This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

1 in 5 Dems Defect to McCain if Their Candidate Loses? — Brooklynian

1 in 5 Dems Defect to McCain if Their Candidate Loses?

We were discussing this in another thread but I thought it was worthy of it's own heading.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200803/POL20080321a.html
Poll data:
http://edisk.fandm.edu/FLI/keystone/pdf/keymar08_1.pdf

Poll: Divisive Dem Contest Could Boost McCain
By Fred Lucas
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
March 21, 2008

(CNSNews.com) - The lengthy Democratic primary contest bodes well for Republican chances of holding the White House, a new poll suggests.

As Democratic Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York slug it out for the nomination, many of their supporters -- at least in Pennsylvania, site of the next major primary -- aren't committed to the party's ticket in November, according to a Franklin & Marshall College Poll.

Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. (See poll)

The significant number of potential defectors underscores how divisive the Democratic primary has been.

Democrats won Pennsylvania in the 2000 and 2004 presidential races, but it was a competitive state in both election cycles. McCain, meanwhile, has touted his appeal to swing voters.

"Pennsylvania is a must-win state for a Democratic presidential nominee," Nathan Gonzalez, political editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, told Cybercast News Service. "If there is a significant weakness for a Democrat in Pennsylvania, it could indicate a weakness in Ohio or other key states."

Even a few months ago, the presidential race looked like a major uphill climb for any Republican candidate. But recent polls suggest a toss-up between McCain and either Democratic candidate.

Obama and Clinton both have many negatives, which doesn't make the Pennsylvania poll too surprising, said Doris Graber, a political science professor at the University of Illinois.

"Obama is very liberal, more liberal than we've seen on the campaign trail. Also, there is still racism out there," Graber told Cybercast News Service. "Hillary, we've known all along, has strong supporters. But there are also a lot of people who would never vote for her. There is some antipathy from the Clinton years. Some wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman."

Graber believes it is "almost a certainty" that the Obama-Clinton battle will be decided at the Democratic National Convention, which could drive a wedge through the party.

"Democratic voters could be persuaded not to vote for a candidate with vulnerabilities," she continued. "A vote for McCain wouldn't be that difficult. He does appeal to the middle."

However, Gonzales cautioned not to read too much into a single poll, or discount the desire of Democratic voters to move beyond the George W. Bush years, of which McCain has become the heir.

"This is a very personal and competitive Democratic primary," he said. "Clinton and Obama supporters have trouble seeing themselves with the other now. A healing period will have to happen."
Scary.

Comments

  • Yeah, that's today story-du-jour
    I think it's bullshit (and I hope I'm right.)
    :D
  • pitu wrote: Yeah, that's today story-du-jour
    I think it's bullshit (and I hope I'm right.)
    :D
    For the sake of the democratic party....be hopeful.
    But to dismiss it, would be less than wise for the Democrats.
    Here is some reason I think it is plausible - at least from the Barrack's side:

    1. Barrack Obama's has brought in a brand new demographic of young, excited voters and older cynics. He basically created a voter base that did not exist. they are loyal to HIM and NOT the Democratic party that others may have invested more in over time.

    If they perceive that the candidacy is "stolen" they will react (emotionally in some cases) to that. A first time 18 y.o. that got involved becuase of Barrack, could care less about the democratic party. They want "their" candidate to win. It is emotional for them - people are fainting and crying at his rallies....

    But from the Hillary supporter side:

    2. The first viable woman presidential candidate EVER, will be asked - no TOLD- to "sit down" by a bunch of men...So that the MAN can take his rightful candidacy... fill in the rest of the writing on the wall.

    This will not go over well with the 51% in America (women)
    20% pissed off doesn't seem so unrealistic.

    The fact that this contest has lingered is hurting the democrats. Add to that that McCain is now running for president and the Dems are running for a nominee...
  • People are just feeling bitter during a hard contest. When the time comes these people will get realistic in a hurry, just like all the conservatives that are supposedly going to stay home rather than vote for McCain. Sure, a few people will follow through, but not 20%. I would say that 5% actually voting for McCain and 5% just staying home would be a helluva lot.
  • I think it's bullshit also. Defect to McOld Guy? Never.Ever.

    But as a deeply committed Obama supporter who can never forgive Hil her Iraq vote - I'll just take pass.
  • Livetotravel wrote: I think it's bullshit also. Defect to McOld Guy? Never.Ever.

    But as a deeply committed Obama supporter who can never forgive Hil her Iraq vote - I'll just take pass.
    so you'd just ignore your chance to vote? this is the part that baffles me. I've said from day 1 that no matter how pissed off I am about any number of issues re: obama v. clinton, the repubs aren't getting my vote, even by default. it's not happening. if I don't vote, I'm uncounted - essentially a non-entity in the process. so, while I would LOVE to vote for clinton come november, I'll sure as shit vote for obama if that's the choice I've got. I refuse to be a part of getting mccain elected.

    this is very similar to the nader situation when gore lost the election. being idealistic in a presidential election is just silly - be pragmatic. otherwise, you're just shooting your ideals in the foot.
  • When I can't support either candidate I generally vote for the third party candidate with the biggest base. *shrug* Just to do my part to stick it to the two party system. If I can't do that, I'll write in Mickey Mouse or something, because I won't just _not_ vote.

    A couple weeks ago I would have happily voted for either Clinton or Obama. Now, I'm not sure that I can vote for Obama. Happily, I still have quite awhile to come to terms with that.
  • daver, what swayed your support from Obama? The Wright issue? Did the speech address that for you?
  • The speech was fabulous, although I think it didn't address a lot of things. I could try to run through a few specifics, but really those aren't what got to me. What really got to me is that I was buying into Obamania. I was at least sipping the kool-aid a little bit. And then it was like a splash of cold water to the face that said, hey, this is a manipulating politician just like all the rest. And it pissed me off. I feel let down. Like I said, I'm thinking I can get over it. I still like him, but once you take the toy out of the box and start playing with it, you start to realize that it really isn't as cool as the commercial makes it seem. I came to grips with that on Hillary long ago, so her transgressions just got chalked up. I'm still smarting a bit over Obama.
  • daver wrote: The speech was fabulous, although I think it didn't address a lot of things. I could try to run through a few specifics, but really those aren't what got to me. What really got to me is that I was buying into Obamania. I was at least sipping the kool-aid a little bit. And then it was like a splash of cold water to the face that said, hey, this is a manipulating politician just like all the rest. And it pissed me off. I feel let down. Like I said, I'm thinking I can get over it. I still like him, but once you take the toy out of the box and start playing with it, you start to realize that it really isn't as cool as the commercial makes it seem. I came to grips with that on Hillary long ago, so her transgressions just got chalked up. I'm still smarting a bit over Obama.
    this is the sentiment that scares me about the general election. there's no ... historical politician in obama. he's very new. I remember 4 years ago when everyone was drinking his kool-aid and paying loads of $$ into his election. I thought "wow, this guy came out of left field and ... damn, he's really interesting." and now he's running for president? at least with clinton you know you're getting a combo career politican/lawyer who has made enemies in a kajillion states and all over the federal govt - she's problematic at best, politically. but with obama you have very little data and end up with this really energetic, interesting persona who ... can let you down. and that's not what folks really want right now. I don't think they want the career politican either, or they'd all be voting clinton or mccain. but at some point you gotta take stock. no one gets elected to congress without making a million deals - it doesn't happen. we're going to keep seeing this stuff. folks just gotta either live with it or vote for someone else. unfortunately, I think it's what mccain needs to win.
  • What really got to me is that I was buying into Obamania. I was at least sipping the kool-aid a little bit.
    this is exactly what i was trying to say when explaining why i wasn't behind obama
  • Yea,
    His shine is definitely gotten a little duller.
    Understand his whole existence as a Senator is of a direct result of being a memeber of that prominent black church. his membership there was a political move as well as a spiritual one.

    But for the grass roots backing of the black commnity and that church, Barrack would not have become a senator...there is the irony...

    BUT, that being said, none of that makes me want to now vote for Hillary...using the same logic above, that is.

    Side note:
    Barrack should have gone to Iraq instead of the Virgin islands for vacation. That would have been a better move for him...just saying.
  • SevenOneEighty wrote: Barrack should have gone to Iraq instead of the Virgin islands for vacation. That would have been a better move for him...just saying.
    Just wait until the windsurfing pics surface.
  • jeffrey wrote: [quote=SevenOneEighty]Barrack should have gone to Iraq instead of the Virgin islands for vacation. That would have been a better move for him...just saying.
    Just wait until the windsurfing pics surface.

    oy.
    You are so friggin' right. I think NBC started already with the vacation photos.

    Geez.

    When McCain is debating this Fall, he is going to be able to talk about what is happening in Iraq FIRST HAND, becuase he has been there. He didn't read about it on Dailykos.com - he walked the streets himself (with a crap load of guards, but he was there). Mac has been on Multiple visits and even though the war is very unpopular, this is about the perception of credibility and experience.

