Exit Poll Parsing Presents a False Choice

This endless Democratic primary season may or may not be good for the party, but it has certainly not been good for the media. Pages of newsprint and hours of airtime have been wasted parsing election results, exit polls, non-exit polls and the comments of the candidate's surrogates and pseudo-surrogates.

Counting delegates and super delegates and going back and forth over Michigan and Florida is all well and good. But there is one line of thought that keeps coming up -- encouraged by the Clinton campaign -- that I simply don't get.

It's the syllogism that Clinton beats Obama among white, working-class voters in swing states; Democrats must win these voters to take the White House; therefore Clinton should be the party's nominee. It makes as much sense to me as Woody Allen's classic, which went something like this: All men are mortal. Socrates was a man. Therefore are men are Socrates. Socrates was gay, therefore all men are gay.

Better, I think, to look at this as a series of choices. If a group of people allergic to strawberries are offered a banana, an apple and a strawberry and the majority of them choose the apple, it simply doesn't follow that when the apple is removed from the equation they'll choose the strawberry over the banana.

It's a false choice, and for Democrats, John McCain is that strawberry. Yes, there are many Democrats who've become so invested in their candidate that they've lost sight of the fact that in terms of policy there are few differences between them.

So yes, we can argue about experience and we can argue about race and gender. But the fact remains that there are stark differences between McCain and Obama, and to look at the voters who've gravitated to Clinton as essentially McCain voters registered as Democrats is condescending to those voters. On two key points -- the war in Iraq and the economy -- Clinton and Obama stand much closer together than either does with McCain. Those will be the biggest issues facing Obama and McCain in November, and voters who voted for Clinton won't suddenly think more time in Iraq and an extension of the failed Bush domestic agenda is a good idea.
I'm not naïve enough to think there aren't Democrats out there who are voting solely based on race or gender considerations, but let's not forget that as the losing candidate in the Virginia primary, Clinton had more votes than McCain did in winning that election against Mike Huckabee.

And don't forget that the conversation early in the primary season was that Obama was going well in states with open primaries by pulling in Independent voters and disaffected Republicans. What happened to that conventional wisdom?

Yeah, I still harbor some doubt that this country is ready to elect a black man (or a woman) president, but nowhere near as many as I did 12 months ago. Once the acrimony of the primaries fades and Democrats enter the voting booth and think about their priorities and their values, when they think about the war or about the Supreme Court, issues of race and gender will pale next to the state of the nation.

Maybe I am naïve, but the syllogism I prefer is: all Democrats are Americans; the Democratic nominee will be better for America; all Democrats will vote for the party's nominee.

Comments

[JJeff88]

Article is right-on and says it better than I've tried to say it oh these many weeks.

One caveat though - Barack and the campaign still have a lot of work to do to win over skeptical rural and blue collar voters. (Just because the one-on-one matchup between Barack and Hillary does not directly correlate with a one-on-one between Barack and McCain doesn't mean that a lot of these voters aren't still in play and will need to be convinced that Obama is better for them than McCain.

What I'm hoping is that there will be stepped-up outreach to rural, blue collar, low income and senior voters by the Obama campaign - in the form of more visits to Appalachia and similar such areas, a stepped up grassroots ground effort in every area of all 50 states and considerable visible and vocal support by Democratic leaders that these constituencies respect and trust.

Finally, I can't let the comments "that Barack has run a vicious campaign characterized by playing the race card" go unaddressed. The Clinton people "did it all by themselves." The irony is that the Obama people exercised considerable restraint and, in most cases, didn't rise to the bait. In the end, it was the media and the people who grew to realize that the Clintons (whom I consider more opportunist than racist) were willing to throw past relationships with minorities under the bus in order to score cheap and near-sighted political points

[BassMent]

The strawberry-apple-banana analogy is absolutely perfect. As Peter Sellers said in Murder By Death, "Good thinking on Diamond head!"

It's amazing to me that people have not been able to understand something so obvious.

As I have posted in many a comment here, any self -proclaimed Democrat who claims they would vote for McCain over EITHER Clinton or Obama was flat-out lying when they said they were Democrats. Because to vote for McCain is to support a political agenda that is antithetical to the nearly identical agendas proposed by the Democratic candidates.

People who would sell out the party that easily were never members of it... they were members of a cult of personality, and now that they see their idol has been replaced by another, the only response they can think of is to burn the entire altar down.

Buzz this one up, people!

[jesselee26]

whereas i would agree that your post is pretty spot on... i think the media would beg to differ. this primary has been a jackpot for them. they can do lackluster, lazy reporting. and as always, the public just eats it up, without considering what trite journalism it all really is.

[Manx]

I agree with your post. The cable networks have picked up on Clinton campaign spin and repeat it over and over and over, ad nauseum. The networks assume that any Democrat who didn't vote for Obama will vote for Republican, McCain in the general election. I don't understand the logic. A primary isn't a national election between the two party's candidate but a chance for party members to vote for their preference for a candidate to oppose the other party. Do the news media know something I don't know.

The news media have largely ignored the national polls that show Obama and Clinton about even on working-class voters. They have ignored the fact that Clinton has the highest unfavorability ratings in the history of primaries. They have ignored national polls that show Obama doing very well among independents and even Republicans.

The cable networks cherry-pick the polls to deliver the message they want to deliver.

[jcahill]

yes-it's the lowest common denominator approach and makes for watchable TV
Formula:
create a "fight" or "showdown" with polarized opposites and you've got pure "conflict"
chew and spit up the cud endlessly as the two sides "fight it out' for supremecy
analyze to death "what happened"
continue chewing cud and spitting up

If TV told the absolute truth-they'd be off covering other stories because the truth is that this thing was OVER in February. The LA Times had the Clinton West Virginia story on Page 14.

[gigi09]

When I listen to Hillary making the claim that in the history of America...not since 1916 no president has won an election without the racist state of West Virginia. What a sad assessment of America that a candidate must race-bait to get the votes from the ignorant, uneducated people of West Virginia. We MUST change the swing state and leave these hateful racist to wallow in their own stupidity. Barack Obama has generated NEW SWING states which is good for America, if we want to get back to being the greatest nation in the world. To allow the mean spirited, hateful people determine who our next president is dangerous. Tuesday night was not so many votes for Hillary as they were votes against a black man. I so glad that Obama did not waste his time on those rednecks. They bought into Hillary's race-baiting and was made to look very foolish when Edwards said enough is enough..."thank you John Edwards." So, let them vote for McCain or anyone else that feeds their hatred. It is time for CHANGE! Obama 08!

[Lemeritus]

gigi09, I take serious exception to your rhetoric. To label an entire state, not to mention members of your own party, as filled with "ignorant, uneducated people" (which is redundant, btw), "hateful racist{s]" and "mean spirited hateful people " is divisive and more dangerous to Senator Obama's chances for a successful presidency than the actual result of the West Virginia primary. I think there was more involved in Obama's loss than race and I believe Edwards' endorsement will go a long way toward addressing those issues... I'm not exactly sure what the solution is to Obama supporters who speak as you do. You make me wonder how we can both be advocates for the same candidate.

[SeriousBlack]

No, not ALL Democrats will vote for the party's nominee. Numerous posts to this very editorial illustrate that sufficiently (simply scroll through the venomous posts by those who are wedded so much to their own Democrat that they would rather punish themselves and the entire country rather than see the other Democrat obtain what they feel is their own candidate's rightful prize).

But, what I remain convinced of is that despite those individuals, there are enough intelligent Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans with the common sense to see how disastrous a McCain presidency would be, for Obama to win at least 51% of the vote and the magic electoral college number. Yes, it will be close. And it would be just as close if Clinton were the Democratic nominee, for different reasons (the fanatical hatred of Republicans, conservatives and right-wingers for the Clintons for 20 years now). But I highly doubt that after even a few months of general campaigning, either Obama OR Clinton would not be able to win a narrow victory over McCain. Considering the gulf between the Democratic and Republican platforms this time (Iraq and the economy being the two main differences, with a dash of irrefutable Supreme Court nomination worries thrown in for good measure), if either Democrat were actually to lose the general this year, I would (1) be astonished, and (2) give up on politics for life.

[Lemeritus]

SeriousBlack, I ran some interesting but useless number yesterday comparing the voter turnout in the primaries thus far -- Republicans outvoted (cast more votes) than Democrats in only 12 states (for an estimated 100 or so electoral votes that we're never, ever, ever going to get, period). In most other states, the Democratic turnout slapped the Republicans silly and that is what we need to build on -- we cannot allow the party to be divided, we cannot obscure the danger -- the disaster -- of a McCain presidency (even as McCain attempts to co-opt progressive issues as he has been doing this week). Obama has electrified the country with a message of hope after seven long hopeless year. Clinton, whatever your opinion of her, has touched the frustrations of the blue collar workers who have raised the tent poles of this party for decades -- her voice will continue through John Edwards. Racism WILL be an issue and we would be naive to think it won't be -- but we cannot avoid it by calling each other names. We must put our shoulders together as Americans and Democrats and simply say: We will not be moved.

[myskylark]

All Democrats won't vote for the nominee.

Barack Obama is not qualified. He ran a vicious campaign. He played the race card (see the 30 page memo on twisting innocent Clinton remarks into racial bias) and then spun it to blame the Clinton's. The Clinton's are now vilified in their own party and especially by African-Americans with whom they once enjoyed a mutually warm relationship. That will never be the same again.

I will not vote for Obama or for McCain. I don't want to stay in the Democratic Party either.

[Oldchef]

That the Clintons are now "vilified in their own party" is not the fault of Obama, it's their own fault that they've alienated a lot of AA voters. Hillary pushed an "uppity n****r" meme in Pennsylvania and Ohio and went back in a comment on the AP article to add "white" to the description of hard-working blue-collar voters before the West Virginia primary. If she did not intend to bring in a racist theme, she sure gave that impression, whether she meant to or not. That's her fault, not Obama's. The viciousness in this campaign was not on his campaign, but on hers. If all that negativity is what you crave, perhaps you would be more at home with the Republicans.

[Zanti]

"Barack Obama is not qualified. He ran a vicious campaign. He played the race card (see the 30 page memo on twisting innocent Clinton remarks into racial bias) and then spun it to blame the Clinton's."

You can point this out until Doomsday, and they won't see it.

[SeriousBlack]

Yes - people don't easily "see" falsehoods.

[sky2blue]

As an African American, I can assure you lots of us decided the Clinton were race-baiting without being told so by the Obama campaign. And what race-baiting is is saying something that seems "innocent" that's really racially denigrating.

Okay. Take the whole LBJ/MLK comment. She said MLK's dream wouldn't have come to pass w/out LBJ signing the law. Accurate enough. What's also accurate is that MLK's dream wouldn't have come to pass had he and other African Americans not pressed for it; had they not gone to jail for it; had they not faced down police dogs and firehoses. Where was that in her "history"?

And, that only adds to the racist tendency to discount black people's efforts and give the credit to the white guy. That's what upset us. It's about what she said and the message it sent: that no matter what black people want and how hard they work towards it, they need a white man to finish the deal for them. Lots of us are tired of the narrative. It had nothing to do with Obama.

Btw, Clinton didn't mention that Sharpton lost SC in 2004.

[fun2bfree]

Forget the racism- her "take" on history tells us everything about her philosophy of government and how it differs from Barack's--an approach he outlined over a decade ago in his 1st book...CHANGE according to Hillary must come from the top--she figures out what we all need and she will give it to us (witness her hokey XMAS ad where she was doling out government programs like XMAS presents)
Barack knows that REAL change must arise from the bottom and be demanded by the people before those at the top will make the change happen -because there is nothing as relentless as an idea whose time has come...
This is our time. The fierce urgency of now.
Obama gets it...Hillary did not and does not.

[sky2blue]

I agree with that as well.

[izAriver]

Too bad you won't be voting for Obama but I'm glad you're nit voting for mcshame. As far as leaving the democrat party, I'm all for it. Everyone should declare as independents and make these
"parties" a thing of the past. To paraphrase Groucho Marx, "I would never be a member of any organization that would have me as a member".

[izAriver]

I hope this explanation permeates the permafrost of the right-wing mass media political pole. They sure as hell don't seem to get it.

[Zanti]

Um.... The people who need to consider these points are the folks running the Obama campaign and all of the pro-Obama shills in the media, starting with Keith Olberdork, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and the repulsive Tim Russert.

That is to say, the race-carding of white voters needs to stop NOW. It's hurt the party, and it will kill us in the general election. White guilt being something that plays very poorly with Repubs.

[Bramptonian]

I think all TRUE Democrats will vote for the Democrative candidate come November. I refuse to believe that America, as a people, would 'cut off its nose to spite its face' by voting for McCain.
God bless America, and God bless President Obama.

[jade7243]

Please send this to the talking heads and Terry McAuliffe. Maybe they'll see we're not as "stoopid" as they think.

[PuppaX]

It's about freakin' time; I've been waiting for someone to say this. These arguments based on the exit polling have been so silly.

[erykah]

I sure hope you are right.

[maritabox]

Don't worry, be Happy!
Vollunteer, Contribute, we all have a part in this.

He will win, He will win BIG!

[WAstateliberal]

Please contribute to the DNC so they can run the two great anti-McCain ads they have prepared.