« John McCain's Diplomatic Preparations | Main | Strickland's News Not New »

Does The RNC Want This Debate?

10 Jun 2008 06:04 pm

Just asking: does the RNC really want to get into a debate over the number of partisans in each party who don't fully support their party's nominee?

See the e-mail to which I'm referring after the jump.

From the RNC:

Today, Oklahoma’s lone Democrat Congressman joined a growing number of Democrats who are distancing themselves from Barack Obama…

“Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma’s congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, ‘unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.’” (Associated Press, 06/10/08)

“This is not a good sign for Obama… Boren’s statement will surely prompt reporters to ask most every Blue Dog Democrat who had been holding out or supporting Clinton whether they'll now get behind Obama. And Boren certainly won't be the last to put on his dancing shoes.” (Politico, 06/10/08)

“Democratic officials do not expect Boren to be the last to refrain from making a show of not backing his party's presumptive presidential nominee… Other House Democrats from swing districts – Democrats who eked out victories in traditionally GOP districts, whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., calls her ‘majority makers’ – may refrain from even attending their party's convention in Denver in August.” (ABC News, 06/10/08)

Unfortunately for Obama, other members of his own Party in key states are reticent to get behind his campaign as well…

FL… “Mahoney says he’ll remain an uncommitted superdelegate through the party convention this summer. And Mahoney plans to keep a low profile in the presidential race this fall as he seeks reelection to one of the nation’s most competitive congressional seats… Asked how he felt about running for reelection in his district with Obama atop the ticket, Mahoney said, ‘I’m a Democrat, but am I going to have a pep rally or something like that? No, I’m not going to do that.’” (Palm Beach Post, 06/09/08)

OH… “Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland says, if asked, he would "absolutely not" join the presidential ticket of Sen. Barack Obama… ‘If drafted, I will not run. Nominated, I will not accept. And if elected, I will not serve. So, I don't know how more crystal clear I can be.’” (Chicago Tribune, 06/10/08)

TN… “In Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, Gov. Phil Bredesen mentioned an unnamed Tennessee superdelegate from a swing district who said both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were ‘poison’ politically to him. A scan of Tennessee superdelegates likely leads to only one elected one who is in a swing district - Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-Pall Mall). Earlier this year, Davis was a John Edwards supporter. After Edwards dropped out, Davis told reporters the other candidates, on both sides of the aisle, were ‘leftovers.’” (Nashville City Paper, 04/15/08)

GA… “Rep. Jim Marshall won't say whether he thinks Barack Obama would make a better president than John McCain.” (Washington Examiner, 06/06/08)

Comments (20)

Yes. Attacking your opponent on your own weaknesses is the hottest trick in the book these days.

I have to remind myself that they are probably not that stupid, so I'm left with they ARE that desperate.

I'm still waiting for Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell to endorse McCain.

This is funny since McSame doesn't know what to do with Bush. Hillarious!!!

McSame has to answer for the high gas prices caused largely by his war in Iraq and his sky high deficits.

People are missing the point. To many, Obama is an unknown. Moreover, many people who are even more uncomfortable with him in light of Rev. Wright so these three democrats who refuse to support him confirm their uneasiness with the man.

I also want to add that McCaiin not getting 100% support of the base is now a selling point for McCain who can attract disaffected Democrats who are anti-Obama but won't find it distasteful to vote for McCain.

Just answering: "Yes, they want it." A more relevant question is, "should they want it?" The answer to that is probably "no."

...But at this point in U.S. history, does it really surprise you that the RNC is just plain wrong about almost everything?

Incumbents in white rural America still cannot afford to endorse a black man. Wow, big surprise.

Carl29 provokes the image of Bush as a large and hideously ugly peeling plastic flamingo right in the middle of the room of each Republican election bid. What to do with it--a throw? Place some chairs to one side and ruthlessly divert questions about the flamingo? Say "yeah, there's a flamingo there" and hope people welcome your willingness to work with bad furniture?

I also want to add that McCaiin not getting 100% support of the base is now a selling point for McCain who can attract disaffected Democrats who are anti-Obama but won't find it distasteful to vote for McCain.

Exactly. That's so obvious I'm surprised Marc asked about it. McCain doesn't have full party support because he's a maverick who occasionally drifts to the center. Obama doesn't have support because he's way off to the left.

Only 6% of Democrats plan to vote for McCain, according to Rasmussen. That's fewer than the number of Democrats that voted for Bush in 2004. Meanwhile, 15% of Republicans plan to vote for Obama.

McCain can tout conservative Democrats scared of the national party all he wants. In the 1990s every Southern Democrat had to reject Bill Clinton for fear of a 1994-likes slaughter. And Mahoney won his district by 1 point after the incumbent dropped out for sending erotic messages to underage men. In other words, he's REALLY insecure about his district.

Dan Boren represents one of the most conservative Democratic districts in the country.

That only two Congressmen have distanced themselves from Obama says something about how popular he is.

Only 6% of Democrats plan to vote for McCain, according to Rasmussen.

Rasmussen, June 8th

According to this,

Among all Democratic voters, 66% are certain to vote for Obama, 12% say they’re for Obama but could change their mind, and 2% lean towards Obama.

That leaves 20%, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, who aren't even leaning Obama.

Republicans: Among all Republican voters, 70% are certain to vote for McCain, 10% say they’re for McCain but could change their mind, and 4% lean towards McCain.

16% aren't leaning McCain. And Republicans were a much smaller percentage than Democrats, so he's not taking as big a hit.

As for independents:

Among all unaffiliated voters, 29% are certain to vote for McCain and 12% support the GOP candidate but could change their mind. Twenty-four percent (24%) are certain to vote for Obama while 12% say they support him but could change their mind.

So McCain isn't bleeding as many Republicans, in percentage or numbers, as Obama is bleeding Democrats, and McCain is leading in independents.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers, because most polls show at least some defection for Obama--more than McCain.

I can't wait for the commercials in the fall starring McCain's own GOP Senate colleague Thad Cochran:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Cochran said about McCain by phone. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

To answer your question: yes.

The reason is this. McCain is not getting the backing of the right wing of his party. Obama is not getting the backing of the moderate wing of his party.

McCain's lack of popularity with the right wing of his party further bolsters McCain's independent cred. Obama's lack of popularity with moderate and conservative Democrats puts the lie to Obama's claim of bringing people together and exposes his left-wing leanings.

-Ben

It should be noted that we are dealing with perception.Obama is not as liberal as many believe. Look at his economic policies which are very Clintonian. Also most of his advisors are from U. of Chicago, he knew these men since his time teaching there.

It should be noted that we are dealing with perception.Obama is not as liberal as many believe. Look at his economic policies which are very Clintonian. Also most of his advisors are from U. of Chicago, he knew these men since his time teaching there.

It should be noted that we are dealing with perception.Obama is not as liberal as many believe. Look at his economic policies which are very Clintonian. Also most of his advisors are from U. of Chicago, he knew these men since his time teaching there.

Ben,
The number of moderate republicans have decreased so that explains McCain's desperation in getting some of HRC's supporters.

Worrying about the Blue Dogs seems a waste of time.

But, the reality is that BOTH these candidates start out fairly unpopular with significant portions of their base constituencies.

It's unlikely that the RNC can make a lot of hay out of that -- but it could, nonetheless, very well have consequences in the general election.

The most important consequence, depending on events that unfold during the course of the campaign, could be voter apathy and low voter turnout, as happened in '72 after record breaking turnout in the primaries and an ugly general election campaign season filled with dirty tricks and character attacks.

The winning candidate this time around may simply be the man those who bother to show up at the polls decide they dislike least.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.