Pew Forum Senior Fellow on Clinton supporters’ strategies
May 20th, 2008
By JILL MILLER ZIMON
The University of Akron’s Bliss Institute of Applied Politics director, John C. Green, is a wonderfully affable, wise and intelligent person whom others seek out for analysis constantly. Not to mention a Senior Fellow in Religion and American Politics at the Pew Forum.
I’m no exception. And so, as I struggle to find a way into the pragmatic side I hope all voters possess once they consider what they really want to achieve for the next four years via a new president, I thought, a-ha! I should ask John Green.
Here are two sets of questions I asked him this morning, and his responses:
WLST: I’m curious to know if you’d be willing to answer just a couple of questions for my blog about the issues [raised by the Clinton Supporters Count Too phenom]:
1. What do voters usually do? By this, I mean, suppose you are a Clinton supporter, but primarily (truly, first and foremost) because she is a woman. Is there anything historically parallel to which we can look to say that something similar happened (or maybe happens in many election cycles but further down ticket) and this is what the voters decided to do once their candidate was out and it resulted in…what exactly?
I would ask the same question in regard to Clinton supporters who support her but not because of anything having to do with being a woman. I would think that that group would then be okay with voting for Obama, or maybe even legitimately McCain (as opposed to a protest vote for him).
John Green: There is not exact historical precedent, but contested primaries have been very common. Different voters have done different things under these circumstances. Some get over their anger and back the nominee, others gets disillusioned and stay home, and a few vote for the other party. Most of the defectors to the other party appear to do less out of spite than disagreement with the nominee on issues. So a moderate woman who really liked the idea of a woman president might end up voting for McCain over Obama because McCain is more moderate on economic issues.
WLST: 2. Does the protest vote strategy ever work? By this, I mean, does threatening to vote for McCain do anything more than draw attention? Can a strategy like that actually make Clinton as a VP choice more likely? And again, do we have any historical parallels to which we can look to say, well, this block of voters made this threat, and either the threat was respected and their cause was forwarded, OR, their threat was ignored and they 1) carried through on the threat and what happened or 2) didn’t carry through on the threat and here’s what happened.
John Green: There are two issues here: the threat of a protest vote and the actual protest vote. The threat may work better because the party wants to win–thus efforts may be made prevent a protest vote. A woman on the ticket might work in this regard. A protest vote can work also, but it requires that the party lose the election–that can be an effective message, but with a huge downside. So this doesn’t happen much. Most protest votes go to independent or minor party candidates and involve dislike of both parties.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 20th, 2008 at 7:59 am and is filed under Barack Obama, John McCain, Elections, Newsweek Blogitics, Hillary Clinton, Democrats, 2008 Elections, Gender, Moderates, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks