Why are those who voted for HRC in primary assumed to be Clinton "loyalists"?

[Nine]

As an example, I'm looking at this Newsweek article http://www.newsweek.com/id/160423/page/1 Poll: Obama struggling to win over Clinton voters but it's pretty representative of the general attitude in the media and on DU. Some quotes from the article:

"The GOP's selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate has had no net impact on Clinton loyalists — a group Republicans were hoping to lure by picking the Alaska governor."

"The starkest contrast comes from comparing Clinton backers still refusing to support Obama with other Democrats. Just three in 10 Clinton supporters still not backing Obama view him favorably, compared with eight in 10 of all Democrats. While most Democrats and former Clinton supporters strongly prefer Obama over McCain to handle key issues, those Clinton voters still opposing Obama opt for McCain: On the economy by 32 points, and on Iraq by 47 points."

Why are voters who chose Clinton in the primaries referred to as "loyalists" - a term that gives the impression that these voters are withholding their support of Obama out of some bitter loyalty to Clinton? For that matter, why are these voters treated as people who are withholding their votes from Obama at all? Three times in a short space this group is described as "still refusing" to support Obama or similar phrases. Where does this assumption come from? What is the factual basis for it? All we really know is that there is a group of voters Clinton won over in the primary that Obama has yet to win over.

Sure, we can say that any "true" Democrat should support whoever the Democratic nominee is. We can say that anyone who truly cares about the issues Hillary ran on should logically be supporting Obama over McCain. But since when is there any logic in politics? If the only thing voters cared about was issues, would there have been such strong division between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters in the primaries? After all, their policy positions were quite similar. If politics ran on logic would we have to worry about duck hunting and bowling photo ops and whether a candidate is good looking or has a pleasing voice? There's no reason to make any assumption at all about this group of voters and certainly no reason to treat them as "holdouts." The majority of voters do not consider themselves bound to a particular party even if they are members of that party. How often do you hear someone proudly proclaim that they vote for the person, not the party. I don't agree with that attitude, but it's certainly a prevalent one.

The primaries are over. I voted for Hillary then and I'm supporting Obama now and I don't wish to rehash the primaries. But I resent the constant implication that somehow Clinton is to blame because some people who voted for her in the primaries haven't lined up behind Obama. That's not even a realistic scenario. And I can't help but think that if Clinton were the nominee and failing to win the support of some of the voters who supported Obama in the primaries, that people would be blaming HER and saying she can't close the deal, she can't win over these voters that Obama won over.

[YOY]

1. Who the hell cares? Primaries are over.

Nobody is even talking about this.

[anonymous171]

2. I used to think it was her fault.

But after her fantastic speech at the Convention I changed my mind.

[musicblind]

10. Thank you :hug:

:hug:

[emilyg]

19. Big hug for you.

[dchill]

3. They're not. The media want us to believe...

that it's yet another "concern" for Obama. The crap put out by the MSM does move public opinion to some degree, so they do it to keep the race "close" and keep us watching. They're "concerned."

[jobycom]

4. Same reason people assume they are all angry middle-aged women.

People like to label and categorize. It makes it easier to dismiss them as irrelevant.

[Captain Hilts]

15. That's a good point. I know two men, one a big time business owner...

and one a senior adviser to Sen. Kennedy, who are still pissed!

[Captain Hilts]

5. I saw three women - at separate tables - in a restaurant talking about how angry...

they still were over how the press treated Clinton during the primaries. I'm still pretty angry too.

These folks were ANGRY. But - to a woman - they ALL agreed that voting for McCain is NOT an option. One said she'd write something in.

Clinton had large cross-over appeal - that's why two national surveys in the last week of May - when the press had written her off - STILL showed her in a head to head beating McCain by a margin 5% larger than Obama would.

Folks don't want to admit that she had crossover appeal. That would kill the meme that ALL Republicans hate her, which they do not.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Pure unmitigated bullshit. Independents HATED Clinton,

[Captain Hilts]

8. Spare me the potty language. No, not true. I've examined the polling data since 2000.

Independent and some Republican women would vote for her.

Clinton has always gotten more votes than polling points.

[BlooInBloo]

11. BWAHAHAHA!!!!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/6/12118/85843

(tables of numbers snipped, because DU doesn't provide table formatting capability)

"Why can't Clinton win independents?

...
Clinton won independents in just four states out of 30 states with exit polls. And in the caucus states, she likely lost those as well. Now Clinton supporters will argue that most of these states voted before the Jeremiah Wright video got played 46 billion times on the networks, and that the numbers would look a lot different if those states voted again.

But check out Pennsylvania, which was the first state to vote after Wright. Much has been made about how similar PA and OH are demographically. And they both delivered victories to Clinton by almost identical margins. Yet look at the independent percentages:

...

Obama did better with independents in Pennsylvania post-Wright than he did in Ohio pre-Wright. Is it an ironclad apples-to-apples comparison? Of course not, but it is suggestive.

Clinton has a problem attracting independent voters, a phenomenon reflected in general election polling. Here are the" independent" crosstabs in several key battleground states:

...

In those polls (all of them post-Wright), Obama wins Colorado, Clinton loses it. Obama wins Iowa, Clinton loses it. Obama wins Minnesota by six, Clinton wins it by just one. Obama wins Wisconsin, Clinton is tied. The both lose New Mexico, but only because both candidates haven't locked down Democrats. Clinton wins Ohio (she gets Democrats), Obama loses it (he doesn't -- yet). In Nevada, Obama loses by five, Clinton by 11.

The difference in all of these states between Obama and Clinton, other than the fact that he gets more independents, is that the Democratic base is stronger for Clinton than Obama. That's likely an artifact of the bitter primary, and will fade once we have a nominee. Other than a statistically insignificant number of dead-ender malcontents, those undecided Democrats aren't going to vote for McCain.

Again, more evidence that Obama's upside is much stronger than Clinton's. It'll be far easier for Obama to rally the Democratic base than for Clinton to rally independents. Her task wouldn't be impossible, just not the same as rallying your own party."


But by all means, keep trying to rewrite history. And tell me how "the primaries are over", while you're at it.

:rofl:



EDIT: Added some more because it's so good.

[BlooInBloo]

6. I assume nothing of the sort. I base my judgments on that matter on what folks say *currently*...

For the media, however, it's always been their schtick to talk about "Obama's problem with group X", where "X" refers to some group of non-black people.

[musicblind]

9. Considering this is a long and thought out post WHY are people rating it "skip it" we aren't rating

whether we LIKE the post. Remember?


All the people who claim to be that the "must read" and "skip it" aren't popularity contests. :eyes:

[Captain Hilts]

12. Because this is, predominantly, an Obama board.

They spend a lot of time doing endzone dances thinking they won the game 35-3, when it was 35-34. Kind of like how GWB governed as though he stomped Gore.

Fortunately, the Obama campaign is smarter than many of its supporters. Go 'Bama!

FDR: Go 'Bama!
WSC: This Obama fellow, he seems to know what he's doing...
FDR: He's a smoker too!

[Forkboy]

13. Doesn't matter if one loses by 1 point or 100 points though.

Haven't you learned anything down in the Sports Forum? ;)

[Captain Hilts]

14. Ha! I think the sports forum is 'up' NOT 'down' from here! nt

[LiberalAndProud]

18. Regardless of OP's intent,

this is turning into a rehashing of the primaries. There is nothing to be gained by it.

[Balderdash]

16. Some Hillary supporters are not Democrats, never were...

"Why are voters who chose Clinton in the primaries referred to as "loyalists" - a term that gives the impression that these voters are withholding their support of Obama out of some bitter loyalty to Clinton? For that matter, why are these voters treated as people who are withholding their votes from Obama at all? Three times in a short space this group is described as "still refusing" to support Obama or similar phrases. Where does this assumption come from? What is the factual basis for it? All we really know is that there is a group of voters Clinton won over in the primary that Obama has yet to win over."


*******


There were many women that are not Democrats that became Clinton supporters. They are likely Independents or even Republicans that find it easier now to vote for McCain than a true Clinton supporter that is a Democrat. As a Democrat and a former Clinton supporter I couldn't betray my own truths to punish the DNC for what happened to Hillary so Obama gets my money (thru Hillary) and my support and my vote

[Captain Hilts]

17. Nine, folks are here for affirmation, not for information. I appreciate your thoughtful post. nt

[Nine]

20. I don't understand why people are turning this into a Hillary vs Obama thread

That was not my intention. My point is that a lot of assumptions are made about a particular set of voters - those who voted for Clinton in the primaries but are not currently supporting Obama - and that I have yet to see a factual basis for those assumptions. Even the data contained in the Newsweek article itself don't seem to support it; this group has come to regard both Obama AND McCain more favorably over the past few months. If these voters were simply bitter about the primaries, that's not something I would expect to see.

There's no reason to assume these are voters who share most Democratic values. Perhaps they lean conservative but voted for Clinton because they remembered better economic times under Bill. Perhaps these are people who have a natural inclination for older candidates - see them as more experienced, more likely to share their values, having a longer track record, etc. Perhaps they are the sort of voters who judge a candidate more on personality factors, and Clinton just connected with them in a way that Obama has not. Or maybe there is some particular issue on which they just felt more aligned with Clinton than Obama.

My personal hunch is that a lot of moderates saw Clinton as more middle-of-the-road and Obama as more liberal and chose her for that reason. Those same moderates may still believe the McCain=maverick (i.e. not a diehard Republican) thing, so from that perspective it makes sense why they would go from Clinton to McCain instead of to Obama.

But that's just my theory. There could be any number of reasons these voters went for Hillary but are not going for Obama, and there are almost certainly multiple factors in play. It would be nice to really know what's going on there, and hopefully the Obama campaign is doing some intensive polling to figure it out, or perhaps they already know and are "on" it.

All I'm saying is, we DON'T know, so let's stop making assumptions. The Republican-owned media wants to foster these assumptions because they want to create this division in the party. Besides, I think it's always a mistake to say that some group of voters *should* vote some certain way. Voters have to be won over one at a time, and it's the job of the nominee to do that. Hillary has done her part to help and is continuing to do so but it's not like she has control over every single person who voted for her.

[Captain Hilts]

21. Folks here think an accumulation of anecdotes makes for good data. Stop consulting facts!

I appreciate your thoughtful post.

[Nine]

22. thank you (nt)