Poll: Twenty-Eight Percent Of Hillary Supporters Would Back McCain If Obama Wins
This, from Gallup, is the first polling I've seen on this question -- it finds that Hillary supporters say they're more likely to bolt to McCain if their choice doesn't end up as the nominee:
Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is.
You hear lots more media attention being paid to the idea that Obama's supporters would bolt to McCain than to the possibility that Hillary's would. It's worth keeping in mind that you can't take it for granted, as some pundits seem to, that Hillary backers will all support Obama.
On the other hand, one problem with this poll is it doesn't account for how Hillary might win. If Obama won the pledged delegate count and popular vote, and the super dels put Hillary over the top, you could easily see the number of Obama supporters not willing to back Hillary spiking.
Comments (274)
Because Hillary is losing her supporters are more likely to be bitter over the results. Moreover, these responders know they are being polled and thus are likely to give answers intended to influence the outcome. Of course it looks good for Hillary if they say they won't vote for Obama - they know that.
These polls tell us much less than we think.
March 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I will certainly vote for Obama if Clinton loses and I'm very much in support of Clinton. I disagree with you though that that large number comes from bitterness.
There are millions of so-called "Reagan Democrats" who will not vote for Obama because:
-he wants to talk to our enemies
-wants to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, so they can use them to fly planes into buildings (that's what they'll think)
-he refuses to designate the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization
-while in Illinois, he was soft on crime (example: against the death penalty for gang members because they are often "people of color")
-he's black
-his mother was white
-he refuses to wear the flag
-his wife isn't patriotic
-his "moral compass" hates white people and America
Now, before I am crucified here, let me make abundantely clear: I AM NOT A REAGAN DEMOCRAT. I agree with these positions that Obama has taken. I think some of the things he's said are politically stupid, but that's another topic.
What people generally fail to acknowledge in the media is that Ronald Reagan continued Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which basically used race baiting to move racist whites (once with populist Dems) into the Republican Party. That strategy is still alive (against blacks and immigrants), but also has adopted religious tones (targeting homosexuals and abortion) to mobilize the obvious idiots.
Obama was so much better off when he was 'transcending race'. In other words, when he wasn't the black candidate. Rev. Wright, like Hurricane Katrina, blew that cover clean off of Obama.
'Tis the trouble we are in if Obama is the nominee. Because with the race/Wright issue aside, these Reagan Dems are often just as nationalistic and strong on defense as the neocons and as tough on crime as Guiliani.
The very sad reality is we can't win without them.
And I say that as an openly gay guy, so it really is personally painful to admit.
March 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MKyleM, There are some good points in that post.
I'd also point out there are a lot of Main Street Republicans, who are sick of the pandering to wing nuts, war mongering, corruption, duopoly and oligarchy, who will vote for Obama.
I recently read a great article on Glass-Stegall from the WSJ 1999. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml
One very interesting point it made was that a lot of small bankers were against the bipartisan scuttling of Glass-Stegall led by Bill Clinton, realizing full well it would lead massive mergers and monopolization of commercial and investment banking, and expose the broad economy to Wall Street meltdown.
Another point in the article was that Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods.
"The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.
Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.
The banks and other financial institutions did not themselves oppose continuation of the CRA, which they have treated as nothing more than a cost of doing a highly profitable business in minority areas. Loans tied to the CRA average a 20 percent rate of return. Financial industry lobbyists complained that they were being caught in a crossfire between the Republicans and Democrats which was unrelated to the main purpose of the bill."
There are a lot of Main Street Republicans who are tired of the sort of partisan politics the Clintons play, who aren't religious fundamentalists, and who aren't racists or war mongers either.
March 26, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Kozmik, (quick yet long-winded reply, ignore typos please)
You are certainly right that there are many Republicans who see the tragedy that has unfolded under their party's rule and plenty of people who are extremely tired of political, partisan fighting.
Lets say Obama does (what I think is) the impossible and is elected president. What are those people going to think when Obama is forced by the realities to actually engage in partisan fighting? I am just not convinced at all that the election of Barack Obama will suddenly end the need to engage in partisan fighting. What are they going to say about Michelle Obama, who may be the one running in 15 years talking of her "scars" and how she's been through the heat, etc. etc.
People have been sick and tired of Washington DC since the late 1700s; you could even argue people were sick of DC even when it was just a concept, evident by the relectuance of many at the time to form a federal government in the first place. Candidates have been running against that city since it was founded.
But that never changes the fundamentals. The hatred of George Bush and the Iraq War has yet to spark a true revolution. They have not made the country less racist. They have not made the country less religious.
Those Main Street Republicans you speak of will be just as sick of politics by the end of Obama's era as they are now. Here's why: the Republican party will put up one hell of a fight and try their best to keep him from accomplishing anything. And I can only hope to God that the Dem Party headed by an Obama presidency hits them back with the same, if not more, fire.
And that goes straight to Hillary Clinton's best selling point. She will fight back, tooth and nail. Many Obama supporters see her as mean and nasty. However, as someone who actually works in politics and has observed two presidential candidates, decent honorable men but lousy candidates, simply roll over and die in the heat of the fight. No, I want someone who won't hesitate to throw Keating 5 right in McCain's flappy face. You call it "kitchen sink", I call it doing what you are supposed to. WIN. Do what it takes - within the law, of course.
But going back to the turn out of Main Street Republicans, I don't think that can offset the defection of Reagan Democrats. Sure, people will defect with Clinton but not by nearly as much. With Obama, though, you have to think about how his candidacy will energize every racist idiot in evry corner of the country to turn out and vote. I know many of you will say the same about Clinton, but again, it won't be nearly as much. Plus, with Clinton, you can expect millions of women (who've never participated before in elections) turn out to vote for the first woman president. These are people who don't watch the news and are not very partisan. They would do the same for Libby Dole. Millions! That would do more than offset the ignorant vote. Plus, so much is made of the "Clinton hatred" in the country. People who are sitting at home hating Hillary Clinton and buying those trashy books about her are more often than not Republicans who have voted every time they possibly could. Very partisan Republicans who will never in a million years vote for a Democrat. Their turn out is guaranteed.
On the other hand, the racist vote is not guaranteed, but ony for Hillary. I work in politics in SC, NC, and GA. I'm sure many of you are well aware of the disgusting 'rebel flag'. Well, our REPUBLICAN Gov. in SC decided to end the controversy by removing the flag from the state house. The next year, when he was up for reelection, not only was that REPUBLICAN Gov. devastated, humiliated, defeated, the Democratic Party was absolutely destroyed throughout the state. If I remember correctly, we lost both chambers in the state house. The exact same thing happend a few years later in GA, except it was a Dem gov. and they only lost the state senate.
I know many of you will dismiss this as the South and I know it is the cradle of idiocy. However, I think this poses a problem in northern FL, OH, VA, MO, even in PA and NM. I have no doubt that Rev. Wright, single-handedly, will ensure a landslide electoral defeat for our party and Barack Obama.
I've learned to NEVER underestamate the seething racism that festers in this country. There's a reason Nixon's Southern Strategy is still alive; its because racism and ignorance is alive and well!
March 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What are those people going to think when Obama is forced by the realities to actually engage in partisan fighting?"
I don't see how he will be "forced" into hardline partisan politics at all. What forces pols to play partisan politics is thier past baggage and allegiance to partisan special interests. Obama hasn't done that.
His core donor base and political mandate is coming directly from the grass roots, and a rather broad base of grass roots at that. For example, the youth vote doesn't care for outmoded ideologies, sacred cows and establishment orthodoxy, they want pragmatic results. Same goes for educated working people. All these people want a strong economy and high quality of living for working people, to protect the environment, to have healthcare, etc. But they're not partisan or ideological. They're much more like Europeans and Asians in other developed countries, who take a much more pragmatic and mixed approach to the economy, environmentalism, social issues, and so on.
For example, Hillary tried to force him into race politics, as did some of the demagogues in the black community. Both times he rose above it and refused to play that game. Both times he went directly to the public and appealed to their common sense and better nature. Rather than pandering, he treats the public like adults, and it elevates the discussion.
Sure, he won't convince some people locked into rigid ideology. But for every one of them he loses, he gains two pragmatists happy for someone finally refusing to play the old games. Many of our politicians are outmoded. The people are way ahead of most pols, a lot less partisan and a lot more pragmatic, across the spectrum. Obama has tapped directly into that.
March 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think I've made my point. And I see yours, I just disagree with you.
You seem to be one of those that thinks Obama is some sort of magician.
Obama's elected and
Poof! There goes racism.
Poof! There go Evangelical Christians.
Poof! There go pro-lifers.
Poof! There goes homophobia.
Poof! There go the Republican attack dogs.
Poof! There go rich people who don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There go middle class people who don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There go working class people who don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There go the 50 million people who don't believe government should help anyone.
Poof! There goes Fox News.
Poof! There goes Rush Limbaugh and hundreds of his clones.
Poof! There go the corporations that control the media and don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There goes the constellation of right-wing publications, publishing companies, and blogs.
Poof! There go right-wing think tanks.
Its just not going to happen. Conservatives set out, after their 1964 presidential defeat, carefully laying a foundation for their own movement. It may be weak, but it is still there. Ann Coulter still does her rounds on the morning shows and cable news. Even if Obama maintains this grass roots coalition you speak of, it will have to do battle with this giant. It may be a weak monster, but it is still a force to be dealt with.
Also, are you crazy, suggesting that Europe and Asia live in this La La Land you describe? Sure, their political spectrums may be shifted more to the left than ours. However, its hardly a bridge club!
Asian sessions regularly erupt in full flege fighting matches with shoes and mics thrown and faces slapped and punched and hair pulled. Even the British parlament often erupts in screaming and name calling. France regularly has riots. Germany goes on strike all the time.
In fact, they often make us look very civilized and orderly. And if you look back at the history of campaigns, we really have come a long way. I remember studying in college political advertiements and one that is seared into my meomry was one flier against Thomas Jefferson that said if he were president "rape, incest, murder, and mayhem would ensue." Let us not forget the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Burr (after Hamilton suggested at a dinner party that Burr had engaged in insest with his daughter).
Obama has market-tested a phrase: Change. Change you can believe in. People want change. Politics as usual. But the fact of the matter is, every election is about change. And candidates have been saying that since this country was founded; "i'm going to bring good change" and/or "my opponent is going to bring bad change."
I know you all don't want to hear it, but it really is simply politics as usual. And that's fine, he's done a fantastic job at it. My only hope is that, if he makes it to the top job, he actually hasn't started believing this non-sense and knows full well at some point the honeymoon will be over and a full fledged fight will begin.
If he knows what's up and ends up fight int well, one thing is certain: Hillary and Bill will have been the best training coaches he could possibly have had.
March 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You seem to be one of those that thinks Obama is some sort of magician."
Not at all. It's just you seem to think demographics haven't changed, and I can point to empirical evidence they have.
It's not the first time either.
For example, after the Great Crash and Depression, demographics and public opinion shifted towards pragmatism and economic reform in the form of the New Deal, which was basically a mixed economy. The ideological partisanship and rather low-brow mudslinging between communism and laissez faire ideolouges had been ongoing since the late 1800s with laissez faire generally winning due to American proclivities. After the crash the populace abandoned ideology, rejected both laissez faire and communism, and moved towards a mixed economy in the New Deal. Cultural extremes were also rejected in favor of pragmatism, for example by increasing regulation of hard drugs while prohibition of alcohol lost support.
Reagan tapped into various reactionary backlashes against radicalism and the counter culture, to great success. He set a course back towards state sponsored religiosity and legislating morality, and laissez faire. Clinton to a large extent continued those policies, such as repealing Glass-Stegall banking regulation, NAFTA, and so on.
Which brings us full circle. The economy is collapsing due to rampant corruption and predatory practices, the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer, and most people are sick of the Religious right attempting to legislate morality without respect for liberty or privacy.
Once again we're moving towards pragmatism and abandoning extreme left/right ideology.
March 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, your portrayal of Europe and Asia are kinda ignorant and sound like FOX News nonsense. Have you actually spent much time in either? Our Europe and Asian allies aren't "la-la land." That's Los Angeles.
They do have a higher quality of living overall though. They do have empirically better heath care, like number of MRI per capita, superior preventative care, and superior natal care, for half what we pay. They do have superior test scores and graduation rates. They do have better public transit and infrastructure. They are greener and generate far more renewable energy. They do have better internet and wireless technology and infrastructure, will almost universal deployment with capacities often 10x ours, able to easily stream DVD quality video for example. They do make better cars. They do eat better and exercise more. they do live longer. They are increasingly buying up US companies and real estate.
It's all basically for one simple reason: our European and Asian allies have government to serve the people who are very politically active. As such, they get results. US turnout is far lower than in almost all of our allies. As such, power tends to gravitate to concentrated interests, the "special interests" like corporations and various agenda driven groups.
I personally think America, at it's best, is better, can and should do better. We have a mix of people from a broad range of experiences, with widely varying talents. We have resources and some of the most desirable real estate in the world.
But we have to put all that to work for us, instead of working against ourselves.
March 26, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With Obama, though, you have to think about how his candidacy will energize every racist idiot in evry corner of the country to turn out and vote. I know many of you will say the same about Clinton, but again, it won't be nearly as much."
btw, sorry, but that's just not reality based.
In fact, polls have repeatedly shown more people won't vote for a woman than won't vote for a black man. Which is sad, because in a more perfect world both race and gender would be irrelevant. But regardless, that's the fact. It's also worth mentioning that popular institutions from sports to the military are all way more racially integrated than gender integrated.
Also, Hillary has far higher negatives than Obama, for reasons having nothing to do with race or gender, among those who would otherwise vote for a woman or African American.
Obama is half black and transcends racial stereotypes in many regards, which I think does matter. Many people want to move past racial divides and generally want pols who represent everyone equally.
(btw, as a mixed person myself, asian and european, I know that a lot of people like it, because it puts me in a sort of "impartial mediator" category. they don't worry about offending me with sterotypes becasue there aren;t any. similarly they don't worry about me projecting my ethnic baggage onto them, because I don't have any. It frees people up to relate on a much more basic human level. In popular culture we increasingly see celebrities transcending traditional gender and ethnic roles, I think for the same reason.)
March 26, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. I really am.
I think you are, sooner or later, in for a very rude awakening.
March 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're free to feel that way. I understand. Some of my relatives insisted to me that Obama would never win in states he won, would never be ahead in the popular vote or delegate count. They insisted Hillary was a "sure thing" and would win in a landslide.
According to Hillary's calculations, she shouldn't be paying a price for her Iraq War vote, because it was supposedly the smart political move. She thought WalMart was a good company to join. She thought NAFTA was a great idea. She thought her health care plan was terrific, before it completely fell apart.
She would have been absolutely right, in another era.
March 26, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
March 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest with you. Your assessment of mainstreet Republicans is quite shallow. For those mainstream Republicans, McCain is the best the party has to offer. Since McCain was nominated, it is actually very hard for Democrats to win, no matter what!
Iraq will not become an issue and surge, you like it or not, has worked quite well. It is not a good strategy to root for American failure in Iraq! McCain has been a consistent critic of Rumsfeld and he will be trusted for his national security and his early advoctate of troop surge. The republicans will be just fine with McCain.
Now let me come back to the main point of this poll. The Obama supporters are an odd alliance of black people and liberal elitists. Most of them are vemently anti-war. If Hillary wins, they will be mad but it is difficult to see them turn out to vote for McCain to punish Hillary. They will sit home or skip the presidential line, especially those hot-head young people. Hillary supporters are more moderate to conservative Democrats. They also include a lot of latinos. The first group, especially old people, value experience and will have no problem voting for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. There are also so called "national security" moms. They may favor Hillary over McCain but will pick McCain over Obama anyday. Reagan Democrats have been voting for Republicans their whole lives. It does not bother them to vote for McCain, especially after the Wright problem. Oh, by the way, Latinos, deeply appreciate McCain's immigration effort and will be strongly motivated to vote for McCain if their first-choice Hillary is out.
So what we have now is: If Hillary wins, some Obama people will stay home - let's take people off the D side. On the other hand, if Obama wins, many Hillary supporters will cross over to vote for McCain - let's now take people off the D side and put them to the R side. what is more dramatic?
March 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Aimey May!
I think your point about Latinos and McCain is extremely important and cannot be overstated.
Democrats really should think long and hard about the consequences with this group if Obama is the nominee.
March 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Obama supports drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, so it is not as if he is conceding the Latino vote to McCain. I think that it is nearer the mark to say that McCain will attract a larger chunk of the Latino vote than Romney or Giuliani would have, but I am hard pressed to believe that Latino democrats will defect in any great numbers to McCain. If you were to tell me that many of them will simply stay home in November if Obama is the nominee, I could even believe that (although I would want to see the data). "Strongly motivated to vote for McCain" however rings false in my ears.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd call that a huge stretch. McCain the Senator from Arizona, and McCain the President with a base of white, rural, Evangelicals, two entirely different creatures.
March 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, For a little context, McCain was "happy" to get the nod from that wingnut Hagee, who passionatly hates Catholics and immigrants.
Again, McCain of 2000 and McCain of 2008, very different. He realized in 2000 he couldn't get the moderate vote and the wingnut vote, and has consistently gone wingnut since.
March 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For those mainstream Republicans, McCain is the best the party has to offer."
Nope. For several reasons. In a nut shell, he's been forced by the Republican base of hawks, fundies, and Wall Street, to pretzel himself to pander to the interest groups who killed his candidacy in 2000. But it was precisely his opposition to them which endeared him with moderate Republicans in the first place. He can't have it both ways. McCain can't win moderates and the Republican base.
That's the fundamental problem in the Republican party today: the Reagan coalition is unstable and impossible to maintain in power.
The fact is turnout for McCain and Republican turnout overall has been really lousy. Democratic primaries, in large part due to Obama, have been breaking all records for turnout.
Much of the traditional Democrats (i.e. working people including labor and professionals) and much of the traditional Republicans (i.e. working people including labor and professionals) are less divided by social issues, and more unified on economic and security issues around pragmatic solutions, than ever before. Call it a virtual third party, or maybe the meta-party.
Obama carries them and the base. McCain gets either/or.
March 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it goes all ways. Some voters don't like McCain and will vote Democrat. Overall it's a wash, and these things tend to be over hyped. I don't know why Josh is suspending his common sense and sweating these silly polls so much.
Anyways, there's no point in worrying too much about irrational voters. If some people are willing to vote against their economic interest and for a war monger like McCain, then all you can do is try and educate them. But pandering to them only rewards it and that leads to a vicious cycle.
***
A lot of that will die down after the Dem nominee is picked. It's also very important how the nominee is picked. Hillary "winning" by somehow fixing the SD (which isn't going to happen) and Obama winning fairly with a lead in pledged delegates, that's very different. Polls don't address that issue.
For example, sure, if Hillary won fairly, i.e. if she somehow managed to win with the elected/pledged delegates, then sure, I'd vote for her even though I support Obama. I even planned to support her (as bad as she is) before Obama got in the race.
But, and it's a huge, there's no way I'll vote for Hillary if she somehow fixes the nomination through the SD.
That's a matter of principle. If you allow machine politics to shut out fair competition and subvert the democratic process, then you don't have a democracy anymore. That invites a vicious cycle which will inevitably produce fewer and worse choices.
You can apply that principle to anything in life.
If someone you're dating is basically an OK person, but is a psycho stalker who chases off anyone else and seeks to control your life, then it's not going to be a good marriage. If you buy a product in a store that's OK, but then you learn they're a monopoly that's deliberately preventing you from having other choices, one would have to boycott that product on principle.
Again, to do otherwise is to invite a vicious cycle inevitably leading to fewer and worse "choices" that are no choice at all.
***
March 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry but did obama get 20024 delegates?
March 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 2024, and that's a silly question.
If the SD's go proportionately to the elected/pledged delegates, yes, he's clearly won. Many party leaders have pointed out that to do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the will of the voters, undemocratic, and split the party. Unless the SD go collectively crazy, they're not going to do so. In fact they've repeatedly signaled they're not going to do so.
So, yes, there is a single possibility Hillary can win, by somehow fixing the SD vote and disenfranchising the will of voters, and splitting the party. But no, it's not remotely likely, end even if she did pull it off, it would be disastrous.
Otherwise, it's impossible for her to catch up, and she's already lost.
So, while I respect enthusiastic support for one's candidate, as Hillary would say, her supporters need a "reality check."
March 26, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of spin is this?
This should be: MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS WOULD SUPPORT OTHER CANDIDATE IN GENERAL ELECTION
28% going for McCain means 72% going for Obama.
March 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
i dont think it's spin. it's just showing how bitter some people feel right now. one thing you can count on the GOP to do in the fall is unite the Dem base against them with rovian style politics. once obama has a chance to go after mccain, the tide will change again. the only question is, will Obama be stuck with Clinton to hold on to his base in Nov, and in turn, hurt himself with Indie's?
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't win without Clinton's support nor Clinton can't win without Obama's.
That is a fact.
As of now, Obama has turned of alot of Hillary's supporters by his constant race baiting and personal attacks.
March 26, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course they'll bolt. HRC and saint john aren't that far apart. they got the same grade on the commander-in-chief test. (although that may be because hillary copied mcSame's answers)
March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are many problems with the poll - not the least of which is that it's a useless hypothetical at a time when the primary battle is heated. In the fall, these numbers go out the window.
UNLESS Hillary Clinton wins unfairly - which is of course the only way she can win.
March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she wins she win fairly. If she gets the nomination it is because the SD gave it to her according to the rules. They could do that if they choose. Just the way they could choose Obama.
The SD's are not under any obligation to give it to Obama or Hillary.
March 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this gives more credence to Mo Dowd's claim in her editorial today that they may end up stuck with each other. The more these numbers increase, the more it looks as if Obama may end up stuck picking Hillary as his VP. Not a good scenario.
March 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mo Dowd? Are you kidding me? Please! Stop reading garbage! She nicknamed Obama Obambi for crap's sake. And I'm not even an Obama supporter!
Maureen Dowd is a moron. Bob Somerby lays it out.
March 26, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With any luck, TPM will allow this link to work.
If not, Google "Maureen Dowd Somerby" for more on Dowd's history of "feminizing" Obama.
March 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they've just got a hankerin' for gutter politics and if they can't get their fix from Hillary, they'll go with the GOP, who can always be counted on to get down into the muck.
March 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cry. Me. A. River.
100 years war? YES!
Tax cuts for the wealthy? YES!
Overturn Roe v. Wade? YES!
Escalation with Iran? YES!
Same old economic policy? YES!
Torture? YES!
28% of Clinton supporters are douchebags. 19% of Obama supporters are douchebags.
Fortunately, John McCain is a bigger douchebag.
Unite in '08.
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
...or is it just their love for the status quo?
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Meanwhile, I know that we are being cautioned to suspect that a lot of these "I would vote for McCain" respondants are speaking in anger and would not feel that way by November. That said, I have a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that too many of these folks really mean it. That is to say, while many of them will repent of this foolishness by November, many will not, and the number that will not is large enough to give McCain the edge that he needs. I hope I am wrong about that, but I feel less and less sanguine about our chances in November with each passing day of this nonsense.
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh. I've said it in other places, but I probably wouldn't vote for McCain if HRC won the nomination at a brokered convention. In other words, if Obama won the vote but was denied by the supers, I probably still wouldn't vote for McCain.
but I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about HRC. I wouldn't volunteer. I wouldn't buy a sign. I wouldn't go out of my way to exhort people to vote. I might even stay at home and watch Captain Kangaroo instead of voting at all.
