POLL: general election voting intentions

Hello, all,
This has come up in the last couple of days in discussions: namely, the question of whether supporters of one candidate here would vote for the opposite candidate in the general.

I've seen polls on dKos asking everyone whether they'd vote for Clinton in the general; however, the results would contain some votes from Clinton supporters.

It's also important to note that the results of this poll aren't necessarily representative of what will happen in November, after months of general election campaigning.

Please do try to be honest, though.  I realize the temptation may be there to make the "other side" look bad, but it won't do much in the long run.  The poll is more valuable as a look at honest intentions.

Oh, and please, if you're not eligible to vote (too young, outside the US, etc.) please don't vote.  This is a measure of US general election preferences.  Thank you!

So, the intent here is break things down and to ask whether or not supporters of the two remaining major candidates would vote for the opposite candidate in the general.  Hopefully, we'll get thousands of votes and a representative sample :)

Seriously, such polls tend to attract those who feel most strongly about the issue (one thing that routinely screws up Zogby's stuff).  So the results here shouldn't be taken for more than they are: an online poll with consequential biases.

UPDATE: Yes, I know some of the poll questions have minor wording screw ups.  Please treat all "would would"'s as "would"'s and insert "who" as appropriate :)

•  would would

  would

  by condoleaser on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:51:24 AM PDT

  •  argh!

    No matter how often you preview, you miss something :)

    Anyone know how to edit a poll?

    by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM PDT

    •  tis oompossible

      no big biggie, though

      notice that I posted my comment before you posted the diary...? wasn't easy! but your diary came along just in time...

      by condoleaser on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:56:58 AM PDT

      •  Natural consequence...

        ...of having the diary database/application server separate from the comments database/application server, I think :)

        by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:59:06 AM PDT

        •  by the bye...

          afaik, you can post a tip jar while in preview, before publishing the diary

          by condoleaser on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:13:34 AM PDT

      •  Did they fix the apostrophe

        Did they fix the apostrophe glitch in polls? I know apostrophes work right in titles now, but I am still afraid to use them in polls.

        by se portland on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

        •  dunt no

          by condoleaser on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:12:48 AM PDT

    •  Yes -

      Tis impossible to edit.
      And never - absolutely never - include an apostrophe.
      You end up with gibberish.

      by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:09:47 AM PDT

  •  Any doubts about whether DKos undermines...

    ...its own mission statement are put to bed, once and for all by this poll, and by the atmosphere around here today.

    This is beyond pathetic.

    Markos has undermined the party to the point where he is all out promoting divisiveness and supporting an environment that will disaffect thousands of Democrats in November (and setting the stage for a Republican win in the process of doing that).

    Then again, Markos was a registered Republican until just a few year prior to founding this blog.

    It's nothing short of disgusting. And, given the published mission statement of this blog, it's now false/fraudulent advertising.

    Comparisons to 2004 no longer apply. We've gone way past the bitter dialogue of four years ago, and we're well into a point of no return.

    Congratulations Kos. Watch out what you wished for, 'cause it looks like you've got it.

    You will reap what you sow.

    by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:21:06 AM PDT

    •  Kos Doesn't Come-around Much these Days

      I think the Kingpin has largely moved-on and abandoned this site to the mob.

      by Mr X on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM PDT

    •  Actually...

      ...the results are better than I expected.

      About 40% of Obama supporters wouldn't support Clinton in the general.  The rest would do so conditionally or unconditionally.

      by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:52 AM PDT

•  If you choose not to decide...

  you still have made a choice.

  by Trix on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:52:48 AM PDT

•  Unless they film Hillary eating raw puppies

  or something REALLY over the top outrageous, I will vote for her to avoid another 4 years of the Republicans.

  I may not like it, but I will not sit out nor will I support the GOP.

  I will work hard for downticket Democrats either way.

  by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:53:53 AM PDT

  •  I Feel the Same Way

    and since that possibility is extremely remote, I voted "unconditionally".

    by Mr X on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:57:21 AM PDT

    •  me too. I will not let the GOP rule any longer

      if I can help stop it.

      by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:10:24 AM PDT

  •  That footage exists....

