2008 Bad News for John McCain
posted by on April 28 at 9:10 AM
White men aren’t voting for Obama, blacks aren’t voting for Clinton, blue-collar workers aren’t voting for Obama, white-collar workers aren’t voting for Clinton—and all this spells big trouble for whoever winds up getting the Democratic nomination, say the talking heads on the teevee. They say it over and over and over again. They scream it. But have you heard about all the Republicans that aren’t voting for John McCain? Me neither—not until I read Frank Rich’s column in Sunday’s New York Times.
When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats’ exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war?But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama….
Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania.
...where have you been?
Voting for Huckabee or Paul in a meaningless primary is a far cry from actually switching parties in the general election.
Do you really think that Huckabee or Paul supporters would vote for Obama or Clinton over McCain? This story might be significant if, say, Ron Paul decides to run as a Libertarian.
Doing this in a primary is one thing. The general election, however, is a different animal. Come October, when these folks start to realize the distinct possiblity of a *gasp* Democrat in the Oval Office, watch how quickly they'll line up lock-step behind McCain.
John McCain is known for going against several Republican initiatives. And while this can be seen as standing up for his personal principles, the GOP doesn't exactly smile on members who don't play ball. The GOP works like a well-oiled machine when all its members are in agreement and following orders, but falls apart when this doesn't happen.
The question I have to ask is that those people who claim to be Democrats are saying they will not vote for a black man. Has anyone really thought about this for a second? Are those "Democrats" really Democrats or Republicans who crossed over party lines? I know that the Democrats have a number of racists in the party but even taking that into account, that number is just suspiciously high.
First of all, a primary is a far cry from the general election. Secondly, the Democrats always were the party of rascism. That's why the south changed to the Republicans from the Democrats at the dawn of the civil rights movement when LBJ pushed civil rights legislation. Thirdly, anyone who thinks the R's won't savage Obama in the general election with the experience question, the Rev. Wright question, and probably gay rights, hasn't been paying attention to the recent past. There are too many easily frightened people.
I personally would love either Obama or Clinton. But given the record of the American voting(and non-voting) public, I have very little hope. And all those new voters, well let's just see if they bother to vote in the general.
Maybe I would vote for a black man. Maybe not. But one thing I can tell you for sure is that I'm not going to be voting for THAT black man.
The Ds don't need the McCain haters to vote for the D candidate. They'll settle for the McCain haters not voting.
Whomever wins the Democratic primary will win the election.
One Penn. voter said that they would not vote for a black man even if their lives depended on it...ironically it now does.
What I see in the comments is that everyone trusts the Republicans to get behind their candidate in November, but when presented with similar arguments, often don't trust Democrats to do the same.
While it is true that religious convictions and moral outrage push Rs to the polls as others waver, I think that this year, we have a few causes of our own-- new voters included. I expect Democrats to turn out in huge numbers.
Speculation on a scandal that will cost Obama the election is pointless. If we can't remind voters not to vote out of fear, we can't do it for any candidate. If we can, we can have a Democratic president.
I'm hoping we can.
@10 - Actually, I do think that we (Dems) are capable of getting behind the eventual nominee despite all the recent Clinton/Obama infighting. We definitely have the benefit of strong causes and strong outrage.
But do I "trust" Dems to unite the same way I "trust" that the GOP will unite? Not so much. the Repubs have repeatedly proven that they can; the Dems haven't.
Don't forget that the NRA is already beating the war drum against both Clinton and Obama. Also don't forget that that's been a huge, possibly deciding, factor in the last two elections.
It's called a Blue Tidal Wave.
And it's going to get BIGGER.
Deal with it.
You mention "men" quite a bit in post, Savage, but what about the women?
What about the women . . .
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).