The Democrats’ Dilemma
[Guest post by DRJ]
The biggest general election problem the Democrats face right now is that, after a nominee is selected, a significant percentage of disappointed Democrats will vote for McCain instead of the nominee:
“A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.”
Who knows if this will still be true in November, but for now Gallup’s conclusion is: “Divisions are running deep” in the Democratic Party.
— DRJ
So who’s happier about this: John McCain or Al Gore?
ras (fc54bb) — 3/26/2008 @ 12:55 pmKarl Rove.
Al (b624ac) — 3/26/2008 @ 1:05 pmHow do we express our, um, secret satisfaction about this without tipping off the Dems that this is a terrible idea for them?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 3/26/2008 @ 1:25 pmno one you know,
Nice try, but the Dems already know you’re just using ye olde double doublespeak on them. No way they unite behind a single candidate when that’s what you really want.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/26/2008 @ 1:31 pmComment by ras — 3/26/2008 @ 1:31 pm
Um…uh….you know, you’re absolutely right. They’re too smart for us I guess. Darn!
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 3/26/2008 @ 1:36 pmThey had no idea what a problem this was going to be for them until the Wright tapes appeared on the scene. There is a slight odor of McGovern over all of this but I know better than to get too optimistic. Republicans can snatch defeat from unlikely places.
Mike K (b9ce3e) — 3/26/2008 @ 1:44 pmSimple: tell them that this is a terrible idea for them. They won’t believe us, and will keep going down this path, laughing about how they’ve outsmarted the Rethugs.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/26/2008 @ 2:13 pmTake this one to the bank – It won’t be true in November. Any more than it was “true” about claims by Romney supporters and those who flooded the lines at talk radio who said they would never vote for McCain if he won the nomination. Surely you remember all of that talk? These polls are worthless until the primary battles are over and the dust settles.
Justin Levine (e5df9a) — 3/26/2008 @ 3:36 pmThe problem the Democrats have, is that Sen. Obama simply couldn’t stay behind the curtain long enough pulling the levers and granting leftist voters courage, a heart or a brain.
Now, admittedly…I may be looking down my garlic nose at leftists (see NRO article, the Corner today), but he may have McPeak’d too early.
I don’t know if Sen. Obama has a “Jewish problem”, but he certainly has a penchant for surrounding himself with people who think that New York and Miami have an undue influence on our foreign policy. Samantha Power had to be hidden, Rev. Wright has been deep sixed, Brzezinski was not really an advisor and McPeak and Malley are just a couple of guys he once met, I suppose.
His TUCC bulletin had an open letter to Oprah (see Bob Owens, Confederate Yankee blog), that is sure to warm the hearts of Louis Farrakhan and members of Hamas.
But hey, “don’t look over here, behind the curtain” and click your ruby heels…leftists are on the Yellow Brick Road to August.
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/26/2008 @ 3:41 pmHappy thoughts, indeed! But the reality is far, far different, and terrible to contemplate.
Democratic party leaders (and their money-men, see more below) will use this information to force a Clinton-Obama “dream team” ticket to happen, as the only way out of this sad mess.
It’ll be Clinton-Obama and not Obama-Clinton because, well, Hillary’s people will be pulling most of the strings and, let’s face it, Hillary won’t settle for anything less than “what she’s entitled to”.
Obama will buy into it because he’s young enough to run for himself in future years (and it will be promised to him as part of the deal) and… IMHO he’s already shown that he can be bought (Rezko, U of C Hospital, Emil Jones, etc.). It will take big bucks – I’m talking George-Soros-level-bucks – but those will be $$ well-spent, in the opinion of those that matter there. Also, Obama will be threatened with political death if he doesn’t go along – does anyone ever hear anymore from the last black U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois? Wasn’t that long ago…
Hillary will campaign in her strong states and ethnic groups, Obama will handle the minority votes, Bill will keep the party’s seniority in line, Chelsea will round up the youth vote and – ominously and most importantly – the MSM will swoon over it and any mention of the current state of below-the-belt backstabbing will be committed to the memory hole (if I may be permitted to mix a trio of metaphors).
It’s the Republicans’s worst nightmare. And the Democrats have all the ammunition they need now to make it happen. Ugh.
MrJimm (e42945) — 3/26/2008 @ 3:54 pm#10: Clinton/Obama doesn’t frighten me in the least. Imagine the McCain commercials: “Obama doesn’t have the experience and Clinton doesn’t have the integrity to be President of the US. But don’t take our word for it — take theirs!”
If you want to talk nightmare scenarious, try Obama/ Richardson.
Sean P (e57269) — 3/26/2008 @ 4:15 pmBetter yet, have Karl Rove tell them…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 3/26/2008 @ 4:19 pmI still expect Obama to have one of those left wing ex-generals/admirals as a VP nominee. Not McPeak as he finally outed himself.
Mike K (b9ce3e) — 3/26/2008 @ 4:23 pmObama or Clinton….or perhaps….Al Gore. Congressman Mahoney thinks that might be the ticket – one with Al Gore on the top. Too much infighting, too much loss of trust and disgust from the constituency.
“It’s an interesting idea. It’s not clear if Democrats really know what they’re in for if this nasty battle continues all the way to the Denver convention. The way things are going, there could be enough acrimony by the time it’s over that neither Obama nor Clinton would any longer be viewed as electable.”
Heh.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/25/gore-led-ticket-good-for-democrats/
Dana (fba430) — 3/26/2008 @ 4:27 pmThe problem with an Obama-Clinton team-up is that being VP is bad enough for a true presidential aspirant when you are part of the president’s inner circle. When you’re an outsider in the administration, it’s like being buried alive.
I don’t believe either of them would ever agree to being on the bottom half of the ticket, especially not Hillary. Not if every Democrat in the country got belly-down in the dirt and begged them to do it. Both have senate seats which are vastly more effective platforms than VP.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 3/26/2008 @ 4:42 pmAnd as a reverse-psychology tactic, Republicans would do very well to encourage a Gore-Somebody solution. This would be my choice for the best way to inflict permanent damage on the Democratic Party.
Just the aesthetic discontinuity would be devastating. Imagine going to a Bruce Springsteen concert and getting … well, Al Gore instead.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 3/26/2008 @ 4:55 pm“a significant percentage of disappointed Democrats will vote for McCain instead of the nominee:”
Significant how? Does this differ from cross-party switching at other elections?
stef (8fa2c6) — 3/26/2008 @ 5:01 pmAl Gore as the nominee…”An Inconvenient Truce”?
cfbleachers (4040c7) — 3/26/2008 @ 5:06 pmI’m with Justin, today’s polls are meaningless. Even if the party battle were over, polls before Labor Day rarely tell you anything of value anyway.
That said, I am cautiously optimistic that McCain will benefit from a protracted battle between the Dems, especially if it goes down to the wire and one side convinces itself its votes have been “stolen” by the other. If that happens, they’ll have a hell of a time uniting their party against a common enemy most Democrats don’t think of as all that much of an enemy to begin with.
Xrlq (62cad4) — 3/26/2008 @ 6:41 pmAl Gore is not a viable option. His reputation is as a joke, and his private finances won’t survive a close scrutiny as a candidate.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/26/2008 @ 7:17 pmI’m with #8 & 18 , no way I believe that that many would switch votes to Mcain. Not voting for any pres. nominee – now that I would buy.
Do people who decide not to vote for any pres. nominee still vote for the other slots or do they just not go to the polls at all?
In ’92 I didn’t cast a ballot for pres (noway I was voting for BC, RP was a joke and GB lied about taxes) ,but did vote for all local & state items.
seaPea (df5d9a) — 3/26/2008 @ 8:11 pmIs this whole mess really Howard Deans fault?
There seems to have been no thought given to having a Plan B if no one got the number needed.
And how about Edwards? How much is he kicking himself for not sticking around another few weeks before bowing out and maybe having the tipping point in his column – available for the right price.
seaPea (df5d9a) — 3/26/2008 @ 8:14 pmI don’t think many Dems would vote for McCain if their candidate isn’t the nominee, but I think a strong case can be made for a lot of Obama’s supporters sitting the election out if he’s not on the ballot.
Obama attracts a great deal of support from young voters. If Hillary manages to take the nominee from him, that bloc will be disillusioned and just not vote. Young voters don’t turn out much, anyway, and this would be a good excuse for them to stay home.
Steverino (6772c8) — 3/26/2008 @ 8:23 pmi would never vote for mccain. i don’t like hillary very much. after all these months, i still don’t know very much about obama – his plans, goals, policies if he gets elected. he’s great at sprinkling fairydust devoid of tangible substance, and he takes advantage of the fact that most younger democrats react emotionally rather than analytically to campaigns. the rezko thing doesn’t bother me, light to moderate corruption is ok, as long as it doesn’t impact a member of my family, like mccain’s did. the least corrupt presidents of recent years, ford and carter, were also the least effective. the jeremiah wright thing is more serious, but with some more effort i could separate pastor and candidate.
if al gore ran against mccain, yes, i’d vote for gore. otherwise, i might not vote at all.
assistant devil's advocate (2172d5) — 3/27/2008 @ 8:24 amWhy all the fuss about the November general election. Come January George Bush will refuse to give up the power he hold as emperor of the American Empire. When this occurs, what is the public going to do?
He will be supported by his own mercenary army while the army of the individual states, the Nation Guard is in Iraq. The states will be powerless to displace the new emperor.
Of course there is a precedent when Julius Caeser outdid the Roman Senate. Brutus murdered him but it did no good. The seed was planted and Rome was ruled by dictators thereafter.
Jerry (a47709) — 3/27/2008 @ 8:51 pm