March 28, 2008
McCain as Second Best for Clinton Supporters and Obama Supporters
For those who haven't seen this... depressing to say the least:
A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
These conclusions are based on an analysis of Democratic voters' responses to separate voting questions in March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking. In each day's survey, respondents are asked for their general election preferences in McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama pairings. Democratic voters are then asked whom they support for their party's nomination.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 01:13 PM | Permalink
Comments
I don't see why this should be surprising. Clinton is an outspoken hawk and an advocate of a national security state, with very conservative positions on most other issues as well, so it's natural that many of her followers would be more sympathetic to McCain than to Obama.
It's somewhat more surprising to see so many Obama supporters willing to back McCain rather than Clinton, but misogyny has played a strong role in this campaign, and I don't doubt that a lot of American voters are (1) fed up with the Republicans, but (2) not so much that they're willing to let a woman run the country.
Posted by: Picador | Mar 28, 2008 2:19:08 PM
Voting is a joke.
There is no difference between any of these people. Anyone that thinks there is has been duped.
Don't vote. Don't be complicit in your own destruction.
Posted by: JMM | Mar 28, 2008 2:22:53 PM
A Democrat anticipating deep disappointment and answering such a question in March is not the same as a Democrat voting in November to lay SCOTUS open to another conservative or two. That said, the Clintonistas do look potentially disappointed right out of their Center-Left politics here, worse than the Obamaites, even. I submit that in declaring they'll cross over to McCain, the Clintonistas are only doing as the Clintons are prompting them to do, and preparing to vote for the other "credible" candidate, who happens to be a Republican. Conceivably, when the Clintons come out of the trance that is enabling them to keep running, they will realize their purpose is best served by their not becoming pariahs, and will affect to be good Democrats who want their people to vote for Obama. That should fool some people. But it's quite clear too that many elderly working class whites will not vote for a black man. Even if Bill tells them to.
JMM, if voting is a joke, then Al Gore would have invaded Iraq and Paul Tsongas would have arranged the sordid dalliances in the Oval Office that helped to elect George Bush. It does matter who the president is -- it does, even if he's not Left enough by half.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 28, 2008 3:28:18 PM
Aren't there commentators on this very site who maintain that they wouldn't vote for Clinton no matter what?
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Mar 28, 2008 3:28:58 PM
Hektor, I dislike Clinton as much as I can dislike any politician without herniating. My vote for her -- not that it will ever, now, have to be cast -- would be all about protecting SCOTUS from a John McCain appointee. Otherwise, Clinton and McCain are Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 28, 2008 3:40:15 PM
I am not a american, but I follow with interest the discussions, because its effects ripple far beyond america! And I do have to make a comment to the non voter brigate who claim
" not to be part of there distraction"! A long outdated excuse for being blind to the fact that all the nonvoters brought the absolute disaster of the bush era to the world. It is as simple us that all non votes are in fact a vote for the worst possible out come!!! Take some math lesson or grow up if you believe otherwise
Posted by: mica hubertus mick | Mar 28, 2008 4:44:29 PM
Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain over Obama: 28%
Obama supporters who would vote for McCain over Clinton: 19%
So, which camp has been drinking the Kool Aid in more copious quantities?
Posted by: Ruchira | Mar 28, 2008 8:51:32 PM
Odd. One obvious interpretation is that Clinton attracts more independents. That doesn't pass my smell test, to be honest - she's basically the anti uniter - but might conceivably be true:
- Race might do it, because some independents and conservative democrats won't vote for a black guy
- Also maybe Clinton's actually getting meaningful support from independent women.
- Blue-collar democrats have always been relatively easy pickings for Republicans.
An alternate way of viewing the above is that Clinton votes are more in play and less "secure", meaning she'd have to spend relatively more time shepherding her own flock than flirting with the undecideds.
Incidentally, I wish Gallup had provided similar numbers for how Republican leaning independents might be swayed by the outcome of the Democratic nomination. Between those four numbers we'd have a pretty rich (though hard to understand) map of the independent vote.
Posted by: D | Mar 28, 2008 9:48:28 PM
(Sorry, I forgot to add) I think the kool-aid can safely be left in the fridge in analyzing these numbers. I doubt there's a large fraction of actual kool-aid drinking supporters of either stripe who'd go to the extent of voting republican (out of spite?) if the wrong democrat is nominated. It's the people who're only weakly democratic to begin with we need to worry about
Posted by: D | Mar 28, 2008 9:55:04 PM
Might these results reflect present bitterness more than they predict November choices?
Posted by: Sagredo | Mar 28, 2008 9:58:25 PM
Yes, Sagredo. There's still seven months--seven!--until November. They'll have plenty of time to come together and focus on McCain. I really don't see the election being any closer than 60-40.
Posted by: anon | Mar 28, 2008 11:50:09 PM
At crunch time, I doubt Dem voters will go with McCain. He was appealing to Dems the last time he ran, but he's jumped the shark.
As has been said already though: there's a lot of time left for a lot of things to happen.
Posted by: beajerry | Mar 29, 2008 3:19:59 AM
Hektor-
I've been known to mumble something similar to "I wont vote for Clinton." Honestly, it's an overstatement. I will begrudgingly do so if it becomes necessary, but I'd really rather not. Had they asked me on the phone during dinner I probably would have responded in the negative, and I'd bet a fair percentage of those in the poll wont actually shoot their own interests either.
But lets hope that decision isn't even necessary, ehh?
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Mar 29, 2008 1:58:48 PM
Carl Sagan wrote something to the effect that "It would be sad indeed if advanced satellite surveillance enabled us to react to a meteorite explosion by self immolation from nuclear strikes at a supposed enemy".
That comes to mind when reading of this report. Truly these people would get the government they deserved.
Posted by: hamishm | Mar 29, 2008 3:34:17 PM
Post a comment