One good thing about a prolonged primary fight

March 26, 2008

At this point, finding the good side of the Democrats’ prolonged nomination fight is awfully difficult. I imagine voters in Oregon and Kentucky, for example, are pleased that their votes will be sought after in late May, so for them this is marginally good news, but for the party overall, this has grown tiresome, frustrating, and grueling. One assumes the candidates and their staffs feel largely the same way.

But — and you had to know a “but” was coming — the WaPo’s Dan Balz did manage to stumble upon a possible silver lining.

Figures released by Pennsylvania’s Department of State on Monday night showed that Democrats have topped 4 million registered voters, the first time either party in the state has crossed that threshold. Democrats have added 161,000 to their rolls, a gain of about 4 percent; Republican registration has dipped about 1 percent, to 3.2 million.

That is consistent with the pattern since the beginning of the year: Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses has topped Republican turnout, often by huge differences.

In Ohio, 2.2 million voters participated in the Democratic primary, compared with 1.1 million in the Republican primary. In Texas, 2.9 million voters turned out for the Democratic primary and 1.4 million for the GOP primary. Even in Florida, where the Republican primary was one of the most hotly contested of the year and the Democratic primary featured no active campaigning by the candidates, GOP turnout was only marginally higher: 1.9 million vs. 1.7 million.

These turnout figures match what pollsters have found as they have surveyed the electorate throughout the year: The gap between Democratic and Republican identification has grown dramatically.

That’s a reasonably good point. When people are engaged in the Dems’ race, and they’re excited about the candidates and the competition, they participate in Democratic primaries and caucuses, and in states like Pennsylvania, register as Dems in large numbers. Sure, some of these may be Limbaugh Republicans with mischievous intentions, but the vast majority are likely motivated voters.

This is encouraging for the party, of course, in large part because this should help Dems in November. The emphasis, however, is on the “should.”

If there are all of these excited Democrats anxious to get the country moving in a new direction, and then a fifth of them decide to vote Republican as the result of an ugly primary fight, the advantage doesn’t mean much.

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. […]

Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee — and Obama is — they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee — and Clinton is.

A few angles to consider here. First, it’s still early. The Clinton and Obama agendas are pretty similar, and when Democratic voters are confronted with the prospects of a third Bush term with McCain, I suspect these numbers will drop dramatically. They better.

Second, it’s not especially important, but I was a little surprised that 28% of self-identified Clinton backers prefer the conservative Republican candidate to Obama. Up until now, the conventional wisdom at least hinted that Obama’s backers are more interested in him than the party. It’s a movement, the argument goes, built around some kind of cult of personality. Except, if Gallup’s results are right, this isn’t the case at all, and the bigger problem is Clinton supporters putting their opposition to Obama ahead of their support for the party (and the country’s future).

And third, in a close race, even a small number of Democratic defectors could ruin the Dems’ chances on Election Day. No one seriously believes the number will stay at or around 20% over the next nine months, but even if it drops to 4% or 5%, that’s a gift to the GOP that will almost certainly ensure a McCain victory.

Which leads us back to where we started: end the nomination fight sooner, not later.

I’m not surprised that fewer Obama supporters defect than Clinton supporters – its easier to be magnanimous when you’re winning. I don’t consider the gap between them all that large; the bigger issue is that either number – 20% or almost 30% – is way too big. In a close race, even a fraction of those numbers matters – and a poll I saw over the weekend (sorry, can’t recall which) showed Nader at 6%. So if 6% of liberal voters go Nader and another 6% go McCain out of spite, and a few % stay home out of spite. . . we’re pretty well screwed.

  • Gee, who’d a thought democracy would have an upside? As I don’t support either (or support both) candidate(s), I’m all for letting the process run its full course so everyone can have their say. Democracy should be skewed towards the desires of the people, not the convenience of the candidates.

  • I’m pretty sure that a lot of those “Clinton supporters” who would “switch to McCain” are just Republicans doing what they love to do, namely screw with the Democrats. And a lot more of them are Hillary’s people trying to form the human version of a poison pill, but they won’t vote for McCain because they’re not totally stupid. They’re playing the pollsters because they know that their candidate is dead meat as soon as any decent number of superdelegates decide to risk the Clinton backlash and put their votes onto the side which won the primaries in their respective regions. But with Tonya Harding guarding the door, that is apparently a tough decision. Ask Bill “Judas” Richardson how it feels to tell the Clintons that you’re going to do the right thing.

