Aug 27 2008

The Dissonant Democrat Convention – Voters Flood From Hillary To McCain

Published by at 7:37 am under 2008 Elections,All General Discussions

Major Update Below:

I want to add to my piece about how Hillary fell flat last night with her speech. Generally speaking there is no harmony in Denver, the theme coming across is dissonance, forced fronts and angst. Probably being fed by a combination of inexperience and buyer’s remorse. What struck me with the Hillary speech was how many “Hillary” signs there were, and how they almost seemed to be doing battle with the “Unity” signs. If it was not for the reporting about the angry Hillary supporters I would probably not make a big deal about.

But this is one of this insane events which has me agreeing with none other than Maureen Dowd – and that means the signals are coming across loud and clear:

But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult with Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.

Ah, yes, now I recognize that sulfurous aroma.

There were a lot of bitter Clinton associates, fund-raisers and supporters wandering the halls, spewing vindictiveness, complaining of slights, scheming about Hillary’s roll call and plotting trouble, with some in the Clinton coterie dissing Obama by planning early departures, before the nominee even speaks.

“We’re seeing a train wreck all over again,” said one top Democrat. “I’m telling you, man, it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”

The speakers just don’t seem to have their hearts into the event – like they are distracted or concerned. Mark Warner of VA gave a horribly dry and boring speech. Hillary’s was ridiculous, Michelle’s a waste of time (yes, lovely family and cute girls – no why should Barack be President?).

I recall the Kerry convention and there was a lot more energy last time around – at lot more confidence. The party was ready to do war. This one seems to be way off in a very subtle and subliminal way. The party leaders are having trouble covering for Obama (anyone see Governor Richards fumble on the Bill Ayers issue with Hannity?). They don’t ‘believe’ any more – and it is coming across even on the TV screen.  It seems to be much more palatable in Denver.

And worse, there are more and more reports of Hillary supporters openly and proudly going to McCain:

The last place Kathy Archuleta could have ever imagined she’d spend the first night of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, was at a happy hour sponsored by the Republican Party.

But the 54-year-old Democrat joined several other Hillary Clinton supporters, along with volunteers and officials from John McCain’s campaign, at a Happy Hour for Hillary.

The event, sponsored by the Republican National Committee and approved by the McCain campaign, was a chance for McCain and Clinton supporters to come together for one cause: their opposition to Barack Obama’s candidacy.

“Four years ago, if you said we’d be at a Hillary happy hour at the DNC, I would have called you crazy. But today is a great opportunity for people who … agree that Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t have the experience to be president of the United States,” said McCain campaign regional communications director Tom Kise.

I remember when the Democrat’s BS-meter pegged so hard that I finally had my eyes opened and I left the party for good and became a staunch unaffiliated voter (aka, an independent).  The “Awakening” was so abrupt, so many lies were exposed, that I decided to never be a mindless robot in any party.  And people naively think it was some brain-washing by the GOP. The truth is it is always the acts and lies of the Democrats themselves which repulse sane and moderate people and drives them from the party. They belief in a fantasy magical solution to every problem caused by anyone else but them is just too much at some point.

Think about this – Obama is trying to convince people with very full life experiences of his own that his lack of experience is not an issue:

Obama’s relative lack of experience in national politics — long seen as his Achilles heel — was something that Clinton supporters, Republicans and independents attending the happy hour rallied behind.

“His lack of experience has been demonstrated so painfully every time he opens his mouth just about. … You cannot have good judgment without experience; that’s how you get it,” said 58-year-old Marnie Delano of New York.

Most people respect the challenges of the office of President, especially after 9-11. With Iran and Georgia and Pakistan all roiling, most people are tired of having their intelligence insulted with juvenile platitudes. 

There is a train wreck happening in Denver and I wonder how many folks are now just wishing the nightmare of selecting a inexperienced phenom to run for president would just hurry up and end. This is not going well at all.

Major Update: I missed some really important and shocking data hidden at the back end of the second linked story – the exodus of Hillary supporters to Obama is increasing!

But there is some bad news for Obama. The poll showed that 66 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.

In one month Obama was able to lose 11% MORE Hillary voters to McCain. Obama can’t survive in the fall with just that one month’s defection level, let alone a 27% of them and growing. Recall that Dem primaries shattered voting records across this country. In 2004 Bush beat Kerry by roughly 3.5 million votes. If Hillary did get 18 million votes in the primary, then 27% of that number is 4.6 million defections for the fall.

These are historic numbers – which is why I am kind of surprised they were hidden in the back of a story on CNN – except we all know why the media and the Dems don’t want this to be the theme of the Dem Convention!

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “The Dissonant Democrat Convention – Voters Flood From Hillary To McCain”

  1. gwood says:

    I think there’s something big going on here too.

    Liberalism’s most sacrosanct tenets have never been supported by history. They’ve had to revise history and spin current events while their pols have had to purport to be something they are not, to remain viable. The Dem party is a house of cards, it’s always had tenuous underpinning, and it may be crumbling before our eyes.

    If Obama does go down to McCain, the party is going to have to head to the right a bit, in my view. I certainly don’t see how they could head more to the left than where they are right now.

  2. breschau says:

    “I remember when the Democrat’s BS-meter pegged so hard that I finally had my eyes opened and I left the party for good and became a staunch unaffiliated voter (aka, an independent).”

    “staunch unaffiliated”? Seriously – how can you type something like this with a straight face?

    You are a GOP party hack.

    Show me the last time you wrote anything complimentary about Obama, or anything critical of McCain. You’re about as “fair and balanced” as Fox News.

    80% of the world is talking about how successful Clinton’s speech was, and you have done nothing but bash it since last night. You literally have not said one complimentary, or even neutral word about it – the same for Michelle Obama’s speech the night before, which was also widely praised.

    You could not be more in the bag for Republicans if you tried. Please show me any proof otherwise.

  3. WWS says:

    Very good post, AJ. I think you’ve put your finger on it.

    Many people have been claiming (including some brain dead protesters in Denver) that this is 1968, again, but I think they’ve got the year wrong. That year the Dems still held the Presidency, after all.

    No, this is 1972 all over again – and the Republicans have a far, far better nominee now. Of course, Nixon didn’t really “win” that election as much as McGovern lost it by tearing the dem party in two on an anti-war, ultra-liberal platform.

    One of McGovern’s big themes right to the end was how the “youth vote” was going to be energized and was going to sweep this “new style of candidate” into power. Sound familiar?

    Another coinkydink – McGovern’s collapse began in earnest with his disastrous VP pick, Senator Thomas Eagleton.

    The only other 70’s dem nominee was Jimmy Carter. Will voters go for the dem rerun of That 70’s Show? Somehow I doubt it.

  4. WWS says:

    I’ll say something nice about Obama.

    “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…”

    Oh wait, Joe Biden said that.

  5. […] to know what I think? Read Stata-Sphere’s analysis, which mirrors my own […]

  6. Terrye says:


    I am 56 years old and George Bush was the first Republican I ever voted for. I left the party because it had been taken over by loons. I am an Independent myself.

  7. Terrye says:

    In fact since 2000, I have been voting pretty much Republican. I just can not bring myself to support Democrats anymore.

    Last night I heard some pundits saying they thought the Democrats would come back to the party before the election. Maybe yes, maybe no. I didn’t. And I doubt very much that I ever will.

    So I guess that makes me an Independent, leaning Republican.

  8. roylofquist says:

    “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.” Ronald Reagan.

    I sense a major shift in American politics this year. There is a precedent: the flip of the “Solid South”.

    The South, the former Confederacy, has always been a bit of a paradox. There was a fierce disdain for Republicans – not for racial reasons but because the Republicans had invaded. The south was settled by the Scots-Irish. Their basic political view is Jacksonian. The result was elected officials who wore the Democratic label but were philosophically Republicans more than Democrat – the Dixiecrats.

    Lyndon Johnson famously said that signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had lost the South for the Democrats. He was wrong. The real reason was the Democratic Convention of 1968. The south was comfortable with the national Democratic Party until then. The parties were unified on national defense and the South’s power in the Congress disarmed the social differences. 1968 changed it all. They are Jacksonians to the marrow.

    I see a similar situation today. This time the great divide is between the water hugging big cities and the rest of the country. It is between the pacifists and the Jacksonians.

    There were the famous “Reagan Democrats”. A lot of them drifted back to their home in the Democratic Party. This year will see the rise of the “McCain Democrats”. I think fewer of them will revert.

  9. ivehadit says:

    Roy, I think this is the unspoken story line that cannot be measured in polls….Traditional values vs. secular progressives (socialists).
    The secular’s MUST lose.