Comments on: McCain’s Problem, Revisited

By: Rob McMonigal

Rob McMonigal — Sat, 10 May 2008 04:07:13 +0000

I’m inclined to both agree and disagree with you on this one.

While I agree that the votes again McCain are a bad sign for him (unless he names Huckabee as Vice Prez, which I think is a good possibility), I think that the votes against Kerry were as well. I voted against Gore and Kerry in the primaries to show my displeasure. I know I was not the only one who did so. McCain can’t win–just as Gore didn’t (sorta) and Kerry didn’t (a little more than sorta, depending on your thoughts about Ohio)–because the base just didn’t care.

Clinton as DNC candidate? Take that base problem and double it.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:58:00 +0000

“While your at it, could you explain that to Wellstone, if he ever comes back?”

I’m getting worried about him. He was wWWAAAAAYYYYY to emotionally involved in this race.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:23:04 +0000

While your at it, could you explain that to Wellstone, if he ever comes back?

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:37:46 +0000

“How many times does it bear repeating that primary results have nothing to do with general election results?”

How about once, but you have to back it up with evidence. Remember, you are a moron and your opinion means exactly shit. Back it up, or don’t bother posting in the first place.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:33:18 +0000

So why did Republicans go to the primaries at all? he may have it sewn up, that doesn’t mean people like him any better.

By: Jay

Jay — Fri, 09 May 2008 16:16:52 +0000

But unlike the Huckabee/Paul vote that vote was not a rejection of Kerry.

You cannot reach this conclusion based upon your own reasons voting for Edwards. There are others who probably voted for Edwards as a rejection of Kerry. You just don’t know.

The fact is, McCain has already sewn the nomination up. Therefore, there isn’t much incentive for people to run out and vote in a primary that doesn’t make a difference. Therefore, it’s silly to read into results that have McCain getting ‘only’ 77% of the vote.

How many times does it bear repeating that primary results have nothing to do with general election results?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 09 May 2008 15:42:22 +0000

The Economist comes sniffing around here for blog fodder?

Congratulations to you, OW! I think this means you’re officially big league.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Fri, 09 May 2008 03:12:09 +0000

Two points…

1.) The two situations are not analogous. People who have dropped out of the race and official endorsed McCain are getting a serious percentage of the vote. McCain has officially won the Republican Nomination, yet people are still voting against him.

2.) Kerry lost.

All in all, this is not a compelling argument by The Economist.

By: Protest Votes | Andrew Daniller

Protest Votes | Andrew Daniller — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:47:11 +0000

[...] Oliver Willis: The Economist responds to my post about how McCain’s trouble with the base is showing up in a 20% protest vote in the primaries. They don’t think it’s a problem, but if you look at the late 2004 Democratic primaries the only candidate getting a substantial vote other than Sen. Kerry is Sen. Edwards. But unlike the Huckabee/Paul vote that vote was not a rejection of Kerry. I was one of those who voted for Edwards, not because I rejected Kerry as the nominee, but because I wanted him to pick Edwards as his running mate. [...]