Login Here
[Editor's note: This is the last of a six-part series by Paul Lukasiak on what polling reveals about how Americans will vote in the coming election. For more details, see parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.-- DN]
PART VI: When Race Becomes an Issue -- The Gender Gap Over Time
The SUSA 50 state poll provides an excellent opportunity to describe the contours of the political landscape at a specific point in time, but cannot tell us anything about voter behavior over time within that landscape. The image is static; it’s not a movie, but a snapshot (or, perhaps more appropriately, a multi-dimension holographic image), and where voters are “pooled” like a liquids in 50 different areas of that landscape.
As the contours of the landscape change, the voters wind up “pooling” in different places, and a political campaign is the equivalent of candidates and other people trying to shift the contours of the landscape to get the voters to “pool” where they want them. While the actions of the candidates and others can change the contours of the landscape by raising issues and providing new information, the landscape can also change “naturally”. But ultimately, it is “the media” that controls the landscape by controlling the access, and more crucially, the nature of the access, to the levers and pulleys that change the contours of that landscape.
It is “the media” that decides whether “illegal immigration” or “universal health coverage” or “Hillary Clinton’s tax returns” is actually the force determining the contours of the landscape, and decides who has what kind of access to the levers of power as the landscape changes. The SUSA 50 state poll provides a still picture of what looks like a “political landscape”, but when that picture comes to life and the contours begin to shift, it is because what we are really looking at is a “media landscape”.
The media manifestly shape voter behavior, and that couldn't be clearer than when we examine how their handling of issues of race (and accusations of racism) over the course of the campaign alters voting patterns in ways that leave the gender gap relatively unaffected.
So as the landscape changes, and the voters “pool” in different areas, the gender gap itself usually changes. South Carolina and Ohio provide two examples of how the gender gap changes as the “media landscape” changes -- but how, when the media decides to make “race” an issue, it can shift large numbers of voters without substantially altering the gender gap.
SOUTH CAROLINA: PLAYING THE PHONY RACIST CARD
When, subsequent to her win in New Hampshire, false accusations that the Clinton campaign was deliberately injecting race into the campaign, it created significant changes in the established trends that defined the changes in the gender gap in South Carolina. And contrary to popular opinion, the efforts of the Obama camp (as documented by Sean Wilentz) to cast the Clinton campaign as racist backfired – while Clinton lost 3% of her Black support, and Obama gained 5 points among Blacks, the real impact was on Obama’s loss of a quarter of his White support while the controversy raged, and the shift of 12% of the White vote to Clinton.
Once it ebbed, when the voters went to the polls, Clinton had lost the White support she gained during the controversy, but only a small fraction of the White votes (1/7) that wound up “in play” found their way to Obama. Ironically, all these changes had little visible impact on Clinton’s gender gap – and considering the major shift in candidate preference, the impact of these changes in gender distribution for Edwards and Obama was negligible in the short term. If the “racial controversy” in South Carolina had any impact on the gender gap, it was in altering the trends that would have continued had the controversy not taken place.
Thanks in no small part to overwhelming positive media coverage (and a media that all but ignored John Edward) for Barack Obama. By early November 2007 Obama, a candidate with less than three years of national political experience, had managed to establish himself solidly in the No. 2 position for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton was still getting twice as much support in national polls as Obama, but Obama was getting twice the support of third-place Edwards. Obama was rapidly becoming the candidate of choice for the “anyone but Hillary” crowd, and had even managed to overtake Edwards in Iowa.
But after starting strong in the national polls in the winter of 2007, by early spring Obama had stalled, and started fading over the summer as Clinton increased her own support. Obama began picking up steam again in early October, apparently because Al Gore had made it clear that he was not running. (By mid-October, most pollsters were no longer including Gore in its questions on the Democratic nomination.)
And thus the stage is set for the first Democratic primary poll taken by Survey USA in South Carolina, conducted on Nov. 9-11. This poll showed Clinton with a solid 14-point lead over Obama, with Edwards mired in third place. And while Obama was already ahead of Clinton among males by 19 points, her even more substantial, 33-point lead among women (who were projected to make up 62% of the electorate) gave Clinton a nice cushion. The gender gap was at its peak in November in South Carolina, with a 52-point spread between Obama (LIGHT BLUE line) and Clinton’s (PINK line) gender gap numbers.
Obama was also well ahead among African American voters, getting the support of a clear majority (DOTTED BLUE line) of 52% to Clinton’s 39%. But perhaps most significant, in terms of this discussion, is Edwards’ incredibly poor showing among Black voters: after winning a plurality (37%) of the Black vote in the 2004 primary, and spending four years focusing on issues of important to the Black community (like poverty and economic justice), Edwards was only getting 3% of the Black vote.
CHART A1
But Obama was lagging well behind in the White vote, with Clinton at 55% (SOLID RED line) to Obama’s 15% (SOLID BLUE line.). This data suggests that Obama had established himself as a viable enough candidate for African Americans to support as a gesture of positive social identification, in early November White voters on the whole remain unconvinced. The data also strongly suggests that in early November, there was a considerable gender gap among Black voters --- Clinton’s overwhelming support among women, Obama’s strong showing among men and African Americans, and weakness with White voters (and subsequent gender and racial polling trends) seem to show that a significantly large percentage of Black women than Black men were supporting Clinton at that time.
Two polls taken over the subsequent five weeks (December 7-9 and Dec 17-18) show that both Clinton and Obama maintain about the same percentage of the male vote, with Edwards gaining 11 point among men. Edwards also picks up six points among women, while Obama gains 8 points while Clinton loses 8 points among women. As a result, Clinton’s lead over Obama was cut to 2 points. The loss of women for Clinton and the increase in female support for Obama results in the shrinking of their respective gender gaps.
However, during the same period, there was little change in Clinton’s Black support (-2%) or Obama’s White support (+3). Obama also picks up an additional 5% of the Black vote. But the big change is in the White vote loss of 11 points for Clinton, and Edward’s gaining 15% more of the White voters. Clinton was looking increasingly vulnerable, but White voters shifted to Edwards, and not Obama.
TABLE A1
It is during the next three weeks that the most dramatic changes in the gender gaps took place – a period during which Obama overtook Clinton in Iowa polls and subsequently won the Iowa caucuses. The poll taken on Jan 4-6 shows that while Clinton lost only 2% of the male vote during the period, one third of her female support fell away (going from 50% to 33%) while Obama picked up 14% of women voters. Obama also increased his male support by 6%, and Edwards lost the same amount of male support.
As a result of these shifts, major changes in the gender gaps for the candidates too place. Clinton’s gap was reduced by nearly 70%, going from negative 22 to negative 7 (a negative gender gap number means that a candidate has more support among woman than men, a positive number means male support is greater). Edwards’s gap also dropped substantially (by 7 points), to where there was almost no difference in how the genders voted for Edwards. And Obama’s gender gap was reduced by more than half, from 15% to 7%.
It also during this “pre-controversy” period that Clinton loses the biggest chunk of her Black support, going from 37% of the Black vote to 23%, while Obama picks up an additional 12% of Blacks (and Edwards loses 1%). Clinton and Edwards also loses 8% and 4% of their White vote respectively, while Obama picks up 11%. Because Edwards gender gap drops substantially, and he lost 4% of Whites and 1% of Blacks, it is safe to say that most of the gender gap drop was due to the loss of White males. This fact, and the fact that Clinton lost only 2% of her male support, tells us that the Black voters that shifted to Obama were significantly disproportionately female.
TABLE A2
It is at this point that the “racial code-word campaigning” accusations against Clinton started to fly, and they reached their peak right before the next polling was done on Jan. 16-17. (Obama finally admitted that there was nothing “racial” in the comments of Bill or Hillary Clinton right before the Jan. 15th debate in Las Vegas, but never acknowledged that not only his supporters, but his own campaign, were responsible for the phony controversy.) And while the biggest impact was on racial voting patterns, it also had an impact on the gender gap.
The changes that occurred can best be accounted for by simply assuming that South Carolinians, both Black and White, know the difference between real “dog whistle” racism, and false accusations of the intentional use of “racial code.” Black voters recognized that the accusations were false, and during the controversy Clinton lost only 3% of her Black support, while Obama’s Black support rose by only 5 points. (Indeed, given that Obama wound up with 78% of the Black vote in SC, when he got at least 85% of the Black vote in subsequent southern primaries in Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, the controversy may have dampened African American enthusiasm for his candidacy in SC.)
White Democrats, meanwhile, seem to focus not merely on the fact that the accusations were false, but where those accusations were coming from, and as a result of the controversy Obama lost 7%, or nearly a quarter, of his White support. White undecideds fell from 5% to 2% in this period, and Edwards also lost 2% of his White support, resulting in Clinton going from 38% of the White vote to 50%. This strong White shift back to Clinton can best be explained by the idea that White Democrats began to identify with Clinton, based on their own fears (or experiences) of being falsely accused of racist intent.
CHART A2
Ironically, these changes had no impact on Clinton’s gender gap – she picked up 6% of both the male and female vote. But Obama lost 7% of his male support while losing only 2% of his female support, resulting in a 5% reduction in his gender gap. And Edward’s male support went up by 2% during this period, while his female support went down by 2%, resulting in a net increase of 4% in his gender gap.
The subsequent SUSA poll, taken on Jan 23-24 after the controversy had died down and right before the Jan. 26 primary, shows little change in the Obama’s percentages of Black and White voters, but his gender gap numbers decline anyway by four points – this can be explained by noting that the change in the racial distribution of the sample occurred. (see Note 4) And while there was a 12 point shift in the White vote from Clinton to Edwards, given the distorting effects (see note 4) of the change in demographic distribution, it is difficult to say that any real change is reflected in the slight changes in Clinton’s and Edward’s gender gap numbers.
What is most surprising about the final gender gap numbers from the South Carolina exit poll is how small they are, and how the injection of race appears to have altered the trends that were established. Less than two months before the primary, there was a 51% difference between the Clinton and Obama gender gap numbers, the exit poll numbers show only a 7 point gap. The “racial code” controversy seems to have completely erased the gender differences with regard to Obama, leaving only the 14 point gap between the White male and White female candidates to testify to the existence of such a gap, and gender gap numbers that were inconsistent with the trends established prior to the controversy erupting.
In other words, South Carolina showed on a temporal basis what was seen in the SUSA 50 state poll snapshot – racial considerations tend to “flatten out” in elections.
OHIO: FEAR OF A BLACK PREACHER
As a crucial swing state for November, Ohio has been among the most polled of all states when it comes to prospective presidential matchups. Thus it provides an excellent setting in which to examine the changes in the gender gap over time – and what happens to the gender gap when “race” suddenly becomes an issue.
Survey USA’s first “match-up” polling that included both Clinton and Obama against McCain was taken on Dec 3-5, 2007. It was a time when few Ohioans were focusing on the presidential campaign (after all, the general election was almost a year away, and the nominations would be settled well before the Ohio primary, right?) It was a time when McCain was mired in the teens in GOP primary polling, a newcomer named Barack Obama was getting a lot of good press, and while Clinton was maintaining her lead in the national polls, she was not looking quite as inevitable as a few months prior before.
Thus this poll, and the next two SUSA polls, taken Dec 13-15 and Jan 1-4, should be given little emphasis in terms of how McCain, Obama, and Clinton were doing relative to each other. But it they do provide the first clues of how the gender gap changes as voter attitude changes. (Note that gender gap number is be based on Male percentages MINUS female percentages, and is not directly related to changes in male and female margins. A positive gender gap number means greater support from men, a negative gender gap number means higher support from women.)
TABLE A3
As Clinton’s margins against McCain in these polls went up by six points (from –6% to –2%, her gender gap was reduced by seven points (from –17% to –10%), entirely due to a relative increase in male support (from a 26% deficit to a 12% deficit among males.) But while Obama also improved against McCain (from -11% to –7%) his gender gap expanded, going from –13% to –16%. This occurred because Obama did better among both men and women, but he improved the most among women, resulting in a lower negative number.
The next two SUSA polls (Feb 15-17 and Feb 26-28) both took place after “Super Tuesday” and “Potomac Tuesday”, when the race for the Democratic nomination was focused on Ohio (and Texas). Both Clinton’s and Obama’s margins jumped to 10 points over McCain, a 12-point gain for Clinton, and a 17-point gain for Obama between the early January and late February polls.
And the gender gap for both candidates also shrank over that period. Clinton’s was reduced 4 points to –6% as she gained 17% (from –12% to +5%) among men, and 8% points (+8% to +16%) among women. Obama’s gender gap was reduced from –16% to –2%, as his male margin against McCain leaped from –12% to +5%, while his female margin increased only 3 points, from +8% to +11%.
Ohio provides an excellent way of understanding how the gender gap operates over time. It grows and shrinks based on the relative increases and decreases of support of male and female voters of both candidates. And Ohio shows how men and women don’t make the same decisions at the same time.
Or that is, they don’t make the same decision at the same time most of the time.
CHART A3
The next SUSA poll was taken on March 14-16, and shows that Clinton’s overall support against McCain (RED line) dropped by 4 points, while her male margin (VIOLET line) dropped by three points, and her female margin (PINK line) dropped by 7%. But her gender gap remained the same. In fact, her male and female support remained unchanged (supported by 47% of men, and 53% of women in both the late February and the March poll), the change in margins was due entirely to undecided voters choosing McCain. The previous poll showed 11% male, and 10% female, undecided voters. This new poll showed that only 8% of men and 3% of women remained undecided.
Some of this should be attributed to a significant change in the voter sample, which went from 26% Republican and 49% Democrat to 34% Republican and 44% Democrat.) and a possible reporting error. The previous poll Party affiliation numbers added up to only 93% (26% GOP, 49% Dem, 18% Independent); in previous polls, and the March poll, those numbers added up to at least 96%. In fact, given these disparities, its not unlikely that there was little or change at all in the actual relative support for Clinton between these two polls
But while Clinton’s support remained relatively stable, the same cannot be said for Obama. Those three sharply decending lines on the Chart A3 represent Obama’s male (LIGHT BLUE), female (LIGHT GREEN), and overall (DARK BLUE) margins against McCain. Obama’s 9 point advantage over McCain among men became a 10 point deficit, his margin among women dropped from +11 to minus four, and he went from leading McCain by 10 points to trailing McCain by 7. However, Obama’s gender gap did not change.
Obama’s went from having the support of 49% of men and 51% of women to only 42% of men and 44% of women, while McCain’s support among men went from 40% to 52%, and his support among women went from 40% to 48%. Even adjusting for the potential glitch described above, McCain’s support would still have risen to 49% among men, and 41% among women.
All this seismic shift in Obama’s support can be explained with two words: Jeremiah Wright.
CHART A4
Obama’s white (SOLID ORANGE line) support had risen steadily, and because Ohio’s electorate is 87% White, his 12 point increase in White support (from 34% of White voters in mid-December to 47% at the end of March) meant an increase of 10.4% of voters overall. And most of Obama’s gain in White support came at McCain’s expense—McCain dropped from 51% to 42% of the White vote during the period that Obama was gaining, contributing another 7.8% of voters to his overall margin shift of +19 points during that period.
But when the Wright controversy hit, Obama’s White support dropped from 47% to 37%, representing 8.7% of voters. Meanwhile, McCain went from having 42% of the White vote against Obama to 56%, an increase of 13.9% overall. Even assuming the potential glitch mentioned above was all White voters who were added to McCain’s support, McCain’s White support still increases by 4%, resulting in an increase of 3.5% of all voters, and a combined net gain for McCain of 12.2% of voters.
And while Obama’s Black support did rise from 78% to 84% during this period, because African Americans are only 10% of the Ohio electorate, that 6 point jump represents on 0.6% of voters, far too few to make a significant difference in the decline of Obama’s margin against McCain.
TABLE A4
And, based on the reported data, Obama’s gender gap did not change during this period. And while we can’t be certain that this is the case because of the potential glitch, because the impact of that glitch seems to have been felt only in McCain’s numbers, Obama’s gender gap would have been unaffected.
Overall, this massive change in voter preference represented an end to a trend where Obama’s gender gap was shrinking rapidly, and the Wright controvery brought that to a screeching halt. Unfortunately, Survey USA has not done a poll since the controversy died down, so we can’t determine if/how much longer term damage was done to Obama in Ohio, and how those changes are reflected in the gender distribution of his support.
Share This 
Spotlight
footnotes!
Very insightful post Mr. L. So, now that the media is playing the “elitist” card (which I think translates as “uppity”)… How do you think bringing class into the mix will affect voters?
oh, here’s the executive summary.
In terns of the gender gap, as a race matters as a “factor”. When race becomes an “issue”, not so much. Large numbers of voters will switch their preferences in the face of a racial controversy with little (detectable) change in the relationship between the gender gaps of the candidates who are running at that time.
this is pure conjecture, but….
I think that the whole “bitter” controversy is going to be a net plus for Obama in Pennsylvania — intentional or not, there is a “dog whistle” quality to the criticism being levelled at Obama that I think black voters are going to respond to negatively. (Because of strong support of Philadelphia’s black political establishment for Clinton, I wasn’t expecting the margins for Obama among black voters to be as substantial as they have been in other states.)
At the same time, I don’t think its going to help Clinton among the constiuency that Obama was talking about. They already weren’t voting for Obama. This isn’t the Wright controversy, which raised questions about Obama’s real agenda, its a candidate saying something stoopid.
In sum, in terms of Pennsylvania, I think its going to be a mirror image of South Carolina — a backfire for Clinton. White voters aren’t going to change their minds based on it, but fewer black voters will wind up voting for Clinton than would have otherwise.
Long term, I think its a net minus for Obama if he gets the nomination, because it fits in so nicely with the narrative the Right Wing noise machine has planned for Obama — that of someone who is “too radical for America” and (implicitly) not “one of us.”
forgive my ignorance please, I’ve been distracted by the tax man of late, but can you please explain again the difference between issue and factor?
after all is said and done - if hillary isnt the nom - her voters i believe will vote for mcinsane imho….. and the lamestream media will continue to magnify any words obama says if its hurtful to his run……
that tax man is such an elitist!
Do we think there will be some “intervention” by the DNC or super delegates before the conventions?
*sigh*
I’m happy to pay my taxes for the services we get, but I wish they wouldn’t make it such an ordeal. Next year every single Senator and Representative should do their own taxes by hand. Only then will we get meaningful tax reform.
Taxation with such lousy representation is tyranny!
1,813 dayz and the killin’ goez on and on and…
Citizen Paul Lukasiak and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
Sigh…yawn…now ken we get on with it? Tryin’ ta rehabilitate Mrs. ClintoMcCain by makin’ her a victim of both racism and sexism is far too ridiculous on which to waste anymore time. Mrs. ClintoMcCain is mobilizin’ forces inside the Democratic Party to frame fascist talkin’ pointz for the general election. She is today’s Joe Lik*derman and no amount of statistical rasal-dasal is gunna change that.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY AND SHE AIN’T US!!
don’t you have “people”? /s
But…a vote for McCain is a vote for war and more of the same…surely that will be a major factor….or will people just stay home.
I’m too little to have “people”
From now until November…McCain is going to back off the war talk and distance himself from W…people will really be paying attention much later in the year….therein lies the big danger…those who never heard bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Those who will only hear him speaking in a soft, controlled voice….If Hillary is not on the ticket with Obama, her supporters will vote for McCain. One other major factor will be who he has as a running mate…my guess, Romney. He can win this thing. JMHO
misnbc has a stacked deck in gregory’s slot - rachel’s trying to hold off the “boyz” but the host and they are really beating the drum for mcinsane - its dreadful
well, I guess an issue is something that people are talking about — its in the media, etc.
A factor is kind of just there — part of the landscape that no one notices or talks about much.
I don’t think that Hillary voters will go to McC. If they are her supporters BECAUSE she is female, they are most likely progressive (in one way or another) and most of them (IMO) are certainly Democrats so I don’t see them voting for McC. Does that make sense?
ahh, thank you. You’ve presented an incredible amount of data for us, I apologize I haven’t had the time to really study all that you’ve offered us.
I doubt it’ll be Romney. I just don’t believe that the Republics will tolerate a Mormon on the national ticket.
oh well - i’m shouting into the wind but anyhoo america still has a problem with race and its being played out as the campaign rages on - things are being said that will not be forgotten and ammo is being handed to repugs to use should obama win….
People should enjoy paying their taxes now. There may not be many paying as the Bush Depression takes hold. St. McCain promises more of what got us to record foreclosures and coming business closures.
This is why your work on this is so important…thank you. We have our work cut out for us if we plan to have a Democrat in the WH next year. No matter who wins the nomination, there will be losses, if I read you right, and it helps to know how to target our GOTV efforts.
it makes perfect logical sense. The problem is, voter behavior isn’t always based on rational considerations.
When it comes to the general electorate, a McCain/Clinton race would have a whole different dynamic than a McCain/Obama race. Clinton has a firmly established “identity” in the public mind that is at striking odds with what they see and hear when they actually watch/listen to her. Much the same thing can be said about McCain — but from the opposite perspective. The more people get to know Clinton (except for the pathologicals) the more they like and respect her. And just as Hillary’s negative image is built on a myth, McCain’s positive image is built on a myth. There is going to be all sorts of cognitive dissonance going on as people realize that neither candidate is who they thought they were.
Obama, on the other hand, has no firm persona in the public mind. He’s a Rorschach test — and the problem with Rorshach tests is that its very easy to influence, both consciously and subliminally, what you see in the inkblots.
I’m feeling pretty optimistic myself that once we get past the primary, the snowball will just roll over the Repubs. I have a lifetime Repub cousin who’s psyched about Obama, she’s no kid and not one to closely follow politics. I consider her a bellweather and I think we’ll do fine :)
I can’t ignore what juslin just said either, tho — but still, I’m looking forward to a solid win in November.
OT
Jane Hamsher & Erick Erickson on Bloggingheads.tv
Does the U.S. have the moral standing to challenge China’s?… Bittergate: is the cover-up worse than the crime?… The ironic inevitability of the “Obama is elitist” meme… Is McCain’s temper going to sink him?… Seeking conservative running-mate; need not be Southern… Free trade: tough to sell in America…
I agree that Clinton’s negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot.
One of the striking things about Obama’s candidacy is his attraction for people who’ve never voted before. In the Texas primary, most of those who voted for him only voted for him and none of the downticket races. So if he wins, we’ll have a lot of educating to do, especially for Blue America candidates. Better they should vote a straight Dem ticket than to leave it blank…
1,813 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen lukasiak:
“…I think it’s a net minus for Obama if he gets the nomination, because it fits so nicely with the narrative right wing noise machine has planned for Obama…”
This statement is not supported by anything in your analysis that wouldn’t require the dexterity and flexibility of extrapolation that an Olympic gymnast would envy…likewise any blanket conclusions that ClintoMcCain supporters will vote for McCain in any numbers.
It is simply outrageous to attempt to use these statistical exercises to do anything beyond attempting to locate the effects of racism and sexism on specific voter populations in the primary contest. In fact, in my opinion, the most important thing to be learned from this entire exercise is that racism and sexism will be issues and factors in the primary and MAYBE in the general election but to what degree is at this point unfathomable and, frankly, a waste of time.
Let’s present the argument that ClintoMcCain supporters will vote for McCain over Obama in the proper context, within your analytic matrices. If, in fact, Clinton voters will vote for McCain in the general then the race factor is explanatory. Beyond that, if Mrs. ClintoMcCain is energizin’ voters in the Democratic primary to vote for a reactionary fascist in the general election, that is deliberate and must be recognized for what it is - she is pullin’ a Joe Lik*derman on the Democratic Party and no one is callin’ her on it!
KEEP THE FAITH ANDDON’T WAIT TA SEE THE WHITES OF THEIR EYES!!
John McBush on Tweety’s college tour, trying to sound like the “moderate” he wants us to believe he is.
If he were in front of a wingnut audience behind closed doors, it would be a much different story.
He can be seductive, ‘eh?
President McBu’ush. Ugh.
:(
he says what he has to in order to appear as a “maverick” - what else is new?
I think there needs to be made some kind of distinction between Clinton voters (those who supported her in the primaries) and “theoretical” Clinton supporters (those who will vote for her if she is the nominee). I don’t think the race thing is going to work with “Clinton voters” if Obama is the nominee — but the general electorate is much bigger than the primary electorate, and I think that the GOP will dog whistle successfully if Obama is the nominee, and lots of people who would have voted for Clinton will wind up voting for McCain when all is said and done.
seems as if i said that - maybe not as eloquent as i should’ve - oh well….
Do you not think the Repubs will dog whistle Clinton? She has a long history - therefore more to swift boat about.
I really don’t agree that Clinton voters will go to McC but I have been wrong once or twice.
Thank you Norske.
the only people I know who’ve expressed support for Hilary .will.not. vote for McCain.
That’s very much like Bush saying what he has to in order to appear as a Christian. No wonder the Republics have selected McCain.
I tire of Clinton boosters claiming that the average citizen will not vote for Obama. A shallow estimation of their fellow American, IMHO. They are the same people who assumed she would have a walk over to the nomination. As far as I am concerned, their credibility is, shall we say, compromised…
we are in for a rude awakening if obama wins the nom…. and thats all i can say - i’ll leave this alone……..
Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to “scorch earth” Hillary’s chances starting in September. I don’t know if people just forget about it, or don’t think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through las September — in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction — Hillary’s numbers went up all summer, and Obama’s went down, Edwards couldn’t get media and laguished in third place, and there were another half -dozen “WHO?” candidates.
Running positive against Clinton wasn’t working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her — attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.
So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.
And, when it comes to “scorched earth” campaign tactics, nothing beats the “swift-boating” of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was “swift-boating”, it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?
so again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?
seems as if i said that - maybe not as eloquent as i should’ve - oh well….
it wasn’t a lack of eloquence, but a lack of completely unsupported suppositional detail that is the difference ;)
Thank you. I haven’t forgotten how the media played that tune either. It was disgusting.
I know that you are a Clinton supporter and that’s fine with me, but she is using Republican talking points and implied that McC would make a better prez than Obama. We won’t forget that.
details details details…… i’ll still say what i said - and leave it to the intellectuals to smooth it out……
32
don’t necessarily agree. There is something to the thought that Clinton has already had everyone peering up her ass for years. Obama is an unknown, with some big questions yet to be answered. I frankly think he’s the more likely candidate for a smear takedown at this point. If Clinton hasn’t been demolished by smear by now, she’s probably going to stay standing.
Winning Is Everything.
Lombardi said so. Must be true.
Well, how about Obama waxing eloquent on what a great prez Reagan was? That was not a rethug talking point? I’m not forgetting that.
Disclaimer: I wanted Gore in, and failing that, I backed Edwards. I’m not backing Clinton now. Not backing Obama either. I’m just hearing ANY accusations against the one which couldn’t be leveled against the other just as fairly.
AMEN.
Yes yes, poor HRC - a victim if there ever was one.
I want a Dem president. Don’t care who it is. But I do think the country is sorta tired of the Clintons and the Bushes. We need someone new.
well, I think that accusing Clinton of running a racist campaign fits pretty snugly into the “Democrats don’t care about black people, just their votes” GOP talking point, but I guess that’s just me.
And I guess the “she will do anything to win” GOP talking point that Obama used against her is one of those special exceptions….”Obama rules” and all that.
I
So, does this mean that if Hillary is the nominee, you won’t support her? I’ve been trying to stay fair on this, but I find myself having to defend her in order to do that. Interesting. I plan on fighting for the dem…no matter who it is in order to win the country back. Neither candidate is ideal, IMO. There are negatives on both sides but either one would be a much better president than McCain.
Hey - we’re just have a conversation here. I like to talk politics regardless of support of one candidate or another. I’m a Democrat but I’m an American first so I want the best for our country.
Try again.
I hear that Twain. Me too on the democrat prez. And enough on the Bush’s. I liked Bill when he was in office, Hillary too. I’ll vote for her if she gets the nod, or Obama if he does. I just wish - well, I could for candidates I felt better about.
That said, I feel a WHOLE LOT better about either Clinton or Obama than McCain.
I think that the kids are mocking him just a little though
Tough questions for McCain
One asked him if he considered himself “an average White guy” and another, pointing out that Hillary seemed to be drinking more as her poll numbers went down, asked McCain if HE would like to join the student for a drink.
McCain didn’t seem to pick up on the snark, but the crowd howled and hooted. McCain just kind of fumbled with responses, instead of saying something really complimentary or insightful or using the question to softly knock his opponents (which could have been done).
McCain and more Neocon rule is not an option.
Paul, Today’s post, like yesterday’s, is very good. Reading the comments last night, I was struck and amused to realize they proved the thesis of your post. Rather than comments, they should have been labeled as Exhibit “A”.
I will support a blue-eyed warthog as long as he/she is a Democrat. We have to stop this Republican march toward a theocracy.
“Well, how about Obama waxing eloquent on what a great prez Reagan was?”
____________
Doesn’t that mischaracterize what he actually said of Reagan?
Obama on Meet the Press in 2006:
paul–my brains are spaghetti! i read all of it, but charts didn’t show up this time, browser issues….. : )
======
people talkin’ about who votes for whom–
this is what i have heard from people, in person and on the local radio, which is a wide mix.
i know people who are not going to vote for hillary, mccain or obama (listed in alphabetical order) protest votes. stupid in my opinion.
i know people who will not vote for mccain, will vote for hillary or obama. any dem, supreme court and federal judges vote. a dem vote. i fall in here.
i know of hillary people who will vote for obama. not one who said they wouldn’t vote for obama. not one.
here’s the one that gets me–
i know of obama people who will vote for hillary. but many who say they will not vote for hillary.
not one of them lists a substantive reason that outweighs what would happen if mccain wins.
so, hillary is worse than mccain? really?
i would like someone to explain this to me. really.
(i know what i think it is, but i would like to hear what others think about it.)
And just as Hillary’s negative image is built on a myth, McCain’s positive image is built on a myth. There is going to be all sorts of cognitive dissonance going on as people realize that neither candidate is who they thought they were.
Obama, on the other hand, has no firm persona in the public mind. He’s a Rorschach test — and the problem with Rorshach tests is that its very easy to influence, both consciously and subliminally, what you see in the inkblots.
I have to live with my candidate being shut out by the media and the other candidates though the remaining candidates gobbled up his issues and made them their own. If I had the chance, I’d vote for John Edwards again, and again.
I’ve observed Hillary for a long time and after listening carefully and reading about the advisors she put around herself, it became more and more difficult to vote for her in the primaries. I did the same thing with Obama.
Obama has major pluses in his background that I wish were a requirement for anyone who deals with foreign policy. They must have spent at least a couple of years living in a village in another culture, living among the people. No gaited community. No five star hotel. They ran through the rice fields or attended temple ceremonies or studied mask carving with a master or anything that is part of the culture. It changes the soul of the person. He will always have a perspective of greater depth and understanding than someone like Paul Wolferwitz who lived with the rich and only had contact with the people when he wanted them as a background for his photo op.
99% of my information comes from reading, C-SPAN, Public Radio, foreign press. I don’t watch MSM. Within 30 seconds, I’m bored.
I guess I’m just sick of demonizing either of these candidates. Neither is the candidate I would have chosen, but they are what we have. They are, both of them, way far from perfect. But either of them would be a huge improvement on what we now have, or the alternative, McCain.
So why doesn’t everyone try to get beyond the vitriol and just discuss the fucking issues?
I keep fantasizing that the super-delegates will say to Obama and Clinton — “screw both of you. You’ve pretty much have torn the party apart with your antics, so we’re going with Gore because if we choose either one of you, we’re f*cked”.
A boy can dream, can’t he? ;)
Welcome to the Yellow Dogs! :)
I think most people are tired of hearing how “disadvantaged” HRC supposedly is. It’s a laughable premise, at best - the advantages she possessed going into the primaries should have carried her through, but she got lazy and acted like the whole process was nothing more than a coronation. She couldn’t knock Obama off on Super Tuesday, and it’s been non-stop Rovian smear tactics since then.
No sympathy from this Dem.
excuse me?
i thought pauls’s thesis (at least in prior posts) was about a subset of voters who, according to polling data, prefer obama over mccain and mccain over clinton. do i have that wrong?
what thesis are you referring to?
forgot–
i know people who are voting for mccain because they think/are afraid that hillary and obama are going to take away their guns. are adamant about it.
No, I don’t think so. I think holding Reagan up as a great president, when he was, in fact, a stupid Shit, was what I hold against Obama. One of the things.
Oh, sort of the way what Hillary said about MLK was mischaracterized. Hmmm…
Obama didn’t lose any time picking up that meme.
He said Reagan was “successful,” not “a great President.” We can disagree about that too. I fucking hated Reagan, thought he was a complete buffoon, an idiot. But that doesn’t give you license to tar Obama with something he didn’t say.
i dream of a president gore too (but only the gore of the last couple of years - not the gore of the ’90s).
but, i have this funny idea about the people getting to pick their candidate - not the superdelegates.
No, oldgold, I’m with you. There is an abject hatred of Hillary - and it does have something, everything to do with her sex. PEople get more fired up about her than they do Cheney. What is actually up with that?
well, since I’ve spent the last six days explaining what I think it is, can you tell just me? ;)
Thanks for the instructions. I’ll decide how to interpret his comments for myself.
and
Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court, Supreme Court.
I don’t hate Hillary. I hate Cheney (and want to see him in an orange jumpuit and chains in the Hague). My loss of support for HRC has everything to do with her padding her resume (Sniper Fire was where she finally lost me), and nada to do with her gener.
“…and lots of people who would have voted for Clinton will wind up voting for McCain…”
Let’s leave aside the fact that this statement is NOT supported by anything in your analysis because, of course, you are usin’ the universe of ClintoMcCain supporters in the primary. Let’s look at this statement by itself…if a lot of the people who have been voting for Mrs. McClinton will easily vote for McCain, then we have the strongest argument to this point that Mrs. McClinton is not mobilizin’ DEMOCRATIC voters but is in fact pooling fascist supporters and exaustin’ Democratic Party resources to fend her off.
I find your entire argument, that is the articulation of meaning from your data, to be more than disturbing. This presentation, in it’s last two installments looks a whole lot like the tortured analyses of the Bob Schrum pseudo-Democrats that were used since 1992 to convince people that only anti-progressive politics and policies could win elections. If we blow away the smoke and get this thing away from any mirrors, you thesis presentation reads like a paper presented in Karl Rove’s Poisoned Political Strategies Seminar 101.
KEEP THE FAITH AND LET’S GET THAT SHIT OUTTA OUR PARTY ONCE AND FOR ALL
Digg it for Paul he has put an awful lot of work into these reports so we can see where we stand on these issues and where we might be going in the future!
okay. Fair enough. But are you holding the other candidate to the same litmus test?
How about the fact that she’s the leader of the DLC, an organization which couldn’t win an election for twelve years and kicked progressives to the curb? How about the fact that she claims credit for things which happened on BILL’s watch? How about the fact that the Clintons left this party for dead ten years ago, and now want to get all cuddly with us?
There’s so much to dislike about HRC, I scarcely know where to begin. Sexism is the least of her problems.
This one.
well, again, valid concerns. It’s just - there’s equally valid questions about Obama. Why did he dither and test political winds before getting on board with the Alito filibuster? Why did he go on the Sunday talk shows beforehand to detract from the filibuster effort as political grandstanding? What’s up with the friendship with the Chicago mobster and the sweetheart land deal? What’s up with the “mistaken” votes - way more than is typical - at least one of which favored his mobster friend? What’s up with just not showing up for important votes? What’s up with giving a speech that turns out is copied almost word for word from someone else’s speech?
Hear what I’m saying? Legitimate questions, about BOTH candidates. Let’s look at all the questions. THEN LET’S VOTE DEMOCRATIC.
Truly, who else generates the fury Hillary does? I had a dinner guest practically come across the table at me when we were discussing her health care initiative - back when Bill was prez. You know what it reminds me of? Remember how everyone loathed Yoko Ono? She was the arch bitch, to blame for everything? Hillary is the new Yoko.