The Democrats’ Dilemma: Stupid Is As Stupid Does
April 23rd, 2008 | by Daniel DiRito |
During the last two presidential elections Democrats marveled at the number of voters who cast ballots for George W. Bush, a move that was obviously contrary to their own economic self-interest. Time and again, Democratic operatives have marveled at the stupidity of such actions. As we approach the 2008 election, the number of Democrats who suggest they will do the same appears ready to exceed any prior measurement on the “stupid voter” continuum.
The most recent polling indicates that Democrats are prepared to either jump ship and support John McCain or simply sit out the coming election if their candidate should fail to be the nominee.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — New polls show many Democratic voters could swing their support to Sen. John McCain in the general election if their candidate isn’t nominated.
The most recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, taken March 14-16, shows the percentage of Sen. Barack Obama supporters who said they’d be dissatisfied or upset if Sen. Hillary Clinton wins the nomination has gone up — from 26 percent in January, just after Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, to 41 percent now.
The poll suggests if Obama wins, a majority of Clinton supporters — 51 percent — would be dissatisfied or upset. The number was 35 percent in January.
According to a Gallup Poll taken March 7-22, about one in five Obama supporters — or 19 percent — said they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
If Obama’s the nominee, more than one in four Clinton supporters — or 28 percent — said they’d vote for McCain.
The ongoing slog towards choosing a Democratic nominee isn’t apt to diminish the animosities that underlie the apparent willingness to vote Republican or stay at home. Exit polling in Pennsylvania supports these prior numbers and paints a dismal picture for the Democrats in November should they hold.
(CNN) — John McCain said Tuesday he isn’t sure if a prolonged Democratic race is benefiting his candidacy, but the exit polls appear to show it is.
The Arizona senator stands to win supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama if their candidate does not win.
Only 50 percent of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania said they would support Obama if he is the nominee. Twenty-six percent said they would back McCain over Obama, and 19 percent said they would not vote at all.
Among Obama’s Pennsylvania voters, 67 percent said they would support Clinton if she is the party’s nomine. Seventeen percent said they would back McCain instead, and 12 percent said they would stay home.
Add in the number of voters who indicate they wouldn’t vote for a woman or a black and the depth of voter stupidity is fully illuminated. It also highlights the challenge facing the Democrats in November.
The results of the exit poll, conducted at 40 precincts across Pennsylvania by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press, also found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all.
Obama would be the first black president, and the survey detected some evidence of racial discomfort in voters’ minds. It found that about 8 percent of whites would be uncomfortable voting for a black for president. It produced an estimate of about 13 percent of Republicans who would feel that way, but suggested very few if any Democrats would now be uncomfortable. In November, about 5 percent of Democrats indicated discomfort at voting for a black person for president.
Thirty-nine percent of the women who responded to the Lifetime poll said that they would not vote for Senator Clinton, and another 7 percent said that they would not vote for any woman under any circumstance.
Unfortunately, according to NBC News polling, the number of Democrats who will ONLY be happy if their candidate becomes the nominee has continued to grow since the California primary. This irrational partisanship reached a high point in Pennsylvania. While I expect that the number of Democrats who will vote for John McCain or sit out the election will decrease once a nominee is selected, the final number is apt to be large enough to jeopardize the election of the Democratic nominee.
Come November, should the Democratic nominee lose the election as a result of this self-defeating intransigence, the Party will find itself in the unenviable position of having lost a third election due to a portion of the electorate voting against their own self-interest. However, they won’t need to look any further than their fellow card carrying Democrats to place the blame.
The truth of the matter is that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in virtual agreement on every issue of import to Democrats. Yes, there are subtle policy differences and marked stylistic distinctions…but both candidates would serve the self-interests of their Democratic constituents. John McCain, on the other hand, would be a virtual continuation of the Bush administration.
Should Democrats aid in the election of John McCain, we will have proven that our stupidity matches or exceeds that of those we assailed for placing Geirge W. Bush in the White House for eight years. If that happens, Forrest Gump had it right when he stated, “Stupid is as stupid does”. Even worse, we will have conceded what should have been a certain victory in what may have been the most important election in recent history.
Doing so would suggest that the Republican Party holds no monopoly on pettiness and that we Democrats are not only willing to engage in “lip service”…we’re willing to kneel down and swallow defeat rather than buck up and stand together. That would really suck.
Cross-posted at Thought Theater
7 Responses to “The Democrats’ Dilemma: Stupid Is As Stupid Does”
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
Daniel,
Economic interests are not the only interests worth voting on and there’s nothing stupid in voting against one’s own economic interests. Want proof? Fine. How many rich, college grad elite Democrats are intending to vote for a Democratic candidate against their own economic interests? Are they all stupid? Or is it possible that they recognize that there are other things besides economics? Or is it just Republicans that are stupid for voting against their economic interests?
Here’s the thing, as I see it: most people in America, possibly every person in America, economically, are as kings in comparison with the rest of the world. When people are doing well enough that they’ve got food, shelter, the necessities and some extras, they start considering things besides what the lying politician promises to “give” them. It might be argued that the poor of this country are, at least as they understand their own economic interests, voting in alignment with that understanding by voting Democrat. I would disagree but that’s irrelevant for my point here. But once you get above the poor, people see things other than economics as being important…because they have the luxury of doing so…so they do. Get over it and stop calling Republicans stupid. They’re no more stupid than the rich elites who intend to vote for the self-proclaimed redistributionist, Obama, who’s promised to take from the rich and give to the poor, all in the name of fairness. Fine. I don’t begrudge them wanting to be fair. Just don’t pretend that electing Obama would be in their economic self-interest.
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
Okay, let me rephrase one part of that above comment. I wrote:
I should more accurately written:
By Daniel DiRito on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
I appreciate your response and your argument…but it reminds me of the idiom, “Methinks he doth protest too much”. Telling me to stop calling Republican’s stupid misses the fact that I’m primarily calling Democrats stupid. Yes, one can infer that I’m also stating that those Republicans who voted against their self-interest are stupid.
Clearly, my comments are addressed to those supporters of Clinton and Obama who told pollsters they wouldn’t vote for the other Democratic candidate and would instead vote for McCain or not vote at all. Given the positions of the two candidates on the issues, the decision to vote McCain or not vote at all seems rather silly…and it’s likely stupid.
Then again, maybe you’re telling me that one of the two Democratic candidates is very similar to John McCain. That seems like a stretch to me. Hence the logic employed by those in question is at best faulty. Does that equate with stupidity? You can make your own judgments.
As to wealthy Obama supporters voting against their self-interest, is there any level of wealth at which being willing to pay more taxes is actually in one’s self-interest? If the concentration of wealth is detrimental to our economic wherewithal, wouldn’t it be in their interest to favor higher taxes? Isn’t there a point at which the concentration of wealth implodes upon itself?
If I understand capitalism, it depends upon supply and demand. If poverty and the erosion of the middle class circumvents demand, who will be the customers of those enterprising individuals that can see no reason to ever vote in favor of a more equitable distribution of wealth? As such, I can make the argument that those willing to squeeze the middle class into oblivion are in fact stupid. A glance at the housing market demonstrates my contention. If too many people lose their homes such that the housing market collapses, the wealthy have been also been harmed.
Finally, our forefathers clearly sought to create an egalitarian glue intended to promote and support cohesion in our society. Rather than continue to enrich the elites across the pond, they chose to craft an more perfect union. Are you going to tell me that their intentions and their actions were contrary to their self-interest? In the end, judging the prudence of political decisions is a complex equation. The dynamics that precipitated our independence ought to continue to guide us. Dissecting the country into the haves and the have-nots seems a rather shortsighted miscalculation that won’t ultimately serve any of our interests.
Hopefully you’ll tie this added commentary back with my prior observations and revisit your inferences. The bottom line ought to be a sound and stable America. Should that disappear, I suspect we’ll all be judged to have been stupid.
Regards,
Daniel
P.S. I could also make a religious argument as an adjunct to the above…one that inserts a moral imperative into the equation…and I’m not speaking of one based upon the existing construct that focuses upon sexual preference. If Christian values underlie this country’s existence…as is frequently argued by the GOP…then votes and legislation ought to demonstrate as much…dontcha think?
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
On the other hand, I don’t believe that anywhere near as many people who say they will not vote for the other Democratic hopeful if their preferred candidate loses, will actually not vote for the other Democratic hopeful. Not that I necessarily think they’re lying. Rather, I think they are either trying to scare the superdelegates away from their non-preferred candidate or are just being peevish. I don’t believe that there are a significant number of Democrats who will vote for McCain if their preferred candidate loses the Democratic race. I just don’t see Democrats seeing McCain as preferable (in a Democratic voter’s mind) to either of the Democrats.
In short, I think most Democrats will hold their nose and vote for whichever Democrat winds up on top. Some might decide to stay home but I just don’t believe we’ll see significant numbers of Democrats voting for McCain out of spite that their favorite candidate lost.
Not even Democrats are that irrational.
Okay, I kid! I kid!
Democrats are that irrational.
I kid! I kid! Truly!
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
Daniel,
Not buying. There’s no infering going on here. You wrote:
This, long before you bring up Democrats doing the same thing. You are explicitly calling Republican voters stupid specifically for “such actions” as voting against their economic interests. And yes, I ignored that you were mostly calling Democrats who would vote for McCain over either of the other Democratic candidates because, well, if you want to call Democratic voters stupid, who am I to object?
But seriously, my main concern was to point out that, yes, sometimes (in this country, perhaps even often) voters vote against their economic interests and to point out why they do that, namely, that economic interests are not the only interests that people have. People are more than how much they make, whether they struggle or get bye handsomely. People are moral. They may differ on the moral values they value most and on how willing they may be to vote their moral values over their economic interests but Rich Democrats who vote for Obama are voting moral values over economic interest as much as a struggling Evangelical is voting moral values over economic interests when he votes for the most pro-life candidate over the candidate who promises to take money from the rich and give it to him or her.
Heck, so is the libertarian against whose moral values there is little that is more repugnant to him than taking money from the rich and giving it to him or anyone else.
In fact, in this country, I’d say most people vote values over economic interests (only where they might conflict, of course) more often than not.
Anyway, gotta run now. I may respond further but I don’t have time at the moment.
By Daniel DiRito on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
Your welcome to your conclusions. Notwithstanding, my use of the observations of many Democrats isn’t the equivalent of me stating that I think Republicans are stupid. In order to make my point, it is necessary to point out the argument made by so many Democrats following the last two elections. The hypocrisy can’t be illustrated otherwise. Perhaps you misunderstand the construction of my argument? You’ll also note that I shift to the use of “we” when closing my comments in order to distinguish between the prior assertions of others and the future actions of “we” Democrats.
At the same time, I’m not defending Republicans nor am I afraid to argue that their actions in regards to voting against their self-interest were stupid…and hypocritical. For example, refusing to vote for a Democrat because he or she supports gays while also voting for a Republican who prefers tax cuts for the wealthy and no increase in the minimum wage seems a rather tortured moral position. At best it’s loaded with bias, biblical cherry picking, and a healthy dose of hypocrisy.
I don’t disagree with your statement that “most people vote values”. I do contend that the values espoused are frequently an incoherent and hypocritical pasting together of bias that often lacks moral cohesion. That often holds true for Republicans and Democrats…and libertarians.
Take care,
Daniel
By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 24, 2008 | Reply
Well, I don’t think most Democratic rich vote for folks who come right out and tell them that they are going to take things away from them in order to give to others see that as a sort of supply side economics (wasn’t that a conservative notion?). They see it as an appeal to their sense of fairness, generosity, to give to the less fortunate. I doubt many of them connect that to their own economic self-interest. That is, I think they see it as primarily a moral values vote rather than an economic interest vote.
I don’t agree that the concentration of wealth, at least as we see it in America — where, as I say, even the poor are vastly better off than in most of the countries of the world– is detrimental to the economic health of the nation but that’s not something I care to argue about. I’m not F. A. Hayek or Milton Friedman, either of whom could make that argument convincingly (well, convincingly to me, anyway). Rather, I’m talking about perceptions here; not reality.
In that sense, Republicans vote republican because they believe that the free market system, unhindered by high taxation, is in their economic interest even though they aren’t rich. They see open markets and low taxation as being good for the economy which tends to help everyone. To take one example, if you think forcing Wal-Mart to raise prices to cover high cost health-care insurance and to pay for higher priced goods from America instead of low cost goods from China, the average Republican would disagree. The poor already buy at Wal-Mart because they can afford to shop there over higher-priced outlets. Force the prices up on them and they can’t afford even to shop at Wal-Mart. That helps nobody.
Further, they are likely to argue that raising the costs of Wal-Mart doing business, means there will be less money to pay workers, meaning fewer hires. They may only be able to hire two workers for whom they must pay health care costs for rather than 3-5 workers that they aren’t. I don’t see how that helps those most likely to find a job at Wal-Mart to be the best employment they can find in their area because it will raise the level of unemployment locally. Add to that the higher prices and you’re looking at serious damage to the economy.
Well, I think that’s the way the average Republican looks at it. Again, we can argue the reality but I’m talking about perceptions here. I mean, I think I’m right but even if you think I’m wrong, my argument still works because that’s the way they view it. I guess, from your point of view, that would make them stupid but, since I think that’s right, not only as a matter of perception but as a matter of reality as well, I would still have to object to calling Republicans stupid for voting Republican because you think voting for republicans is contrary to their interests.
Furthermore, I would argue that the egalitarian impulses of the founders are weak at best. Adam Smith is the guy they were reading on Economics and if you think Smith was about equality of outcome through wealth distribution, I think you need to study up on him.
Remember, Marx was not around at that time.
I’m not aware of any founder talking about wealth redistribution and such a notion certainly never found its way into the US Constitution. They were more interested in restricting the government’s power to take property, than they were about spreading property around. They were more about creating economic environment amenable to creating wealth through free enterprise than playing elected Robin Hoods…at least as I read The Federalist.
I don’t think refusing to grant titles actually counts as egalitarian glue. Heck. They weren’t even about egalitarianism period. Blacks, even free blacks, were not citizens, could not become citizens. But there was nothing like a governmental welfare system even for poor whites.
Or rather, the welfare system consisted of private donations to charitable organizations and to individuals in need by more direct route. No one was interested in involving government in a mandated theft by force from the rich (the one’s remember, who could actually vote at the time) via taxation in order to give to the poor. At least, none that I’m aware of.
In any case, I think I’m done for the evening. Good conversation. G’night!