« John McCain on the Mortgage Crisis. Strongly Opposes Bailouts Except When They Are Needed | Main | Hillary Clinton's Credibility Gap in Northern Ireland »

Three in Ten Clintonites Will Vote for McCain Rather than Obama

Or so the survey says. I believe Reverend Wright used the term "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" to describe this kind of cause and effect.

Obama-Clinton switchers-thumb.gif
A lot of Democrats are so wed to their choice for president that they'd sooner switch parties than fight for their candidate's rival, according to a new Gallup Poll today - which you first read about here in the Swamp courtesy of Gallup's Frank Newport yesterday.

Twenty-eight percent of the Democrats backing Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York tell Gallup's pollsters that they would vote for Republican Sen. John McCain over Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. And 19 percent of Obama's backers say they would vote for McCain before voting for Clinton.

This is a die-hard bunch of Clintonites, many of these Democrats. McCain would welcome them -- and the Obama backers too.

There's no question that Obama has polarized and divided the Democratic Party, and the Obama blame police will be pointing to everything but the truth -- the simple truth being that Obama cannot deliver on his promise of healing the divide in this nation and around the world, in fact -- he's making the divide within the Democratic Party much worse every day.

But there's hope...

Of course, that's what they say now - in the heat of a Democratic campaign that has only increased in intensity as the two, Obama and Clinton, have entered a virtual deadlock which may only be broken by the intervention of the party's "super-delegates. This is what voters were telling Gallup's pollsters in days of daily tracking polls compiled between March 7 and March 22 - with responses drawn from a pretty big sample over that time.

Come November, with Democrats motivated to reclaim the White House and Democrats turning out in record numbers in this year's primaries, the numbers may tell a different story.

Just not much hope in my view. When Obama attacked Clinton over Geraldine Ferraro's remarks a lot of liberals saw Obama for exactly what he is.

Ferraro stated a simple fact and was labeled a racist and vilified in the public square. She was attacked on the basis of her race, and Obama explained away her remarks as just something white folks do... you know, especially those older white folks.

Obama's no different from any other politician, just a hell of a lot less experienced. If he gains the nomination he'll lose in the general election to McCain. It's as simple as that.

Related:


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.4/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.4/5 (10 votes cast)


Comments (6)

Steve Crickmore:

Lee, you are aware that this isn't an isolated remark of Ferraro's. She said almost exactly same thing about the last major black candidate in a Presidential race as well in 1988..

"If Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race".

So in another 20 years time, if we have another black or mixed race candidate in a presidential race you will probably defend the same remarks of Ferrarro "the only reason...or he or she is lucky to be"..etc. Don't you understand how patronizing or condescending that is, plus I haven't exactly seen an overwhelming presence of blacks in the Senate, House or the Oval Office in the 200 plus years of the US history. Currently, there isn't even one black Republican congressman or congresswoman or senator.

Lee Ward:

"So in another 20 years time, if we have another black or mixed race candidate in a presidential race you will probably defend the same remarks of Ferrarro "the only reason..."

Yes, I will defend her remarks twenty years from now -- if they are the truth, as they were this time.

She spoke the truth here. That's gotta count for something - or tell me I'm wrong, and that Obama wouldn't be the front runner if he was white, had the same level of experience, had the same ties to Tony Rezko, and had ties and twenty year history with a white bigoted preacher... if all of those were true would blacks support him to the tune of 75%-90%?

There is no question that Obama is where he is today because he's black, and the fact that he still hasn't addressed that reality, and decided instead to shoot down Ferraro - a fellow Democrat who happened to observe the obvious - is telling. It shows the extent to which Barack Obama is full of crap - he has no intention or desire to unite this country, the man purely wants to get elected.

Look at how Obama screwed the hundreds of thousands of Democrats in Florida and Michigan by fighting tooth and nail to stop the proposed primary do-overs! Too many old white folks in Florida I guess - Barack thinks old white folks are just racists at their core, like his Granny and like Ferraro, so they must not be worth his support.

And in Michigan there are a lot of blue-collar Clinton supporters. To hell with them, they shouldn't have a say in the nominating process, according to Obama.

I expect the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters - including most of those now threatening to vote for McCain - will coalesce behind their nominee when the convention is over.

The differences will be seen more in the independent voters who lean to Obama or Clinton, and the legendary "swing voters," who, we are told, are repulsed by negative campaigning, and the level of enthusiasm of volunteers. The organizations built by Obama and Clinton just won't transfer over to the other candidate seamlessly. The longer and more contentious the fight, the more pronounced the estrangement.

Steve Crickmore:

US census 2006 White alone (including people of Middle Eastern background): 73.9% or 221.3 million
Black or African American alone: 12.4% or 37.1 million
Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
American Indian or Alaska Native alone: 0.8% or 2.4 million
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
Some other race alone: 6.3% or 19.0 million
Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million[13]
Each of the above categories includes people who identify their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.[14] U.S. federal law defines Hispanic or Latino as any person with ancestry from a Spanish-speaking Latin American country or Spain, regardless of race.[15]

Hispanic or Latino of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million.[16]
White Hispanic - 23,154,516
Black Hispanic - 616,953
American Indian and Alaska Native - 333,880
Asian Hispanic - 154,694
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander - 38,964
Some other race - 18,238,347
Two or more races - 1,714,924

So being considered part of only 12.4 % of the general population, black the least voting part of the population, (I understand they represent more Democrats) makes him very lucky...

Ferraro: "If Obama was(sic) a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Have you noticed that at least two thirds of Hispanics who have a higher and growing percentage of the population in California and the nation are voting for Clinton? Lee, has it occurred to you that more people are voting against Obama because of his 'very lucky' skin color than for him? Or then does this become an argument that we should now nominate Clinton. A few months earlier as I recall you said that Clinton had the right demographics to win the nomination and now you support Ferraro's statement.

blockquote>In some February 5 states, the overall percentage of white (or Latino) primary voters who voted for white candidates partly because of race was pretty high. It was 9.5 percent, for instance, in New Jersey. In the general election, that percentage is likely to double; and some of these additional voters will be white working class or Latino voters that a Democratic candidate needs to win. In Wisconsin, the number was very low--only 6 percent. But in Ohio, a crucial swing state, it was 11.4 percent. That's a real danger sign for Obama in a state where elections can be decided by one or two percentage points.

So let's say for sake of argument, only 10% of the voters at the Democrat exit polls admit race was important..since Blacks make up 12.4% of the population, obviously Democrats the percentage of Blacks would have to to be like 85-90% to be equivalent to whites, Hispanic, Asian..As it is if memory serves me correctly, blacks are saying depending on the state that something like 20% (Louisania it was 10%, Mississsippi much more 30% for all races, but to round it off, let's say 20%) say it is important...So overall 'on the swings and roundabouts' on the stated question of voters preference for race as important or unimportant, Hillary seems the person that it very very lucky to be the person she is- a white woman (about 10% say sex is important and since 58% of the voters are women). Now if an Obama surrogate said that Hillary is doing as well as she is because she is a "very lucky to be a white woman" would you defend the surrogate, or say it wasn't true?


Lee Ward:

If Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be in the position he's in now. A man with his relative inexperience never would have made it as far as he has were it not for the support and backing of the African-American Democrats - many of whom support Obama as much as they do because of his race.

"Now if an Obama surrogate said that Hillary is doing as well as she is because she is a "very lucky to be a white woman" would you defend the surrogate, or say it wasn't true?"

Of course Clinton has picked up some votes from Democrats who won't vote for an African-American, just as she's picked up some votes because she's a woman, and Obama has picked up some votes because he's not a woman.

All truths.

They don't change the truth that Obama wouldn't be in the position he's in now if he wasn't black.

So why can't Obama cop to that truth? And why is he using racist attacks against Ferraro instead, dividing Americans further?

Ferraro wasn't attacking him. She stated an obvious fact.

This is the guy who's going to "fix" the divides in the US? Not a chance.

McCain also benefits from a myth among many Democrats and independents that he is something of a "liberal" or a "maverick" within his party. In reality, the extent of McCain's bipartisanship is probably no greater than that of any other Republican in the Senate. Further, one conservative organization even gave McCain a rating as the second most conservative voting record in the Senate. Further, McCain is a virtual rubberstamp for most of the Bush Administration policies included the failed war in Iraq, which is now worsening again as terrorism is worsening and secular Shiite fighters associated with radical cleric al-Sadr are in open combat with American and Iraqi government troops.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.