An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Gallup: nearly 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters may vote for McCain over Obama

From Gallup, re: Obama v. McCain:

As would be expected, almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party’s nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election matchup against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the “other” party’s candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Re: Clinton v. McCain:

Here again, as expected, almost all of those who support Clinton for the Democratic Party’s nomination say they would vote for her against McCain. Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party’s nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

The implications, according to Gallup:

The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November’s election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.

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.

It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee — and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.

Additionally, some threat of deserting the party always takes place as party nomination battles are waged, and this threat can dissipate. For example, in answer to a recent Gallup question, 11% of Republicans said they would vote for the Democratic candidate or a third-party candidate next fall if McCain does not choose a vice president who is considerably more conservative than he is. (And another 9% said they just wouldn’t vote.) These results suggest that it may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process — perhaps out of frustration — that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking. And it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup’s historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party’s presidential candidate.

Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party’s nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.

The only thing that continues to come as a surprise, unless there are activities going on about which we know nothing, is that nothing obvious is being done by people – from all factions and players, not just Clinton, not just Obama or Dean or Mark Penn or David Axelrod – who are in a position to prevent the “suffer some damage” from happening.

Funny how in the attempt to give a voice to voters and citizens who feel that no one listens this scenario with the Democratic nomination process is giving rise to feeling as though no one is listening.

Graphs and more here.

Hattip to Holly in Cincinnati.

  • GeorgeSorwell
    I would gladly vote for either Clinton or Obama over McCain.

    But I have to ask, don't more Clinton supporters feel this way because the Clinton campaign is being more explicitly divisive?
  • You know - George - I am going to say no to your question. I really feel strongly that that is spin. As someone pointed out, it takes two to be divisive. You can't just divide people on your own - there has to be someone to split over. For example, I've felt torn but I don't think it's because anyone has campaigned divisively. If anything, it's because the campaigns have both shown why they'd be the better choice, and me learning or seeing reasons why they wouldn't be.

    I really feel the push about the campaigns "belnd divisive" all the time is an outgrowth of sound bites. People who run for office are running against not with someone. It's oppositional by nature. Sure, not all candidates run as negatively or as obviously against the other, but still - I'm big on us being responsible for our own beliefs. And I don't believe in this particular take - about the divisiveness.

    IMO, only.
  • You can't just divide people on your own - there has to be someone to split over.


    I'm going to have to take exception to this generalization. I think you'll find that history is replete with counter-examples.

    Take one from recent history. In the periods before the 2004 and 2006 elections, the Republican party made a concerted effort to paint war opposition as unpatriotic. If you believed them, you'd be more inclined to have strong negative emotions toward the "cut and runners." If you were part of the war opposition or unsympathetic to Republican agitprop, you would very likely be more than a little ticked off that the "stay the course'ers" would accuse such a large part of the population of being anti-American.

    Voila, more divisiveness thanks to the actions of *one* side.
  • Oh - yes - I understand that re: one-side working against another side. But what I'm saying is that people have the ability to choose to say, hey wait a minute - they are both Democrats - this is crazy.

    Likewise, people say, in your example - we're all Americans with different views about when to use military force, whether we were in peril and sovereign nations. I do think we have to have some backbone to say it's not the way one side portrays it. But that doesn't mean that the side trying to draw distinctions must be kowtowed to. Does that make any sense (it's okay if it doesn't - I'm at the time of day when my ability to really be logical is quickly declining - I apologize).
  • I think I get it :-) And I agree, it would be nice if we could all shut out these emotional appeals and think rationally about politics.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    And I don't believe in this particular take - about the divisiveness.


    Again, I would be happy to vote for Hillary Clinton. But there are a number of examples of Clinton going very far against Obama.

    There's the infamous 3am commercial.

    There's the claim that she and McCain, but not Obama, are qualified.

    I guess I'll stop there. As for the claim that "it takes two to be divisive", I'd only agree that it takes two to disagree. Divisiveness is a whole different quality.

    Clinton is going very far.
  • I feel strongly that we have to want to be divided - there has to be something to exploit in order for it to work. Why voters are such an easy target would be an interesting question to explore. Right now, I think it's because we are so frustrated with treading war - in economics, in Iraq, in education. Circumstances make it very easy right now.
  • Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party’s nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

    Which is why I have been saying all along that the Obama supporters are deceiving themselves into believing that Obama has a better chance then Clinton against McCain. More Clinton supporters will vote for McCain then Obama while more Obama supporters will vote for Hillary vs. McCain.

    Obama wins the nomination and 30 percent of the Hillary supporters abandon Obama for McCain. Those are huge numbers. While only 19 percent of the Obama supporters would abandon Hillary to vote for McCain.

    Either way this goes. I see the only way out of this is a brokered convention in Which Bill Richardson and Joe Biden come out of the convention with the Nomination.

    Otherwise this party is simply going to hand the presidency to a GOP that heard the cries of anguish and took on a moderate Nominee.
  • Ha - funny! I just read something forwarded to me that 1) says Dean and others are talking and it's going to be a done deal with SOMEONE before the convention and 2) the compromise nominee will be Gore.

    I'll choose door #1 because even though neither Obama or Clinton flip my lid, they've worked their tails off - i'm just not sure it's fair re: Gore.
  • archangel
    i believe WhoCares, that was a hiccup in the comment gears somewhere. Thanks for noting it, I took care of it for you.

    dr.e

    Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC