Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Hillary's Passport Breached | Gay Hockey Fans Angry About Ho... »

Friday, March 21, 2008

Meanwhile, In Pennsylvania…

posted by on March 21 at 10:07 AM

Clinton leads Obama by 16 points. But a substantial number of both Clinton supporters (19 percent) and Obama supporters (20 percent) say they’ll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t get the nomination.

RSS icon Comments

1

You posted a CNSNews link? For shame. Give clicks to a real news source instead.

Posted by tsm | March 21, 2008 10:13 AM
2

So, a 16 point lead translates into about 25 delegates, or a fourth of what she needs to catch up.

Posted by Fnarf | March 21, 2008 10:15 AM
3

19% of Clinton voters and 20% of Obama voters are a bunch of crybabies.

Sure, we believe you when you threaten to vote for McCain. We also believe you'll hold your breath until you get a cookie and you'll cry all night if we make you go to bed.

Posted by six shooter | March 21, 2008 10:15 AM
4

If only there were four more Pennsylvanias yet to hold primaries, she might have a shot. She doesn't.

Posted by Trey | March 21, 2008 10:16 AM
5

$20 says Trey would vote for Clinton before voting for McCain.

200:1 Fnarf will.

It's a damned good thing we don't let Idaho pick the Dem nominee.

Posted by six shooter | March 21, 2008 10:19 AM
6

I posted this on the morning news tread at well, but I think it bears repeating. If we could get this thing decided soon, a lot (though not all)of the Democrats angry enough to say that now will probably be wooed back by November. August will likely be too late. A fight that gets dirty drives voter turnout down, and that hurts Democrats a lot more than Republicans. I know there's some sentiment that "the Republicans will fling mud anyway" but we don't need to do their dirty work for them. Flinging mud ourselves, in addition to causing us to lose votes from where the mud sticks, also drives away voters (like me) who are disgusted by the people willing to shovel it. We need to offset what they're doing by standing together. We can't control what the campaigns themselves decide to do, but we can remember to keep the discourse positive ourselves. All of us need to put the anger and resentment and fears already stirred up aside and spend more time talking about why our preferred candidate is awesome, instead of why the other one stinks.

Posted by Beguine | March 21, 2008 10:21 AM
7

Many commenters on this Slog have claimed that the Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama in the general election are just racist (never mind that someone could actually believe that Obama doesn't represent their interests and so not want to vote for him). But now, at least in Pennsylvania, there are apparently more Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton in the general than the other way around. Are they racist? Are they sexist? Or, perhaps, might they just believe she doesn't represent their interests?

Point is, I'm really sick of being called a racist by Obama supports (online and in real life) because I don't believe he would be the best president. Unless these same people are prepared to call Obama supporters similar names because they won't vote for Clinton, they need to shut up.

Posted by Mason | March 21, 2008 10:22 AM
8

To the 19% of Clinton supporters and 20% of Obama supporters who will jump ship if they don't get their way I say go ahead. Vote for McCain for all I care. Just don't complain in January when the old man is sworn in.

Ugh... some people...

Posted by Ace | March 21, 2008 10:27 AM
9

I think most people that would vote for McCain before the other Dem are morons - and I'm about as fed up with HRC as one could be. There probably are a handful of people out there who genuinely rank their choices - based on who would best represent them as president - as Clinton, McCain, Obama or Obama, McCain, Clinton - but it has to be a tiny number of people. The rest of the partisans are just being childish and ridiculous, and I really hope they snap out of it by November. If Clinton is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her, and anyone that really wants change in January should do so whoever the D is, regardless of their primary preference.

Posted by Levislade | March 21, 2008 10:28 AM
10

But a substantial number of both Clinton supporters (19 percent) and Obama supporters (20 percent) say they’ll vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t get the nomination.

This is a really desperate attempt to mask the exposed fact (that 25% of her supporters would back McCain if Obama got the nod) that many of Hillary's supporters are racist, by using a small, isolated example to attempt to show, "Hey, look! BOTH candidates' supporters would switch to McCain!" Nice try, ECB, but we are paying attention to the person behind the curtain... and this attempt at value camouflage failed.

Posted by Gomez | March 21, 2008 10:30 AM
11

In Erica's world the New England Patriots are the 18-1 Super-Bowl Champions and the NY Giants are lucky to be on the same field for a big game.

Posted by Meh | March 21, 2008 10:32 AM
12

If Clinton is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her, and anyone that really wants change in January should do so whoever the D is, regardless of their primary preference.

thing is... i really want change in our party, too. and voting for her is not voting for change.

if democrats keep getting democratic support by default, then what motivation do they have to stop being humangous dbags?

I don't like the idea of a mccain presidency in the slightest, but i am sick to shit of how pitiful the democratic party is. if the democratic party doesn't change, then me not voting for clinton isn't being an obama partisan. it's me not being a democrat anymore. there is a reason such a significant bloc of the voting public self-identifies as independent. and it isn't because of racism or sexism.

Posted by some dude | March 21, 2008 10:32 AM
13

What Levislade said. I'll vote for McCain after Grover Norquist himself descends from a cloud in a flowing iridescent gown onto my front lawn with 100,000 tons of solid gold strawberries to give to me. Not before.

Posted by Fnarf | March 21, 2008 10:33 AM
14

Whatever. For Obama, I will donate my time, money, and sweat. For Clinton, I can't imagine doing more than groaning and mailing in my obligatory Not-McCain vote.

Posted by tsm | March 21, 2008 10:34 AM
15

@14 - That's about how I feel. I would even somewhat understand someone who chose not to vote at all, which is what some dude seemed to be referring to. But actually signing on with your ballot for four more years of Republican misrule? Moronic and dangerous.

Posted by Levislade | March 21, 2008 10:41 AM
16

Gomez: Not supporting Obama is not automatically "racist." Jesus Christ.

Posted by ECB | March 21, 2008 10:43 AM
17

Democrats saying that they'll vote for McCain if their personal sweetheart doesn't get the nomination are just crybabies talking out of their asses. Right now this a race between two candidates. Come November, it'll be about cabinet appointees, Supreme Court nominees, and differences in US policy

Posted by JC | March 21, 2008 10:49 AM
18

You're right, No. 16--not supporting Obama could be sexist. ;)

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 21, 2008 10:51 AM
19

I love how Obama supporters have just taken as a given that if Obama goes to the convention with a plurality of pledged delegates, he's "won."

Fantasyland. The Supes can and will break for Clinton if they see her as more electable. They have as much right to break from the "will of the people" (53% of the people) as the citizens of Pennsylvania do.

Posted by Big Sven | March 21, 2008 10:53 AM
20

Meanwhile, Clinton was full of shit about that $35 million she raised last month. It was only $19 million, most of which can only be spent on the general and will have to be refunded if she doesn't win the nomination.

Posted by Mike of Renton | March 21, 2008 10:56 AM
21

The statistic I want to see, and which is probably a lot more telling, is how many people plan to vote for Obama who would otherwise be voting for McCain. And I believe that that is a HUGE number of voters.

But if Hillary's the nom, the votes go back to McCain.

A small sampling of some of my moderate-leaning relatives suggest this is the case in EVERY instance.

Posted by brett | March 21, 2008 10:58 AM
22

I don't think not supporting Obama is racist in and of itself, but if someone one is pro-choice, claims to ordinarily vote Democratic, leans Left, wants healthcare reform, believes we should have liberal-to-moderate judges at the Supreme and circuit court level, and thinks we need to get out of the Iraq War and then says "if Obama is the nominee I'm voting McCain!" I might question their reasoning and assume certain things about prejudices they may have.

For instance I've been on Team Obama since before he was even an official nominee. My background is Social History and I'm totally one of those believers (moonies?) that the political parties are in a generational realligning moment right now. It happens about every 30 years. I also personally believe the Clintons are more concerned with the Clintons than they are in a true progressive agenda. That said, because I feel the way I described above about the issues I will vote for Hillary should she be the nominee. While she may not be my first choice I believe her commitment to healthcare is real, she's pro-choice, and I am confident she would appoint moderate judges at least. John Paul Stevens is in his 80s afterall.

All the Obama supporters I know (and, to be honest, I don't know anyone in my circle who supports Clinton so that's everyone) seem to feel the same way I do. They'll vote Clinton should she is the nominee. It won't be reluctantly, but wearily.

Posted by Jason | March 21, 2008 11:04 AM
23

Wow. Thanks, Hillary, for creating such a toxic atmosphere. You gotta hand it to HRC, don't ya? I bet she smiles to herself as she puts her head on her pillow at night. I'd rather she sob. But she's a bit too monstrous for that, isn't she?

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Balt-o-matt) | March 21, 2008 11:09 AM
24

These "my way or the McCain way" Democrats suck shit. What crybabies.

Posted by Matthew | March 21, 2008 11:11 AM
25

well i've been broken. i'll vote for hillary if she's the nominee, and there aren't enough bad words in the english language for me to describe my feelings about her. she and her sleazebag husband both give me the willies, and i would hate to see the power within the democratic party further concentrated in their hands, but i just can't bear the thought of another 4 years of republican rule. if that means etching a clinton dynasty in stone, well, so be it. [ick.]

that being said, if the superdelegates throw it to clinton because they see her as "more electable," even if she's down in the popular vote and delegate count, well that just plain sucks. that's the quickest and easiest way to destroy the democratic party and ensure mccain's victory in the fall.

Posted by brandon | March 21, 2008 11:22 AM
26

@19 I disagree. The people of Pennsylvania are PART of "the people", so their collective will contributes to whatever the overall will of the people is. The superdelegates, on the other hand, are not. Yes, they have to consider issues of electability, etc. But they also have to consider what their base tells them they want, and unlike the people of Pennsylvania, they have to worry that their vote could make people feel that the party doesn't care what they want or believe in, and result in apathy come November. As the gap between current superdelegate support for the candidates is narrowing, I think the point is likely to be moot in this election. However, I would think superdelegates would have to have some very compelling reasons indeed in order to justify going against the popular vote. If the popular vote and the delegate count are not in agreement, then the issue does become more complex.

Posted by Beguine | March 21, 2008 11:22 AM
27

#7, if someone thinks Clinton best represents their interests, how could they *possibly* think that McCain represents their interests better than Obama? Seriously, I'm asking, because I think that's simply absurb.

If there is *any* basis to this (there isn't),then all it shows that Clinton might as well be a Republican.

Posted by w7ngman | March 21, 2008 11:22 AM
28

Which supes are those, Big Sven? The ones that are breaking for Obama now? Every day her superdelegate lead drops by a couple. It's insignificant now. Obama needs less than half of the ones remaining, and he's going to get all of them once it becomes apparent that he's won. Remember, even if he loses PA by 16 he gets ~65 delegates out of the state. It's over, dude.

Posted by Fnarf | March 21, 2008 11:25 AM
29

why vote for bomb happy numb nuts mccain? why not just not vote? or better yet WRITE IN OBAMA'S NAME

Posted by linus | March 21, 2008 11:30 AM
30

Yup Fnarf, the way Mr. civil Rights/Unity/Change Obama is trying to win by helping disenfranchise millions of voters (or not re-enfrachsising them, same thing) it may be over for all of us in the fall.

From WSJ opinion today:

Disenfranchising Democrats
By DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
March 21, 2008

The hope held by Hillary Clinton and her supporters -- that Florida and Michigan would hold new primaries that could give her a much-needed boost in popular votes and pledged delegates -- is slipping away. It's no mystery why: The Obama campaign is running down the clock.

Even as the media watched Barack Obama take on the Jeremiah Wright controversy this week, the Obama campaign appears to have quietly nixed legislation in Michigan that would have held a new primary on June 3. In Florida too, the state Democratic Party appears to have given up on a revote.

Obama supporters are satisfied at the collapse of what they see as an end-run around party rules. Such satisfaction is misguided. The failure to hold revotes is a blow to the Democratic Party that will disenfranchise voters and could cost Democrats the presidency.

Posted by unPC | March 21, 2008 11:45 AM
31

#26, you said superdelegates have to consider electability, "[b]ut they also have to consider what their base tells them they want, and unlike the people of Pennsylvania, they have to worry that their vote could make people feel that the party doesn't care what they want or believe in, and result in apathy come November." I think everything you said goes into the issue of electability (attracting moderates doesn't help if it alienates as many progressives), and certainly they will be considering those things when they make their choice.

Posted by mason | March 21, 2008 11:46 AM
32

#27 - You may think it absurd, but I don't think Obama is ready to be president. He has repeatedly done and said things during this campaign that have made me unable to trust his judgment in matters of foreign policy. You're probably thinking that 1) I've bought into the Clinton scare machine and 2) being first lady doesn't count as experience and shouldn't factor in voting. My reply would be 1) I haven't bought into the Clinton scare machine, I just agree with it, and 2) I would have voted for Eleanor Roosevelt, and she wasn't even a senator.

I personally am not ready to say I'd vote for McCain over Obama, but I can understand how some might. And I don't think that necessarily makes them racist, as so many people are ready to claim.

Posted by Mason | March 21, 2008 11:49 AM
33

Sure #30, the Obama campaign nixed legislation. Right.

Want to explain how they did that rather than pasting a WSJ op-ed?

Posted by w7ngman | March 21, 2008 11:51 AM
34

30 - the problem with the FL/MI re-vote argument is that everyone agreed to the rules up front. if hillary -- or anyone else for that matter -- cared so much about the potential disenfranchisement of those voters, they should have piped up when the rules were written, rather than after the elections were held.

Posted by brandon | March 21, 2008 11:55 AM
35

I still wonder how many of those Clinton supporters who are willing to vote for McCain know anything about the asshole's record (other than that "maverick" nonsense) and know anything about Obama. Twenty percent sounds about right for the number of voters who vote on name recognition before issues or even party identification.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 21, 2008 12:00 PM
36

@35, we're assuming here that the people voting for obama or clinton are democratic partisans. dude, they're not. they're middle of the road voters or swing voters who may have voted for clinton in 96 and bush in 2000 or maybe even voted for perot.

that they like mccain or would vote for him over obama does not make them racist. it just makes them less partisan than most of us.

like it or not, there are a lot of people in this country who *like* mccain. who think he would be a good president. who like *one* democrat better but don't like the *other* democrat better.

yes, there are those dems who are just having a hissy fit and declaring that if their candidate doesn't win, they will stay at home damn it! but there are plenty of dems who have crossed over to the republican side before. not for nefarious reasons, but just because they thought the republican leader was the best. but it's happened before. and it will happen again. if i recall correctly, democratic registration is higher than republicans, but since we have a republican in the white house, you know some registered dems prolly voted republican in 04.

Posted by arduous | March 21, 2008 12:13 PM
37

@33
Obama has done nothing to help find a solution in FL or MI.

That's not leadership, that's doing nothing to gain a political advantage and it is dirty and disgusting and it makes me ashamed of him and ashamed of having to support him in the Fall.

@34

you are spreading disinformation.

1. the voters are the people whose rights are being denied. they did not agree to anything

2. Until someone posts the actual agreement the candidates signed, all we know is they agreed to not campaign. there has been no contract anyone has shown anyone that says they agreed to not seat delegates from FL or MI.

So u r wrong or u r making things up or u r dissimulating or u r playing words games (gee, so Clintonian...) to twist one agreement by candidates not to campaign into an agreement by about 4 millions voters to disenfranshise themselves.

And in any event all that talky talk doesn't help us in the Fall becuae guess what?

The folks in MI and FL and other folks who look to Democrats to be in favor of VOTING RIGHTS don't give a shit about the legalistic technicalites because we all know:

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED VOTING RIGHTS

and

OBAMA ISN'T LIFTING A FINGER TO HELP

so much for Mr. Civil Rights. I guess it's easier to talk about racial rights deprivation at length and tell stories about your grandmother than it is to actually be a rea leader who stands up for voting rights for everyone.

And hey on this split party thing?

Steps to fix it:
1. seat FL and revote MI.
2. shit yeah, OBama's going to win anyway. It is stooopid to pick up the negativity of FL and MI when it doesn't matter does it?
3. Float HRC as VP along with others.
4. Too bad about the Pastor Wright thing, guess we'll have another nail biter election not the vast change election Obama supporters ever so naively promised us.
5. Sooooo....why aren't Obama folks suggesting how to unify? Guess they demonoize HRC too much. Remember the big speech? How we shouldn't demonize others?

Remember the unity thang?

Hope Obama can change course and actually get us some unity and stop standing by idly while millions of voters are disenfranchised and we giving the GOP a huge, huge talking poitn for a generation.

"Democrats -- if your party leaders you never heard of fuck up, we take away your right to vote!" my that's a party I'm proud to be a part of!!!!!

Posted by unPC | March 21, 2008 12:14 PM
38

So, basically, she's down 4 points even after using McCain staff provided attack ads to slime Obama ... from her former 20 point lead beforehand.

Not good. Why is she working for the GOP?

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 21, 2008 12:18 PM
39

millions of people aren't "being denied" voting rights. their voting rights "were denied" last summer when the rules were written, and no one -- not clinton, not obama, not the democratic party in those respective states -- lifted a finger to change it when there was still a chance to do so fairly. if we're going to blame anyone, blame everyone.

Posted by brandon | March 21, 2008 12:37 PM
40

Will @38

You said it! About the most meaningful thing in the post. She is down 4 points in a week, despite her hanging onto the underside of the GOP race-baiting band wagon.

Posted by cracked | March 21, 2008 12:54 PM
41

For true progressives or democrats, jumping to McCain if their preferred candidate doesn't win is retarded.

But there are people in the middle for whom that is legit. My brother, for example, is very middle of the road, a true independant. He voted for Perot. He voted for Clinton the second term, and then Bush over Gore. Now he thinks Bush was a mistake (go figure). He's leaning toward Obama this year, but he hates Hillary. McCain truly is his second choice, behind Obama. McCain is not an unreasonable candidate to a middle of the road independent. I disagree with him, of course, but he's not a crybaby or spoiler democrat. He's an independent the who really dislikes Hillary.

Posted by Reverse Polarity | March 21, 2008 1:02 PM
42

#37, because Obama did nothing (not true, anyway) to fix a problem that isn't his responsibility, that means his campaign nixed legislation? Who's being disingenuous here, again?


If you are ashamed of anyone, it should be the DNC for not seating their delegates, and for having a totally wacked out primary system that involves such a strange schedule (all primaries should just be on the same Saturday, IMO, and it should be around March). In light of the weird drawn-out schedule (designed to keep candidates in the news, I presume?), the DNC did the right thing by warning MI/FL. They have to set a hard date, otherwise we'll get states setting their primaries to a year before the general to steal the spotlight. That's just crazy.

Secondarily, you should be ashamed of the Democratic legislators in FL/MI who tried to call the DNCs "bluff" and got their own constituents disenfranchised when they were clearly warned what would happen.

Trying to blame this on Obama is BS. His political advantage to leaving the delegates unseated is questionable anyway. Obama (or Clinton) shouldn't have to go on some crusade on behalf of a constituency that is clearly too apathetic to effectively lobby their own legislatures to work out a solution with the DNC. One legitimate grievance that I can see is that the Republican-dominated legislature in Florida was able to screw the pooch for the Democrats in that state, but again, not Obama's fault.

Point by point:

"1. the voters are the people whose rights are being denied. they did not agree to anything"

They agreed to elect their own legislature.

"2. Until someone posts the actual agreement the candidates signed, all we know is they agreed to not campaign. there has been no contract anyone has shown anyone that says they agreed to not seat delegates from FL or MI."

The agreement is an implicit one. They are members of the Democratic Party and hence agree to all of their rules. Not seating delegates is a result of those rules being broken.

Posted by w7ngman | March 21, 2008 1:11 PM
43

#32: You do realize that, historically speaking, Obama has more experience than some of our greatest presidents right? Including Lincoln? He's still "not ready"?

I agree with you about Eleanor Roosevelt, and I haven't argued that Hillary is inexperienced. However if you look at US Presidents there really is very little corralation between type of experience and success in the presidency. Coolidge came into the White House with 25 years of elected service, afterall.

Posted by Jason | March 21, 2008 1:15 PM
44

@36,

Why the fuck are you addressing me? I did not say people are voting for McCain due to racism. #10 did.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 21, 2008 1:17 PM
45

If the democrats blow their collective brains out in November, I'm going to cry. And drink. A lot.

Posted by Medicine Man | March 21, 2008 1:25 PM
46

Meet me in Denver.

Posted by Andy Niable | March 21, 2008 1:39 PM
47

16. No, Erica, the stat about 25% of Hillary supporters saying they'd switch to McCain if she lost is the indicator of racism, not support of Hillary in itself... but thanks for jumping to the next level of desperation by twisting my words.

Posted by Gomez | March 21, 2008 1:43 PM
48

To further clarify: no, Hillary's supporters aren't all racist. That would be a ridiculous assertion. But it stands to reason that a good portion of her supporters are, and would go a long way to indicate why a quarter of them would abandon the Democratic ticket if the black man won. In this day and age, given the direction the Republicans have taken this country, it's not typical for Democratic voters to abandon the party on the basis of a particular candidate not winning.

Posted by Gomez | March 21, 2008 2:28 PM
49

#32, "He has repeatedly done and said things during this campaign that have made me unable to trust his judgment in matters of foreign policy."

Like what?

Posted by w7ngman | March 21, 2008 2:55 PM
50

#32 - A few examples:

He said he would unilaterally attack targets inside of Pakistan (a sovereign nation and, at the moment, our ally) without authorization from the Pakistani government. Pakistan is probably more dangerous to the U.S. than Iraq ever was or Iran ever will be. They've got nuclear weapons, and the government is maintaining control by a thread. An intrusion like this might well pull the rug of legitimacy out from under any government there and put those nukes into the hands of warring clans and tribes. Not to mention that such an attack would be against international law.

He said he would sit down to talk with dictators without pre-conditions. That's not how diplomacy is done. Kim Jong-il's wet dream would be to sit down with a U.S. president. Nothing would do more to elevate his status in N. Korea and around the world. Obama's statement revealed how naive he is.

He told the people of Ohio he would be willing to scrap NAFTA if the Canadians wouldn't be willing to change it but then had his economic advisor tell the Canadians he didn't really mean it. Who is he lying to? Americans or our allies?

Posted by Mason | March 21, 2008 3:35 PM
51

@50,

McCain has essentially said the same thing re: Pakistan. And you do realize that the entire Iraq war violated international law, right? Who supported that again? Oh right, Hillary and McCain. I don't know how rooting out terrorists in western Pakistan would play out, but I do know that we cannot rely on Pakistan to do anything about it. The government effectively has no jurisdiction in that area.

I'd like to see Obama's foreign policy advisors and Secretary of State let him make a dunderheaded mistake. Considering who he has taken onto his campaign so far, I have a great deal of confidence in his ability to select top-notch experts to advise him on nitpicky shit like "preconditions".

It's interesting how you can read Kim Jong-Il's mind. Who knew that a simple meeting with a head of state can improve a tin-pot dictator's standing in the world?

Hillary did the exact same thing re: NAFTA. I thought you said you supported her.

One thing Obama hasn't done: claim foreign policy successes that aren't his.

Posted by keshmeshi | March 21, 2008 4:32 PM
52

50 - i don't know that it did much to elevate kim jong il's status when [bill] clinton sent madeline albright to meet with him. perhaps the 2nd time would be the charm?

Posted by brandon | March 21, 2008 7:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).