There it is.
So it's not a cult of personality? Clear evidence that a significant percentage of Obama's supporters have no allegiance to the Democratic platform. They are not progressives. They will vote for the GOP rather than HRC. McCain would advance Democratic principles better than HRC? Right.
The question then arises, to whom does Obama owe allegiance? Do you dance with those that brought you?
Another question... if Obama gets beat up by the GOP, will these disenchanted supporters go home to roost with the GOP? McCain wins!
The question then arises, to whom does Obama owe allegiance? Do you dance with those that brought you?
Another question... if Obama gets beat up by the GOP, will these disenchanted supporters go home to roost with the GOP? McCain wins!
Advertisement
Wow, it's worse than I feared...
February 20, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on your "analysis."
The article states Democratic voters would "not be satisfied" with Clinton.
Is that the same as "Clear evidence that a significant percentage of Obama's supporters have no allegiance to the Democratic platform."
Quite a leap you took...
February 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not a leap at all.
The sentiment that "I will vote for McCain rather than Hillary" is clear as can be.
February 20, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's clearly a leap.
Where in the blog post on CNN you cited does it ask voters if by "not satisfied" that means they will vote for McCain, as you're implying? Where does it say that they'd be more "satisfied" with a Republican?
It doesn't.
If you look at other polls, one cited by Greg S over at TPM, for example, they've showed Dems equally happy with either choice, something like around 75% for each candidate.
So, the first leap you took was drawing broad conclusions from a single poll -- and not even from the poll data, just CNN's pithy blog post interpretation of it.
The second leap you took is attributing voting choices -- and Democrats voting Republican at that -- to some vague notion of "not satisfied."
If Clinton becomes the nominee, I will not be "satisfied." I wanted Edwards.
But I will still vote for her.
February 20, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. The article itself does not.
I referenced the whole page.
Read further.
The sentiments are clearly expressed in the comments section. Look at the percent of writers who will not vote for HRC. See also the comments and blogs here and at other sites.
I'm not saying that it's most Obama supporters. But it is a significant.
February 20, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
cscs,
It's not really that much of a leap. Hillary's supporters seem to think that Hillary Clinton IS the Democratic Party. And if you think this is bad, you should check out PMJ6's latest post. There is a silver lining though: If you like red, white & blue bunting, I hear there's gonna be a huge sale on March 5th...
February 20, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
While many are enthusiastic by the hope Obama offers, just as many are enthusiastic to have a candidate who can defeat both Hitlary and McCain. A giant part of the "cult of personality" you speak of is the distrust and polarization that comes with HRC. Average people aren't as concerned with Red state, Blue State politics as party loyalists on either side of the aisle are. Average people want to see an entirely new direction for America, and an establishment, corporate sponsored, divisive candidate like Clinton is an immediate turn off.
February 20, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your sentiments. This does nothing to refute my argument. Simply look at the comments following the cited article or many of the blogs here or at other sites and you will see a significant number of Obama supporters who say that will switch to McCain.
February 20, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
or many of the blogs here or at other sites and you will see a significant number of Obama supporters
You certainly didn't major in the social sciences, did you?
"Significant"?
Seriously, what you're talking about here is simply anecdotal evidence, based on an extremely small subset of people. Most people aren't political dorks like you and me, sitting here typing into a blog arguing about politics.
I'm not saying anecdotal evidence isn't worthwhile -- it often can be. But it's important not to read too much into it.
And, as I said in the other comment, when there are other polls (more scientific than you're "look what some bloggers said in the comments...") show a completely different interpretation of your line of thinking, you need to at least be open to the possibility that your take might be somewhat off.
February 20, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to read the first 10 or 15 comments in most linked articles about this election, if for no other reason than to see the madrassa smears and the "We cannot elect a President called Barack HUSSEIN Obama" morons. I've seen just as many of Senator Clinton's supporters say they will vote for McCain if she loses in the primary as I've seen Obama supporters making the same claim. I don't believe any of it. I don't allow myself to be swayed by any of it.
Ultimately, when people step into a precinct or a caucus to choose who they want as the next POTUS, there are going to be some who won't vote for Obama because he has brown skin, there are going to be some who won't vote for Hillary because she does not have a penis, etc. etc. I still believe that this country is better than that. I know we deserve more than that. And I don't think anyone who reads all the way through an article and into the comments section is going to be so weak-minded as to be swayed by an anonymous avatar...
February 20, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink