Watch the Liberals Evade the Obvious
By JAMES TARANTO
March 27, 2008
Gallup(http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx) has an intriguing new poll result:
A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
To be specific, 19% of Obama's supporters say they'd vote for McCain over Mrs. Clinton, while 28% of Mrs. Clinton's backers say they'd choose McCain over Obama.
It's very unlikely that the actual number of Democratic defections in November will be nearly this high. No doubt many of the Democrats who now say they'd bolt for McCain will come home in the end, once the rancor of the current primary battle has subsided.
But what is interesting about Gallup's result is the difference between the two numbers. Approximately half again as many Democrats say they won't vote for Obama in November as say they won't vote for Mrs. Clinton. Why might this be? It's time to play Watch the Liberals Evade the Obvious!
Here is Josh Marshall's theory:
I also think there's at least a decent structural argument for why Hillary supporters are more likely, for the moment, to say they'll vote for McCain. I think everybody realizes--whatever they'd prefer--that Obama is a strong favorite for the nomination at this point. And I think the simple truth is that it's a lot easier to be magnanimous, take the high road about party unity or simply be less mad if you're confident that your candidate is going to win. That just strikes me as common sense.
But "TPM Reader AK, a dear, dear old friend" of Marshall's, writes him with a different idea:
There's [an] easier way than a structural argument to understand why many Clinton supporters say they'll vote for McCain instead of Obama: Clinton, whom they support, and, one assumes, trust, has told them to do so. She has made the case that the pecking order, particularly when it comes to CIC [the ability to be commander in chief], is her, then McCain, and Obama failing the threshold test. She has said the same about judgment and experience. This is a case where considering a structural--to use your word--double move is too clever by half. All you need to do is look at what they're being told by the Clinton camp to understand the polling numbers.
Actually, there's no reason it has to be either-or. Logically, it's possible that Obama's supporters are happy and therefore magnanimous and Mrs. Clinton's supporters believe, because she told them so, that McCain is more experienced and better qualified to be commander in chief than Obama.
But may we offer an alternate theory, one that has the added advantage of being obvious? Most voters have learned one big thing about Obama in the past couple of weeks--that he has a "spiritual mentor" who says "God damn America," 9/11 was chickens coming home to roost, AIDS is a government plot, and so forth.
Isn't it possible that there are some Democrats--not a majority, but say 15% of the party--who take this sort of thing as a genuine affront? And who aren't persuaded by all the attempts to explain it away? Obama himself doesn't necessarily believe these things, his spiritual mentor has said good things too, let's have a conversation about race, and anyway it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand.
Imagine if Mrs. Clinton--or any Republican candidate for office--had a "spiritual mentor" who routinely used racial slurs to disparage blacks. Does anyone really imagine that an Obama-style response would suffice to deal with the resulting political problem?
For decades liberals have trafficked in identity politics. Why is it so hard for them to understand that some people "identify" above all as Americans, and that "God damn America" is a slur against who they are?
It's an American thing, they wouldn't understand.
online.wsj.com |