I know how damaging to the nation another term of Bush/Cheney would be, but I can't seem to well up any deep support for Clinton were she to steal the nomination. If she magically won it fair and square (and I do mean magically), I might me more inclined to vote for her....but....I dunno.
March 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you get the feeling that most of these people are like those you have worked with who threaten to quit if things don't go their way? Ever notice how they just seem to keep coming in to work?
March 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mercifully, I have never worked with anyone like that. I have expressed this same anxiety to many others, and regularly receive reassurances much to the same effect as the one you just offered. All I can say is that I hope you are right. I have no reason one way or another to believe that folks who say "I will vote McCain if ____ gets the nomination" really mean it. Maybe I am taking it too seriously; maybe I am not.
This much I know - if a time for healing is necessary in order to reconcile those alienated by this race, then the longer we have for that healing the better. As such, ending this quickly is in the party's (and thus both candidates') best interest.
March 26, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can only wonder why this is so.
March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
One can only wonder the role the "CIC threshold" and the "two candidates who love their country" statements have played in creating such divisions.
March 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, stop with the percentages. Obama has a larger slice of the pie, so saying 19% is the same as 28% is not accurate. The sad truth is the Democrats will surely win in the fall with who ever they put up. Sure, some neocons that support Hillary will go to McCain, Nader, or what not, but Obama will make up for the loss with the increase in independents and republicans that choose him. Also, this poll fails to take into account Hillary's endorsement of Obama when she finally admits she lost.
March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
very good point. as an early obama supporter, i've got no use for hillary, but compared to saint john mcHundredYears? i'll vote for her in a heartbeat. fortunately, this will most likely remain a hypothetical matchup.
March 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A larger slice of which pie? They're tied in terms of national support, as shown by this and many other polls, so 19% and 28% can be compared directly.
Like others here, I very much hope the sentiment changes come November. If I were an Obama supporter though, I'd be pretty worried about his inability to gain broad support from Democrats, despite it supposedly being a long shot for Hillary to win for over a month now.
March 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are delusional.
March 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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."
Comes back to bite you, buddy.
March 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has run her campaign using Karl Rove's playbook, I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary supporters wrote in "George W Bush" in the General Election.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comments like these are what driving Hillary's supporters to McCain. You are only hurting Obama.
Remember, he or she who laughs last...
March 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's supporters will come to their senses. They won't vote for a neocon who promises more wars and endless occupations and that will appoint judges to overturn Roe v Wade.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama + 72% of Hillary's rational supporters STILL beats McCain + 28% of Hillary's batshit crazy supporters.
/nuff said.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
note: a huge percentage of Obama supporters will stay home if Clinton wins the nomination by any means now apparent.
and rightly so.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, so much for the "those African American voters" non-issue.
March 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry, but I am not following you. To what "non-issue" are you referring? Did someone say something about "those African American voters"?
March 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you enjoyed your weekend away from the blog. More of us need to do so.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/those-african-american-voters.php
March 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poll is meaningless.
It isn't even a good talking point.
Here is why:
Hillary and her supporters are losing.
A loss always engenders bitterness and reactivity. These stings will fade with time.
They always do.
The same can be said for Barack Obama supporters's opinions in this poll. They are winning. They don't feel as much heartburn as the Clinton base currently does. So they appear to be more willing to support Clinton. If the situation was reversed their bitterness would ascend, and the numbers would be reversed.
Ergo: Meaningless^2
March 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
QED
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the situation was reversed their bitterness would ascend, and the numbers would be reversed.
The situation already has been reversed. Obama started out "behind" in the race before the primaries began and that's why every other Obama supporter I encountered on the sites I post to was saying "If Obama doesn't win, I can't vote for that bitch that killed Vince Foster" or some variant thereof. That Obama's number shows as 19% only reflects that he's ahead in delegates at this point.
The sooner they face up to it, the better. It will take both of them on the ticket to win. Short of that, it's over.
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that she's now hanging tough with the guy responsible for the Clintons killed Vince Foster story.
March 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not support Hillary in the general. It means she cheated, scraped, and lied her way to it.
March 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
Dear Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel: Are you reading these polls? For the love of god would you please stop this before the party bleeds out?
March 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will be the nominee and I will vote for her but how many obamaniacs will not?
March 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, where'd you get that crystal ball? It seems broken.
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way Hillary gets to be the nominee is if McCain offers her a spot as his VP, which given her language of late, seems to be what she is angling for.
March 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, gotalife...
If Clinton gets the nomination, you'd better start honing your charm skills, because you're going to need every bit of that charm to convince me and my fellow Obama supporters to vote for your candidate. And insulting us by calling us "Obamaniacs" will not get you off to a good start.
March 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, tell me something. How does Clinton win the GE without the African American vote? How does she get them back on board?
March 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are implying that Obama is the black candidate...the affirmative action guy.
March 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't this is quite as big a deal as people are suggesting.Don't forget. Polling that is done assumes the other person is out of the race. We already have poll numbers for many individual states and for the whole country in match-ups of McCain vs. Clinton or McCain vs. Obama. In other words, given that it seems recent polls demonstrate the Clinton or Obama perform essentially equally against McCain, this poll shows that for every Clinton Dem that Obama loses he gains another voter. Same for Clinton.
March 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a note of caution: 3% of those who support Obama, would support McCain in the fall. Three percent.
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody see this? Pretty funny
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks elonepb. LMAO and spilled the coffee.
March 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people are FUNNY!
Thanks for the link!
March 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw it on DU, but you should have mentioned it's Bosnia footage of her trip. It shows Hillary at her awesome best!
Terrorists, schmerrorists.
March 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
as a hillary supporter i would be very disapointed if obama wins the nomination but will i vote for him? let me put it this way after 20 years of supporting the dem nominee i would most likely support obama. for the first time in my life i will be unexcited in november.
March 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were exciting?
Dude.
March 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In two months this election has turned upside down many a times. Six months to the general- no one can predict the turn of events. I concede Obama may loose in November, but it is my no means the writing on the wall.
Hillary? She's done, no point discussing her future.
March 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let em go. Emily's List will look great alongside Revs. Dobson and Hagee
March 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have a hard time voting for Hillary Clinton in the GE. However, if it came to a choice between her and the next Chieftain of the Hundred Year War, I'll vote for her. I'll vote for her even though I've said I could not, even though I've come to despise her and her tactics. But, thankfully, I don't yet have to ponder that possibility 'cause my candidate is ahead. I suspect that Clinton's voters would arrive at the same place in the GE.
March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what?
This is supposed to hold significance for the November elections? Seven percent more of the Hillary supporters that were polled report that they will turn on the party if their candidate is selected as the party's candidate for the November election. And 13 percent of the Hillary-supporters were undecided on the question.
If this is supposed to suggest that there will be a mass revolt against the Democratic Party if Obama is chosen to run against McCain, I'm underwhelmed.
March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters turning on their party are only following Hillary and Bill's example.
March 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging idiotic...
March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with Liberal Historian and said something similar in response to a poll yesterday.
These results are skewed by where we are right now. Ask again in October.
Any Democrat, or liberal, or progressive or person with a brain and heart who would refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate is a very big ass. It's just childish to let personal feelings come between you and what it right for everyone.
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, if Hillary somehow gets the nomination at the culmination of all this, I will not be voting for her.
But, that doesn't mean I'll vote for McCain either. I think I'd write in Obama, but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for any political office.
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that sentiment.
March 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for any political office.
And Clinton supporters will return the favor. That's why neither of them can be elected.
March 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did this poll ask supporters if they might just stay home? I think that is a much more likely result than voting for McSame. Especially for Obama supporters, many of whom are involved for the first time and would likely be quite disillusioned if Hillary somehow finds a way to steal this thing.
-- ARG
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply |