Democrats Defecting

Gallup and Pew have more data out today about the Democrats most likely to defect to John McCain in the fall.

Fascinating: the two Clinton groups most likely to flip if Obama is the nominee are independents who lean to Democrats and conservative Democrats -- nearly 40% of them would vote for McCain. Also: 30% of men and 30% of Dems with high school diplomas or less. And 29% of Latinos.

The two Obama groups most likely to flip: independents who lean to Democrats and conservative Democrats. But assuming an average defection rate of 28%, as Gallup does, only the Clinton-to-McCain defections are statistically significant.

BTW: African Americans do not seem to desert Obama if Clinton is the nominee. As Gallup notes, though:

The data do not address the issue of motivation or turnout, which could be lower among blacks if Obama is not the nominee, nor do the data address the implications of the precise way in which Clinton might win the nomination. If Clinton were to win by the vote of superdelegates, for example, the blowback from black Obama supporters might be greater than if she were to win by gaining the highest percentage of the popular vote cast in primaries and caucuses.

Comments

Yet amazingly (according to the same pollster), in head-to-head matchups, Obama does better against McCain than Clinton.

Posted by Craig | March 27, 2008 4:02 PM

The larger question is what about Republican defections?

For example How many black Republicans would vote Democrat if OBammBamm is the choice?

Likewise, how many Republican women would vote Hillbilly?

Posted by D | March 27, 2008 4:13 PM

I'm more interested in the data that shows 68% of people think McCain can unite the country versus 67% for Obama.

If McCain can get support from both democrats, indie, and republicans it seems like we have a real chance to unite.

Posted by Jesse | March 27, 2008 4:15 PM

why the F do we put so much credence into a poll regarding an election 7 months away.

Furthermore, Americans are stupid, emotional, and frequently change their minds, like, ya know, most human beings.

This poll means nothing. Let's stop pretending that it does.

Posted by nattyb | March 27, 2008 4:15 PM

Why all the pessimism??? As someone pointed out yesterday, this also means that Obama has 72% of her supporters. Then factor in expected Democratic turnout in November - that should more than make up for Clinton voters going McCain.

In fact, African-American - and, to a lesser extent, youth - turnout should do it. It will be one thing to have had the opportunity to vote for Obama in a primary/caucus. How much greater to do so in the general election???

Honestly, I'd never expect most of these demographic groups to vote Obama. Why? My step-father is one - an 84-year-old blue-collar Hispanic male. It was huge for him to vote for a woman but he'd never vote a black man. Some old bigotries won't go away...

Posted by JR | March 27, 2008 4:16 PM

Is it really surprising that the two groups who currently favor one Dem over McCain, but would support McCain if the other Dem were nominated, are the two groups on the right? This seems likely in any nomination battle. If I fancy myself a moderate but I happen I'm inspired by one candidate, then McCain and the other Dem should be basically on equal footing if I have to choose between second choices.
I think the higher percentage of Clintonites who say they won't vote for McCain are like their candidate- pissed off that they don't have what should rightfully be theirs. If/when Hillary endorses Obama and appears on the convention stage with him, most of her supporters will vote for him.

Posted by greg | March 27, 2008 4:18 PM

That is a hispanic calling the kettle black, JR.

Posted by D | March 27, 2008 4:19 PM

edit: Second par, first sentence should have Obama rather than McCain, or will rather than won't

Posted by greg Matthews | March 27, 2008 4:20 PM

edit: Second par, first sentence should have Obama rather than McCain, or will rather than won't

Posted by greg | March 27, 2008 4:20 PM

A lot more than black voters will stay home if Clinton is the nominee. Count me as one of them. Also count at least half of the college students who would have voted, about a quarter of the 18-34 voters, and however many people won't vote Republican but just don't like Clinton, or weren't interested in politics until this year.

Posted by TH | March 27, 2008 4:26 PM

1) There's every incentive for responders to this poll to exaggerate their likeliness of defection: there's no repercussions for not actually falling through on it, and by exaggerating, they think they are exerting influence on the supporters of the other party.

2) This is the same thing McCain voters said about Bush in 2000.

3) The media has fellated McCain for years and hasn't had a chance to "vet" him in the Wright/Tuzla fashion that Obama and Clinton have gone through.

4) All this talk about McCain is fluff; it's just like when polls were showing that Republicans really wanted Fred Thompson in the race, not because they liked him but because they were frustrated with candidates they had at the time.

Posted by socctty | March 27, 2008 4:30 PM

"Democrats defecting", I thought you wrote,
"Democrats disinfecting", and I thought there
was hope for America.

Posted by hombre | March 27, 2008 4:32 PM

edit: In 1), they think they are exerting influence on the supporters of the other party.
is technically true but could be misleading; it should say they think they are exerting influence on the supporters of the other Democratic candidate.

Posted by socctty | March 27, 2008 4:35 PM

Am I crazy, or does this poll say that more blacks will vote for McCain if he runs against Obama than if he runs against Clinton? How does that make any sense?

Posted by neil | March 27, 2008 4:41 PM

C'mon, people, look at the dates when the poll data were gathered -- it was the worst media patch for Obama in the entire campaign. Power, Ferraro, Rezko, Wright. Calls at 3 am. Heck, even his win in Mississippi was spun as a loss (due to the vote there split largely by race -- as if Mississippi was identical to Iowa or Virginia or any number of states...).

Add in the general heat of the campaign and you have an environment ripe for polarizing feelings. As stated above, such numbers mean nothing 7 months prior to the actual vote.

Posted by Mike H | March 27, 2008 4:46 PM

I think the higher percentage of obamatons who say they won't vote for McCain are like their candidate- pissed off that they don't have what should rightfully be theirs. If/when obama endorses Hillary and appears on the convention stage with her (don't count on mrs. obama being there), most of his supporters will vote for her.

Posted by hadenough | March 27, 2008 4:46 PM

At this point these polls are more reflective of the current battle than what will happen in 8 months. While I support Obama and have said similar things regarding my vote in November, I know that if Obama is not the nominee there is no way that I will vote for McCain. So while these results may be a bit disconcerting, the final vote is likely to be much different. So not to worry, but it would be nice to see the primary end. (Of course with my guy winning.)

Posted by Jim B | March 27, 2008 4:47 PM

This just shows that Clinton's kitchen sink strategy is working, and that she is going to have some work to do once she finally concedes to what everyone else already seems to know.

Posted by KATHY | March 27, 2008 4:51 PM

Actions Speak Better than Words

Before the negative press regarding Mr. Wright, Mr Obama had on numerous occasions declared Mr. Wright as his mentor and spiritual teacher for the past 20 years and even went so far as to include Mr. Wright in his election staff, these are the actions of Mr. Obama. When the press found out about the Hitleresque personality of Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama’s staff writers immediately created a rebuttal of hyperbole that amazingly some people actually believed.

But regardless what Mr. Obama and his staff reply, Mr. Obama cannot retract his clear public proclamation that Mr. Wright has been mentor and spiritual teacher for over 20 years. And that up to the negative press, up to recently Mr. Wright was on Mr. Obama’s Spiritual Advisor Committee campaign team.

If you make the choice to listen and learn from Hitler every week over 20 years, do you expect me or any other rational being to believe that you wouldn’t be or want to be influenced by Hitler’s ideas? And what does that say of your personal integrity if you chose American hating Mr. Wright, or Mr. Hitler as your mentor in life?

Action is the real measure of a person, not their words. We know who Mr. Obama is by his life and his teachers, not the words he spins. And we can only imagine the amount of hatred Mr. Obama will unleash once he achieves ultimate power. And woe be the whites, the poor, those of the Jewish faith and anyone else Mr. Obama thinks deserve retribution. Maybe I am wrong, but considering Mr. Obama’s 20 year religious education, is such a risk worth the gamble?

And also consider recent announcement that the chief of the firm involved in the State Department’s passport breach is one of Obama’s adviser. (And why is this not being discussed?) And that Obama has been caught lying about Rezko, regarding the amount of money Rezko gave him, and that Obama still hasn’t come clean about his Rezko land deal. Or further, how Mrs. Obama makes a phenomenal $317.000 a month at a hospital in Chicago that is famous for turning away the poor, especially the black poor.

If Obama were to become president, what would stop Mr. Obama from appointing Mr. Wright to his cabinet? And after Mr. Wright’s appointment, if anyone complained no doubt they would be called racist. And it seems as if this strategy - that it is racist to criticize a black man - is already in effect as Mr. Obama can do anything corrupt with minimal impunity by the public or the press. But if Hillary so much as sneezes, she is taken through the laundry and hung out to dry and then beaten some more. Such an obvious bias treatment towards Mr. Obama because of his race is racial discrimination. And I believe another reason why Mrs. Clinton is unfairly criticized to such an extreme is because a handful of powerful men in the media can’t stand the idea of a woman for president – likely a libido thing.

We should have as our country’s leader someone with wisdom and knowledge, whose goal is the selfless betterment of the world. We should not elect someone with a personal agenda for personal power or select them because of the fashionably of their race or the preference for a gender.

Posted by Richard Williams | March 27, 2008 4:54 PM

As usual, wrong:

"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/01/629273.aspx

And as usual he is very confident in his wrongness.

Posted by hadenough | March 27, 2008 4:58 PM

But how big a group is the "independents who lean Democratic and support Hillary"? Given how often the Clintonites trash the dirty nasty independents voting in primaries (I was one) and the moaning about Hillary's support among real, true democrats while Barck gets independents, my impression from both inside and outside her campaign is that she doesn't pull that much independent support, even if we outnumber the party.

So losing 39% of them isn't likely to add up to much.

Posted by Deborah | March 27, 2008 4:58 PM

I think the "defection" metric is all wrong. The bigger question is not who defects, but WHO STAYS HOME.

I'm thinking a lot of black voters will stay home if HRC overturns the pledged delegate count to win the nomination.

Posted by Callimaco | March 27, 2008 5:07 PM

How many black Republicans would vote Democrat if OBammBamm is the choice?

Both of them.

Posted by Brian | March 27, 2008 5:13 PM

Doesn't fairness require a similar chart posted nearby for Obama supporters who would flip, and more importantly, Obama supporters who would sit it out?

And further, this treats potential November voters as a pie of fixed size in which only slice size changes. But we all know that the idea behind Obama's electability is that expands the pie of the Democratic electorate more than Clinton does. If you don't buy that argument, then you don't buy his electability. But this graphic (even if the simple flip-rather than sit-based mirror image were included) makes no reference to this crucial Obama argument.

Posted by Mike | March 27, 2008 5:39 PM

Hey!

hadenough:

When are you going to put money where your keyboard is?

I am stil waiting for your contribution for my 40 acers and a donkey.

Posted by D | March 27, 2008 6:00 PM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 27, 2008 6:23 PM

Uh, a certain surprisingly high percentage of D's vote R and R's vote D EVERY PRESIDENTIAL CYCLE.

This is not news. I think Gore lost 10pct plus to Bush in 2000. And he won popular vote.

Posted by Frank Carmelo | March 27, 2008 6:29 PM

Another useless poll in an election cycle full of useless and often incorrect polls. Chris Dodd is right; the media is enjoying this spectacle and making a living off of it.

What's bad for the Democratic party and the country is good for the media, and so the media fuels the fire.

One loser in all of this is sure to be the media credibility.

Posted by cm | March 27, 2008 6:44 PM

Sent to Gallup:

Regarding your analysis "Democratic Groups Most at Risk of Deserting". In discussing the black vote, you wrote the following nonsensical sentence: "If Clinton were to win by the vote of superdelegates, for example, the blowback from black Obama supporters might be greater than if she were to win by gaining the highest percentage of the popular vote cast in primaries and caucuses." If Clinton wins, it will almost certainly be because of an overwhelming margin of support among superdelegates. The popular vote, on the other hand, has nothing to do with winning the nomination. Perhaps you meant "if Clinton wins by superdelegates, the blowback may be reduced if she has at least won the popular vote". You should correct your misleading language to remove the suggestion that the popular vote has any direct impact on the nomination.

Posted by TC | March 27, 2008 6:57 PM

the last boxed quote doesn't make sense. even if hillary does somehow "win" the popular vote (whatever that means - there can be no reliable popular vote total) she'd still have to win by a vote of the superdelegates. there's no distinction between Hillary staging a superdelegate coup and winning by taking the popular vote lead, because the latter still involves a superdelegate coup.

Posted by aaron | March 27, 2008 7:04 PM

McCain has earned the respect of liberal democrats over the years by being a reasonable middle of the road Republican in a party full of extremist.

I am a very liberal democrat so I will never vote for Obama, under any circumstances. I see McCain as a acceptable alternative to the bigotry and race baiting I loathe in Obama.

Posted by ken | March 27, 2008 10:02 PM

Half the country will DEFECT TO KAZAKHSTAN, nevemind the Republican Party, if that Long Brown Turd from the South Side Sewer System wins the nomination.

The Dem Primary has turned into a vicious scam stung on the voters by the Corrupt Media Shills PAID BY THE CHICAGO MOB.

Posted by robert ethan | March 27, 2008 11:13 PM

Ken--"Very Liberal Democrat"

Even after a bruising primary, the politically mature person votes for the candidate most likely to fight for the issues in which he or she believes. As a "very liberal Democrat," what might those issues be for you if you would vote for an anti-choice, anti-labor, war-loving, tempermentally unstable, conservative who has promised the hard right to select Supreme Court justices in the Bush corporate loving, freedom denying, authoritarian tradition?

As for your statment that you see "McCain as an acceptable alternative to the bigotry and race baiting [you] loathe in Obama"--You are either delusional, motivated by a one-issue agenda that you imagine Obama violates, or a Republican covertly shilling for McCain.

Come clean.

Posted by Barbara | March 27, 2008 11:47 PM

I don't know who wrote this, I saw it at another blog and copied it because it expresses some of my sentiments better than I can:

"Something that struck me belatedly about Wright's post-9/11 "sermon": he was dancing at the altar, literally dancing and punching his fist in the air about America's "chickens coming home to roost"--just a week after 9/11, a day when rescue workers of all colors were still sifting through steaming rubble at the twin towers, looking for bodies or signs of life of ALL COLORS. There were black people in that rubble! Wright was dancing on their graves to make a point, get a cheer for himself, his fame, his power in the AA community. That image has burned itself into my memory as the core of who Wright really is. And everything I've learned and sensed about Obama says the same thing to me, it is hypocrisy that goes to the very core of who he claims to be."

Then there is Michelle and Barack Obama's race baiting after their loss in New Hampshire. That is just inexcusable.

Barack has embraced people who demean white people and denegrate America. He is not fit to be president of the United States. If he had even the most rudimentary civic virtue or love for our country he never would have sat his family in those pews for twenty years and soaked up all the vile bigotry and hatred spewing from the mouth of that maniacial preacher Obama claims as a close personal friend and spritual advisor.

Posted by ken | March 28, 2008 12:23 AM

I don't know who wrote this, I saw it at another blog and copied it because it expresses some of my sentiments better than I can:

"Something that struck me belatedly about Wright's post-9/11 "sermon": he was dancing at the altar, literally dancing and punching his fist in the air about America's "chickens coming home to roost"--just a week after 9/11, a day when rescue workers of all colors were still sifting through steaming rubble at the twin towers, looking for bodies or signs of life of ALL COLORS. There were black people in that rubble! Wright was dancing on their graves to make a point, get a cheer for himself, his fame, his power in the AA community. That image has burned itself into my memory as the core of who Wright really is. And everything I've learned and sensed about Obama says the same thing to me, it is hypocrisy that goes to the very core of who he claims to be."

Then there is Michelle and Barack Obama's race baiting after their loss in New Hampshire. That is just inexcusable.

Barack has embraced people who demean white people and denegrate America. He is not fit to be president of the United States. If he had even the most rudimentary civic virtue or love for our country he never would have sat his family in those pews for twenty years and soaked up all the vile bigotry and hatred spewing from the mouth of that maniacial preacher Obama claims as a close personal friend and spritual advisor.

Posted by ken | March 28, 2008 12:23 AM

Ken--

When Wright's 9-11 entire sermon is viewed, it is clear that he was implying that Americans ought to reflect on our own governmet's often hate-producing role in the world instead of accepting the government's version of political reality: That we (meaning the government) are always the Good Guys, the Others the Bad.

Wright was quite clear that those killed on 9-11 were victims, just as those persons killed (often unjustly) by actions of the American government are victims. He cited many isntances of American government viciousness.

As a Chrsitian leader, he asked for prayers and compassion for the victims.

Unless you are a person who believes that a government should be supported "right or wrong," a person who conflates a government with the people, or the ideals of the people, you should have no objection to his sermon.

Don't reify the American government. One of our jobs as citizens (and adults)is to be critical and think critically about our own actions (in this context as objectified by the government)as well as the actions of our enemies. That includes understanding how others become our enemies, what their understanding of the world is, and our role in creating them, if any.

Unless you are very young, it reflects poorly on you to be so admantly intolerant of criticism of government--whether the criticisms come in the form of a minster talking to his congregation or another citizen speaking out. It suggests not a liberal attitude, but an authoritarian attitude.

Being a good American doesn't mean being a sap for any story that the government puts out.

There is nothing about Obama that suggests to me that he does not love the ideals and the people of this country as much and more than many of those who ostentatiously wear the flag and spout "patriotic" slogans, but who undermine both the political ideals and the general and specific welfare of the people, as the Republicans have done, especially around the invasion of Iraq.

After Bush, we Americans need a stead, calm president who does not act (or vote) cynically, especially about something so serious as war. I can't be sure, but I think that Obama has a better chance than Clinton, and certainly than the temeprmental, emotional McCain, to act well and decisively on our behalf, and not to pander to the most simple minded kind of chauvinism.

Posted by Barbara | March 28, 2008 1:08 AM

I would be one of those Independents who lean Democrat who would vote for McCain if Hillary is the candidate or if Hillary is on the ticket. I would ignore a call for unity by Barack.

At the beginning of the campaign, I took this position only as a threat should any pollster happen to ask, but Hillary has proven to be despicable beyond anything I could have imagined, so I have now hardened into that position and take a solemn vow not to be dissuaded. After all, a threat is toothless without an absolute conviction to carry it through.

Sure, it is a sort of voter equivalent of a murder/suicide. But if the Democratic party gives us Hillary, the party deserves to fail and the country deserves to go to hell.

Posted by roberto | March 28, 2008 1:29 AM

Another way to look at this is who fears a McCain victory more -- Clinton supporters or Obama supporters? I think Obama supporters fear McCain more. I would be happy if McCain beats Obama! I wouldn't be voting for McCain out of spite, I would be voting for the far better candidate.

Clinton would respect the agenda of the left. McCain will smash the agenda of the radical left. Imagine yet another loss by a left-wing Democrat. The left is already an albatross around the DNC's neck. Another Dukakis-Mondale-McGovern style wipeout will bury the left permanently.

Posted by whoframedrudy | March 28, 2008 2:18 AM

Whoframedrudy:

It is understandable that Obama supporters would fear McCain more than Clinton supporters. NAFTA, the federal death penalty, relative weakness on environmental issues were only Republican dreams before Bill Clinton gave presidential support to their realization. One can imagine that a Hillary clinton administration would follow a similar line--talking about, say, American jobs, while acting to create policies that supported capital at the expense of labor.

Those Hillary Clinton's supporters not ignorant of history must be at least tolerant of these positions as they could surely expect more of the same from a Hillary Clinton administration.

Albatross or not, the left is what reminds the Democratic Party how it is different from the Republican. Otherwise, you economic conservatives could just try to create a socially liberal wing of the Republican party and take your chances there. (And I genuinely wish you the best with that project; I deeply regret the death of the socially liberal wing of that party at the hands of that party's controlling religious right.)

Posted by Barbara | March 28, 2008 9:39 AM