  • Given the emulation of right wing behavior and snuggling up to right wing media and enables indulged in by the Clinton camp in the past week, I’ve been thinking about one similarity I find between the Clinton campaign and the behavior of some of my right wing acqaintances. One thing that stands out is that most of the wingers I know tend to justify their less than benevolent behaviors by arguing that the other side does it too. In fact they seem to be projecting their own negatives onto their opponents mostly to give themselves permission to indulge those negatives.

    Similarly, most of the Clintonistas who barrage us with arguments about how bad Barack is tend to accuse him of stuff (usually not very specific) that mirrors what they themselves are doing. So Ms. Clinton decides she has to ‘throw the kitchen sink,’ and her backers basically justify it by implying that he did it first.

    What impact this will have on how newly-energized primary voters carry their enthusiasm into November – time will tell.

  • Contrary to the old saw, I’ve seen many clouds without silver linings. This year, I enjoyed voting in a primary that mattered for the first time in a long time and understand how those in remaining states might also feel that way, but theirs (and mine) is an argument for revamping the primary season — not for dragging this process out to the point that it damages the Democratic candidate in the fall. The downsides, to me, of extending this another minute far outweigh any mythical silver lining.

  • Mark, @1

    Yes, it may be easier to be magnanimous when you’re winning — I remember Clinton supporters were quite happy to vote for either when it looked like Obama had no chance. But here’s the other side of the coin: since he’s winning — by however small margin — the assumption is that the only way Clinton can get the nomination is via some dirty trick (most likely Tonya Harding tactics). So, us Obama supporters are looking at having to vote not just for someone not of our choice, but for someone whose moral character we question. And there’s, still, more of us willing to swallow our bile and vote for her. You don’t find it at least “interesting”?

    And I also wonder how many of those in the 19% of Obama supporters who’d rather vote for McCain than Clinton are the “raw repub recruits”.They crossed over for Obama, not for the Dem party. They like Obama, they don’t care for Clinton. And, because of that crossover, they may have lost some friends in their immediate environment (family, club, town, etc), which is still making them somewhat unhappy. So, if it’s not going to be Obama, why stay with the Dems? Why not recant and go back to the old, comfortable-because-known, pattern of voting for the Repub? Why vote for an “almost Repub” (at the moment at least, she looks like one, with her low and dirty tactics), when you can vote for the genuine article?

  • Racer X said: Hillary’s people trying to form the human version of a poison pill

    Hey that’s a good analogy. To those Dems who vote for McCain, I’ll just say what I think Atrios said, “It’s not about you.” Not a single one of them count. All of them do, but not one in particular.

    This is sort of like a fight with your lover. As fierce as it gets, you know you’ll want to be snuggling later.

  • I think that most of the people who say they will vote for McCain if their candidate isn’t nominated are just caught up in the emotion of the moment. Most of them will come to their senses. A few will not, however, and that could be a problem. I think the Nader number are way overblown. Seriously, Nader is not going to do well this time around.

  • We should all be reminding every Dem supporter we know that the next POTUS will likely nominate 2 justices to the SCOTUS.

  • the silver happens to be mercury.

    on many levels i don’t see much difference between mccain and clinton. under other not so far fetched circumstances i could envision a clinton/mccain ticket (or vice versa).

    high turnouts from passionate feelings have a high likelihood of being overcooked and turning to disenfranchisement for the losing half, especially if that half feels like they got shafted. they may well just sit at home come november, and let the bases fight it out.

  • From what I’ve read, the PA primary is drawing large numbers of Republicans re-registering as Dems. Assuming that they haven’t all seen the light and been reborn, they’re there to vote for Hillary and drag this sucker out.

  • I want to see the state-by-state demographics of this “Unless it’s my Democratic candidate, I’ll vote for McCain” phenomenon. I’m guess the percentage of Hillary supporters planning to defect is greater in states like MO, AR, and FL, for obvious reasons.

    I’d also like to see how they identify (do they consider themselves moderate, liberal, Kucinich wannabes, etc).

  • Actually, Steve, there is one thing you may have missed; the poll was conducted amongst Democrats only, and did not take into account those non Democrats who voted in open primaries which does make up an appreciable amount of Obama’s support.

    And, as I pointed out in my own analysis, while an appreciable amount of party Democrats will likely recover from the high emotions of this campaign, these independents and in some states, Republicans do not have party unity to drive them to vote for whomever is on the ticket.

  • Ancedotal evidence, admittedly, but I know several republicans who, like me, changed parties to vote for Obama in the PA primary and plan to vote for him in the GE. And I know other repubs who, unlike me, supported Bush but are leaning towards Obama over McCain. There are repubs out there who 1) are finally seeing the light and getting informed (beyond sound bites and Rush), 2) are sick of the war and 3) are sick of the BS. And Obama is coming across as the candidate spouting the least amount of BS, the candidate remaining cool under fire (needed to repair international relations) and the candidate with a lot less baggage. So Obama may surprise in PA (I hope!).

  • The longer this goes on,the more people will become entrenched. Say it now and say it loud, ‘No matter who the candidate is, I will not only vote for but will work for that person.’ Let’s keep a little perspective.

  • Up until the last couple of weeks, I would’ve voted for either without much having to hold my nose. Not so much anymore. If is really comes down to it, I guess I’d vote for Clinton, but i really wouldn’t want to. I no longer think she’s fit to lead us, though I still think John McCain is batshit crazy.

  • I live in Massachusetts, so I don’t have to vote for Ms. Clinton on the slim chance that she’s on the November ballot. I will vote for Democrats down ticket of course, and would volunteer if it were necessary – I don’t even know if my U.S. Rep, Michael Capuano, has any Publican opposition. But I will not provide any energy – financial or otherwise – to DLC thugs. My support goes to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

  • Even if Hillary wins the nomination i’d never vote for McCain, i’d just stay home, but voting for the GOP shows the ignorance on the side of the clinton backers

  • We should all be reminding every Dem supporter we know that the next POTUS will likely nominate 2 justices to the SCOTUS.

    Agreed.

    We’ll never get another chance to vote against George W. Bush, but we can vote to cockblock his representatives on the Court for the next few decades.

  • Alot of Clinton’s supporters are highly emotional right now. I would be if I was supporting her.
    The agony of defeat. It’s hard to deal with and this is why they are so enraged on the blogs. The need to vent.
    And this is why they are swearing they will never support Obama. He did beat her afterall for the nomination.
    The sooner the party sees that prolonging this is not just a farce but, seriously damaging the party and building false hopes and big let downs over and over in HRCs supporters, the worse things will be.
    A quick and clean cut is always better.

  • TR, @20

    Even a month ago, I would have agreed with you. But no longer. At this point, no amount of nose holding would make me vote for Ms Hillary Harding Clinton, much less support her with either energy or money, as Michael-of-many-numbers suggests @16. For one thing, I’m not a Dem; I’m an Independent (mostly because the Dems are too thin beer for me). But also because I think we do have one last barricade against the McCain’s SCOTUS nominations: push for a filibuster-proof Senate, to block them. And to *that* end, I’m willing to quit smoking and forgo my trip to Poland 🙂

  • I was a little surprised that 28% of self-identified Clinton backers prefer the conservative Republican candidate to Obama.

    As we see here daily with the likes of Mary, Greg, Comeback Bill, Manny from Miami, and the rest, Clinton supporters aren’t Democrats – they’re Clinton suipporters, and as i said to a Clintonista today, Hillary isn’t a Democrat, she’s a Clinton. So of course they’ll vote for the Real Thing when they can’t vote for their mirage.

  • The silver lining I haven’t seen anyone catch yet is that right-wing 527 outfits like Freedom Watch (with its quarter of a billion dollars of negative campaign funds) are hesitating. They don’t know who to unleash on. The longer this goes on, the less time they have to gin up a debilitating narrative of ignominy on the Democratic front-runner. If they have to wait until August, that leaves a mere 2 months to attempt Swift-Roating Redux 2008 instead of the 7 they would have if it were decided now.

  • I haven’t seen any REASONS offered by Hil supporters for dropping Obama.

    I list her Iran war vote, NAFTA indifference, lack of RELEVANT experience that isn’t trumped twenty times over by McCain, her selling out to unknown, unnamed heavy donors, her attempts to undermine the primary process by wooing pledged delegates, her tacit endorsement of McCain’s presidency over Obama, and intending to win only with the help of party insiders who owe her favors.

    I have LOTS of reasons to abandon the ticket this year if she wins.

    What are the reasons Hilary supporters have not to punch Obama’s ticket?
    Wright’s rants? That he was unfortunate enough to have been born MALE? What?

    • Comments are closed.