The Day In Numbers

80% -- the number of superdelegates Hillary Clinton will need under just about any scenario to win the Democratic nomination, according to ABC News's Jake Tapper's calculations. I agree with his math.

6% -- the split between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama in Pennsylvania, according to a new Time poll there. Clinton has 44% and Obama has 38%.

"About a third" -- the number of Clinton supporters who say they would defect to John McCain if Barack Obama were the nominee, according to the latest AP/Ipsos poll. About a quarter of Obama supporters would defect. I'm not so much interested in the fact of defections -- it's mostly petulance -- I'm interested in the disparity between the candidates.

Comments

More numbers, if I may, as 5 new general election polls today paint a very interesting picture for the fall campaign: McCain is way ahead in Ohio but he struggles against Obama in the unlikeliest of places: Montana and Alaska. Full roundup available here.

Posted by Dan | April 10, 2008 2:37 PM

It shouldn't be a surprise that the all-but-certain loser will have more self-proclaimed defectors since they're actually tasting the sting of all-but-certain defeat, I'm sure those numbers would flip if Obama were in Clinton's position.

Posted by Klaus | April 10, 2008 2:40 PM

Those defection numbers are also extremely unlikely to hold up. Indeed, people often overlook not just ordinary partisanship and ideology, but also the fact that when the losing candidate finally admits defeat, they usually start to campaign for the winner.

Posted by DTM | April 10, 2008 2:44 PM

Of course, any inclination to defect will evaporate as soon as it dawns on these people that the Republicans would have been a 1000x more brutal in a race against Clinton. McCain only seems appealing to them now because he's not directly challenging their candidate. As such, McCain being "the greater evil"
remains a distant, abstract concept that will only come into clear view once the primary reference point for their moral judgments ceases to be "Clinton winning the nomination."

Posted by Klaus | April 10, 2008 2:50 PM

Marc,

You should be interested in the difference in defection rates.

Unfortuntely, few of you in the media get why the difference is entirely predictable yet not preductive of the future:

1) Hillary supporters are more disappointed and less generous to Obama than vice versa in part because she is losing and he is winning.

2) The defection rates don't factor in what Obama supporters might do if the supers gave this to Hillary, but they already fctor in the disappointment of a likely Hillary loss. It is foolish to think that Hillary could win this on supers, something most of the dems don't want to happen, and have the Obama defection rate stay where it is. It would skyrocket in the face of a verdict deemed unfair.

3) John McCain is getting a free ride right now. He looks a lot more attractive to disappointed dems than he will in November.

4) Hillary is being a bad democrat practically promoting McCain for President, but Obama is being a good Democrat. Some of her supporters are following the not-so-subtle signs from her that she wants Obama to lose the general. Eventually she will need to make a public display of support for Obama.

Is there some element of white downscale dems who will never vote for Obama? Sure. But you and other media pundits would be making a mistake to assume that this is the primary reason for the difference in defection rates..there are many other factors at play here which are reversible.

The fact that John McCain is barely ahead when he is getting a free ride and Obama has been getting much more incoming fire suggests that this is about as good as it gets for McCain.

So, Marc, I know you are trying to insinuate more electability for Hillary. But you're wrong.

Posted by RKA | April 10, 2008 3:01 PM

Would it be impudent to suggest that the polling firms construct a survey to probe what factor the issue of race has to do with the difference in defection rates?

Could it be that Hillbilly have a lot more racist in her tent than she lets on?

That is, beside Geraldoyenne and her lieutenants and lackeys.

Posted by D | April 10, 2008 3:21 PM

I agree with the comments above: the higher number of Clinton defections vis-a-vis Obama are due primarily to the bitterness of being aligned with the probable loser, though I imagine some percentage of defections (probably between 5-10%) are race-based.

Chuck Todd has a piece, linked by Andrew Sullivan, that suggests the Dems will get a ten point bump or more as soon as the nomination is formally settled. That seems likely. If this race is settled by early May, and Clinton makes a good faith effort to get her supporters on board (which I fully expect), Obama will begin to open up a 5 to 10 point lead through to the fall. Then it'll be a matter seeing how Obama's lead hold up against the GOP assault.

Posted by Ryan W. | April 10, 2008 3:37 PM

If Hillary takes the Democratice nomination, we would be left with no other choice but to vote for McCain, I hope the DNC keeps this in mind, and so does the American voters, that this is the USofA not some dynastical republic, i can't have most of my adult life been under 2 dynasties ruling from the white house, HC is nothing, she is fluff and a hoax, she is just wasting everyones including her own time, she doesn't have the capabilities of a leader nor the characteristics or the foresight and vision, it is all about gender, name to her!

Posted by Zubair Ifthiqhar | April 10, 2008 3:38 PM

After Dean lost in 2004, I was really annoyed with Kerry but I got over it. I think Democrats will get over their primary fever and tow (toe?) the party line in November. The people you have to watch out for are the Independents.

Posted by Morg | April 10, 2008 4:00 PM

"About a third" -- the number of Clinton supporters who say they would defect to John McCain if Barack Obama were the nominee, according to the latest AP/Ipsos poll. About a quarter of Obama supporters would defect.

Clinton's "lead" here reflects the fact that her supporters are more nervous about her tenuous position. And it's a bunch of bullshit, anyway. McCain supporters were saying the same thing about GW Bush after what happened in South Carolina.

Perhaps this is different because of how drawn out and public this contest is, but I doubt it's that much different.

Exactly what issues will Clinton (or Obama, I suppose) supporters identify as those where McCain more closely resembles the candidate they initially supported? I mean, Edwards or Kucinich supporters are throwing their hands in the air and claiming to show up for McCain if they don't get their way. Eventually one candidate has to lose, just as Edwards and Kucinich lost. To vote for McCain when you know that he doesn't reflect your opinions would be an immature act of spite, and a betrayal to oneself.

Maybe some "Reagan Democrats" will go with McCain because the idea of a black guy in charge is just too much. But that effect will be negligible, and you could probably argue from the other side that just as many mysoginists will go for McCain if Hillary is the nominee. Again, I think that's negligible. (Although I do think the racist pull is greater than the mysoginist pull)

Now, I do think there's a chance that some people will stay home. Mostly, I think that's the case for the new troops Obama has courted. A lot of the hardcore, galvanized Hillary supporters are identity feminists. They won't dare let McCain win in order to stack the court against Roe v Wade. They'll stick to their guns with Hillary, as the HuffPost article on female super-delegates show, until she is eliminated, but they'll show up for Obama in November.

(As a side note, could you imagine black super-delegates openly stating that their support of Obama was based on his race alone?)

Posted by socctty | April 10, 2008 4:10 PM

er, Edwards and Kucinich supporters aren't throwing their hands up in the air...

Posted by socctty | April 10, 2008 4:17 PM

Another factor could be that Hillary supporters are trying to blackmail (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) poll readers into thinking that Hillary had better get the nomination or else.

Whether the motivation is a strategic polling response or honestly felt, the sentiment is the same. I have certainly seen this on blogs.

Posted by carrie | April 10, 2008 5:51 PM

It seems utterly inconceivable, I suppose, that there are many people who simply don't want Barack Obama to be president because they think he would do a terrible job.

Posted by Cal | April 10, 2008 6:08 PM

Cal -

I think everyone pretty much concedes that some people really won't vote for Obama, but it certainly isn't anywhere near the third that the poll suggests.

Posted by socctty | April 10, 2008 7:01 PM

Cal,

Yes, those people are either called idiots or Republicans (sometimes both). Which one are you?

Posted by Klaus | April 10, 2008 7:18 PM

Cal,

Sure. Probably around 10% of Democrats will end up not voting for Obama in the general election (and a similar number would end up not voting for Clinton, assuming she actually won the nomination).

Posted by DTM | April 10, 2008 7:40 PM

Although Hillary's ramping up to lose in Pennsylvania, the good news is that she's forecasting a big win in Indiana. Hillary's got more concerts on the way; she's even got "Elvis." Well, not the real Elvis. It's Classic Clinton. After all, just it makes sense to wine and dine a client. Maybe Hillary can tell some sniper jokes, or perform her favorite magic tricks; like making a big pile of money, or an intern disappear. I know, maybe she can pose as a real American without health insurance, and see if she can get her teeth whitened. Seriously, maybe she can pretend to drive into a gas station, pump some ... nah, that won't work for someone worth over $100-million dollars. Why exactly does this woman want to be president again? Again: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 10, 2008 9:58 PM

Peggy: wow. Lay off the sherry at night. You are embarrassing yourself. sniper jokes? teeth whitening? pose as a real American?
Hillary is as real as any of us, isn't she? Would you take kindly to anyone suggesting Obama pose as a real American?

To RKA: you forget that obama has not been "the good democrat" (your ugly phrase not mine) because months ago he came out with his scorched earth pronouncements that Hillary will say anything, that you can't believe anything she says, that she is part of what is broken in washington, that she represents the old washington way of doing things. While you may agree with this hillary bashing it hardly rates as being the "good democrat". it was meant to completely discredit her and to attract all the hillary hating third party loons.
Those of us who revere Hillary and bill (remember she has 1500 delegates) won't easily forgive him that strategy.

Posted by Michael C. | April 11, 2008 9:01 AM