In South Carolina Barack Obama won among registered Democrats 57%-28%-14%. In Virginia, he won among registered Democrats 62%-38%. In Maryland he won among registered Democrats 59%-40%. In Wisconsin, he won the vote among registered Democrats 53%-46%. In spite of this, I spent a good part of my day explaining to Clinton supporters (in email) that Barack Obama is not winning the nomination on the backs of Republican voters who won’t show up for him in the fall.
It’s a ludicrous assertion. Barack Obama has just won ten of eleven contents by 20-plus points. The lone exception (Wisconsin) he won by 17 points. But even going back to Iowa, Obama beat Clinton 32%-31% among registered Democrats. It’s true that Obama is killing Clinton among registered Republicans and Independents, but he isn’t relying on them for his victories. If he’s relying on any demographic groups, it blacks, men, and voters under the age of twenty-nine. For example, Obama took the under 29 vote in Iowa by a 57%-11% margin. In Wisconsin it was 70%-26%. Not only is Obama doing extremely well with the youth vote, he is inspiring them to massively increase their percentage of the overall electorate.
It’s amusing to think that Clinton supporters could work themselves up over a pissant organization like Republicans for Obama, who brag about having 1,000 members worldwide. Republicans for Obama want (don’t be shocked) Republicans to vote and caucus for Barack Obama in the upcoming Texas contests. One of their primary motivations (again, don’t be shocked) is to defeat Hillary Clinton, who they do not particularly like. Republicans for Obama make a naked appeal to Texan Republicans to come out and vote for Obama even if they have no intention of voting for him in the fall.
Do you know how many Republicans are actually going to do that compared to how many Republicans are going to come out to vote because they actually support one of the Democrats? How many of you know Republicans that are intrigued by Obama and may (or already have) vote for him? How many of you know someone that went to the polls to vote for someone they don’t like or won’t support in November? What do you think the percentage difference is?
Moreover, Republicans that are actually interested in sabotaging the Democratic nominee are extremely unlikely to vote for the candidate that has lower negatives and is getting the most independent and Republican votes. Why? Cuz that would not make sense.
I didn’t really want to have to spell this out. I am fairly certain that writing this down just cost me several IQ points. I hope reading it hasn’t caused you any drain bamage.
P.S. Voters that vote in primaries are by definition highly motivated voters. Voters that vote for a candidate in a primary are highly unlikely to vote for someone else in the general (unless their original choice has been eliminated), or to fail to show up to vote. That’s not really rocket science.
Man…I just spent the last hour try to explain this to Clinton supporters, who decided to just stick their fingers in their ears.
Dammit Boo just admit that Barack is an evul, muuuslim non-swearin on da baibul, non-pin wearin, unpatriotic, non-pledge of alleeegins, republican, woman-hating, fancy talkin….have I left anything out?
Anyways I hope that some people who, let’s say, have lost all perspective, wake up and smell the general election. I’ve actually seen some people say they’d vote for McCain before Barack. There are a few so called “left” blogs that read like a 527 group for the republicans.
OK I’m done ranting……..for now
Thanks Booman.
The drivel coming from those quarters is increasingly pathetic.
Hillary; ready to dissemble from day one!
Maryland has a closed primary — and to change parties to vote in the Democratic primary, you would have had to do it back in December. We had a lot of Greens and Independents who were disappointed to realize that their non-Dem affiliation meant they couldn’t vote for him in the primary.
Obama’s winning margins are so great, I can’t see how crossover votes are that big a factor in his success overall — especially when you factor in his margins in the closed primary states. In the open states, I suspect the vast majority of those non-Democratic voters will vote for him again in November. And he’ll get the overwhelming majority of the Dem vote, even those who didn’t vote for him in the primary.
I was reading some of these “who is selecting the Dem nominee” posts out there this morning, and wondering why they don’t just come out and advocate for closed primaries across the board, if that’s what’s upsetting the people writing these posts. I think it’s the outcome of the primaries they’re angry about, not the mechanics.
And like you said, Obama has won in states with closed primaries as well as in those with open ones, so the argument that Republicans are the ones choosing him (why they would do that, when he polls better against McCain than Hillary, I’ll never know) gets even weaker.
No, no, no–don’t you know there were too many Black voters in the MD primary?? That so doesn’t count.
Seriously, these are the excuses of the unprepared and incompetent. These folks know which states are caucus states and which ones are primaries, and within that, which ones are open and which are closed. They pay people good money to know the rules of the game. To complain about the rules now is a level of stupidity that I just cannot comprehend.
But while our “allies” complain of republicans voting for Obama, they see no problem with Clinton using republican tactics on him. Smear. Innuendo. Placing roadblocks in the way of university students to blunt their participation, but using them to be plants for your campaign. Pitting progressive groups and allies against each other. Mouthing earnest platitudes about working folk but suing to make it harder for them to vote. Oh, and throw in some language about “union bosses” for good measure.
I’ll return to Barack’s win Iowa, where Clinton seem to indicate that increased voter turnout hurt her–IOW, like that’s a bad thing. Perhaps it’s a bad thing for her, but not for people who want to end of seven years of backward, Constitution-shredding excuses for “governance.”
Maybe these folks need to take a step back and really examine what’s happened here which is this: they are just hype. They were never prepared to work hard because they convinced themselves that would not have to work hard. And this is the result.
I want Democrats who are willing to work: to strengthen us in what we do well and to establish the groundwork in areas where we are not as strong. And Obama’s campaign has just plain out-organized, out-maneuvered, out-hustled and out-worked them. Organizing the party and building from the bottom-up was the only way he’d win, and the only way Democrats will win. For all of those too lazy, coddled and spoiled to do the work that’s required, move out the way.
It would appear to be just another ‘last gasp’ argument to derail Obama’s momentum. The Hillary camp just can’t accept the fact that she is not the desired candidate of most Democrats.
It’s the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy again, the usual last recourse of Clinton rhetoric.
Of course, the irony is that the last time Hillary invoked the VRWC, it was mainly Bill’s irresponsible behavior that was destroying his presidency. And this time?
At least it’s just the things Bill has said that drove the final nails into the coffin of the Clinton dynasty.
There actually was a vast right-wing conspiracy. Bill could have helped himself by keeping his fly up, but there was a conspiracy.
If Hillary does win Ohio, there is every reason to believe that it would be because of she benefitted from a crossover vote.
Limbaugh says he’ll fundraise for Hillary
Republicans for Hillary (Real Clear Politics)
Reminder about Ohio–the ballot you ask for is your “registration”, so you can decide on election day to vote as a Democrat.
I have for years voted in the republican primaries. Now that I live in PA, I will be voting for Obama in the Democratic primary if it should get here.
Back when I was in NH, I think I voted for Allen Keys, figuring that he was the most nutty of the lot back then in 2000.
I was the ONLY person I knew to do that sort of thing. I can’t imagine that there are hoards of republicans out there playing games like that.
Agreed. I think most primary voters are more concerned with the internecine factional conflicts within their parties than with what the idiots in the other party are doing. I’d really have liked to see the shambling, zombie horror of a Giuliani campaign lurching into November, but I was a lot more concerned with who the Democratic candidate was going to be.
I think I might cross over and vote strategically if all of the top Dem candidates had been acceptable to me, and I suspect the same might be true for GOP voters. But the fact of the matter is that this year, there are pretty passionate intra-party divisions on both sides, so I can’t see too many people walking away from their own fights to mix it up with the other party.
Okay, I totaled all the primary votes (excluding caucuses) and (a) Hillary does have a slight lead in votes from registered Democrats and (b) so what? We need independent votes to win. Arguing that we should nominate the person who independents clearly don’t prefer is absurd.
Is this a new version of the Stockholm syndrome? I mean we challenge Congress to get a spine, what’s up with this micromanagement worries over the Rep’s that are doing such a heckuvajob that they can’t even secure a frontrunner.
Mitt back in the race. Hell, why not?
While folks are upchucking over the crossover votes the Rep Swiftboaters Assn is busy writing transcrips to create “Obama, the Alien who Snacks Between Meals”
As I’ve said before, I think these kind of “electability” arguments are absurd, BUT I also think in this case you are misunderstanding the point. The concern about whether independents and Republicans WILL show up in the general election is based in the historic record and in the fact that Obama supporters are counting on them to show up for victory in November. Stronger than usual independent and Republican support is the Obama “electability” argument. Any Democrat who wants to see a Democrat in the White House should ask themselves if it is also a good “electability” strategy.
This claim is often repeated by his supporters and made by his campaign; he can attract Independent and moderate Republican men that Hillary can’t. Supporters point to this demographic’s greater turnout for him in the primaries or polling as proof of this point.
But the historic reality is that these Independent male voters very, very, rarely swing to the Democratic side in the general election — even when they come out to vote for a Democratic candidate in much higher than usual numbers in the primaries. (Examples; Dukakis and McGovern). They are the least dependable voters — not partisanly committed to either party and therefore apt to change their minds over the course of the general election campaign depending upon developments in the campaign or current events. They are cynical about politics and politicians to begin with, and are among those most ready to believe, and be swayed by, negative attacks like the “swiftboat” attacks aimed at Kerry in 2004. Also, they tend to be more libertarian or conservative than mainstream Democrats on issues like taxes, gun rights, regulation of business, the environment, immigration, welfare, issues of gender equity and other social issues,etc. This fact provides a lot of opportunities for the Republican candidate to pry this voting bloc away from the Democrats with strong appeals based in some of these issues. (Like Bush I used “law and order” issues to bring independents back to the Republicans in ’88).
Now, the above is not an argument that independent, white men will NOT vote for Obama. It is merely a dose of reality — a reminder that these are voters who change their mind. Right now they are excited about Obama and happy to vote against Hillary. But once there is no Clinton on the ballot to defeat, and the Republican campaign — both its negative attacks against Obama and Democratic policies and its positive campaign for its candidate — has done its job, will they still find Obama as compelling?
Personally, I think the Democrats — Kerry, and now Obama especially — keep persisting in the same mistake; trying to win by attracting more Republican-leaning men. (Kerry’s argument, for instance, for electability was that his military record would allow him to appeal to these men). So far, they haven’t had much success with this strategy.
Perhaps what they should be doing is trying to expand the party by bringing back into the process the disaffected voters, men and women, who agree with their stated core values but no longer believe that the party really represents those values, and, the young working class voters who do not vote because they do not believe either party represents them and their interests.
The above is not an argument for Clinton. It is an argument for a better (than we’ve seen in recent Democratic presidential campaigns) general election strategy for the most likely nominee — Obama.
and guess who’s showing up at obama rallies and caucuses? the very groups that you consider required for a successful strategy:
whether that momentum can be continued through the GE cycle remains to be seen, but it’s the first time l’ve seen it since the late 60’s and 70’s, and it’s a damn good start in my estimation.