Bliss Institute’s John C. Green gives perspective on Clinton Supporters Count Too

We are fortunate to have the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute of Applied Politics in Ohio. Its director, John C. Green, is a wonderfully affable, wise and intelligent person whom others seek out for analysis constantly. Not to mention a Senior Fellow in Religion and American Politics at the Pew Forum.

I’m no exception. And so, as I struggle to find a way into the pragmatic side I hope all voters possess once they consider what they really want to achieve for the next four years via a new president, I thought, a-ha! I should ask John Green.

Here are two sets of questions I asked him this morning, and his responses:

WLST: I’m curious to know if you’d be willing to answer just a couple of questions for my blog about the issues [raised by the Clinton Supporters Count Too phenom]:

1. What do voters usually do? By this, I mean, suppose you are a Clinton supporter, but primarily (truly, first and foremost) because she is a woman. Is there anything historically parallel to which we can look to say that something similar happened (or maybe happens in many election cycles but further down ticket) and this is what the voters decided to do once their candidate was out and it resulted in…what exactly?

I would ask the same question in regard to Clinton supporters who support her but not because of anything having to do with being a woman. I would think that that group would then be okay with voting for Obama, or maybe even legitimately McCain (as opposed to a protest vote for him).

John Green: There is not exact historical precedent, but contested primaries have been very common. Different voters have done different things under these circumstances. Some get over their anger and back the nominee, others gets disillusioned and stay home, and a few vote for the other party. Most of the defectors to the other party appear to do less out of spite than disagreement with the nominee on issues. So a moderate woman who really liked the idea of a woman president might end up voting for McCain over Obama because McCain is more moderate on economic issues.

WLST: 2. Does the protest vote strategy ever work? By this, I mean, does threatening to vote for McCain do anything more than draw attention? Can a strategy like that actually make Clinton as a VP choice more likely? And again, do we have any historical parallels to which we can look to say, well, this block of voters made this threat, and either the threat was respected and their cause was forwarded, OR, their threat was ignored and they 1) carried through on the threat and what happened or 2) didn’t carry through on the threat and here’s what happened.

John Green: There are two issues here: the threat of a protest vote and the actual protest vote. The threat may work better because the party wants to win–thus efforts may be made prevent a protest vote. A woman on the ticket might work in this regard. A protest vote can work also, but it requires that the party lose the election–that can be an effective message, but with a huge downside. So this doesn’t happen much. Most protest votes go to independent or minor party candidates and involve dislike of both parties.

Sphere: Related Content

By Jill Miller Zimon at 10:30 am May 20th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Voting, Gender, Democrats, Social Issues, Campaigning, Politics, Ohio, Elections, Women, Blogging

Comments

3 Responses to “Bliss Institute’s John C. Green gives perspective on Clinton Supporters Count Too”

1 jason on May 20th, 2008 12:34 pm

What you’d want to be able to analyze is not just the actual crossover vote from Hillary Supporters, it’s the increase in the number of Dems who stay home rather than vote after they’ve threatened a protest compared to the number who just threaten to stay home and don’t change their mind and vote. In other words, does threatening to vote for McCain make simply refusing to vote for Obama a more palatable option?
If the debate gets framed as “Is it better for angry Clinton Supporters to vote for McCain or to sit the election out,” then Obama loses either way.
Additionally, among undecided and/or soft-McCain support women, does this make it harder for Obama to pull them over between now and November?
2 Jill Miller Zimon on May 20th, 2008 12:49 pm

I understand the psychology related to the impact of how these options are phrased. However, imo, the focus must be on the actual possible impact, not just what you are showing yourself to be saying or thinking. This is, after all, the choice of a new president, after an incumbent leaves.

Strategy is eclipsed by reality at a certain point, yes?
3 jason on May 20th, 2008 1:16 pm

Perhaps we are saying the same thing, perhaps not. I think we can agree that people can say one of three things:
1a) I will vote for Obama
2a) I will vote for McCain
3a) I will not vote/ I will vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning.

Then, in November, they will do one of three things:
1b) Vote for Obama
2b) Vote for McCain
3b) Not vote/3rd party

What you discussed with Green was how will a protest campaign translate into influencing how many Hillary supporters who are now in group 2a will eventually be in group 2b. He replied, basically, not very many. They are much more likely to move from 2a into 1b or 3b. So then the questions become: Does promoting 2a lead to a higher ratio of 3b to 1b? That’s an actual effect that is possible. Another question is does such a campaign reduce the rate at which people move from 2a or 3a into 1b? That’s another actual effect, and an actual possibility.

Ignoring this campaign because it is unlikely to result in McCain votes from Hillary supporters could easily result in a net loss of votes for Obama. The ‘psychology’ is merely a description of the mechanism by which the net loss occurs. The framing is not really strategy per se, it simply reflects the fact that if people begin by weighing two options, they are likely to pick one of those two options. If they start off by evaluating McCain against no vote, data suggests they will pick no vote. No vote is still bad. If they are threatening to not vote, and weigh not voting against voting for Obama, many might still not vote. But some will vote, for Obama. In the absence of a vocal CSCT movement, I think more women would be in the second situation.