The "Bolt Theory"

Seems that McCain's honeymoon was mainly with the media, as he's still having problems from within the GOP.  In Nevada, Republican delegates are trying to change Party rules to nominate delegates from the floor - thereby allowing Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee supporters a better change for a delegate seat.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans voted 27% against McCain.  Thus by the poll numbers there, McCain's ability to keep his base of Party support is actually worse than the hit Democrats will supposedly take when the race is whittled down to one candidate.

I've never given the "blot theory" much credit, as it rarely plays out in the end - most likely voters come around in the end.  But even if we were to give some levity to this notion, it seems the threat of bolting is happening to both parties at an equal rate, maybe even neutralizing any meaningful effect.

Comments

[Mark]

Not sure I buy into the "bolt" theory either, Mr. Super. People are inherently petulant and, like children, often threaten to pout and to "take their ball and go home" when they find their team's not winning. But in the harsh light of reality, most voters tend to "come home" when they see just how profoundly *lousy* the other party's guy/gal is.

That said, while I do believe that the Right is deeply dispirited this election cycle, fearing an even worse drubbing than they endured in 2006, they've been heartened recently by the polls showing McCain to be "competitive" with either Democrat. But as we all recognize, the Dem nominee's number will look far different when, after one of them locks down the nod, supporters of *both* current Dem candidates morph into one very powerful bloc, which *will* be the case. And if Obama's the nominee, he also stands a real chance of bringing in a potentially game-changing number of independents and so-called "Obamacans" (i.e. moderate GOP voters -- yes, there are still a few!).

[Dave]

This is a year that any Democrat should walk into the Presidency. With the economy in the tank, Gas and food prices soaring, the housing market falling, over 4000 lost lives in Iraq with 100,000's more severely injured, and the job market going south.

We should be so informed about what is going on that the man on the corner would say there is no way a Republican can win this year. I would in most cases say it's all over.

But Huston we have a problem. We have two Candidates fighting for the Democratic nomination. We as a party are bleeding with 4 plus weeks to go in our process, while Mr McCain sits and watches taking note on how to attack our candidate. At this point will we really have a winner?

McCain is ask if he called his wife a certain name, responding that is not an a proper question next question please. The questioner was a Baptist Minister questioned by the Secret Service before being released.

We have gotten so far from the issues that effect us all and yet the Corporate Media wants to have a show. They are playing us on issues that are so far from what is really happening that we are losing sight of them.

Don't count him out. Things are so nasty in our party that he may when by default.

[Joe]

> And if Obama's the nominee, he also stands a real chance of bringing in a potentially game-changing number of independents and so-called "Obamacans" (i.e. moderate GOP voters -- yes, there are still a few!).

In fact, I'm one of them. Although I consider myself independent now (and I'm still registered as a Republican, due to laziness). I'm not lazy about voting, though. I haven't missed a vote, ever.

[Sommer]

Mr. Super -
I am not sure I agree. I think too many people are personally involved this time, women for Clinton and African-Americans for Obama. I don't think we have anything to compare people's feelings to. What do you think about James Clyburn's comments he made a few weeks ago, and the article in McClatchy newspaper that said that African-Americans won't vote if Clinton is the nominee?

[Nate]

Mr. Super,

I hope you had a chance to catch the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in NC.

I can't add much; speechless here.

[J S]

At least on the Dem side, I personally think that the single group of supporters most likely to abandon the party in the G.E. if their candidate is not the nominee - are the disaffected voters that Sen. Obama has drawn back into the process. I would think they are most sick of "politics as usual", and would not support Sen. Clinton, who is generally seen as much closer to special interests.

Also, the youth vote is always said to be fickle when it comes to actually turning out - that's another constituency that would likely be hard for the Dems to hold onto should Sen. Obama not be the nominee. In general, Sen. Clinton's support has been more from 'traditional' bases of Democratic support.

[suekzoo]

I wonder if Clinton getting the nomination without outright winning it by the rules opens the door wide for Nader to skim away disaffected voters.

[LindaS]

Good point about Nader....and yes, I'm one of those voters that will be thoroughly disgusted with the party if Clinton is given the nomination. I might vote for Democrats down ticket (though, as I've said, most of our Congressional delegation has supported Clinton and her smear campaign so I wouldn't vote for those reps. up for re-election this year).

As an older voter (a 50-something white woman), I will seek ways to campaign against Clinton and those within the party who support her politics as usual and the chokehold that the special interests have on Washington.

[Joe]

Yeah, I might be tempted to defect again for someone like Nader, though it's hard to say when he doesn't have the support to get anywhere. If we had any of the different voting systems (approval voting, etc.) there wouldn't be so much of a two-party spoiler effect and people might be able to vote more as they wish to.

That said, Obama at his weakest is only a little weaker than Clinton's best, given that she appears to have peaked lately. And giving him the nomination is probably the only realistic way to end this contest early just now, because the inter-party struggles are overshadowing what would be *great* attacks against McCain, like the gas tax.

If it weren't being cast as something between Clinton and Obama, it would get a LOT more traction with conservatives who are disgusted by the fiscal mismanagement of the Republicans. I've seen lots of people who are hardcore Republicans admitting that, to their surprise, Obama is the only one standing up on that issue (though they definitely disagree elsewhere).