    Has Obama been to Iraq or Afghanistan yet? I think Hillary has been there - not sure. How can you talk about how terrible things are in a place if you have not been there? Seriously.

    He has already lost PA, he should take 1 week and go to Iraq and see things first hand. It would definitely change the conversation for a minute.
  • What's the difference - those trips are all photo ops - period. There is no substance. There is no there there.
  • Having gone for 2-day photo ops through the Green Zone or HEAVILY guarded markets is an extremely shallow metric by which to measure a candidate's competence for directing the war in Iraq.

    John McCain is apparently unimaginably ignorant about Sunni/Shiite dynamics in Iraq, but at least he's been shopping in a market for 2 hours while under heavy guard and the protection of helicopter gun ships, right?

    Please.

    Let's talk about policy papers, resumes of advisers and history of statements on the war. I can't believe anyone actually cares about photo ops and media stunts, whether they're at the Iowa State Fair, or the Green Zone in Baghdad.
  • Did anybody see this last week:

    Libertarians seek Barr candidacy
    Former Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia is considering a third-party presidential run — a bid that could steal support from Republican John McCain and potentially offset the damage Ralph Nader's candidacy is predicted to have on the Democratic candidate.
    http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080320/NATION/214024441/1001
  • ^ I haven't seen that one before.
    But I did see this one and though it would be...ridiculous:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/25/cafferty-gore-led-ticket-good-for-democrats/
    Gore-led ticket good compromise for Democrats?

    FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

    A Florida congressman is suggesting that a brokered convention for the Democrats could lead to some pretty unexpected results. In other words, forget about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

    Representative Tim Mahoney says he wouldn't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket. He says a compromise candidate could be someone like Al Gore.

    In a newspaper interview, Mahoney said if the convention is deadlocked and either Clinton or Obama suggested a Gore-Obama or Gore-Clinton ticket, the party would accept it.

    Mahoney is one of the almost 800 superdelegates who would get to cast a vote at the convention. He hasn't endorsed either Clinton or Obama yet, but has been wooed by both.

    and this one:


    http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/mar/24/mark-tomasik-dont-discount-gore-led-ticket/
    Mark Tomasik: Don't discount Gore-led ticket
    By Mark Tomasik (Contact)
    Monday, March 24, 2008
    U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney

    U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney, whose district includes much of Martin and St. Lucie counties, is hoping he won't have to attend the Democratic Party national convention in Denver in August.

    If he does go, that will mean the Democrats still haven't decided a nominee for the presidential election. And if neither Sen. Hillary Clinton nor Sen. Barack Obama has clinched the nomination by August, Mahoney says we may see a brokered convention, meaning the nominee could emerge from a negotiated settlement.

    "If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.

    A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization's editorial board.

    If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

    Mahoney, who is one of the superdelegates who gets to cast a vote at the convention, hasn't endorsed a candidate. He said he doesn't intend to endorse anyone because "I don't see it as my job as a district representative" to endorse a nominee for the presidential race.

    If neither Clinton nor Obama has enough delegates to secure the nomination by the time the convention starts Aug. 25, Mahoney will have to cast a superdelegate vote for someone. Superdelegates make up about one-fifth of the total number of delegates to the convention and are free to support any candidate for nomination. Most superdelegates are current or former elected officeholders or party officials.

    As an uncommitted superdelegate, Mahoney said he has been wooed by Clinton and Obama for an endorsement. Clinton has been the more aggressive solicitor, Mahoney said.

    Mahoney said he has met twice with Obama. He has met more often with Clinton. Two weeks ago, Mahoney attended a cocktail party at Clinton's house in Washington, D.C., he said. Mahoney told of how impressed he is by Clinton's commitment to helping people and her human touch. When Clinton learned that Mahoney's daughter is interested in horses, she called the girl to encourage her interest, Mahoney said.

    While Mahoney hasn't committed to either contender, he clearly likes Clinton and her stance on issues. He praised her for having a grasp of matters of importance to Floridians, especially homeowners insurance reform. (He also made the point that Sen. John McCain, the apparent Republican presidential nominee, is the only candidate in either party not to support national reform of homeowners insurance.)

    Mahoney described Clinton as being "incredibly bright, very personable" and having "an unbelievable grasp of policy" during his meetings with her.

    Mahoney said he had intended to skip the convention because "I have better things to do in my district" than attend what recently has become a glorified pep rally. He will stay away if his superdelegate vote isn't needed. Meanwhile, he's lobbying to get the results of the Jan. 29 Florida primary vote to count.