    Okay, maybe not raw puppies....

    by Last Best Chance on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:58:57 AM PDT

  •  I think what is going to come out about her

    campaign is the fundraising irregularities..I will go find the diary posted last night..one of her financial people has resigned and is talking..apparently it appears that people who have used credit cards to donate have found that her campaign has gone on and maxed out their credit cards unknown to the credit card holder..Is this something that anyone is reading about also or hearing about..??  

    If this is the case, this is a big no no..and I think that would cause her campaign to be investigated by law enforcement..

    by RubyGal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:02:21 AM PDT

    •  whoah

      where did you hear that? Got a link? If not, I'd stop repeating it, 'cuz that's pretty bad....

      by Buffalo Girl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:34 AM PDT

      •  There was a diary late last night I believe

        but I didn't get a chance to read it.

        Supposedly thougn, whoever was making this claim was supposed to come forward...today?

        So I'll wait to see if anything comes up.  I do have my suspicions about the press covering anything overtly anti-Hillary these days...they go like a mob - Obama love fest, now Hillary love fest...next, what???

        I wish they'd just stick to the facts and stop being such spin machines.  And its not just ONE media outlet - its all of them all the time!!!

        makes it hard to stay even moderately well informed - for people that are working long hours and tending to family or studies....all they can grab are the sound bites.  Makes it hard for real substantial issues to get through.  

        by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:27:25 AM PDT

    •  Ruby, that's gross distortion...one instance...

      ...of someone being charged on their card does not make it a trend, as you distort here...you must feel right at home among all the other Obamatrons...but, rant on...don't let reality get in the way of your comments...on this "reality-based blog!" NOT!

      Paaaaathetic.

      by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:26:53 AM PDT

      •  Can you dispense with the name calling please?

        You can challenge someone on facts (or lack thereof) but really, we do not need to perpetuate the name calling.

        THAT is what is "Paaaaaaathetic"

        Grow up already.

        by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:29:30 AM PDT

        •  It is pathetic to accuse a campaign of crimes...

          ...and to distort comments in another diary to further that fiction.

          It is pathetic to support someone's comments in support of furthering that falsehood, too.

          It is also pathetic to not demonstrate tolerance of disparate opinions on this, supposed, reality-based blog, as well.

          You folks are little more than a political version of the National Enquirer when you do what you're doing in this thread.

          Yes, it is pathetic.

          by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:33:18 AM PDT

          •  Blue armadillo, you're abusing HR status!

            And, I'm calling you out on it.

            by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:35:11 AM PDT

            •  You are just being disruptive. nt

              Calling you out for name calling and disruption is not ratings abuse.

              by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:40:26 AM PDT

          •  Feel free to challenge someone

            but resortinig to name calling is a sign of desperation.

            The commenter has already been challenged and links for her allegations have been requested.

            If they don't show up, people can draw their own conclusions without your vitriol being injected.

            Someone did post a diary - I don't know how substantiated the allegations were - supposedly if there is anything to it, someone is going to come forward.  If no one does, end of story.

            You're just acting trollish now.  That is pathetic.

            Why don't YOU post a link to rebut the commenter?
            that would be much more helpful than troll rating and insulting people.

            by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:39:29 AM PDT

            •  Save it. This is a gross distortion.

              by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:43:53 AM PDT

              •  Prove it and you would have more credibility

                if you can't, then stop harassing people.

                Seriously - if you have a link post it.  That's all any poster needs to do.

                I don't give either one of you the benefit of the doubt - I am just wating to see if anything turns up or not.

                We really really do not need name calling and insults.  It serves NEITHER candidate but keeps Limbaugh & that crowd quite happy to see the Dems fighting each other.

                by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

                •  Your comment flies in the face of the truth.

                  The diary quoted proves nothing. The reference to it here proves nothing. You're supporting a claim from another blogger that's encouraging the start of a false rumor, based upon repetition of misinformation from a diary posted here yesterday.

                  Your comments in this thread further support those claims, but you obfuscate them in a false reference to blog rules.

                  The blog rules don't allow for accusing a campaign of crimes of which the campaign, itself, has not been accused.

                  Furthermore, the statements reference this as being something that's rampant in a campaign, when only one instance has been reported.

                  But, that doesn't stop you from coming to the defense of the accuser, does it.

                  It's okay to accuse a campaign of crimes that haven't happened? It's okay to accuse those who call out those that do the accusing for "disruptive" behavior?

                  Does 1+1 equal 3 in your world, too?

                  Sorry, but this garbage doesn't flush.

                  I call bullshit.

                  by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:15 AM PDT

                  •  There's a huuuge difference between....

                    ...waiting to see if anything turns up or not...

                    ...and supporting the spread of a false rumor which includes accusing a campaign of a crime.

                    You have now acknowledged your true intentions in this previous comment. Congratulations! It is what it is, isn't it?

                    There's enough b.s. around here as it is, thankyouverymuch.

                    by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:04:43 AM PDT

                  •  Fine. totally debunk the accusation then

                    if you think it is so important.

                    I was not defending the accuser, only requesting you stop the name calling and put up a link to back up your claim that it was a single instance.  

                    If it is bunk prove it or shut up.  

                    by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:05:17 AM PDT

                    •  You encouraged this. It's self-evident.

                      by bobswern on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:10:34 AM PDT

      •  once is enough

        it's pretty freakin' bad. If this breaks, it'll be the end of her. Seriously. Apparently the police and lawyers have this information and are investigating. If this turns out to be exactly what it is, even if it only happened once, it's bad....

        by Buffalo Girl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:24:24 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, But John McCain Eats Human Babies

    It's a trick Dick Cheney taught him.  It's how they maintain their youthful appearances.

    by karateexplosions on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:14:09 AM PDT

    •  You are so bad! ... LOL! .nt

      by blue armadillo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:23:34 AM PDT

•  Can't vote - outside US - just have to cheer

  from the side-lines.  But the outside World is greatly enjoying the process!

  by Last Best Chance on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:55:58 AM PDT

•  You leave out "support both candidates" from

  your poll.  Is it really so imaginable that someone could support both candidates and vote for either one in the election?

  by ajbrown on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:57:06 AM PDT

  •  Good point

    I'll run this poll again in about a week, I think (assuming the race is still on by then) and correct a few things.

    by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:59:42 AM PDT

  •  well, it kind of does say that

    Supports Obama, unconditionally supports Clinton if she wins.

    by Buffalo Girl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:15:19 AM PDT

    •  "kind of"? I assume you're kidding.

      Given the current tone of things on DKos, I doubt many people would see the two statements as simply equivalent:  "Supports Obama [but would] support Clinton if she wins" and "Supports Clinton [but would] support Obama if he wins"

      by ajbrown on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:42:38 AM PDT

      •  why?

        I'm not kidding. I think saying you lean one way but unconditionally support the other if they get it is a pretty supportive statement of Democrats in general.

        by Buffalo Girl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:03:57 AM PDT

        •  yes, both answers are supportive,

          but if the diarist had thought they meant the same thing they wouldn't have included both questions.  The poll is trying to draw very fine distinctions, and I was only pointing out one possibility that seemed to be missing.  People (especially people who aren't immediately facing a ballot box) may not feel like they are leaning either way, and who would vote for either candidate.  (My guess is, that outside of DKos, this is not an uncommon feeling for many rank and file Democrats.)

          by ajbrown on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:32:13 AM PDT

          •  That's true

            I wanted to break things down as much as possible.  Obviously, when I repost this poll a little ways down the road I'll need to be a little more careful to word the questions.

            It might seem like an option reading "I support both candidates, but won't vote for either in the general" would be a little absurd, but I want to be thorough :)

            by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:02:46 AM PDT

•  I'm royally PO'd at Clinton right now

  but I'm scared shitless of President McCain.

  There's a possibility I might cast a protest vote, but deep down I suspect I won't.

  Fortunately, I don't think it'll be an issue. I don't think she will be the nominee.

  by paintitblue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:57:38 AM PDT

  •  I also don't think she will be the nominee

    She knows it also and Bill's ridiculous comments this weekend in Mississippi suggest that they know it is not in the cards for her..

    by RubyGal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:03:27 AM PDT

  •  I'm the same way

    I actually envisioned the scenario in my mind, and I could see myself going into the voting booth prepared not to vote for her, but I can't see myself actually going through with it. Because later that night, I am going to be rooting for the Democratic nominee to win, no matter what. If I lived in Massachusetts maybe I wouldn't feel the need to vote for her, but now that I live in Virginia I feel like my vote matters and I don't want to waste it.

    by democrattotheend on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:37:57 AM PDT

•  Not all of us have to be democrats

  I like Obama - I've sent him money, and would have voted for him in the primary if my state Democratic party allowed me to (I'm no-party affiliated).  

  I might have considered Hillary worthy of voting for also, but I really think she's betrayed most of the things I care about in politics.  I don't have to vote for a dishonest, vicious, lying politician - and I certainly don't have to vote for someone because they are a democrat.  

  I don't know if I'm really welcome here as a non-democrat, but that's my stance, and I don't have to have the same partisan interests as anyone else.

  by Ryan in FL on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:03:13 AM PDT

•  Gotta Love -

  Those Obama supporters who say, "If we don't win, I'm quitting."
  I mean, it's like sooo part of the spirit of the Democratic Party -
  Not to mention the FAQ of Daily Kos.

  I see a difficult road ahead.
  With Nader out, Cynthia McKinney is the presumed Green candidate.
  If Clinton bests Obama in the late primaries and gets the nomination,
  I fear that there will be considerable defections to the Greens.
  This little poll - albeit completely unscientific - tends to lend credence to those fears.

  by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:06:57 AM PDT

  •  Cynthia McKinney??

    yikes....

    by Buffalo Girl on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:18:39 AM PDT

  •  I agree

    For the record, a similar poll at MyDD found even larger numbers of Clinton supporters who wouldn't vote for Obama in the general.

    Both are online polls, and both have problems with being representative.  Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say neither group of supporters has a monopoly on "good Democrat" sensibilities.

    by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM PDT

•  Campaign finance irregularities in the Clinton

  campaign..Did most of you miss this one..??  It is a doozy.

  If Clinton's $32 million came from maxing out contributors credit cards..well..that is not cool..

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by RubyGal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:07:09 AM PDT

  •  That's an outrageous lie

    That diary cites one unproven case. That does not translate to 32 million, despite your desperation.

    by belly on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:42:59 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      I think I'd like to see evidence of a larger trend before generalizing from one case :)

      by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM PDT

    •  Here is an interesting bit of information

      for yohttp://www.wnbc.com/politics/4063107/detail.htmlu...

      by RubyGal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:02:21 PM PDT

  •  This is conspiracy theory territory

    and Obama doesn't need that sort of crap to win.

    by decembersue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:50:10 AM PDT

    •  Here you go..do you think this is worthy of a

      diary?

      http://www.wnbc.com/...

      by RubyGal on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:02:56 PM PDT

•  I am so tired of these diaries

  No offense to you in particular, Jonathan.  It's just my opinion that these type of thing simply will not and cannot be accurate at the moment.  We are in the middle of an intense primary battle, and emotions are running high for partisans of both sides.  And honestly, most of the people here are inclined to be intensely partisan.  

  It is very hard to put those feelings aside at this point and admit you would vote for the other candidate in the general.  I just don't see these types of polls being very useful at this point in doing anything but fanning the flames as to which side has "better" Democrats.  

  by Supercontext on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:07:13 AM PDT

  •  That's a completely fair sentiment

    And I'm not trying to produce material that people can point to and say "see how bad (XXXX) supporters are!" -- though I'm sure they will be used that way.

    That's one reason I tried to include disclaimers in the diary noting that the results are both 1) probably not representative (there's a self-selection bias) and 2) not indicative of what will happen after the nomination is decided and we have several months of general campaigning under our collective belt.

    I understand the considerable anger of Obama supporters toward Clinton, and I can empathize with Clinton supporters who undoubtedly feel similarly.

    However, when the anger cools I realize that there are far larger issues at stake and remember we're in a long-term struggle.  I DO believe most people who now say they won't vote for someone in the general will change their minds by the time the election runs around.

    by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:11:21 AM PDT

•  I live in NY

  So screw it. Why make a symbolic vote for Hillary? I might as well make a symbolic vote for some third party candidate.

  by Zackpunk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:10:31 AM PDT

•  I am an Obama supporter

  and I will be voting for Obama for President in November.

  by pvlb on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:17:26 AM PDT

•  Depends

  I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Clinton, so long as she didn't sell us out on ending the war.  The problem is that, every time she's looked to the general election, the pro-war Hillary returns and does something stupid that reaffirms my commitment to not believing a word that comes out of her mouth.

  I began supporting Dems with Dean in 2003, in hopes that they'd be the best bet for putting this stupid war to rest.  But if Hillary turns on us, I'll stay home, because she'll have taken away my core issue.  (And, yes, I care about the Supreme Court, but don't ask me to get excited about that if my #1 issue is taken off the table.  I have no intention of having four thousand soldiers' and a million Iraqis' blood on my hands.  I'm not going to be guilt-tripped into supporting a warmonger.)

  by Drew J Jones on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:21:07 AM PDT

•  I keep thinking of '64

  when the voters decided Goldwater would get us stuck in the Cold War and tear the country apart. So they went for Johnson, who got us stuck in the Cold War and tore the country apart.

  Or 1916, where voters decided Charles Evans Hughes would get us into WWI and be bad for working people. So they went for Wilson, who got us into WWI and presided over the biggest labor crackdown in American history.

  Maybe a McCain/Clinton election would be one where the apparent lesser of two evils actually isn't. I don't know.

  by slaney black on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:21:14 AM PDT

  •  Buy a History Book -

    It wasn't JFK who got the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts passed -
    It was LBJ.

    Sure Johnson failed miserably in Vietnam - although Kennedy was sending in troops already and assisted the coup/murder of Diem - but all the crapola you say about Johnson ignores the major contributions, profound contributions, that Johnson made.

    I'd take an LBJ over a JFK any day.
    Both were up to their wazoos in Vietnam.
    But Johnson's skills allowed the nation to end Jim Crow once and for all.

    by johnnygunn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:10:12 AM PDT

    •  Civil Rights was passed in his first term

      Passing good legislation is the mark of a good legislator - which LBJ was.

      As chief executive, LBJ was a complete disaster.

      by slaney black on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:31:32 AM PDT

•  Option 2 but very very very conditionally

  Once bitten twice shy, and the Clinton campaign has bit me a good dozen times or more by now. I don't wish to reward dishonesty, corruption, and incompetence.

  by jabbausaf on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:28:32 AM PDT

•  Thank goodness. I know who I'm voting for

  At this point there is no way for Hillary to legitimately get the nomination, so I know that I'm voting for Obama. The only question is whether the Democratic party is going to self-destruct and cause me to do it as a write-in, or whether they'll have half a brain, save the party, and support the fact he's the legitimate nominee.

  by Travis Stark on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:43:59 AM PDT

•  Supporting Obama

  If he wins the largest number of popular votes, then I will support him.  If Clinton wins the popular vote, Obama the pledged delegate count, it would depend on the process by which Obama was made the nominee and somewhat whether Hillary Clinton accepted the outcome.   Presumably, we arrive in a place where the defeated candidate accepts the results (even if they are boiling inside).  

  If Clinton won the popular vote but was not made the nominee, I am not sure what I would do.  In the end, I would most likely vote for Obama out of pure self-interest, but I would not do it with enthusiasm (I say that now, but he'd have months to campaign and convince me).   Option B would be to not vote the top of the ticket and just vote democrats downstream.  I couldn't countenance voting against a democrat for President at this point.  

  In the end, very likely I support Obama if he is the nominee, but there could be an ugly/perceived to be unfair process to get him to the nomination that would turn me off.

  by ActivatedbyBush on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:58:53 AM PDT

•  Once the general election campaign starts

  then a lot of those people who claim they wouldn't ever vote for the other guy will come back around.

  It'll just take a few right wing attacks on some pet issue and they'll be back in the fold.

  by ahammett on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:01:19 AM PDT

•  This is disturbing

  The number of people who say they will not vote for Clinton no matter what is a little disturbing. It's one thing to say it depends how she gets the nomination and how she behaves in the next 8 months, but to rule out voting for her now doesn't make a lot of sense. We need a Democratic president in the White House...this country cannot afford 4 or 8 more years of Republican policies.

  by democrattotheend on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:34:40 AM PDT

•  Suggestion for this poll

  Next time, break it out by swing states and non-swing states. It would be interesting to see how many of the people who say they won't vote for a candidate live in swing states.

  by democrattotheend on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:35:56 AM PDT

•  The Poll .

  You Forgot - I am an Obama supporter and I will [write him in] in the general should he fail to secure the nomination .

  by ArtfromMI on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:48:34 AM PDT

  •  I intended that option...

    ...to be included in the "I am an Obama supporter and will not vote for Clinton should she be the nominee".

    When I next run this poll, I'll try to include some better explanations.

    by Jonathan on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM PDT