This older Gallup Poll suggests that 28% of Clinton supports would vote for McCain rather than Obama. And this CNN poll from yesterday says it's 27%...

While my good friend [livejournal.com profile] davidbcoe crafted a fine and well-reasoned post on the subject, I find that my reaction is more visceral.

Are these people insane?

From: [identity profile] davidschroth.livejournal.com


Are these people insane?

Yes.

This has been another edition of short answers to simple questions. Tune in tomorrow, when we tackle the perennial favorite, Is a bear Catholic?

From: [identity profile] scbutler.livejournal.com


Yes.

Rather than vote for McCain, I think they should just ram knitting needles into their eyes. That way they only hurt themselves.

From: [identity profile] cakmpls.livejournal.com


No, pissed off. So pissed off they will cut off their noses to spite their faces. Well, maybe that is insane.

From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com

Re: Ain't nuthin...


Yep -- Obama ran the smarter campaign of the two of them, realizing how grass-rrots support was necessary for the caucus states.

From: [identity profile] smofbabe.livejournal.com


Posted my frustration with this while you were sleeping: http://smofbabe.livejournal.com/468248.html

From: [identity profile] casaubon.livejournal.com


That was in March. Is there a more recent poll?
And 19% of Obama supporters said they'd rather vote for McCain than Clinton, so I guess the batshit crazy population is at least 20-25% in any political persuasion. :)

Of course, the really crazy people are the 3% who'd vote for McCain even if their chosen Democratic was chosen as the candidate.

From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com


Here's one from yesterday: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/election.2008.poll/

"Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters -- registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee -- are now backing Obama. That's down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they'll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June." (emphasis mine)

From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com


I'd heard the percentage cited on CNN, and when I went to google the source, I came across the Gallup Poll. Since it had essentially the same percentage, I thought it was the same poll and didn't check the date. Bad research, Steve!

It's interesting, though, that the percentage doesn't seem to have radically changed in several months.

From: [identity profile] casaubon.livejournal.com

I was hoping it'd go in the other direction.


I suppose if they really really want Clinton as president at some point then voting for McCain is about the only way they'll get it.

There's an error of +/- 7.5% on that poll. Maybe they just phoned up the crazy people.

From: [identity profile] sleigh.livejournal.com

Re: I was hoping it'd go in the other direction.


I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of polls, I have to admit. I don't answer my phone if I don't recognize the number that's calling or if the number is blocked -- therefore any pollster will absolutely miss me (and anyone else who screens calls with Caller ID). And neither of my children, both of whom are old enough to vote, have a landline at all, only their cell phones -- so again, any pollster will miss them.

And then there are the people (and I have to admit that I'm included) who will simply lie outrageously just to be contrary if someone tries to snag them for an in-person poll.

I still watch the polls, though -- it's a character flaw. Unfortunately, polls are still an important barometer for most people, and the news organizations are addicted to them. So sometimes poll results become reality even if they're mostly fantasy to start with.
Edited Date: 2008-08-26 02:14 pm (UTC)

From: [identity profile] scbutler.livejournal.com


Where are all the slutty elf maidens when you need them?

Oh, and I actually saw a guy in a John Ringo tee at the beach last weekend.

From: [identity profile] daedala.livejournal.com


Why not frame it as Hillary having appeal beyond the traditional bounds of the Democratic Party that, for some of those people, Obama does not have?

From: [identity profile] carolf.livejournal.com


Davidbcoe's post was indeed a good read.

I don't entirely agree with either of you, and I explained it all in
responses to his journal.

signed,

Strong Hillary supporter who was most impressed of all that there was not
a single Dem candidate she could not have supported.

(It's been lost in the shuffle, but remember that first debate? Black, white; Catholic, Protestant; Anglo, Latino; young, old(er). And every one of them a keeper. A choice among riches!!!)

From: [identity profile] lindajdunn.livejournal.com


The position of the HIllary supports is simple: poison the well so he doesn't win and 4 years later, Hillary runs again.

Hopefully, this time she will have learned how to manage campaign finances, won't blow it all on Super Tuesday, etc. and will learn how to MANAGE, which seems to be her weak suit. From what I heard, there was constant bickering and fighting among the inner circle.
.