Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Could Endorsing Clinton Hurt Down-Ticket Democrats? Polling Says Yes.


"Playful lemmings jumping off a cliff at a beach party" (art print available here; click to enlarge)

by Gaius Publius

Is it possible that Clinton-endorsing superdelegates and other Democrats could be hurt in the general election by that endorsement? Current polling seems to suggest as much. From the Wall Street Journal (subscription or login required):
Hillary Clinton’s Negatives Complicate Ties Down the Ballot
Polling suggests a risk for Democratic candidates who endorse the presumptive nominee

... An offshoot of Mrs. Clinton’s low favorability rating is that candidates who tie themselves to her risk alienating voters they need to win, polling shows.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey last month asked whether people would be more inclined to vote for a Democratic candidate who endorsed Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid. Some 32% said they would be less likely to vote for that candidate, while only 15% said they would be more inclined. More than half said the endorsement wouldn’t matter either way.

In a dozen battleground states—including North Carolina—voters by a 13-point margin would be less inclined to vote for candidates who endorse Mrs. Clinton, the Journal/NBC poll showed. Among independent voters, just 4% said they would be more apt to vote for candidates who support Mrs. Clinton, while 38% would be less inclined. ...
To put that plainly, according to the article the polling question was: Would you be "more inclined to vote for a Democratic candidate who endorsed Mrs. Clinton’s presidential bid?"

Among voters in general: 
  • Yes: 15%
  • No: 32%
 Among independent voters:
  • Yes: 4%
  • No: 38%
Let that sink in. There are more "independent" voters than registered Democrats, and there are a lot of Clinton-endorsing super-delegates, with many up for election.

I'll bet Sherrod "I trust Clinton on trade" Brown is glad he's not up this year. (He is up in 2018 though, just in time for his 2016 "I trust Clinton on trade" comment to look just as good as Clinton's 2003 "I trust Bush to want peace" comment as she cast her critical pro-war Iraq vote.)

I really do feel for the lock-step Democratic Party. They may be going down hard. It may not be pretty, but apparently no one can stop them, like no one can stop the meth-addled kid from burning out the lab with his stoned self inside. Unlike the lemmings at the top of this piece, I don't think there's a party (or a Party) at the base of the cliff when our Democratic lemmings hit the surface of the sea and start heading under. Domage.


Labels: , , ,


At 7:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can only speak for myself. But, HELL YES, if someone down-ticket on my ballot comes out for $hillbillary, they lose my vote. period.

You endorse a corrupt neocon neoliberal money whoring warmonger... You don't get my vote.

Unmentioned here is the degree that sentient D and I voters will be disenfranchised by Bernie's summary betrayal in endorsing and campaigning for $hillbillary. I would HOPE that 10s of millions of them will vote for Stein/Green. But I've NEVER been pleasantly surprised at the collective intellect of voters.

Again, I am now permanently eschewing Ds in everything above municipal level postings. From now on, I vote for good people and will consider membership in the D sect of the corrupt money party a yoooooooge disincentive.

If nobody good is on the ballot, I have no problem leaving it blank.

Fuck the Ds. Fuck the Rs. Fuck them all.

At 9:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A little reflection... and I'm wondering how I could have been so bamboozled by the Bernie phenomenon of the past year.

For 30 years, Bernie has been an INDEPENDANT, not a Democrat... and he decides to run AS a democrat?!?!? Nobody else noticed either?

For 36 years and counting, Bernie has been the Democraps' chief apologist as they whored for corporate money (DLC, led by bill Clinton et al, morphing into today's DNC), advocated corporate fellating policies as quid pro quo (obvious corruption), passed such things as the repeal of new deal reforms (GLBA, CFMA), led and passed xxFTAs resulting in 20M good jobs going elsewhere, led and passed dereg of telecoms and media resulting in the Murdoch propaganda/lie/hatemongering empire... and though he did not VOTE for Iraq (and the drone wars and...), he regularly made excuses publicly for $hillbillary who did... iteratively.

Bernie said (almost) all the right things for a year... after making excuses for the marginally lesser evil of the democraps for 2 generations.

And it seems that I (and millions of others) instantly forget that he's been part of the same voracious capitalist machine for almost 4 decades that we see headed by Reagan 8/9 (obamanation) and will be headed by Reagan 10 ($hillbillary).

Did Bernie summarily betray his "revolution"? Or was he set up to be the catalyst to get millions of disaffected voters to forget why they are disaffected... to get $hillbillary a comfortable electoral victory (when this scheme was hatched, they figured it'd be JEB... if they'd known about herr drumpf, maybe they wouldn't have bothered)?

I'm ashamed of myself for being taken in so easily.

And, yeah, fuck them all.


Post a Comment

<< Home