The Base

Nate Silver created the above chart out of Rasmussen data and it shows a fascinating difference between Obama's relationship to his base and McCain's relationship to his. A pretty hefty chunk of Democrats hate Obama and are certain to defect to McCain. But an absolutely giant number of Republicans feel kind of "meh" about McCain. As Nate observes, this is a perfectly fine situation for McCain to be in if it's a close election, "But if the election doesn't look like it's going to be close, there could be a snowball effect in which Republican turnout is quite low."

I'd also say that this represents Bob Barr's opening to have an impact on the race -- all these Republicans with mixed feelings about McCain could, in principle, be drawn to a different take on conservatism.

Comments

This looks favorable to Obama. While he's slightly worse-off with regard to people in his party who actively dislike him (17% to 15% for McCain), he's much better off with regard to the indifferent ones (50% vs. 26%). That will certainly have turnout implications that swamp any small advantage McCain might have from active defections.

Posted by Rich | June 26, 2008 2:34 PM

I'd like to see some smart people think about how the differing dynamics of partisan support affect the Campaign's messaging strategy.

McCain is going to try to convince a lot of low-information voters that he hates war and is pro-environment, and is enough of a Republican maverick to acknowledge reality at crucial moments. This will discourage die-hard Republican voters, who prefer pro-war, anti-tree denial-of-reality in 100 proof double-shots.

One of the reasons I can see for the Obama Campaign's curious decision to target Georgia is that Georgia's Republicans are disproportionately the types, who look at McCain and say, meh. And, the kinds of things McCain would have to say to the Georgia Republicans to motivate them to vote for him are exactly the kinds of things, which if he says them too loudly, too close to November, will discourage independents in, say, Michigan or Missouri, from voting for McCain.

The Obama campaign has to find some places in the country, where McCain can be pressured to make the kinds of statements he made regularly in the primary. Georgia is one of those places.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | June 26, 2008 2:42 PM

You also have to wonder how many of the Dems who despise Obama have been voting Dem at any point since Humphrey. (Similar to my grandfather, who called himself a Democrat till he died in '66, but hadn't voted for the national ticket since Roosevelt dropped Garner in '36) If they've been out of the fold so long, I'm not not sure they're statistically significant.

Republicans who hate McCain, however, would appear to be a newer phenomenon -- GOPers were extremely loyal through the Reagan years, and Bush had hugely high approvals among that group. McCain losing even a few could be fatal.

Posted by demtom | June 26, 2008 2:47 PM

"MattY wrote a post, but forgot to mention a few things. Can you help MattY figure this out?"

Why, certainly:

1. When all is said and done, millions will turn out to keep BHO out of office. Their feelings for McCain won't matter.

2. A large reason for McCain's "meh" is because of one topic, and it's a topic that not only BHO is worse on, but that Barr refuses to use against McCain. It's awful difficult to be perceived as an alternative when you won't differentiate yourself from your opponent on their weakest issue.

Posted by TLB | June 26, 2008 2:48 PM

Yes, why didn't Matt call on the authority of "Lone Wacko" for intellectual support for an argument he wasn't making? Curious.

Millions more, of course, will turn out to keep the stench of "R" off the federal payroll for the first time in eight years.

Posted by riffle | June 26, 2008 3:03 PM

By the time the Clintons are done campaigning for Obama, and Obama has made the relevant contrasts clear, I am guessing the number of crossovers to McCain will be low--call it closer to 10 than 20. Which is perfectly typical, in fact, I bet Obama gets around the same percentage of Republicans, maybe more.

All of which is good news for Obama simply because it appears quite likely that Democrats will significantly outnumber Republicans this year.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 3:07 PM

One other factor is that McCain has been his party's presumptive nominee for several months. Obama for several weeks. As the Dem nomination battle fades with time, Obama's numbers should get better (all other things being equal, of course).

Posted by idahogie | June 26, 2008 3:07 PM

Following up on TLB's point 1 (I don't understand what s/he's getting at with point 2, but I'm dense ...), the key thing is what happens to the "pink" people in those charts.

Obama has the 82% of Dems. who are some shade of green. McCain has the 84% of Republicans who are some shade of green. So McCain wins (assuming equal numbers of Dems. and Repubs.) unless the pink/red come into play.

