Last week in West By God Virginia it was 36 percent. Just 36 percent of Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton said they would vote for Obama in a general election. This week in Kentucky it was 33 percent.

Two-thirds of Clinton’s supporters there said they would vote Republican or not vote at all rather than for Obama, according to the polls.

Forty-one percent of Clinton supporters said they’d cast their vote for John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and 23 percent said they would not vote at all.

This being the case all the while most polled say they think Obama will indeed get the nomination.

So I will ask Jill and the rest who are harping on what Obama must do to heal this type of problem (and it IS a problem): How is someone supposed to convince voters to side with him when they vote for his opponent knowing she will not win and claim they will not support him once he wins the nomination as they are predicting? 64% will vote McCain or not vote. That’s a huge problem.

Hillary Clinton’s problem. She has leverage with this bloc of voters. So much so that they support her over the party. They support her over a person with very similar policies and positions – policies and positions that have made them a huge Hillary supporter.

Hillary is a smart woman. She knows the likelihood of her winning butts up against sheer anarchy in the party and the odds of that being allowed to happen are so slim as to not even exist. She is making overtures in her speech tonight of taking this thing to the convention and being unwilling to stop her campaign of party divisiveness. It should be noted that her speech was again devoid of any recognition for Barack’s accomplishments despite his seizing the high ground again with congratulating her on a win.

She must be stopped. Someone needs to tap her on the shoulder and let her know if she succeeds in any plan to seek later redemption by cementing a defeat for Obama this time that there will be a loud cadre of people who may have supported her who will absolutely join in her destruction down the line. There will be no 2012. Face facts.

I’ve seen Hillary say voting for McCain would be a mistake blah blah. That’s not good enough. She needs to either give a speech and step down or give one telling these idiots that not voting or voting McCain would be betraying their votes for her should Obama win. It needs to be forceful and it needs to be NOW!

Tagged with:
  • Eric – you ask, but then you answer. If you really want to have a dialogue on this, I’m up for it. But not when you ask, and then answer the question yourself. You don’t really want to know what I think or anyone else might think who isn’t thinking like you. If you did, you would have ended this post after the question.

    I love you, man, but you are completely obsessed with making things proceed the way you think they should, which you say is the way they always have.

    But as you and every Obama supporter has said, this year politics are different – Obama is different.

    So give a $&^%&# different answer, you dig?

  • I love you back, but I don’t blog like you do, Jill. Please don’t force me to. I don’t like feeling like I am being badgered into blogging in a way that makes you feel better. I don’t ask open ended questions in blog posts awaiting the chance to create 78 reply threads. I say my piece in the post and allow others to comment at will.

    If you read Plunderbund often (as you do) you’d know that we indeed value your comments – even if they differ from ours. It’s on the front page of the site:

    “Of course, we’d dig it if you’d like to engage us, so make sure to comment.”

    It is also right above each comment entry box:

    “Because we value your thoughtful opinions, you are encouraged to add a comment to this post. ”

    I’m allowed to answer my own question (particularly on my own damned blog) and I took liberty to do so. Now. You either have a $&^%&# opinion or you don’t. Which is it?

    I stand by my answer.

  • I might also add a request that you stop with the cute little “you all said politics is different, but then you say Politics 101 blah blah” stuff. It’s annoying.

    Of course Obama’s politics are different.

    Point any other candidate with a 75,000 person rally.

    Point to me any other candidate with as many low dollar grassroots donors.

    Point to me any other candidate energizing as many new voters.

    This year is different. You are just unable to see it for some reason. You’ll have to evaluate why for yourself.

    PS: I have no clue what this even means: “but you are completely obsessed with making things proceed the way you think they should, which you say is the way they always have.”

  • Eric, the point of my comment was – do you really want an answer – or were you just giving a preamble to what you wanted to tell people? I”m not going toget set up by putting time into a thoughtful answer if you’re not really actually interested in it.

    And I stand by me politics are supposed to be different with Obama. You want to use the slogan – you need to follow it.

  • It’s up to you.

  • Pingback: Plunderbund - » The Clinton Supporter Polls We Haven’t Seen()

  • I’ll take you at face value, Eric knowing I get burned all the time as you yourself have seen.

    Your question was: “How is someone supposed to convince voters to side with him when they vote for his opponent knowing she will not win and claim they will not support him once he wins the nomination as they are predicting?”

    You went on to answer it for yourself. You already know I disagree with your recommendation but for the record:

    You can’t convince the group of voters you’re talking about in this post to side with, I think you meant “her” opponent. That’s not going to happen.

    So what can you do?

    1. You let them vent.
    2. You try to discern the common issues important to them and to you (or the other opponent).
    3. You offer as much as you can to help them see how the opponent is not only not an opponent, but in fact is an ally.
    4. How do you do that? With facts.

    This is all about building trust. People who already feel screwed, legitimately or not, don’t want to feel like they’re setting themselves up just to be screwed again. You read this kind of fear over and over in the rants from the Clinton Supporters Count Too people.

    If not having this group “side” with the opponent is in fact such a huge problem, then the person finding it to be a huge problem has JUST AS MUCH OF AN OBLIGATION TO SOLVE IT. It is PURE AND UTTER NONSENSE in terms of negotiating and mediating and getting this particular crowd of voters to see the choice you want them to make as something they can do if you – the side that sees them as a problem – is completely unwilling to step forward.

    Should it be that way? Who the hell knows. But it’s not about the way it should be or has always been. It’s about the way you want it to be and what you have to do to get there.

    5. So you build the trust, but in this case, it has to be organic – that means, these voters have to really feel it. If they don’t feel it, they won’t change their allegiance.

    Yes – I agree – Clinton has to send the signal that she is going to do that too. But again, part of the deep-seated piece for this particular cohort of women – primarily that 50 and older demographic – is that they’ve lived their lives saying sisters are going to do it for themselves. So part of them is saying, Well shit, what the fuck do we need men for? Fuck that shit. We’ll find our own way.

    And so they really honestly in their heart believe and are okay with letting men screw themselves.

    Therefore – if you see that attitude as a complete barrier to the success of the opponent, well then, you don’t win them over by telling them that they need you and must come to you because that’s the way it’s always been. They will laugh in your face. They are the generation that’s lived to prove that they can do it on their own or will die trying. Seriously.

    Rather – you have to find what matters to them: their daughters and granddaughters, as well as their sons and grandsons.

    This is why I am dedicated to efforts like the White House Project that helps me work on the challenge to be sure that there are more than enough women always ready and able to run and to win.

    6. Then, you can’t break the trust. The issues that are in common and the methods for addressing them have to be followed through on, at all levels. From now through and after the general election.

    It’s actually really very simple, Eric – strategists and advisors figure out how to target and microtarget all the time.

    This situation should be viewed as exactly the same thing – but the tactics that will be used to address this group? Well – those may have to be as unprecedented as anything else we’ve seen in the last 17 mos.

  • Pingback: How to approach the +50yo female Clinton Supporters Count Too voters | Writes Like She Talks()

  • Whew. That only took 3 comments to get there! Not bad. Not bad at all. I’m glad you “took me at face value”. I’d hope I’ve built enough trust by now with you. I’m not trying to “burn you”. Argue, maybe. But that’s OK, right?

    So convincing the 64% of voters who voted for Hillary and say they will either not vote or vote McCain to vote for Obama is “not going to happen”?

    We are truly fucked then, because he WILL win the nomination. Is that the plan? Obama loses then all the Hillary people say “see? told you so!” and draft Clinton in 2012?

    So I don’t agree with your premise right off hand. There MUST be a way to swing these voters back from their severe delusion. I know you don’t agree with them. I doubt very seriously letting them vent is the answer.

    Again, people feel screwed primarily because of the narrative out of the Clinton campaign. “Obama is outspending us”. “Michigan and Florida voters are being disenfranchised”. All a bunch of whining and spin that has resulted in a huge bloc of voters feeling “they are getting screwed”. By the black guy. Because “as far as they know” Obama might be a Muslim who is a part of the elite trying to drag poor Annie Oakley down.

    You see? You are unwilling to assign some responsibility to Hillary when all signs point to her being the ONLY person who can have any impact whatsoever.

    That’s my main problem.

    You continue to frame this in such a way as to cast Obama as the person unwilling to “fix it”. This IS about trust, you are absolutely right. The voters who say they will sit at home or vote McCain don’t TRUST Obama. Why would they listen to his overtures? They won’t.

    They DO, however, trust Hillary Clinton. So much so that they are willing to throw away their otherwise valuable Democratic vote in order to show solidarity with her. The only way to address this from a trust angle is to have the person they trust talk them down from the ledge.

    The ONLY way.

    Why this is so hard for you to accept I will not know.

    Do I expect Hillary to at some point make this move? Yes. Will it be too late to pull the many voters out of their anti-Obama delusion? We’ll have to wait and see.

    But you won’t even be able to read the post for the cursing if Obama loses and I start seeing Hillary folks play the “see I told you so” card.

    Hillary has to do more than “send a signal”. These are her people and they are threatening to destroy the Democratic Party and sabotage the chances for a Democrat winning the White House.

    This is not time for idle chatter. This is time for decisive action. Hillary is supposed to be all about that. She will disappoint every daughter and granddaughter if she allows to happen what is happening within the party and among voters who support her and SHOULD also support Obama in a general.

    I’m interested in bringing fresh female talent and ensuring we have good solid female leaders in the future. But that’s not my main concern right now. My main concern is taking this country back from those that seek to destroy it from within. That’s job one.

    I’ve posted before about my open arms to Hillary supporters. I’m ready to accept them and hear them and have them help us win the White House. They, like you, can judge for themselves whether I’m “setting them up” or not. Truth be told we all want the same thing – and when their blind rage against the guy who upset their dream fades, they’ll realize it.

    Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

  • PS – What is a “Paul Hackett type push”?

  • Nancy Sabet

    Clinton is my nominee and I am not going to vote for media’s nominee, BHO. Obama has been the most divisive figure since Nixon. The CNN reporter last night, in Iwoa, said, that BHO is back here where he started all except, this time he can claim that he was able to bring down the most powerful machine of Democratic Party, the Clintons!!! Well barvo..that says it all; he managed to do the domage that Republicans were dreaming for it! and he did it for them!

  • I did say and I do believe that this group will not be convinced to, as you asked, “side” with Obama. They simply won’t ever see it that way. You can term it however you want – that’s not the issue.

    But the issue is that they will never allow themselves to “side” with him – that would be a betrayal.

    All you really need and all that is really reasonable to hope for is to get them to feel okay with casting their vote for him, in the absence of their preferred candidate. Hoping to “convince them to side with him” – that’s only something he can do with his words and deeds.

    If I were you, I’d stick to focusing on how you open this group to even feeling as though they can vote for him without feeling like they’ve stabbed themselves and Clinton and their cause. No drama – they really feel that way.

    I wrote that Clinton has to give the signal for them to do this, btw – what more do you want? That is all she can do. Obama MUST earn the trust. Are you really suggesting that the voters go like lemmings to him?

    IMO, emphasis on IMO: you are wrong to call this constituency delusional in general. They love this woman – even if not her, what she stands for, what she’s done, what she’s put up with. You can call this delusional, but it’s no different than the adoration people give to Obama.

    While Obama or McCain supporters point to all her faults to say why she isn’t deserving of the nomination or the presidency, those who support her, while maybe even able to acknowledge her faults – even all of them – still support her for all the other stuff she means to them. They are not going to give that up, ever.

    HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that they can’t be helped to see the ramifications of the different choices that face them – and that’s the objective that must be pursued if you want them to at least vote for Obama.

    As to who is feeding the narrative of “you’ve been screwed”: This voting block isn’t stupid and to suggest that they’re just buying what’s been fed really does a disservice to the decades-long fight this particular constituency has waged on behalf of getting women to places we’ve never seen them before. You may never feel that, women you know may not feel or express that, but I’ve heard it from the horse’s mouths. And it has nothing to do with Michigan etc – none of that helps, but it’s not why these voters feel screwed.

    Eric – I have absolutely never said nor do I believe that Obama is unwilling to fix it – that’s the kind of thing that makes me not want to take this time to write what I think.

    I have in fact blogged about how his campaign people are making overtures, for goodness sakes.

    Finally, being talked down from a ledge has NOTHING to do with getting a person to give their vote to someone else. Eric, Obama has to earn their trust – doesn’t matter what Hillary says. He gets no free ride with anyone, let along people who wanted someone else. You are talking about people who actually CHOSE someone over Obama. To say, well Clinton must say that she trusts them and that is all that they should think about? TOTAL ICK.

    Coming into someone’s open arms is patronizing and they will refuse to acknowledge it. So long as the effort to get them to recognize that Clinton won’t be the nominee and the Dem nominee is Obama focuses on that narrative of we’re waiting here with open arms, they will walk away.

    This place where these voters are now is all about imagery and words. If you think that has nothing to do with it, then be prepared to have empty arms where this demographic is concerned.

  • PS – What is a “Paul Hackett type push”?

    Where did you see that I wrote that? I know what I mean by it but I’d prefer to see it in context before I explain.

  • @11: I’m sorry Nancy. But this is PRECISELY what I mean (Jill) when I say delusional. Clinton is NOT your nominee. We don’t have one yet. She might be your preference and you can vote for her. I voted for Obama and he is not MY nominee yet. I don’t have one. I advocate, sure.

    He will, I believe, be the nominee as he is beating Clinton in every meaningful metric and has for some time.

    If you have taken any kind of objective look at this primary race you’d realize that trying to cast Obama as the divisive candidate is pure delusion.

    PS: Obama has money because of millions of people giving less than $100. Clinton has some of that, but also has big money from lobbyists.

    Get real.

  • @12: more later.

    @13: can’t remember.

  • Pho

    Jill, you said:

    While Obama or McCain supporters point to all her faults to say why she isn’t deserving of the nomination or the presidency, those who support her, while maybe even able to acknowledge her faults – even all of them – still support her for all the other stuff she means to them.

    Umm, we aren’t saying that she doesn’t deserve the nomination because of her faults. We are saying that she doesn’t deserve the nomination because she didn’t get as many votes. It is, after all an election. The reason the Cavaliers don’t deserve to go forward in the playoffs isn’t because they don’t have a legitimate point guard or a second playmaker. It’s because they didn’t win as many games.

    It is, by the way, really aggravating when Hillary’s apologists argue that she deserves the nomination despite not getting as many votes.

  • Scott – I hear ya but I know you know what I know, two words: Michigan, Florida.

    I’ve written before about how I hate the disenfranchisement, but everyone agreed to it fair and square months ago.

    We had to accept Bush in 2000 – we had no choice. They’re going to have to accept that Michigan and Florida should not be counted, but we can’t stop them from being angry and hating that.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!