Context is Key

Is it really true, as a recent Gallup poll has indicated, that 28 percent of Clinton backers and 19 percent of Obama backers would vote for John McCain? Basically logic indicates that probably not, and now via Mori Dinauer, we've got some evidence from Brian Schaffner:

In March of that year, the Pew Center for the People & the Press released a report titled "Bush Pays Price for Primary Victory." Following Bush's victory in the 2000 primaries and McCain's exit from the race, the Pew survey found that 51% of those who backed McCain during the primary campaign would vote for Gore in the general election. Only 44% of his supporters said that they would be casting their votes for Bush. Furthermore, a significant share of Bradley supporters also said that they would be supporting Bush in the general election, including 39% of his independent backers.

No doubt there will, in fact, be some people (Clinton supporters who are serious foreign policy hawks or some newly minted Obama supporters who've never been involved in the political process before) who'll defect for McCain if their favorite Democrat wins, but one should expect this to be a pretty small number of people.

Comments

... "if their favorite Democrat wins".
Should be "loses", eh?

Posted by ales from canada | March 28, 2008 11:53 AM

25% of the self-identified gay vote went to Bush in 2000. After declaring support for the Federal Marriage Amendment in the White House Rose Garden, the Log Cabin Republicans decided to withhold their endorsement of Bush in 2004. Still, 23% of self-identified voting gays voted for Bush in 2004. The public gnashing of teeth means almost nothing.

Posted by sean | March 28, 2008 11:56 AM

MY:
Bravo!! Those polls are so stupid(The one saying 30% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain). Do most of her supporters want to put up with 4 or 8 more years of Rethuglican rule? I doubt it. I think the "cut off your nose to spite your face" thing applies here.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 28, 2008 11:57 AM

I was relieved when I heard the 28/19 poll - that means McCain's general numbers are ridiculously inflated.

See here.

Posted by David | March 28, 2008 12:02 PM

This is exactly why "electability" arguments based on outcomes from the Democratic primary are just bunk. If you feel that McCain supports better policies than one of the two Democractic candidates (and hence you would vote for McCain if the other Democrat is nominated), then fine --- make that argument. Otherwise, we don't want to hear about it.

Posted by Walker | March 28, 2008 12:04 PM

I'm a foreign policy hawk but I will never vote for Hillary.

Just saying.

Posted by Ed | March 28, 2008 12:11 PM

It would be interesting to see how many of those voted for Bush or later left the party. I was one of those McCain supporters and didn't vote for Bush that year--didn't vote Gore either. I've changed my stripes 180 degrees since those days and would not support McCain these days.

There were several things--aside of my feelings that Bush was a very bad choice--that led to my decision to join the Democratic party. The Elian Gonzolas issue was a big part of my rejection, but the Iraq war and the decisions that were made in response to 9/11 both drove me to look for voices that felt the same as I did.

I don't know how common I am among the more serious foreign policy voters, but I would suspect many could not swallow what was happening.

Posted by Fr33d0m | March 28, 2008 12:12 PM

I tend to think that there will be a bit more party switching than usual if Obama is the nominee, more as a function of racial politics than lingering Clinton affection.

By contrast, if Clinton somehow finagles her way into the nomination, I imagine Obama supporters will just stay home in significant numbers. I don't see a large contingent voting for McCain in the end.

Posted by southpaw | March 28, 2008 12:12 PM

Matt's post below shows pretty clearly that some Clinton supporters will defect. They're the ones who believe that equal rights have gone too far, blacks shouldn't date whites, and so on. They also seem to believe that eveyone needs to back "America right or wrong" and that a man makes a better president than a woman. In short, those "Clinton supporters" are Democrats who don't vote Democratic in national elections -- they're going to vote for McCain anyway. 'Cause he's for American, and, well, he's a man.

The conclusion -- these folks are no loss, because they aren't Democrats in Presidential elections anyway.

Posted by David in NY | March 28, 2008 12:13 PM

Don't be a fool, Yglesias. The current democratic primary fight has no historical precedent in American politics, with disastrous implications. McCain, Bush, Gore, and Bradley were both rich white guys. Obama is black and has the youth vote; Clinton is a woman and has all the old people. Do you see the difference? It's a pretty freaking huge difference.

Never underestimate the power of identity politics. If the Obama vs. Clinton fight continues through the summer, John McCain will certainly be the next POTUS.

Posted by Korha | March 28, 2008 12:18 PM

Yes, the defection numbers don't look so bad now, in March, and will go down if the primary ends soon.

But that is March. What do you think they will look like in July? August? Even a small rate of defection will probably tip the election to McCain, a formidable opponent.

Posted by Korha | March 28, 2008 12:20 PM

Like it or not, a large chunk of the body politic don't vote based on ideology or policy proposals. They vote intuitively, for whom they identify with or trust.

The Obama/Clinton slugfest has been longer and even more bitter than Bush/McCain. Also, however similar their policy proposals are, Clinton and Obama are appealing right now to very different bases. There are no guarantees Clinton could ever appeal to the many new people Obama has brought to the process, or that Obama will ever win over the blue collar, "ethnic" whites and older population supporting Clinton currently. And all this is before even considering the substantial racism and sexism still alive in this country.

In other words, I think this post is wildly optimistic.

I'm an Obama supporter, and the only way I'd ever vote for Clinton were if she were running against either someone from the far-right, both economically and socially, or someone absurdly incompetent, such as GWB. McCain doesn't fit in either category, in my opinion, so I'd gladly choose him over Clinton. Of course I'm a conservative Democrat who supports Obama for mostly non-policy reasons: his decency, sanity, authenticity, and biography, and for the positive effect he'll have on this country's image abroad. And I simply don't trust Clinton.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 28, 2008 12:22 PM

A propos this discussion, Ed Kilgore reports some polling data indicating that, even after the Wright todo, significant numbers of Americans still buy the "Obama as secret Muslim" rumor--including a small but significant number of Democrats. I think that Obama's big problem with a lot of Clinton voters isn't their allegiance to her, but simply that he's exotic, while she fits like an old shoe. Because he's a highly-educated, sophisticated black guy who's burst on the scene seemingly out of nowhere [unless you live in Illinois], lots of people who aren't political junkies [in other words the vast majority of people] just suspect the guy. I recall one person-in-the-street interview with a working-class white-guy Ohioan in which his assessment of Obama was simply "I don't trust him." Like it or not, that's going to be Obama's bar, and for a lot of working-class Democrats it's going to be a high hurdle.

Posted by David in Nashville | March 28, 2008 12:31 PM

I'll vote for Clinton is she wins the pledged delegate vote. I will not vote for her if she is nominated and does not. I have voted for the Democratic party in every election of my adults life.

If one nominee is democratically elected, and the other is not, I really don't see how I have much of a choice. We can survive a bad President. Our Democracy is not strong enough right not to withstand yet another direct assault on the most fundamental Democratic value: That elections are determinative.

I also think Matt really, really underestimates the amount of anger in the black community at the Clinton's right now. A Defection rate of 5% is enough to damn the Democratic party for the foreseeable future.

Posted by soullite | March 28, 2008 12:32 PM

You don't need poll data for this, although I suppose it's nice. All you needed to shoot down this theory that the Democrats are going to suffer mass defections is to think back to all of four years ago when the nomination became inevitable. (If you weren't hard up for Dean, ask a friend who was.) Yeah, we were pissed at the nomination process, but once you put Kerry next to Bush on a debate platform, or even once the swift-boaters started coming out, the differences at stake got pretty stark.

Posted by Jack Roy | March 28, 2008 12:33 PM

I'll vote for Clinton is she wins the pledged delegate vote. I will not vote for her if she is nominated and does not. I have voted for the Democratic party in every election of my adults life.

If one nominee is democratically elected, and the other is not, I really don't see how I have much of a choice. We can survive a bad President. Our Democracy is not strong enough right not to withstand yet another direct assault on the most fundamental Democratic value: That elections are determinative.

I also think Matt really, really underestimates the amount of anger in the black community at the Clinton's right now. A Defection rate of 5% is enough to damn the Democratic party for the foreseeable future. I would truly caution people not to treat this as a race between two white, mainline Democrats as Matt Y and so many obviously are. This race has emotional baggage that some of us here couldn't begin to understand

Posted by soullite | March 28, 2008 12:34 PM

Or Matt, consider that there is a whole generation of African-Americans, like me, who grew up with their parents telling them that they just don't have to be better than their white counterparts to succeed, but that we have to be twice as good.

If Hillary takes the nomination from Obama based on superdelegates, there will be many like myself who will see that as the living incarnation of that doctrine. You cannot win if you are Black unless you are twice as good as Whites. And despite the fact that Obama leads, Hillary has the dynamic set up where everyone is mysteriously concerned about the Black guy and wondering if he will fail. In any other situation, with any other "conventional" candidate, this nomination would be over.

The Clintons have so demeaned Black people at this point that I wonder how they think that they can run all over us and then expect that they can "heal those wounds" later on. People are not political fodder for political games and I think there are many African-Americans like myself who feel that the party takes us for granted considering the support we have given it. And I think there are many African-Americans like myself who are wonder what exactly the Clintons did for African-Americans during their tenure in office. How about increased federal intervention in state drug cases to apply that higher crack mandatory minimum? How about doing nothing to address that disparity? How about flying back to AR during the election to execute a mentally retarded Black man to show how tough he is on crime? How about basically making the totality of his whole rightward movement of the "third way" being the acceptance of policies that are intricately racially charged, like "tough on crime", "welfare reform", etc. How about coming to our conventions to tut-tut Black America about our Sister Souljah's and then run back to the support of Black America when he faced the crisis of his political career with Monica? If the African-American base had abandoned Clinton during the scandal, he would have been done. But he was able to try and relate his affair as an example of being targeted similar to the way Black people feel about being targeted by law enforcement. How about degrading the Black church with the comments on Wright after using the Black church as their core base during their Presidency?

I think that the Clintons will have a lot of difficulty mending those fences if Hillary takes the nomination. And while if she wins Blacks will still likely vote overwhelmingly Democratic, but I wonder how many will just not be bothered?

Hillary thinks she is going to win the nomination based on Bill's electoral map, but we all know that was possible due to extremely high African-American turnout. If that turnout drops, what are her chances in winning the Presidency based on such a restricted electoral strategy.

Posted by Bubba | March 28, 2008 12:35 PM

What I was trying to point out is that there are some who are not strictly tied to the party or the ideals of the party overall. I doubt any of those would be reading BLOGs much though. The comments on these BLOGs about not voting one way or the other are probably more bluster than not.

That said, there is plenty to consider here that could point to some trouble.

First the Hillary supporters appear (from some recent polls) to be Regan Dems who are more sensitive to a Hawkish image and would not likely vote for a candidate who isn't white. Say what you will about sharpening your Hawkish image on the greatest strategic mistake in recent memory, Hillary has the tough-guy crowd. Many of the arguments I've seen against voting for Obama do not show that they have any real reason for their position so while this crowd is the most likely to move to McCain, the ones who read BLOGs may be more likely to vote for whoever the nominee is.

Second, those who support Obama seem to be more part of the energy of the party. That is they are more likely to stay with the party no matter which of the two are the nominee and they tend to be working hard for a Dem president more that just a particular candidate. Of course some of these--like me--are deeply vested in issues like the war and would have the hardest time voting for Hillary.

Posted by Fr33d0m | March 28, 2008 12:36 PM

Were there any such polls during the GOP primary? Or even now? The assumption being made in the media is that McCain will hold every Republican and poach independents and Democrats. But it wasn't very long ago he was being slammed by the right. Like much of the current contest (such as the CW that Wright will wreak havoc in the general for Obama), it neglects to take into account the very different dynamics that will emerge in the general election. If the Dems manage to tar McCain as Bush III, only scarier, I doubt many of these folks will defect. Still, both Dem candidates need to ratchet down the nastiness a bit. The longer the ugliness continues, the greater the chance no one will lay a glove on McCain.

Posted by NHCt | March 28, 2008 12:36 PM

wow, wierd. I don't think I hit enter the first time...

Posted by soullite | March 28, 2008 12:37 PM

It's March. I am not worried one speck about these polls no matter how much the media tries to whip up a "concern" frenzy.

We've got a long, long time until Nov. to get together as a party. I was a Deaniac and I was gnashing my teeth in hatred of Kerry around March of 2004...but by the summer I was out canvassing for Kerry.

I know it's hard for Hillary's supporters, I've been there. I'm a white woman well over 40 and I would have loved to see a woman president this time. Obama is simply the better candidate.

But I trust Obama to handle this gracefully, and graciously. I have to hope that the Clintons will realize over the next month or so that they really cannot bring down the party for their personal ambition. I have to believe they are better Democrats than that.

Posted by Ruth | March 28, 2008 12:38 PM

Three words:

John Paul Stevens

Let that sink in. Maybe that's lost on the general electorate, but I suspect that if you read this blog, you're not a member of the low-information voter class.

The notion that the GOP could install yet another Federalist Society suit-and-tie fascist to the SCOTUS FOR LIFE ought to be a nightmare for anyone with a brain.

O or C supporters--yes, you may be mad at the other campaign right now for a whole host of reasons, but do you really want St. John the Apostate appointing more of the same? Really?

Posted by huh | March 28, 2008 12:57 PM

It's not favorite vs. second favorite. It's favorite vs unacceptable black power or monster bitch alternative for many.

Methinks you're whistling past the graveyard.

Posted by Undecided | March 28, 2008 1:09 PM

O or C supporters--yes, you may be mad at the other campaign right now for a whole host of reasons, but do you really want St. John the Apostate appointing more of the same? Really?

Hey, you can question my fidelity when you get HRC's straightened out. She is the one endorsing McCain and otherwise imperiling our chances in November.

I'm not obligated to vote for ANY Democrat or Republican. If you want my vote, fucking earn it by running a decent and inspiring campaign.

Posted by Face The Music | March 28, 2008 1:14 PM

This is a well-studied issue in modern American politics, and it turns out that by the time of the general election, partisanship tends to trump every other factor (including race and gender, incidentally), such that the vast majority of the members of a party will vote for their party's nominee even if the primary contest was close. By the way, part of what people tend to overlook at this stage is the powerful effect the loser can have by campaigning for the winner once the winner becomes the nominee.

So, I think the reasonable expectation is that the vast majority of Democrats will in fact rally behind the Democratic nominee by the time of the general election, provided of course the perceived winner of the contest is the nominee (e.g., no convention shenanigans swinging it to the perceived loser), and the loser campaigns for the winner.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 1:17 PM

I agree with Matt. There are plenty of Democrats willing to vote for a race-baiting, fear-mongering, pro-war, dynastic candidate who's stolen an election.

Posted by Just Karl | March 28, 2008 1:20 PM

provided of course the perceived winner of the contest is the nominee (e.g., no convention shenanigans swinging it to the perceived loser), and the loser campaigns for the winner.

That's going to require Clinton being a big person. Half-hearted won't cut it. Obama could really use the Clintons' help with blue-collar whites.

Her presidential aspirations are essentially shot if Obama wins the presidency (if they aren't already, by her own behavior); in 2016 she'll be almost 70. So it's going to have to come from whatever goodness is in her heart.

Posted by Ban Johnson | March 28, 2008 1:25 PM

The threat is not the "Hillary Clinton supporters who are serious foreign policy hawks" but rather the Hillary Clinton supporters who will not vote for a black guy (or at least a black guy unwilling to disavow Jeremiah Wright and every other potentially threatening African-American). We don't know how sizeable that electorate really is - but spreading the belief that there's a large segment of traditional White, older, working-class Democrats who will defect if Obama gets the nom seems a big part of the Clinton strategy.

Posted by Little Duker | March 28, 2008 1:30 PM

Ban Johnson,

Interestingly, I think Hillary could go sulk on an island somewhere and Obama would be OK as long as Bill went out to campaign for him.

And Bill has already been President, and seems to love to campaign, so it wouldn't surprise me if it went down more or less exactly like that.

Posted by DTM | March 28, 2008 2:17 PM

The game theorist in me thinks that the 28% Clinton/19% Obama defections in that poll is just an elaborate game of "chicken." On the other hand, if that's the case, does that mean Obama is James Dean and HRC drives off a cliff while her sleeve gets caught in the door handle?

Posted by jonp72 | March 28, 2008 2:20 PM

I'm more worried about those that stay home, or, good god, vote Nader

Posted by Andrew | March 28, 2008 3:01 PM

Count me as one of the Obama supporters who won't vote for hillary. The only way she'll become the nominee is through backroom superdelegate shenanigans and I just couldn't hold my nose and support that. I'll write in Ron Paul or something like that

Posted by tim | March 28, 2008 3:02 PM

We can survive a bad President.

You and I can survive a McCain Presidency, soullite, but largely because we live in countries McCain is unlikely to try to start a war against.

Posted by djw | March 28, 2008 4:26 PM

DON'T BE DUPED !!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses from early on. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very soon.

But first, all of you have to make certain that Hillary Clinton takes the democratic nomination and then the Whitehouse. NOW! is the time. THIS! is the moment you have all been working, and waiting for. You can do this America. "Carpe diem" (harvest the day).

I think Hillary Clinton see's a beautiful world of plenty for all. She is a woman, and a mother. And it's time America. Do this for your-selves, and your children's future. You will have to work together on this and be aggressive, relentless, and creative. Americans face an even worse catastrophe ahead than the one you are living through now.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don't want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care that you have already paid for. So they can continue to make more immoral profits for them-selves.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. She also leads in the electoral college numbers that you must win to become President in the November national election. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

Hillary Clinton has been out manned, out gunned, and out spent 2 and 3 to 1. Yet Obama has only been able to manage a very tenuous, and questionable tie with Hillary Clinton.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON'T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket. Everyone needs to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton NOW! So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

I think Barack Obama has a once in a life time chance to make the ultimate historic gesture for unity, and change in America by accepting Hillary Clinton's offer as running mate. Such an act now would for ever seal Barack Obama's place at the top of the list of Americas all time great leaders, and unifiers for all of history.

The democratic party, and the super-delegates have a decision to make. Are the democrats, and the democratic party going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee to fight for the American people. Or are the republicans going to choose the DEMOCRATIC party nominee through vote fraud, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC party primaries, and caucuses.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

"This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 28, 2008 5:03 PM

Matt, I think that your analysis would be absolutely correct IF there was still a chance for Clinton to win elected delegates. Most Democrats are mature enough to say "well that sucks, we lost, move on." But that's simply not our situation today.

The only way that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic nominee is if she convinces Democratic insiders to roll over the will of the electorate and coronate her. I think that many Democrats with long histories within the party would have trouble supporting her in that case. In particular, how does a self-respecting racial minority seriously just let that go? The narrative among black voters in November will be: "We won the election but the white folks running the party took it away from us." I can see how that would keep a person from wanting to turn out to vote for that candidate.

While I think most Democrats would prefer Clinton's ideological positions to McCain's, it's really unfair to claim that only young voters with little experience with the political process would have a problem with the MANNER in which she gained the nomination.

On the flip side, as you've written, some contingent of Hillary supporters are really "Anybody But Obama" voters who are really perturbed by the idea of a black President. I do not think that's her fault, but I think it's a real factor. They'll vote for McCain before they vote for Obama.

Posted by NS | March 28, 2008 5:19 PM

We can't survive another bad president. The economy is teetering. The liberal supreme court judges are very old. The military is becoming increasingly evangelical. I really don't like Clinton, but it's not just the president you have to think about. It's the whole federal bureaucracy.

Posted by mad6798j | March 28, 2008 6:00 PM

I'm not sure this election will really be about policies. McCain has enough of a history of independence from the GOP and the current administration to suspect that maybe he will not toe the line of the Republican right. He is the best possible GOP candidate to pick up the votes of disaffected Democrats. Voters think for themselves, and we are not likely to buy into theories about McBush. I think Clinton's campaign has raised serious doubts about her emotional balance. The never-say-die delusion. The aiming for a long-shot with no concern about how she gets there. It's Bush all over. She seems to show a collossal lack of judgment about the effects of her "kitchen sink" approach. I've talked this over with an 80 year old, who says there has never been anything remotely like her "hack him off at the knees" approach. She's addicted to her own wishful thinking. She must be pitching her message to the gullible, because noone else is buying it. Does she honestly believe whoever has the momentum at the tail end of the primary season should get the nod? Doesn't that disenfranchise all the states that voted before Pennsylvania? And what did Wolfson say? That momentum has been traded back and forth. He can say it but once his candidate gets some momentum suddenly it counts for everything, according to them. Unfortunately, people are getting turned off by the blatant cynicism. The long night of the Bush years has battered America. It was not only what his policies were, but the dishonesty he utilized to get there. I've already concluded that Clinton moves to gain her own ends with a mendacity that equals Bush/Cheney's. How can Clinton claim that she just took George W. Bush at his word in the authorizing resolution for the Iraq war, when she so clearly plays the same sort of deceitful verbal games as she advances her own goals? Somehow a 4% margin in the Texas popular vote is "decisive", the way they spin it after the fact. If you repeat an alternate view of reality enough, it gains a sort of credibility. HRC for President is beginning to seem an awful lot like Bush's lying us into a war.
The nation needs to bind it's wounds, and so truth- challenged Hillary cannot possibly help us there, while possibly McCain can. His biographical tour is a master stroke. He has already figured out that he can demolish her on character. Even without alienating Democrats who would like some sort of sense of fair play, she can't win. Sadly, if one is a feminist, part of Obama's strength in the primaries has been the male vote. America is ready to elect a black President but not a female, particularly one as compromised as Clinton. Men that voted for Obama, staying within the Party during the primary season, will vote for the male in the general
election. There is a substantial anti-Hillary vote out there, and it isn't all because we are raving about Obama. Wolfson talks about "buyer's remorse" Have they taken a look at the latest polls in California? The longer voters are exposed to Hillary the less they like her. Why have voters in California changed their minds? With the change in momentum after Ohio they are abandoning her. The latest deterioration in the polls show her methods are rejected by many.

Posted by Tina | March 31, 2008 4:57 AM