Now, of course, the red groups are going to stay home or vote third party. But what of the pink group?

My feeling is that the pink Dems. might switch parties and vote for McCain ("even though he's a Republican, he's all mavericky and stuff, so I'd rather vote for him than scary Osama bin-Bama") or, if of the more liberal sort, will stay home or vote 3rd party.

OTOH, the pink Republicans will hold their nose and vote for McCain. Because "while McCain {is too friendly with Democrats / too militaristic / too antipathic to the religious right / has anger management issues / has flipped flopped away from his former mavericky goodness and revealed himself to be another slimy pol}, he'll still {keep my taxes low / keep pork under control / keep us safe from swarthy people who scare me / keep those kids off my lawn / keep the courts in righty-tighty hands}". The GOP brand means something in elections, so Republicans, even if they don't much like McCain, will still turn out and make sure he's elected ... because they have larger goals that they know any Republican, no matter how "mavericky"/"moderate" will provide.

But do we Dems know this about our candidates? Can we know this?

Posted by DAS | June 26, 2008 3:09 PM

@riffle: "Lone Wacko" and "intellectual support". Generally not found in the same sentence, unless one is preceded by a negative.

Posted by Shine | June 26, 2008 3:10 PM

A pretty hefty chunk of Democrats hate Obama and are certain to defect to McCain.

17 percent is a hefty chunk? And a little more than half of that is "somewhat unfavorable", which hardly seems to transfer to hate.

And why do we think they will vote McCain as opposed to staying home?

You'd think with all the hand-wringing over (and out-of-proportion media coverage of) Clinton loyalists who will never ever ever vote for Obama...the 17% unfavorable seems like good news to me.

But I'm no expert poll analyst. Is 17%comparatively weaker than other nominees at this stage of the game

Posted by Bart Acocella | June 26, 2008 3:20 PM

I'd be curious how many of those Democrats are the WV or TN (etc.) style Democrats who consistently vote Republican.

Posted by tom.a | June 26, 2008 3:24 PM

DTM sayeth: By the time the Clintons are done campaigning for Obama, and Obama has made the relevant contrasts clear, I am guessing the number of crossovers to McCain will be low

[laughs] I gotta tell ya [laughs] that didn't end [laughs] the way [laughs] I thought it [laughs] would [laughs]. Oh yeah, wait until [laughs] ol' Bubba's done campaigning' [laughs] "for" him [laughs], there's gonna [laughs] be a lot [laughs] of crossovers [laughs].

Posted by TLB | June 26, 2008 3:28 PM

I'd also say that this represents Bob Barr's opening to have an impact on the race -- all these Republicans with mixed feelings about McCain could, in principle, be drawn to a different take on conservatism.

I wonder about this. The part of the conservative base that doesn't like McCain very much are the alienated theocrats who wouldn't find much in common with the Libertarians. These folks are likely low information voters (low information everything, I suppose), so some might wander away from Camp McCain, but I doubt the preachers are going to steer them Barr's way.

Posted by RoboticGhost | June 26, 2008 3:36 PM

@ Robotic Ghost:

Don't forget, libertarians *also* hate McCain, mostly for his campaign-finance stuff, but also for his "national greatness" talk. Reason has been beating the anti-McCain drum for a long time, and have been beating it harder since he got the nomination.

McCain's in a very difficult position: He appeals to a lot of mildly conservative but not particularly partisan voters, but is hated by the hardcore libertarians and the hardcore Christians---that is, the two pillars of the GOP. He needs to bring them back, but anything he says to them risks losing him points with the independents who are his only hope.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | June 26, 2008 4:31 PM

Bona fide libertarians have good reasons to dislike McCain and not vote for him. But a "libertarian leaning Republican" who "don't like gummint or taxes" will be swayed by McCain's talk of "pork busting" and would vote for McCain just to make sure that Obama doesn't win.

And theocrats would vote for Giuliani even 'cause they know that, in the end, what matters is how the courts balance the will of the majority (as expressed through legislation) with the constitutional (explicit or implicit) rights of the minority -- and the theocrats know that Republican President=appointment of judges who are anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc., while Democratic President=appointment of judges who'll grant gay married terrorists the right to have abortions.

Higher information theocrats pretty much are explicitly saying they'll 100% support (and get out the vote for) McCain for that very reason ... and the low info. voters will just listen to what their higher info correligionists have to say.

Posted by DAS | June 26, 2008 4:44 PM

The shifts in party ID and the overall uncertainty over likely turnout means that it's tricky making like-for-like comparisons.

I think Bruce Wilder made a good point upthread about Georgia: the faintest hint that a quarter-million African-Americans will register to vote between now and the election is going to make the good ol'boy GOP base feel, let's say, knee-jerkingly nervous, and McCain will be under pressure to dish up some red meat for them. He can't hope to rely solely upon Atlanta exurbanites.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 26, 2008 5:12 PM

"Don't forget, libertarians *also* hate McCain, mostly for his campaign-finance stuff, but also for his "national greatness" talk. Reason has been beating the anti-McCain drum for a long time, and have been beating it harder since he got the nomination.

McCain's in a very difficult position: He appeals to a lot of mildly conservative but not particularly partisan voters, but is hated by the hardcore libertarians and the hardcore Christians---that is, the two pillars of the GOP. He needs to bring them back, but anything he says to them risks losing him points with the independents who are his only hope.

Posted by That Fuzzy Bastard | June 26, 2008 4:31 PM"

Good point. And reaching out to libertarians can repel theocrats and vice versa. We need to keep on bringing up how McCain told Romney he was basically a bad person for pursuing profit in the private sector. McCain seems to have a "Starship Troopers" view of American life: If you aren't dedicating your life to the military for the sake of glory, then you're a bad American. I can't think of a Republican nominee who has been less libertarian in that regard.

Posted by Reality Man | June 26, 2008 5:17 PM

"So McCain wins (assuming equal numbers of Dems. and Repubs.) . . . ."

Well, no, because there are also independents. Moreover, why would anyone assume that?

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 5:49 PM

DTM,

I assumned an equal number because I don't have any more information and equal #s is the lowest entropy assumption ... that's why I made that assumption. Also, I suspect McCain will win the majority of independents because he's all "mavericky" and stuff ... "even the liberal media thinks he's moderate ... so he must be a different kind of Republican" ... yadda yadda yadda

Posted by DAS | June 26, 2008 6:09 PM

DAS,

On party ID, here is some more information for you:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/fewer-voters-identify-as-republicans

On independents, in recent polls Obama and McCain have run more or less even. Here is one representative article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/16/AR2008061602690.html?hpid=topnews

The upshot is that the Democrats are likely to have a significant advantage in party ID, and an even greater advantage if you include independent "leaners". So if Obama can keep it roughly even among independents and get roughly the same percentage of Democrats as McCain gets of Republicans, he will win handily.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 6:38 PM

DTM,

Thank you for the info. I am not very confident that these results bode well for Nov., though. It seems like a replay of 2004.

Posted by DAS | June 26, 2008 7:01 PM

DAS,

As the Pew article makes clear, this is actually a very different situation than 2004. At that time the Democrats had a much smaller party ID advantage (2 points rather than 9), and a much smaller leaner advantage among independents (1 point rather than 5). Things started changing in 2005, however, and in that sense the 2006 election is probably more analogous than 2004--although these factors have changed even more in the Democratic Party's favor since 2006. In that sense, a hypothetical repeat of the same party percentages for Kerry-Bush, but in this environment rather than the environment of 2004, would produce a strong Kerry win.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 7:15 PM

A large reason for McCain's "meh" is because of one topic, and it's a topic that not only BHO is worse on, but that Barr refuses to use against McCain. It's awful difficult to be perceived as an alternative when you won't differentiate yourself from your opponent on their weakest issue.

There's been a good bit of research done that suggests most people don't ultimately vote on immigration issues, whatever their policy preferences. Cato has done some good work on this, which I can't find right now.

But even leaving that aside for a moment, the libertarian-leaning conservatives that Barr is trying to appeal to aren't typically rabidly anti-immigrant to begin with, so I doubt his stance on immigration hurts his chances with many of them, anyway.

And his drug policy positions are going to turn off a lot more conservatives than any stance he takes on immigration, anyway.

Posted by Jeff | June 26, 2008 7:49 PM

Thanks Jeff, but if I don't entirely trust someone who confuses being "anti-immigrant" with opposing illegal activity, well I guess you'll understand.

And, if I don't entirely trust someone who realizes there's a huge difference between the issue as the MSM covers it and the issue as it could be covered by someone who's willing to attack his opponents on it, well then I guess you'll understand that too.

Posted by TLB | June 26, 2008 7:56 PM

Wacko Kelly: making the 9/11 Truthers look rational since fuck knows how long. When's the stealth insurgency coming again?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 26, 2008 8:00 PM

Thanks Jeff, but if I don't entirely trust someone who confuses being "anti-immigrant" with opposing illegal activity, well I guess you'll understand.

I don't really care how people feel about immigration policy and wouldn't immediately draw any sort of conclusion based on how you feel about it.

However, *intesity* is another matter and I think something is deeply wrong with you and Lou Dobbs and your ilk who seem to be operating in a fantasy land where in a time of everything blowing up it's all the Mexican's fault and our first priority is to ship their ass out.

By the time you troll the internet and blog and generally freak out about illegals all hours of the day, I'm *not* going to believe that it's all about your deep moral outrage that someone broke a law.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 26, 2008 8:18 PM

Ed Marshall: I patrol the internet because someone out there is wrong, and that I will not stand.

It's also due to the fact that I know much more about this issue than you do, whoever you are.

So, you aren't concerned about this issue for some reason, but largely because you don't know anything about it.

Meanwhile, I'm quite familiar with the topic and I'm quite concerned about it; so much so that I waste my time replying to people like Ed Marshall.

To find out what's really going on with this issue, scan my archives. There are links - and a search box - in the right sidebar on every page, and there's a very good chance that most people will discover facts that will shock them.

Posted by TLB | June 26, 2008 9:53 PM

Of the eight issues Gallup recently tested for importance to voters, "illegal immigration" scored dead last.

Posted by DTM | June 26, 2008 11:08 PM

What a jolly discussion this has been!

Unfortunately, what DTM fails to realize (or mention) is that a) IllegalImmigration touches on many other topics, and b) the great majority of Americans get their news about the issue from the MSM and, as I've documented countless times, the MSM has a habit of lying about the issue. For instance, they consistently fail to point out that some of their quote sources have received money from the Mexicangovernment or are otherwise linked to them. Or, they let pols make obvious lies without calling them on it or even mentioning it. And, they also just ignore the issue, as was done in a few recent debates.

So, if it did come in last, that couldn't have been done without the help of the corrupt MSM. Now, call me wacky, but maybe "liberals" shouldn't be supporting the MSM being completely corrupt just because it's in their financial or electoral interest. If they do, then they're just as crooked.

If you want to find out why this issue is so important, scan my archives or use my search function to look up some names of politicians.

Posted by TLB | June 27, 2008 12:24 AM

TLB, have you considered taking courses in English and logic? You would find they enhance your ability to contribute to the debate considerably.

Posted by jasmine | June 27, 2008 1:15 AM

My side of the democratic party always seems to get forgotten about... there's a large(ish) number of us in the pink category because we think supporting the FISA "compromise" is bad and being pro-death penalty worse. No way in hell, we (disaffected Hillary supporters included) are voting McCain. Good thing there's a green party.

We may not win, but you might be surprised at the number of dems who defect leftwards this election.

Posted by Expat_UK | June 27, 2008 5:05 AM

TLB,

Regardless of whether other people SHOULD care more about illegal immigration than they do, the fact that they DON'T is what is relevant to assessing the likely impact of Bob Barr not using this particular issue against McCain.

But you might seek out a different third party candidate to your liking--perhaps the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin? Indeed, it will be interesting to see how Baldwin does versus Barr.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 8:12 AM

Ed Marshall: I patrol the internet because someone out there is wrong, and that I will not stand.

Wow. Either this lone wacko is wittier and has a better sense of humor than we give him credit for, or he's even dumber.

Posted by Cyrus | June 27, 2008 9:24 AM

DTM: let me try to make this understandable for you.

If BobBarr sent people to a BHO appearance and had them publicly "interrogate" him on the hugely obvious flaws in his policies, and then uploaded BHO's lame responses to Youtube, people would indeed care.

Posted by TLB | June 27, 2008 1:10 PM

TLB,

Trust me, I understand you perfectly. I just don't agree.

But again, there is at least one other candidate in the race for you. So let's see how he does.

Posted by DTM | June 27, 2008 2:15 PM