Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:00:02 -0400
As the article points out, that self-identified conservative wing of the Democratic party is not a substantial number, and I suspect some of them would vote for Bush again given the opportunity.
This article in USA Today from 2004 highlights this strong tendency:
Married? Single? Status affects how women vote
By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WILMINGTON, Del. — Want to know which candidate a woman is likely to support for president?Look at her ring finger.
It may sound like the start of a bad joke, but the fact is most married women say they'll vote for President Bush. By nearly 2-to-1, unmarried women say they support John Kerry.
The "marriage gap" — the difference in the vote between married and unmarried women — is an astonishing 38 percentage points, according to aggregated USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Polls. In contrast, the famous "gender gap," the difference in the vote between men and women, is just 11 points.
Ginny Savopoulos thinks she understands why the marriage gap exists.
"I registered Republican when I got married," she says as she walks through Rodney Square in the center of town here. That reflected her husband's political bent and her own sense of economic security. "After I was divorced, I was thinking more about, 'What's out there for me as a single woman?'"
According to MSNBC's 2004 exit polling, married women voted for Bush over Kerry 55 to 44%.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/
It's probably too early to be sure, but the chart above shows married women supporting Obama at only 39% and trending downward.
Married women made up 31% or almost a third of the electorate in 2004. A difference of 5+ points is a whole bunch of votes Obama really can't afford to lose.
You mentioned the difference of +5, but here's some information from Gallup on their poll if you follow CM's link:
For results based on samples of this size, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point. For results based on subgroups of registered voters, the margins of sampling error are higher.
I wouldn't put too much stock in an August poll with an undefined margin of error.
Merely unreported.
I would guess the MoE is more like 3 or 4 percent. That is typical for this type of polling. As I said, it's probably too soon to tell whether the data means anything.
But it's still irrelevant that married women tend to vote Republican. The issue will be how many.
It's like saying African-Americans are trending Democrat or evangelicals are trending Republican... no kidding! Married women are a reliable Republican constituency, a relevant fact. I do agree with you that it's probably too soon to tell whether the data means anything, and further, as one subgroup recedes another may rise. Slicing and dicing demographics may be fun for pollsters, but there's no clear evidence of earth-shattering bounces one way or the other in subgroups as far as I can see. Every 4 years candidates try to massage a few percent more from this group or a few percent more from that group... George W. Bush did his best to target Latinos. This election cycle will be no different. John McCain sees opportunity with disaffected Hillary supporters, and like any politician worth his salt he's driving a wedge. He may have some degree of success, no surprise there.
my wife, who is a long-time Democrat, struggled for a long time before deciding to support Hillary. she thought O was much better than i did. she also thought mccain was much worse than i do.
then, when Hillary suspended, she very easily switched to supporting O. However, over the past two months, without any push from me, but rather by simply watching the news, she has lost most of her illusions about O, and actually begun to think that mccain's experience might just make him a better president than O! as a loyal Democrat, she doesn't like thinking that, but she thinks it, nonetheless. now, to my amazement, when the subject comes up with friends, she tells them that she finally is beginning to understand why I didn't want O to win the nomination.
the democratic party is in serious trouble when a party loyalist like my wife has lost her confidence in our candidate.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
When you vote for a president, you really elect a team.
You and your wife may agree experience trumps all, but the ultimate question is what team do you prefer for the next 4 to 8 years?
Team Bush/McCain continuing to build on Bush's legacy (providing his 2nd "accountability moment" after the 2004 election)? Or a Democratic team which happens to start with Obama/Biden charting a different course? For me, the choice couldn't be much simpler.
I didn't have confidence in Lyndon Johnson either.
MAYBE O will appoint some outstanding Democrats. However, from what i've seen of his trusted associates so far, i am not confident that he has the best instincts concerning the selection of people.
As Hillary says, we must think of our grandchildren. I don't want my grandchildren living under Republican rule for most of their lives, and unless I see something strikingly different and highly confidence building from O in the next two months, I fear that is what he may bring us - either through losing the election - or winning it and running a sadly un-inspiring one-term Presidency ala Jimmy Carter.
It won't work to sell O/B by simply denigrating mccain and/or bush. O and B need to show large numbers of the American people they really want and deserve our support.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
Republicans are better campaigners at the national level, and they have better party discipline. How they govern seems to be of no consequence.
Whether they had confidence in George W Bush or not, they came out and voted for him. If you don't want your grandchildren living under Republican rule for most of their lives, don't advocate behavior like Democrats have displayed the past 64 years. We've only had only one Democrat elected to 2 presidential terms since FDR... President Clinton. and it's not because the Republican candidates were so much superior (Richard Nixon and George W Bush come to mind). Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
a while ago i did post a link or two to some of their material in order to illustrate dissatisfaction with O, but when did i ever urge anyone to follow their recommendations?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
but I think you're holding Democrats to a higher standard to earn your confidence than Republicans. I think Americans generally do, so it's not a personal knock against you. We've been conditioned that way.
For example, George W Bush got his ass fully handed to him in his debates with Kerry. Go back and watch. Pundits were unimpressed. Voters barely moved. They retained their confidence in his policies which were hard to defend by that point. It's easy to bash people like Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter as you did, but there are a whole lot of civil rights advocates who admire their work, such as Hillary Clinton who mentioned of LBJ's good work..
Obama is clearly guilty of this too, as he praises Reagan's administration and makes light of Clinton's administration. You are not likely to see a Republican openly and publicly question a Republican president. Even Gerald Ford wouldn't even allow his mild criticisms of the disastrous Bush administration to be printed until his death.
That's what I'm talking about. Republicans benefit from the "soft bigotry of low expectations", to borrow a phrase.
I think Dems are better than Repubs. It wouldn't make any sense to hold them to the same standards.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
and taking gratuitous jabs at previous Democratic administrations. You're like me... sorely disappointed in some of the things Democrats have done lately but utterly appalled at recent things the Republicans have done.
You are not the type of voter I was referring to.
it's quite disturbing to see unidentified posters accused. How can that possibly be helpful?
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
view it as my observation and opinion that goes beyond this message board. View it as constructive criticism of Democrats in general, and why I believe Republicans have such a successful track record in national politics.
Surely you can't say you've never seen Democrats praising the Republican while bashing each other? Hillary did it (McCain has a lifetime of experience while Obama has a speech.... McCain and I have crossed the CinC threshold...) Obama did it ("they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not...Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way trhtat Bill Clinton did not...)
...and yes, there are posters here who do it, and I will not go out of my way to call them out.
You will not catch leading Republicans praising former Democratic presidents or presidential candidates.
Jack Kennedy, and/or Harry Truman.
But, thanks for explaining.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
that any current Republican could ever earn my confidence.
Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater once did have. but the current bunch all leave me completely cold.
i am much more open to democrats - even the ones I disagree with most. quite willing to give O and B the chance. however, they don't currently have my confidence. nor do they have my wife's confidence. and we are two Democrats who don't see eye to eye about every candidate. that's disturbing. that's why i'm saying O and B have a very serious challenge before them.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.
We play by the rules, we don't lie, and we encourage dissent. That's what makes us who we are. If we give up any of those things to win, then we've won nothing.
I don't want another arrogant asshole in the White House no matter what the letter after his name is.
As long as we keep going along with the rotten candidates that are handed to us and keep voting for them because they're just a little bit better than the other guy, then we'll keep getting what we've always gotten.
The answer is NOT to change into the bad guys. The answer is to convince people to think so that they'll see the bad guys for what they are. And the first step to doing that is to hold our own candidates to high standards.
Obama does not currently meet my standards. I'll probably end up voting for him, but I'm certainly not going to run around acting like he's worthy of it. He's not.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
They also know how to convince Americans to engage in a completely unnecessary war. It's not even that we shouldn't become like them to beat them. We can't become like them to beat them. Give Americans a choice between Republicans and Republicans and they'll vote for the Republican every time.
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
My wife is not going to vote for Obama either.
As you can tell, I'm a bit of a political junky. I don't watch much TV but Hardball and sometimes Countdown used to be a staple. We have an open floor plan and my three daughters, if inside, will usually hang around reading, using a laptop etc.. They are 15, 13 & 13. We were watching when CM made his infamous commment about Hilary only winning her senate seat because her husband fooled around. My oldest ceratinly picked it up. My 3 daughter are extremly bright and strong willed, like their mother who has been down right pisseded off about the treatment Hillary recieved. She was not a Hillary supporter at the onset of ths either.
The unfair bias over the campaign cycle was not lost on them. Disliking Obama was an acquired feeling. There are universal values that transcend political ideology. I've of course ranted about media bias and hypocrisy concerning Fox, Bush etc in recent years. As we watched MSNBC, my oldest would say Dad, they are just as bad.
Obama was selected, not elected. Ted Kennedy was 1000 delegates behind Carter in 1980 and he took it all the way to the convention, where he worked to get Carters delrgates to switch before he conceded the election. He did so in a manner that insured Carter, a standing democratic President's defeat. Hillary on the other hand was being asked to step down with weeks to go as she was even with Obama and surging. Yet she has been condemned for the manner in which she conceded weeks before the convention and is being blamed for taking Obama dowm. This as he gave her no ackknowledgment at all.
I'm voting on principle in November and it won't be for the candiate the DNC has rammed down our throats. They think they can pick an choose candidates based on stats and polls. Biden is fine but sticking the old white guy in there is probably not going to cover for screwing over Hillary for a lot of voters. They snatched defeat out of the jaws of Victory again.
We could talk about something besides presidential politics. Somehow, we've got to end the ongoing pie fight. We are lucky we can write in Wes. Other people live in states where they have to think long and hard about how they want to cast their vote. Here in KS, I'm focused on other races. I'm looking to host an event for Jim Slattery soon. That will occupy my brain for awhile. I wish Wes could come:)
There's nothing against the CCN rules in this post or the one below it. There's not even anything to offend your tender Obama sensibilities. Down-rating them constitutes ratings abuse, pure and simple.
The polls are what they are. If follow-on data supports the findings here, then Obama is in even bigger trouble than I thought. That's just a fact, whether you like it or not.
outside the Pepsi Center are getting little attention from the corporate media. They have been covering it on Democracy Now all week. According to to their report, there have been mass arrests and the crowds have been pepper sprayed...
AMY GOODMAN: As the Democrats celebrated inside the Pepsi Center on opening day of the convention, outside on the streets police pepper-sprayed protesters and rounded up dozens of them in mass arrests. The incident began near the Civic Center Park around 7:00 p.m., where a few hundred protesters had gathered to march. The police arrived in full riot gear, surrounded the protesters, blocking them in before firing pepper spray into the crowd. Protesters fled across the park, where they were met by dozens of police officers who boxed them in. Many of the marchers sat down in the street. Nearly a hundred people were arrested.
Here's something really scary... the police seem to be unidentifiable. I watched the video on Free Speech TV last night. This is America?
JACOB: 99 percent of the officers tonight that are operating—look behind me—have no identification, which is against the law. An officer has to be identified by a badge or a nameplate. If you look behind me at all these sheriffs, there is not one of them identifiable. As you can see, these guys could hurt us at any given time, and we would not know how to hold them accountable. We can’t identify these guys. These guys are operating with complete impunity.
More here.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off. ~Gloria Steinem
about a half hour ago, that a woman protester just got baton-ed - in the chest- by police and went flying and chaos broke out, a mini riot by police- he's on the ground in Denver and played a little audio.
That woman apparently was hurt but it's sketchy now.
He might even be McCain's veep. He's not a Dem. Conservative Dems wouldn't vote for Bush. I live in Kansas and we have lots of conservative Dems here. They used to be moderate Republicans and Indies. If O wants to win, he's going to have to appeal to moderate Republicans and Indies.
in the primaries.
If he was not an elected official, he would call himself a Democrat. A Bush/McCain Democrat.
He ran as an Indie. He's going to the Republican convention, end of story. He'll lose his chairmanship and it's about time.
From a novel I'm reading, "Voices Under Berlin, A Novel of the Berlin Spy Tunnel," by T.H.E. Hill
"His dissertation adviser, however, had neglected to impart to him one of the key tenets of academia: avoid making decisions at all cost. If you made a decision, you might be held responsible for the consequences. There were always consequences. Even if things went right - which they did less often than pure chance dictated, because that is what happens when nobody is willing to tke a chance and make a decision - credit was always given where credit was due, that is at the highest level of the hierarchy intelligent enough to claim it. This type of credit grab is not entirely without risk, because there could be consequences for not doing it sooner. If, on the other hand, things went wrong, which they often did - because that is what happens when you avoid making decisions and leave things to chance - the first order of the day was to find a scapegoat. If you had made a decision, you might be it. It's a lose, lose situation."
None of the Above; Wes Clark as Secretary of State!.
Dear Ellen,
I'm in Munich right now, but I can't tell you how ready I am to head to Denver and join my fellow Democrats.
The Democratic Party is ready to lead and address the many challenges ahead, and Barack Obama is the leader we need for our country and to help humanity meet today's global challenges. . .
I'm proud to be a Democrat, and I'm proud to ask you to pull together with me. It's time to help elect our candidates to every office. From mayors to governors, from state legislators to Congress. And especially to come together behind Barack Obama.
Barack is going to be the leader of a great team of Democrats in this election campaign. And he's going to become a great American President.
I believe he has the skills and resolve to strengthen America's security, rebuild America's economy, and restore Americans' faith in the future.
Our challenge is clear. We must win in November.
DENVER--Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.
Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.
The sheriff's officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street
Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Conventions/story?id=5668622&page=1
===
Doing a bit of research on cities/sidewals/ownership/etc, it is probable that the sidewalk is in fact owned by the hotel; HOWEVER - sidewalks are typically a public right of way - because it is within an easement next to a street.
“George W. Bush has helped those who have most, hurt those who have least and ignored everyone in between.” - Wesley Clark
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." - Vladimir Lenin