher defection rates than women"

That would put Obama's defections higher than Clinton's, and gallup is showing the other way around.

Posted by Bunker | March 26, 2008 12:26 PM

I really find it funny to hear Clinton supporters talk about how Obama can't win because he is too liberal.

At the beginning of the campaign he couldn't win because he was too conservative and wanted to concede things to the Republicans and was using right wing talking points.

Is it too much to ask for some consistency?

Posted by john m | March 26, 2008 12:31 PM

john m:

Well not everyone was necessarily making the same arguments. When Clinton supporters are consistent with each other we are accused of parroting campaign talking points. When we use different arguments in support of our candidate we are accused of being inconsistent.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 12:39 PM

The anti-vote vote will definitely be in play in November. But I have a sneaky suspicion that many of the anti-votes might go for Nader, not McCain. Maybe...

Let's also not forget that if Clinton wins, she does so through a sweep of superdelegates, which will cause a major upheaval. Asking the defection question, before that scab has been ripped off, might not reveal accurate answers.

Posted by AKBY | March 26, 2008 12:40 PM

It's hilarious to Obama supporters desperately attempt to rationalize or otherwise explain away these numbers. As usual their conclusion is clear: It's ALL Hillary's fault.

My thoughts exactly.

That would put Obama's defections higher than Clinton's, and gallup is showing the other way around.

No, they are split among white men. But Obama's white guys are probably liberal Democrats, who are more likely to vote Democrat regardless (although there's still some bleed) and independents/Republicans (who wuldn't be polled).

Clinton's white guys are more likely Reagan Democrats.

When have the dem's won a presidential election with the left wing of the party? I think there is a very good chance that the lunch bucket blue collar workers will find McCain more attractive than Obama. The deserted over McGovern and it isn't a race thing. Obama needs to lose the lefty label if he can. Wright didn't help in that regard.

This seems so obvious, and yet it's so hard for people to grasp. Except, alas, Obama can't lose the lefty label. He is far left.

Posted by Cal | March 26, 2008 12:42 PM

I'm for Obama but I really enjoyed Clinton supporter Ed Rendell's appearance on a recent "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me". He advised the supporters of whoever loses to go ahead and pout for ten days then get it together and support the nominee. I think that's exactly what will happen to most (but not all) of that 28%. They'll take a close look at McCain and realize the need for them to take a chill pill. I think the greater danger is that the new blood that Obama has brought into the party might be more inclined, not to vote for McCain but to just sit out the election. In my case, I'll vote for Nader.

Posted by Keith Hood | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM

Point 1: since there are more Obama supporters, do the percentages equal out to the same number of people?

Point 2: Way, way, way early, imho

Point 3: How much influence do the candidates themselves have on these numbers? Graciousness and solidarity within the party might be influenced by the behavior modeled by the candidates themselves.

Posted by Beth | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

America at its Greatest (A Canadian Outlook)
It is with great enthusiasm to see America showing great diversity in the Democratic race. To see the support and interest in the freedom of electoral process, and the overwhelming ages, races, gender and new participation is exceptional.

Never have I seen in Canada or the U.S. such excitement surrounding the democratic process. With new participation, comes hope of overcoming old school politics, surrounded by skepticism and scandals. Voting turnouts are reduced decade after decade by politicians who have self interests and have forgotten the people. I’m simply overjoyed that American’s have this wonderful opportunity, with diversity in their perspective leaders. This is a pinnacle time in American history as outsiders such as me, only wish for the same opportunity in our country.

With this said, Hilary Clinton now brings into play the White House Blues. Attacking…attacking and attacking. This is a moment of triumph for the overall political dynamics in the United States, and each candidate must always demonstrate that they will represent the people. I’ve heard Hillary Clinton speak of her days in the White House, her great experience, but in her corner are the old school political spin doctors that tarnish the democratic process. With this approach, the freedom to vote stalls in a basin of trust. So as an outsider, and proud neighbor, please denounce this, and see this as a time for great change in the world.

Scott ..Halifax, Nova Scotia

Posted by Scott | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

America at its Greatest (A Canadian Outlook)
It is with great enthusiasm to see America showing great diversity in the Democratic race. To see the support and interest in the freedom of electoral process, and the overwhelming ages, races, gender and new participation is exceptional.

Never have I seen in Canada or the U.S. such excitement surrounding the democratic process. With new participation, comes hope of overcoming old school politics, surrounded by skepticism and scandals. Voting turnouts are reduced decade after decade by politicians who have self interests and have forgotten the people. I’m simply overjoyed that American’s have this wonderful opportunity, with diversity in their perspective leaders. This is a pinnacle time in American history as outsiders such as me, only wish for the same opportunity in our country.

With this said, Hilary Clinton now brings into play the White House Blues. Attacking…attacking and attacking. This is a moment of triumph for the overall political dynamics in the United States, and each candidate must always demonstrate that they will represent the people. I’ve heard Hillary Clinton speak of her days in the White House, her great experience, but in her corner are the old school political spin doctors that tarnish the democratic process. With this approach, the freedom to vote stalls in a basin of trust. So as an outsider, and proud neighbor, please denounce this, and see this as a time for great change in the world.

Scott ..Halifax, Nova Scotia

Posted by Scott | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM

I can't see Archie Bunker Democrats voting for Obama . . .no way. Ain't going to happen.

Let's try it again in 2012. 2008 is another washout for the Dems.

Posted by JPM | March 26, 2008 12:49 PM

"I can't see Archie Bunker Democrats voting for Obama . . .no way. Ain't going to happen"

They probably would have were it not for Clinton surrogates ginning up racial tensions.

Posted by socctty | March 26, 2008 12:59 PM

"Now the Democrats only seem to win national elections is when the party gets so tired of losing they manage to beat back the left-wing of the party and nominate a centrist willing to violate enough liberal sacred cows to be able to actually win."

Tim K,

You are forgetting that Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 and 1996 was due in part to the presence of Ross Perot in the race. Perot helped to fracture the Reagan coalition that had put Bush I into office into 1988, leaving both Bush I and Dole with only the Republican base as support. Clinton came into office in 1992 with the coalition that had supported Dukakis in 1988, and made some inroads into independent voters in 1996.

Of course, once in office, Bill Clinton accomplished very little in advancing the Democratic agenda, and after his election the GOP gained majorities in both houses of Congress. You may not realize this, but merely putting a Democrat into the White House while losing control of Congress does not really constitute a win for the Democratic Pary, especially when that Democrat's instinct for triangulation causes him or her to the advance Republican agenda, as Bill Clinton did with pushing for NAFTA, welfare reform, and the Defense of Marriage Act.

If we Democrats are going to pick a Democrat who emulates Republicans, we might as well support John McCain.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 1:00 PM

Right now, people are irriatated. By November, no Democrat will be supporting McCain. Team Clinton knows that, even if they're pretending otherwise.

The focus SHOULD be on the Independents and crossover Republicans. Many more of them are supporting Obama than Clinton. If Obama doesn't get the nomination, will they vote for Clinton or McCain? I'm guessing McCain.

Posted by Tom J | March 26, 2008 1:01 PM

I think Beth makes a good point. If Clinton or Obama graciously urges their supporters to support the nominee, they'll probably be more inclined to do so. It wouldn't change my mind though.

Posted by Keith Hood | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM

"Except, alas, Obama can't lose the lefty label. He is far left."

Cal,

Why doesn't this apply to Clinton also? As she often claims, her positions are virtually identical to his. If Obama is a far leftist, then so is she.

Therefore, if he cannot win because it's impossible for someone far left to win, then she cannot win either. John McCain will have a great time showing clips of Hillary Clinton claiming her positions are basically the same as Obama's, and juxtaposing that with out-of-context clips of Jeremiah Wright. In addition, he will able to paint her as a flip-flopper in the manner of John Kerry every time she does that Clintonian triangulation BS.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM

Speaking just for myself. I am 57 and have been a registerd Democrat since I cast my first vote for McCarthy way back when. I am a vocal activist liberal who enthusiastically promotes and defends all liberal social and economic policies among my friends and family. Over the years I have worked dozens of phone banks, walked miles upon untold miles of precincts, and donated more than I can afford to support liberal politicians.

I was intially very enthusiastic about Obama. I bought his books and shared in the hope that he could be someone that could be a different kind of polititian.

But when his campaign played the race card against Clinton I changed my mind about Obama. There is no answer when someone is called a racist by a black man in America. Barack poisened the campaign with his smear.

But what has cemented by opposition to him is his embrace of the vile bigotry of Reverand Wright. I just cannot fathom ever supporting someone who willingly supports such a dispicable philosophy as that taught by Wright.

I have had many a hard word with family members when they crossed the line and spouted bigoted remarks. I do not tolerate racism in any form.

So for me, if Obama gets the nomination I will probably change my registration to Independent. I will vote for McCain if it can make a difference in defeating Obama, otherwise I will stay home. I will not vote for a single democrat as long as Obama is on the ticket.

That is my decision. It will not change.

Posted by ken | March 26, 2008 1:12 PM

Speaking just for myself. I am 57 and have been a registerd Democrat since I cast my first vote for McCarthy way back when. I am a vocal activist liberal who enthusiastically promotes and defends all liberal social and economic policies among my friends and family. Over the years I have worked dozens of phone banks, walked miles upon untold miles of precincts, and donated more than I can afford to support liberal politicians.

I was intially very enthusiastic about Obama. I bought his books and shared in the hope that he could be someone that could be a different kind of polititian.

But when his campaign played the race card against Clinton I changed my mind about Obama. There is no answer when someone is called a racist by a black man in America. Barack poisened the campaign with his smear.

But what has cemented by opposition to him is his embrace of the vile bigotry of Reverand Wright. I just cannot fathom ever supporting someone who willingly supports such a dispicable philosophy as that taught by Wright.

I have had many a hard word with family members when they crossed the line and spouted bigoted remarks. I do not tolerate racism in any form.

So for me, if Obama gets the nomination I will probably change my registration to Independent. I will vote for McCain if it can make a difference in defeating Obama, otherwise I will stay home. I will not vote for a single democrat as long as Obama is on the ticket.

That is my decision. It will not change.

Posted by ken | March 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Posted by TH | March 26, 2008 11:07 AM

>Fewer Obama supporters would support McCain because Obama supporters tend to include the >progressive wing and younger voters. My conservative estimate: 20% of Obama voters would >stay home in November if Clinton is the nominee. That counts for something too. A lot, actually.

I must be part of that 20%, then again I’ve been opposed to Hillary for over a year! As in she officially announced she was running for President on January 21 st 2007. I decided on or about the 22 nd of January no way in hell would I support her. I was ridiculed and even laughed at, I seemed to be one of the few people who recalled the number of scandals that riddled Bill Clinton’s Presidency or the brand of politics the Clinton’s play. Now the Chickens have come home to roost!

I’m supporting Obama not because I think he’s the best candidate. I was a staunch Edwards supporter until he decided to drop out right before Super Tuesday. I ending up supporting Obama based on my pure and long-standing hate not of Hillary Clinton but Bill Clinton! Who I didn’t want anyplace near the white house ever again, yes I do hate Bill Clinton that much!

Bill Clinton and his brand of partisan politics are a huge part of the problem in Washington right now. The Democrats in congress should not have played partisan politics they should have told him we’re not backing you on this…The man was guilty of perjury end of story! It even would have been a very smart political choice too. Would Al Gore being the incumbent President have made a difference? I personally think it would have he would have finished out Bill Clinton’s term won in 2K and stepped aside for Edwards or another candidate in 04. I think the Democratic Party made a poor tactical choice in 04 as well. Edwards on the top would have been a stronger ticket and very likely would have been able to flip the Carolinas. But the old school thinkers in the Democratic Party seem to lack some basic math skills. It’s not about controlling the big states it’s about having more of the map. Does it take 3 or 4 smaller states to make a California yes, conversely who cares when you’re controlling 60-70% of the map. That’s how the Republican Party consistently wins the general election…

>But I also think that Clinton supporters will come around once we get into the general and their >despair over the demise of "their girl" dies down. Lots of bitter women out there who wanted to >see a woman president, but at the end of the day when they take off the blinders and remember >what's at stake this cycle, they'll come around.

I don’t think so, I’ve listened to how bitter these women are. The worst part is that Hillary has made their case even worse. The glass ceiling that women face, most women make around 70 cents on the dollar compared to men doing the exact same jobs. It had become much thinner and it looked like it was going to come crashing down.

Now it’s analogy time before Hillary’s Presidential bid. The glass ceiling was a quarter inch of regular run of the mill glass. Now the women of the United States are looking at a foot of harden acrylic. That material at about half that thickness is what the top of a walk through aquarium are made of by the way. Now do you get the picture! Hillary’s boo whoo, boo whoo I’m the victim… Has set back the women’s movement by at least two decades.

Posted by SC Rose | March 26, 2008 1:14 PM

I find it sad that some Democrats are bashing the left. Um, isn't that a talking point of the Right? Saying Obama is "far left" ,which he isn't- trust me I've lived in Portland and Berkeley - like it is a smear. It sounds like if the Democratic party nominates him, well, it's just some wackos and not REAL Democrats like the Clintons. It just proves what Obama supporters have been saying - that the Clinton aren't about the Democratic party, they're about themselves.

Posted by Lesley | March 26, 2008 1:21 PM

eltoro:

I don't forget anything, but I have never bought the idea that Clinton would have lost the 1992 election had it not been for Ross Perot. Clinton held a clear lead after the '92 DNC and was leading Bush by 15-20% through much of that election. Eventually Republican attacks on Clinton's experience and character did take their toll and his numbers declined, but many of his voters ended up voting for Perot, not Bush. It's simply not the case that Perot voters were all (or even mostly) Republicans. A study was done after the 1992 election that found Perot voters voted for Democratic and Republican congressional candidates in roughly the same numbers . I think it is fair to say that the Democrats likely would not have won Colorado, Montana, Georgia or New Hampshire in 1992 had it not been for Perot, so the electoral college margin would have been closer. But Clinton still would have won.

Your view of the Clinton years is one of a hard Left liberal who would only be happy with a socialist president. A balanced budget, welfare reform and NAFTA were popular, bipartisan achievements.

TH:

Bill Clinton and his brand of partisan politics are a huge part of the problem in Washington right now.

You are so naive. Partisanship existed since the beginning of the Republic and will last much longer than any of us.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

I wonder whether the different demographic coalitions that the candidates are putting together are in some ways responsible

Ya think? Working-class white men are the one nut Obama will never be able to crack. Maybe fracture, but not crack. And especially not after HRC is done with him.

Posted by Naveen | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

I am not at all surprised by this. I am an independent who, like many people worldwide, have been watching these primaries. I used to think that Democrats just hated George Bush and the Republicans. However, during this years primaries, I have learned that Democrats just hate. Hillary supporters hate Obama and his supporters and Obama supporters hate Hillary and her supporters.
I used to think that Republicans hate Bill and Hillary Clinton, but they are just amateurs in that department.

Posted by Stewart | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM

Why doesn't this apply to Clinton also? As she often claims, her positions are virtually identical to his. If Obama is a far leftist, then so is she.

But they aren't virtually identical. He's expressed sympathy for repealing DOMA, just recently called for more affirmative action, is very much of the far left in his global views, and has constantly associated with the anti-American left, to name just a few problems.

Clinton won't be able to be tarred with that. When Republicans call her a liberal, it's a dog whistle to conservatives. It won't play with centrists and the working class. With Obama, it's not even a dog whistle. It's out there in the open. He's so arrogant he doesn't even think he has to hide it.

Posted by Cal | March 26, 2008 1:37 PM

He's so arrogant he doesn't even think he has to hide it.

That's a great point. It's just like when he didn't put his hand over his heart or wear a flag-pin on his lapel. He's so aloof and arrogant.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:47 PM

Turns out those Gallup figures are actually quite low compared to the percentage of McCain voters who said they were going to defect in 2000:

http://ccpsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/will-democrats-really-defect-if-their.html

Posted by M.A.B. | March 26, 2008 1:51 PM

Isn't this the Clinton strategy? She can't win so her goal is to destroy Obama so he's so weak that McCain will win. Then she will be in good position to challenge McCain in 2012.
I am an Obama supporter who once was for Clinton. I wouldn't vote her now after seeing her true colors.
But- I think this is all speculative. Obama is going to win.

Posted by Joaquin | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

"It's simply not the case that Perot voters were all (or even mostly) Republicans. A study was done after the 1992 election that found Perot voters voted for Democratic and Republican congressional candidates in roughly the same numbers ."

Tim K.

The Reagan coalition included Democrats who voted for Democratic congressional candidates while supporting Reagan for President. Perot's supporters included a lot of these Reagan Democrats and Reagan independents, which is why Bush I was only able to get votes from the Republican base. Bill Clinton on the other hand held onto the coalition that had supported Dukakis in 1988, and in his 1996 re-election made some inroads among independent voters who hadn't supported him in 1992.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 2:30 PM

"Your view of the Clinton years is one of a hard Left liberal who would only be happy with a socialist president. A balanced budget, welfare reform and NAFTA were popular, bipartisan achievements."

No,

My view of the Clinton years is of a liberal who wants a Democratic President to be, you know, a DEMOCRAT, not a moderate Republican in practice. A balanced budget is good thing, and welfare reform and NAFTA had their good points. However, a Democratic President should have also gotten a national healthcare program started, opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, stuck to his guns on ending the ban on gays in the military. What's the point of electing a Democrat to be President if he's only going to fight for items that are supported by the Republicans, such as NAFTA and welfare reform?

BTW, Tim, if criticizing NAFTA makes me a hard leftist, then you shouldn't be supporting Hillary Clinton, since she has been campaigning against NAFTA, even though her husband was instrumental in having it passed.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 2:41 PM

Leaving aside the long amount of time between then and now, which tosses all such predictions into a salad spinner....

What are they thinking?

a) I support Obama, but could live with Clinton.
b) I support Obama, and if Clinton wins all the upcoming states* and takes the nomination I'll be disappointed and vote McCain. He's pretty centrist.
c) I support Obama, and if the Democratic superdelegates ignore the result of elections and send Barack to the back of the bus so Hillary can drive, I'll vote McCain. And leave the party.

There's a big difference between the scenarios by which Obama or Clinton takes the nomination and disappoints the supporters of the other. I suspect this is largely measuring "I would be sad if my candidate loses" rather than really breaking down the process by which their candidate loses. I could see many people moving from a to c.

*I picture this voter as viewing the race as close enough for an actual pledged-delegate win.

Posted by Deborah | March 26, 2008 2:42 PM

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM

>TH:

>Bill Clinton and his brand of partisan politics are a huge part of the problem in Washington right >now.

>You are so naive. Partisanship existed since the beginning of the Republic and will last much >longer than any of us.

This proves you're a total IDIOT! see the > that has been the standard for text based quoting in E-mail for the better part of twenty years.

I was the one who said that not TH! I was stating why I loath and hate Bill Clinton. I don't give a rats ass about Hillary! I'm not talking about just Partisan politics

I'm talking the brand of partisan politics we've had for twenty years now. The mentality based on. I'm the President, I'm in your political party you thus must support me even if I'm wrong. We had it when George H.W. Bush was President, when Bill Clinton was President and we've had it for the last eight years under George W. Bush as well.

We need to move past that type of deeply partisan politics. We need to start working on Bi-partisan efforts to address and find solutions for the very real issues facing this nation. We can no longer afford the entrenched polarized hard left hard and right positions. We need centralist and moderates who not only can but will sit down and listen to each other and solve problems...

Posted by SC Rose | March 26, 2008 2:44 PM

"He's expressed sympathy for repealing DOMA, just recently called for more affirmative action, is very much of the far left in his global views, and has constantly associated with the anti-American left, to name just a few problems."

Hillary Clinton does not oppose affirmative action, and she is hardly in favor of repealing it or scaling it back. Although she supports DOMA, both she and Obama have criticized Republican opposition to gay rights, while not committing to supporting gay marriage.

As for Obama's global views, Hillary Clinton claims that they are identical. He wants to end the war in Iraq, she claims she wants to end the war in Iraq, and both have blasted McCain's support for an open-ended military involvement in Iraq. Obama wants our troops to go back to fighting in Afghanistan, in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and recognizes that the focus of our military's efforts in the war on terror should be actually against, you know, terrorists who are out to get the United States. Hillary Clinton has committed to the exact same agenda. Again, if he is a far leftist, then so is she.

What anti-American leftists does Obama associate with? The Reverend Wright is angered by America's unjust treatment of Blacks throughout its history, and doesn't whitewash it. I goes from your wingnut point of view, that makes him anti-American, despite the fact that he is a former Marine.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 2:57 PM

Its a very paranoid vision to say that bitterly Clinton is trying to destroy Obama even though she can't win so that Mc Cain wins.
She is trying to hurt Obama because she still can win. Yes the math stinks, but if his campaign falls apart a little then its not a stretch at all.
Yes, she has to win a bunch of states.
And a lot of it hinges on America's response to the Wright scandal which might have legs and may even be fatal.
She can still win because the wright thing isn't a simple gaffe. For some or for many it fundamentally undermines any claim of judgement by Obama.
So she isn't trying to hurt obama. She is trying to keep her party from tying itself to someone who is damaged from self-inflicted wounds AND she is trying to win because she believes she can do a good job. Her ambitions are just like his.
A lot of the other hyperbole about her need for power or her willingness to do anything is just silly. Haters have fun hating her and supporters have fun supporting her.
He began his surge talking about her being part of a broken washington, that she was part of what is wrong with america and washington, and how she would say anything to get elected. That was the kitchen sink approach back then. He stooped low with these rousing accusations, appealling to the hillary haters with these cheap statements. Now Obama supporters think its not okay to say anything critical of their say-hey kid.

Posted by Michael c. | March 26, 2008 3:08 PM

"That's a great point. It's just like when he didn't put his hand over his heart or wear a flag-pin on his lapel. He's so aloof and arrogant."

Tim K,

He didn't put his hand over his heart for the Star Spangled Banner, not the Pledge of Allegiance. A lot of people don't do this when singing the Star Spangled Banner, and it doesn't make them any less a patriot than the people who do.

So what if he doesn't a flag pin on his lapel? The people who make the biggest show of wearing flag pins are the very people who brought us the foreign policy disaster that is Iraq; wearing a flag lapel pin doesn't mean squat about someone's patriotism. In fact, many of the people who make a big deal about flag pin lapels are chickehawks, people who are eager to send other people to fight in Iraq, but who aren't willing to subject themselves or their loved ones to that fate.

No, if anybody is arrogant and aloof, it is Tim K and Cal.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 3:13 PM

To make sense of poll numbers, you have to understand who each candidate's supporters are.

For Obama, they are progressive whites and blacks, who are unlikely to defect to McCain even if Hillary won.

For Hillary, they are Reagan Democrats and Hispanics who dislike Obama and WILL VOTE FOR MCCAIN if Hillary isn't their nominee. Polls show Obama consistently losing to McCain by a bigger margin than Hillary does for this reason.

As it stands Obama doesn't stand a chance in general election because of his unpopularity with working-class whites and hispanics and his weakness in swing states, all won by Hillary.

Posted by Angry Democrat | March 26, 2008 3:26 PM

Tim K: you have your favorite, that's fine. But your reasoning is ridiculous.

And "archie bunker" Democrats? How many of those are there REALLY? They became Republicans in the late 60s. They are insignificant.

Any Democrat who says online they will vote for McCain who also cares about key policy choices and the SC is just full of crap. They are probably trolls. They're called "concern trolls."

Posted by Frank Carmelo | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

"She can still win because the wright thing isn't a simple gaffe. For some or for many it fundamentally undermines any claim of judgement by Obama."

Michael C.

Why is this so? The Reverend Wright doesn't whitewash the failings of this country, and said that it has done many injustices that are worthy of damnation. Is this untrue? No, it isn't. Moreover, Wright has never preached hatred of any racial group, and is very supportive of gay rights. In addition, he has served this country as a Marine. Furthermore, he does not advocate or practice racial separatism, and has whites as well as blacks as part of his congregation. Finally, if you actually look at his sermons in a full context on YouTube, and not just the abbreviated snippets of them, you will see that the Rev Wright is not some anti-American monster out to destroy white people. Instead, he is good, thoughtful man passionate about justice who believes in and lives the word of God and of Jesus far more than hypocrites like Hannity and Limbaugh ever will.

No, when you actually take the time to find out the truth about Rev Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ, you will see that Obama's judgement about him was correct, and that it proves how much better Obama's judgement is than Hillary Clinton's. Hillary Clinton would disassociate herself from such a pastor only on the basis of a few words, but not his actions. This fundamentally undermines any claim about judgement that Hillary Clinton has, as well as the judgement of many of her supporters.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 3:29 PM

"For Obama, they are progressive whites and blacks, who are unlikely to defect to McCain even if Hillary won."

Angry Democrat,

They are not likely to vote for Hillary either in the general election; they could just vote for Ralph Nader. If that happens, Hillary loses in the general election.

You are forgetting that many progressive whites and most black voters feel that Clinton's attacks on Obama have been not only been unfair, but they have also echoed Republican talking points. If she uses Rove-like tactics to defeat Obama for the nomination, then she will be seen by Obama supporters as a Democrat in name only. If these voters have to choose between a Republican who calls herself a Democrat and a Republican who calls himself a Republican, they won't vote for either. The difference is, McCain doesn't need these to voters to win, while Clinton does.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM

It's BS. It's like the 25% of Republicans who said they'd stay home of McCain got it. They won't.

Posted by DHN | March 26, 2008 4:23 PM

Posted by Frank Carmelo | March 26, 2008 3:27 PM

Tim K: you have your favorite, that's fine. But your reasoning is ridiculous.

And "archie bunker" Democrats? How many of those are there REALLY? They became Republicans in the late 60s. They are insignificant. Any Democrat who says online they will vote for McCain who also cares about key policy choices and the SC is just full of crap. They are probably trolls. They're called "concern trolls."
________________________________________________________________________________
I agree with the Archie Bunker Democrats statement. If you think I’m a concern troll you’re mistaken. I’ve never stated I would vote for McCain. I did state I would NEVER vote for Hillbilly Clinton! That is not the same thing as voting for McCain. If Hillary somehow convinces the super delegates she should be the nominee unlikely at this point as it would cause irreparable damage to the Democratic Party. I would most likely vote for some third party candidate. My home state has a law if any political party doesn’t get 500+ votes in the GE that party loses it’s ballot slot. That party then has to get 25k signatures to get back on the ballot. By The Way I did this in 04 for the same reasons I wouldn’t vote for Hillbilly I just didn’t like the way Kerry presented himself and liked GWB even less. I voted for David Cobb of the Green Party http://gp.org/index.php this helped them to stay on the ballot, besides they have some pretty good ideas that the major parties sometime adopt.

I think the Democratic Party is blowing it big time and the numbers show it. This year should be a landslide for the Democratic Party! Yet all the numbers show both Clinton and Obama dead even with McCain in general election polls.

Posted by SC Rose | March 26, 2008 5:16 PM

Eltoro:

Liberals are never so happy as when they aren't "white-washing" the failures of America. They just love to criticize America, but never America's enemies. There's never a problem white-washing the crimes of everyone from Sadam Hussein to Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. America's enemies are always responding to grievances, real or perceived. It's always "chickens coming home to roost." Liberals love taking America to task for the injustices of the past and present, which is also a source of grievance to excuse domestic misbehavior: crime. The only weapons of mass destruction liberals ever talk about are America's weapons: nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, landmines, precision guided bombs.

Posted by Tim K | March 26, 2008 5:31 PM

It seems obvious to me that this is a false statistic. I think the typical Hillary supporter wants to win so bad they would say that because the idea that the better General Election candidate is the better nominee of the party is directly related to this defections stat. So saying that may help their candidate.

In fact, the reality is probably just the opposite. As an always registered independent that has voted on both sides of the isle, I can clearly say I would never vote for Hillary because I don't want the same all for nothing politics (whether it promotes "conservative" policies or liberal policies). I thus am considering throwing my vote for Obama (depending on many factors) and would never consider Hillary. I think there are more independents like me that would or may vote for Obama and not vote for Hillary. And I imagine anyone that is die hard for Hillary could not stomach a Republican no matter who the nominee.

Posted by Tom | March 26, 2008 6:12 PM

"And I imagine anyone that is die hard for Hillary could not stomach a Republican no matter who the nominee."

Tom,

If Hillary supporters like Tim K and Cal are any indication, many of the die hard Hillary supporters are closet Republicans.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 10:54 PM

"Liberals are never so happy as when they aren't "white-washing" the failures of America. They just love to criticize America, but never America's enemies. There's never a problem white-washing the crimes of everyone from Sadam Hussein to Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. America's enemies are always responding to grievances, real or perceived. It's always "chickens coming home to roost." Liberals love taking America to task for the injustices of the past and present, which is also a source of grievance to excuse domestic misbehavior: crime. The only weapons of mass destruction liberals ever talk about are America's weapons: nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, landmines, precision guided bombs."

Tim K,

All these statements are dead wrong, and you know it. That is of course, if you are really a Democrat, and not a closet Republican.

Considering how eagerly you and Cal resort to Lee Atwater-Karl Rove rhetoric in criticizing fellow Democrats, I question whether you two are really Democrats.

Posted by eltoro | March 26, 2008 11:04 PM

Have you seen polling on where Americans place Obama and Clinton ideologically? They overall thought Edwards was centrist, Obama was a moderate just to Edwards's left and Clinton was waving little red books over her head.

Posted by Reality Man | March 27, 2008 6:01 AM

Cal is a registered Republican.
Tim K is a Canadian.
They are both clowns.

Posted by Barbar | March 27, 2008 7:29 AM

Reality:

We all know Clinton is the most conservative on the three, but that's not an extraordinary feat when the other two are Edwards and Obama.

Babar:

Let's everyone come together! Unless you're a registered Republican... uh, or a Clinton supporter... uh, or Canadian.

Welcome to the New Politics!

Eltoro:

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent. Technically I'm a card-carrying New Democrat, of the pragmatic variety, but ideologically I'd place myself somewhere in between NDP and Liberal, but those are Canadian labels and wouldn't expect them to mean anything to you.

And no I don't think my caricature of liberals (and yes I realize it was only a caricature) was dead wrong, I think it was spot on with the perception that progressives constantly reinforce with their own rhetorical emphasis. It's never about criticizing the people who commit crime, it's about racial profiling or police brutality. It's never about the war crimes of terrorists or adversaries, it's about US crimes and those of its allies. It's never about personality responsibility, it's always about what business or government is doing wrong. I think it's important to understand the legitimate criticisms of the ways in which liberals and progressives often present their points of view in order to better understand how to improve upon those presentations.

Posted by Tim K | March 27, 2008 11:18 AM

personal responsibility* (oops, typed that quickly)

Posted by Tim K | March 27, 2008 11:21 AM

Democratic Defection Rates

Comments (74)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives