Two Is Not A Trend

It's true that Barack Obama's support among Democrats is, on average, about seven points less than John McCain's. That's a valid GOP talking point, although we'll see if the trend holds through the convention. But the RNC and the McCain campaign are trying to create momentum behind the idea that there's a mass exodus of Dems. Well, there ain't.

And where the RNC can point to a superdelegate here and a congressman there, so can Democrats.

(1) Chuck Hagel (R-NE) pointedly refuses to say who he'd vote for.
(2) Same with Colin Powell.
(3) Christine DeLay will vote for Bob Barr.
(4) Ron Paul ... and his people.

In 2000, it took Gary Bauer a while before he endorsed President Bush. In 2004, Sen. Linc Chafee would not say whom he voted for. Not that John Kerry was so lucky: a Nexis search finds that the follow lawmakers:

Rodney Alexander (D-La.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah) and Dennis Moore (D-Kan)....

said they would not endorse Kerry, according to The Hill newspaper.

Comments

Marc, I assume you mean that Obama's support among Dems is 7 points less than McCain's support among Republicans? The way it's worded, it sounds as if you're saying that McCain's approval among Dems is 7 points higher than Obama's ....

Posted by Jeff Miller | June 11, 2008 8:40 AM

Christine Delay! Any word on Tom's aunt's views?

Posted by J | June 11, 2008 8:51 AM

Alexander was GOP by then so no surprise there. Try using the google to check your facts.

Posted by bubba | June 11, 2008 8:54 AM

And we can't be sure if McCain really did vote for Bush in 2000.

Posted by Ronnie | June 11, 2008 9:00 AM

It's true that Barack Obama's support among Democrats is, on average, about seven points less than John McCain's.

errr... Clinton hasn't even been out of the race a week yet. give people a little time to get used to the idea that Obama is the actual nominee!

Posted by cleek | June 11, 2008 9:06 AM

I guess McBush changed the meaning of Maverick to flip flopper. He told people that he voted for bush in 2000 & that he didn't, so his flip flopping isn't new. So when you hear "maverick", it really means "flip-flopper" or "I have a strong principled stand to go whichever way the wind is blowing"

Posted by tom | June 11, 2008 9:15 AM

Blah.

Posted by JBS | June 11, 2008 9:22 AM

via wiki:

Alexander had been elected in 2002 as a Democrat, with the strong support of the state's two Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu and John Breaux, having narrowly defeated Republican challenger Dewey Lee Fletcher of Monroe. He was a fairly conservative Democrat, like the people in his mostly rural district. He seriously considered switching parties soon after John Kerry won the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, but initially decided against it. Breaux reportedly told Alexander that he would find and raise money for a Democrat to run against him if he switched.

However, two days after filing for reelection as a Democrat, Alexander filed again as a Republican with only minutes to go before the deadline. The Republicans promised him a seat on the Appropriations Committee if he switched.

Posted by linda | June 11, 2008 9:28 AM

Marc, you're a great reporter and blogger. But why don't you ever read your posts back to see if they make sense?!

Posted by Marbury | June 11, 2008 9:56 AM

And if you broaden your consideration beyond GOP elected officials, McCain's support among Republicans is (I believe) much worse than Obama's among Democrats.

Although many (all?) of them may well have recanted by now, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter --- to name just a few --- were quite outspoken in their opposition to McCain just a few short months ago.

Posted by David Bailey | June 11, 2008 10:06 AM

I think there will be more Democratic defections for McCain this November than normal. The question will be whether McCain can hold Republicans too. McCain can pick a moderate woman as veep if Obama chooses some old white guy, and watch the bleeding on the Democratic side. Also, I was polled recently (I'm a former Democrat who now identifies as an independent after this nomination was hijacked by the Hyde Park-Massachusetts-Dean-Obama wing of the party via caucuses). The poll asked me for my party i.d., and I said independent. Then it asked me which party I lean towards and I said Democrat. I think you need to look at independent lean Dems to see if they are defecting to Republicans (and vice versa for independent lean GOP).

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 10:08 AM

How exactly did Obama-Dean "hijack" the nomination John? I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I don't get how they hijacked the nom. I could understand not being happy if you were a Clinton backer, but I don't get the rest of it.

More to the original point, I don't know that there will be a huge exodus of Republican voters switching to McCain, but my guess is that there will be an awful lot of them sitting at home on election day, unable to get excited about going to the polls and voting for McCain. If McCain can't fire up the base, he is going to have huge problems in November.

Posted by BT | June 11, 2008 10:22 AM

There's still a fair number of Dixiecrats whose connection to the national party is tenuous at best. The Republicans don't really have any comparable group.

Posted by John K | June 11, 2008 10:36 AM

Seems to me each candidate's positions (despite any centrist rhetoric or reputation) is fairly squarely in sync with his party's platform (give a school voucher acquiescence here or global-warming lip service there). Thus, any defections to vote for the opposing party's candidate is pretty much a repudiation of one's own party.

Regardless:

base + swing = presidency

If O and M split the swing voters, it's all about their respective bases--who's fired up (and ready to vote)?

Posted by bab23 | June 11, 2008 10:37 AM

The most relevant factor here is that the gap in party identification this year is massive. Even if the current polls hold and McCain wins Republicans 88-7 and Obama wins Democrats only 80-15, it won't be close, simply because there are so many more people identifying as Democrats due to massive Bush fatigue.

Posted by Adam | June 11, 2008 10:41 AM

Hyde Park-Massachusetts-Dean-Obama wing of the party

You're evidently not aware that Clinton won by quite a decent margin in Massachusetts?

Btw, IMO the person who votes for McSame is not an "Independent" bit an "idiot."

Posted by DrBB | June 11, 2008 10:50 AM

but

Posted by DrBB | June 11, 2008 10:52 AM

To DrBB, my point isn't Massachusetts voters. They are smart, especially the working-class ones. But why is it that every other day I turn on the TV and I see John Kerry defending Barack Obama? Is he trying to lose? Then Caroline Kennedy is there wrapping up Ted Kennedy with him. God bless Ted Kennedy, and I wish him the best during this health problem. But honestly, if Obama is running for a Kerry and Kennedy restoration, than I'd rather have McCain. And the party was hijacked by these liberals in caucus states like Minnesota, Washington, and Idaho who are so out of touch with mainstream America and the mainstream Democratic party. The people who voted for Dean in '04 gave Obama the nomination in these caucus states.

And to Adam, your point on the party id advantage for Dems earlier this year is an important one. It clearly helps Dems. But I'd like to see if those identifying as Democrats has actually declined recently or will decline over the next month. If not, then Obama is going to win. If so, if there are Dems like me now identifying as independent after that ridiculous primary and caucus process where the party gave Obama delegates in Michigan out of thin air, then my guess is Dem. identifiers might decline over the next couple of weeks.

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 11:05 AM

huhh?????????????????

It was McCain who did not vote for Bush in 2000.

It was McCain who was on the verge of leaving repub party.

McCain is a political opportunist.

Posted by what | June 11, 2008 11:16 AM

Guess DrBB was right about you John; not 'Independent' but 'Idiot'.

God forbid we go back to Kennedy and Kerry after 8 years of Bush/McThirdBushTerm. No more wars, something done about the health care, job and housing crises, no more Torture, no more hatred by they world including our allies, no more signing statements or wiretapping of Quakers. What a world, what a world! I'm melting! Give me McSame so we can keep all that stuff! Kerry windsurfs and Kennedy murders people 40 years ago!

I guess you were exactly the same about the Maine/Texas/Military Industrial Complex/Spook 'network' that got Bush in as you were about this so-called, and all-powerful Hyde Park/Mass/Dean thing, huh?

Posted by Bigby | June 11, 2008 11:18 AM

But honestly, if Obama is running for a Kerry and Kennedy restoration, than I'd rather have McCain.

You know, that's exactly what a concern troll might say if a concern troll were concerned about appearing to be a superserious person who wants us to be concerned that we're not serious enough.

Aside from the 1980 Primary against a sitting President and the 2004 Presidential Election, which Kerry probably would have won had there been a shred of decency and integrity in the State of Ohio's Election procedures, what the hell have Kerry and Kennedy ever lost? They keep getting re-elected. They keep beating the hell out of some of the most moderate Republicans to ever hold office--like Romney and William Weld. They keep getting things done in the Senate. They keep getting legislation passed that Republicans flock to and hold up as examples of their "effectiveness." How many Republicans this Fall are going to run ads touting legislation that never would have gotten written had Ted Kennedy not sponsored it that they fought like mad to attach their names to? Half of them burst into tears at the thought that Kennedy wasn't going to be around to save their asses back home with more of that bi-partisan legislation they can't come up with on their own. Love him or hate him, at least Kerry didn't slink away and do nothing. Heard from Rudy lately?

Next you're going to tell us that Howard Dean is the devil. Hello? The 50 state strategy beat the Clintons for God's sake. In their own party, at their own game, with millions in the bank and a party infrastructure they've had as their base for almost twenty years.

Are you channeling Karl Rove? How's that working out for you?

Posted by Warren Street | June 11, 2008 11:20 AM

Funny how people use the term "hijacked" when they really mean "New voters voted in higher numbers than we did"

Then they get bitter and say we are out of touch....for no other reason other than THEY LOST!

Sorry friend, but liberal is reality and conservative is fantasy. YOu are the one who is out of touch, as evident by your out of touch comment.

Posted by Jason | June 11, 2008 11:20 AM

John ain't a Democrat.

Elect Democrats!!

I will now stop feeding the troll.

Posted by Chup, Bryan, TX | June 11, 2008 11:30 AM

To Bigby, trust me, I don't want Bush-Texas-Military Industrial Complex wing of the GOP party any more than I want the Massachusetts-Kerry-Kennedy liberal wing of the Dem. party in power. And so what if Kerry and Kennedy win in Massachusetts. It's Massachusetts! The thing I like about Obama is he is from Illinois, not a center for either of these nutty far-right and far-left wing parts of either party. He might actually understand real America and can talk about the Midwest and being from flyover country. But Hyde Park isn't the authentic midwest, the rest of the South Side and Kansas are. He needs to focus on that, and ditch John Kerry faster than anybody. Any Dem from outside Massachusetts would have won the 2004 election.

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 11:32 AM

To Jason: When I use the word "hijacked," I am talking about the Rules committee meeting. They should have just punished Michigan and given them 0 delegates if they were worried about integrity, or else given the vote as occurred, including uncommitted who was on the ballot. Instead, they just rewarded both Clinton and Obama some delegates out of thin air. That's hijacking democracy, minimally.

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 11:36 AM

Anybody still think John Kerry is not trying to hijack and upstage Obama in the 2008 election? Obama will do well if he gets Wes Clark and people not associated with Kerry to make this argument instead:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Kerry_McCain_confused_unbelievably_out_of_touch.html#comments

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 12:03 PM

(I'm a former Democrat who now identifies as an independent after this nomination was hijacked by the Hyde Park-Massachusetts-Dean-Obama wing of the party via caucuses).

Hey, another bad Democrat. It's amazing how many of us "concern trolls" there are, isn't it?

But the RNC and the McCain campaign are trying to create momentum behind the idea that there's a mass exodus of Dems. Well, there ain't.

For what it is worth, I would point out that there seems to be a community forming. I've started a site to encourage anti-Obama Democrats to vote for McCain instead of sitting at home, and it's clear that I've been picked up by a network of listservs and the like. Other people send me links to their sites.

How big it is, I have no idea. But it's definitely there.

Posted by Cal | June 11, 2008 12:10 PM

I don't know why anyone bothers with "John's" concern troll spots. If one didn't eject before, the crack about the "Bush-Texas-Military Industrial Complex wing of the GOP party" should have hipped people.

Posted by jdw | June 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Good grief. Still more whining about the fact that Obama won and Clinton lost?

I know these whiners are vast minority, and like libertarians their online presence greatly overstates their real influence on anything. But still, all I have to read is someone saying they are a tried and true Democrat who plans on voting for Mccain in the fall to know they are among the most unserious and immature thinkers around.

Back on topic - what about all those Republican primaries after McCain clinched the nomination, where McCain only won about 75% of the vote? That doesn't exactly sound like a ringing endorsement for the nominee among the party rank-and-file.

Posted by Bob Loblaw | June 11, 2008 12:48 PM

And so what if Kerry and Kennedy win in Massachusetts. It's Massachusetts!

Which is what one would say when trying to minimize the importance of a candidate who can win elections and get things done.

Massachucetts has more diversity in who is elects than Mississippi or Alabama, if you look at Weld and Romney, and compare their tenure to that of someone like Don Siegelman.

But who cares, right? Anything that punctures your worldview MUST be dismissed as moonbattery, right?

Well, never forget this--the moonbats were right about pretty much everything in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006...

...still waiting to be wrong about something. How's that war going for you?

Posted by Warren Street | June 11, 2008 12:57 PM

Um, I think if McCain were winning among Democrats he'd probably be their nominee, wouldn't he? Fix the typo that leads this post, please.

Posted by ally | June 11, 2008 12:58 PM

Well, spelling "Massachusetts" correctly might help make the point...

But us moonbats got all of the important stuff right.

Posted by Warren Street | June 11, 2008 1:04 PM

I've got nothing wrong with people from Massachusetts. What I am tired of is the same old Boston brahmins and their ilk, whether they be John Kerry windsurfing or whether they are GW Bush pretending to be a rancher. The great vast rest of the country knows Boston is past its prime. It keeps horning in, trying to take over candidates not realizing they are losing power. Please give the rest of the country a chance. Let the flyover folks run things for a change. It worked well in the 1990s.

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 1:28 PM

Let the flyover folks run things for a change.

How about the best person for the job?

You're engaging in a non-argument of ridiculous proportions. We should all stop and wait for someone from Bumfuck, Idaho to announce as a candidate for President so we can give them their shot? And we should hold back anyone who isn't from Bumfuck because "they've had their shot." What do we tell them? Aw, sorry--you can't be President. You're from a highly urbanized coastal city! Too bad for you.

Glad to see the serious wingnuts and concern trolls made it to a computer today.

Posted by Warren Street | June 11, 2008 2:35 PM

Next you'll say that anyone named Adams, Roosevelt Johnson or Bush is automatically disqualified.

You're not getting a Christmas Card from Jeb Bush this year, dude...

Posted by Warren Street | June 11, 2008 2:38 PM

I've got no problems with coastal cities. I'd love to see the Democrats nominate someone from Oregon, Washington, Florida, Maryland, etc. It's Boston. They need to give it up. Their power is ending.

Posted by John | June 11, 2008 2:50 PM

I agree with John re: Boston. LOL. Teddy crashed the party in 1980, then 8 years later we had to deal with Dukakis. Then Kerry in 2004. Is there something in the water in Massachusetts that can win the hearts and minds of liberal Dems, but lose the general? Is it just that Bob Shrum works for these guys and is really good at winning primaries? Most voters in the country think about as highly of Ted Kennedy as they do of Jesse Helms. They are both out of touch extremists.

Posted by Chris | June 11, 2008 4:29 PM

Yeah, Chris, Ted Kennedy is out of touch. He supports health care for all citizens, he wants to end the war, and he denounces telecom immunity. He fought for years to get the minimum wage increased. Americans don't care about that extremist stuff. That's why Bush is so popular.

Posted by Anonymous | June 11, 2008 7:01 PM

To anonymous, if Ted Kennedy supports health care for all citizens, why did he endorse Obama over Hillary Clinton? Obama's plan wasn't universal, and Clinton's was. If he cares about that issue, what happened?

Posted by Regina | June 11, 2008 8:15 PM

Regina, your healthcare argument is complete BS.

Hillary's healthcare coverage was universal in name only, to be sure. People cannot be mandated to pay for something they cannot afford. MA instituted a plan very similar to HRC's proposal, and around 15-20% have acquired waivers. Thus, we know the plan is not truly universal-- costs are too high for it to be.

Posted by natascha | June 11, 2008 9:42 PM

Regina, your healthcare argument is complete BS.

Hillary's healthcare coverage was universal in name only, to be sure. People cannot be mandated to pay for something they cannot afford. MA instituted a plan very similar to HRC's proposal, and around 15-20% have acquired waivers. Thus, we know the plan is not truly universal-- costs are too high for it to be.

Posted by natascha | June 11, 2008 9:43 PM

To Natashca, you are outright lying. Hillary Clinton's plan was universal. Those who can't afford would have it provided for them. That's why people who have access now are so against her and were so against her in 1993.

Seriously, on a spectrum of universality, Clinton's was universal for all; Obama's is universal for children but not adults; McCain's is less universal based on tax credits. Why are you lying about Hillary's plan? Realistically, neither Obama nor McCain's plans are good for those who care about universal health care.

Posted by Regina | June 12, 2008 3:55 PM