    The national Democratic Party and its chairman, Howard Dean, stripped Florida of its delegates as punishment for violating party rules by moving up the state's primary date from March to Jan. 29. Dean banned the Democratic candidates from campaigning in Florida. Still, a record 1.75 million Democrats voted in the Florida primary. Clinton won by 17 percentage points.

    A recent statewide poll of registered Democratic voters by the St. Petersburg Times and its television partner showed that the campaigning boycott of Florida had little effect on Democratic voters' choices in the Jan. 29 primary. The poll showed that 56 percent said the lack of campaigning had "no effect at all" on their vote. Also, 77 percent of the people polled said that it is "very important" to them that the results of the Jan. 29 primary count.

    Mirroring our editorial board's position and the poll results, Mahoney said the Jan. 29 results should be counted and the full slate of delegates should be seated at the convention.

    "The delegates have to be treated fairly and responsibly and given full weight," Mahoney said.

    The St. Petersburg Times poll showed that one in four state Democrats might not vote for the party's nominee if Florida delegates aren't given a full say in the presidential nomination. That would seem to indicate that all Florida Democratic candidates for office in November could be in jeopardy of losing support.

    Mahoney dismisses this notion, saying the issues are too important for Democratic voters to either sit out the election or vote Republican. Democrats need to first clean up the mess they made in Florida and honor the votes of the Jan. 29 primary before they try to convince voters they successfully can govern the nation.
  • I've been rooting/hoping for a Gore/Obama ticket for a while now. Suffice to say it would make me very, very happy. But it ain't gonna happen...
  • Interesting thoughts (which I agree with) that polls now showing how people would "defect" could become quite irrelevant 6 or 10 months from now. Remember, a year ago Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were dominating the polls.

    From Talking Points Memo reader commentary:

    TPM Reader HW appeals for calm (and a little common sense) ...

    This talk of mortal peril for the Democrats is crazy. The idea that where the primary stands here in March jeopardizes the outcome of the election in November strikes me as wildly ahistorical. And I say that as an Obama supporter who believes that Hillary should have gotten out of the race a month ago when the central premise of her campaign became the proposition that superdelegates should overrule the outcome of contested primary elections.

    Didn't Bill Clinton have to fight primary battles well into May and June? He managed to beat an incumbent President a six months laters. Didn't George W. Bush have to contend with John McCain in 2000 even after Al Gore had basically finished off Bill Bradley early in New Hampshire? Didn't Jimmy Carter manage to beat Ford despite Jerry Brown winning a string of late primaries in 1976?

    As for this latest Gallup poll, if 28% of Hillary Clinton supporters backed McCain, that would mean that roughly 14% of Democrats would back McCain. Given the events of the past week with Jeremiah Wright, McCain's ability to escape serious examination until the Democratic primary is over, and the heated nature of the primary, let's call that a worst case scenario. Guess what? Gore lost 14% of Democrats in 2000 and Kerry lost 11% of Democrats in 2004. As I recall, Gore won the popular vote anyway, and John Kerry came pretty close.

    We are eight months away from November, we haven't had a chance to see McCain's record and statements get serious scrutiny, we haven't seen the parties choose their respective running mates, we haven't seen the conventions, we haven't even officially settled on the matchup (although I think we all know it). Gallup has Obama and McCain basically tied in the mid-forties, which means neither have locked down too many more people than the folks in their base, with everyone in the middle up for grabs. There is much to be written about the general election ahead, in fact, everything has yet to be written. We just all have to have the patience to let Hillary run out the string- and don't get me wrong, its trying mine, more sorely everyday (my hope is that Obama can stage a double win in North Carolina and Indiana and some party elders will approach Hillary and ask her to pack it in then and there).
    Same message from TPM Reader TL (just with a little more edge for the proprietor) ...

    Don't you find it incredibly myopic to adhere to the logic behind the figures you posted proporting that many Clinton and Obama voters would vote for McCain after the Dem nominee is chosen? We are in the midst of an incredibly strung out and close race for the Democratic nomination. The emotions running through the supporters of both candidates are near their peak. Of course they are going to claim that they are going to vote for McCain. By saying so they are attempting to make their own candidate seem like the only plausible choice. You know all to well that were Barack or Hillary to win, put beside McCain under the scrutiny of a presidential election, that there is no way in hell any of these people are voting for John McCain. If I want to read/hear this BS I'll go to CNN, but please not here.
Sign In or Register to comment.