Sabato’s Crystal Ball: THE REAL THREAT TO MCCAIN?
Guest columnist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University steps up to the Crystal Ball to say that “Disgruntled GOP moderates could impact party unity“
Both Virginia and Wisconsin are likely to be battleground states in the November election. The fact that one seventh of Republican voters in Virginia and one fourth of Republican voters in Wisconsin chose to participate in the Democratic primary should be a clear warning signal to the McCain campaign, especially if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee. According to the exit polls, 72 percent of Republicans who voted in these Democratic primaries cast their ballots for Obama. Obama’s ability to lure large numbers Republican crossover voters in these Democratic primaries indicates that there could be a high rate of defection to Obama among moderate-to-liberal Republicans in the November election, especially if John McCain continues to focus on shoring up his support among GOP conservatives.
11 Responses to “Sabato’s Crystal Ball: THE REAL THREAT TO MCCAIN?”
[...] ONE wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSabato’s Crystal Ball: THE REAL THREAT TO MCCAIN? March 6th, 2008 by HOLLY IN CINCINNATI Guest columnist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University steps up to the Crystal Ball to say that “Disgruntled GOP moderates could impact party unity“ Both Virginia and Wisconsin are likely to be battleground states in the November election. The fact that one seventh of Republican voters in Virginia and one fourth of Republican voters in Wisconsin chose to participate in the Democratic primary should be a [...]
That the Republicans are going to have to spend limited resources in Virginia indicates that McCain is going to lose in a rout of Bob Dole proportions. McCain is just not fit to be president and the incompetence of the Bush Administration has destroyed the prospect for the Republicans.
Sabato's column is CW rubbish.
The “rout of Bob Dole proportions” was due to Dole's lack of strength amid the base. He was a Washingtonian GOP moderate. Look at how chummy he was with Clinton, after all.
When Reagan relied on this base…he was sneered at. When Bush relied on this base…he was sneered at.
Folks here might not like it that George Bush is president…but he won in 2000, and (without any question) in 2004. A powerful lesson there.
McCain is following basic political wisdom: You lock down your base early, then move to the centre later.
Wow, professor, 72%! OK, now how many actual votes did that tally come to? OK, how many of those were sincere crossovers and how many were mischief makers? Now how many of the sincere are there because they wish to pull the troops out of Iraq? Now how many of those think that Obama's new 16 month drawdown plan will vastly outstrip the natural expiry of deployment periods? OK, those folks should reregister as a Democrat.
When Reagan won with the blue collar vote in Macomb County it was with sincere voters. Now any Obama Republicans can't be sincere. Maybe they've had it with the W direction, sorta of like the Carter malaise.
CasualObserver said: “OK, how many of those were sincere crossovers and how many were mischief makers?”
Excellent point. I saw Rush Limbaugh claiming credit for Clinton's win last night.
I have read of GOPers supporting both Obama and Clinton — though these claims may be mischief as well.
As for the reliability of Exit Polls: We have only to ask President Kerry about that.
I would love for any Obama leaning Republican to explain how voting for Obama advances any conservative idea. I doubt if they can do it.
The Reagan Democratics were naturally right of center moderates who did not like busing, high crime, high unemployment, and not having their taxes index to inflation.
sd:
The Obama-leaning conservatives I know say that they're attracted to the Illinois senator because the GOP appears intent on continuing the RINO policies of the Bush Administration: Wilsonian interventionism and Johnsonian guns-and-butter deficit-spending. They recognize that Obama is a liberal, but they feel that electing an overt big government president is preferable to supporting Republican candidates, like George W. Bush, who talk like conservatives, but are also big government advocates.
Are they right? Who knows? But that's what they tell me.
Andrew Sullivan is right, I think, in saying that currently, Americans are choosing between one big government party that wants to engage in deficit spending on the one hand, and a bigger government party that wants to engage in even bigger deficit spending. The former, the Republicans, appear to be less honest about their intentions right now than the latter, the Democrats.
Mark
As a moderate Republican I am supporting Obama because he is the first candidate since Reagan to truly understand the power of optimism. Reagan didn't simply scare people in 1980 (and during the cold war, 1980 wasn't the most secure of times) he talked about possibilities, about tomorrow actually being better not worse. He wasn't running because he was entitled, he ran because he had a vision.
Is Obama's reasoning different? Of course it is but their underlying messages have some similiarities, the same old solutions that the movement in power has been preaching for some 30 years aren't working, just as government wasn't the answer to everything in the 70's and 80's, the market isn't going to fix everything now. Is this conservative by today's standards? No of course not, but it is a point they have in common. Plus both Reagan and Obama empathize a almost “do it yourself” ethos. Reagan said don't wait for government to solve your problems find ways outside of government. Obama says that the government isn't going to do anything unless you take it upon yourself to fix government by getting involved in the political process. I think Reagan would look at a campaign built on a million people each contributing $20.00 with some approval.
Senator Obama may be saying many things but he is definitely not a do it yourself guy. His policy positions are standard Democratic boiler plate. Give the teachers unions, the trial lawyers, and the socialist NGO's whatever they want. He has proposed a government take over of health care, manufacturing, and energy (single payer healthcare and federal energy/environmental planning). He also proposes free health care for everyone, free college, free daycare, and government jobs to people.
SD, all you say is true, and there are many people who, amazingly, despite decades of experience that should teach them to know better, have not learned. They want that. But there's more. He's a new, young, attractive face and the naive among his groupies (the starry-eyed dupe contingent) simply believe it's all new. (Or they know it isn't new, but they think they have a “right” to whatever they want and Obama is not only about “hope” and “change,” but also about “MORE.”)
The problem is that McCain personifies what Mark was describing about our GOP in DC, that they are often Dems Lite and Dems Dishonest (borrowing rather than taxing to pay for all the spending).
While it's the Left that harbors so much childishness and is a receptacle for other faults, it's human nature to postpone the pleasant but to reject deferral of gratification. At least one time I heard one conservative radio hostess say what I felt was grown-up (and I liked it because it is a view I share and because I think often of this issue of maturity and deferring gratification but facing the negative up front). About the prospect of a President Hillary Clinton, I believe this was before the 2004 elections (at which time I had said, as in 2000, she ought to have run to at least gotten nation-wide exposure, something working very well in Obama's case even if Obama loses this year), this hostess said what I felt was the right thing to say regarding the attitude of those of us who are not Clinton fans.
“Come on. Let's get it overwith.”
I believe we're going to get a Dem and I'm prepared to face it if (when) we get it.