In the endless run up to the inevitable, too much attention was paid to those disgruntled few Democrats (mostly Clinton supporters, for obvious reasons) who said they would vote for John McCain or stay home if their favorite isn’t the party’s presidential nominee.
I suspect many more Democrats would agree with the three dozen or so I spoke with a week ago Saturday. Not one of them said he or she would do anything but vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.
This was to have been a marvelous year for the Democrats. A majority of party members, possibly a huge majority, felt either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would be a wonderful candidate.
But then the two wonderful candidates began going at each other in the most un-wonderful ways, to the point that supporters of either began to feel that the other would be unacceptable.
Then numbers began to appear in the polls — perhaps up to 40 percent would be so hacked off if the wrong person won the nomination that they would stay home or vote for the other party’s candidate.
The meeting last Saturday was before the Puerto Rico, Montana and South Dakota primaries, and before the apportionment of Florida and Michigan delegates had been announced in Washington. Still, it had been apparent for some time that Clinton faced impossible odds.
These were folks interested enough in politics that they would spend a glorious Saturday morning in Evergreen listening to an old windbag’s speculations.
When I asked the Mountain Area Democrats if they’d bolt the party if the nominating process didn’t validate their preference, the response was loud and sounded like a unanimous “no.”
This was far from the media spotlight. The media’s attention was focused that same day on the Clinton partisans who were angrily shouting “Denver! Denver! Denver!” after the delegate decision in Washington didn’t turn out the way they wanted.
Yes, there was some concern at the MAD meeting about other Democrats getting irretrievably disgruntled. There were anecdotes about some Democrats at Earth Day events saying they’d vote for Ralph Nader. One woman said an 80-year-old relative had told another relative, “I cannot vote for a black man.”
Some worried that younger party members would bolt if somehow Clinton got the nomination over Obama — or simply would wander off after the excitement of the nomination process had subsided.
County Commissioner Kathy Hartman said she wasn’t worried about that, because the Obama organization did a much better job of drumming up enthusiasm, on campuses and elsewhere, than the Clinton people did. “Dozens of people told me no one from the Clinton camp asked us to vote,” she said.
Some were troubled that the presence of right-to-work and “personhood” issues on the ballot would energize a big Republican turnout.
But Andrew Scripter, a legislative candidate, suggested Democrats are in a good position because McCain “doesn’t have a strong skills set.” He hasn’t raised as much money as the Democrats, he’s not especially photogenic, and he hasn’t totally sold himself to the GOP’s right wing.
“I think the Republican Party has already beaten itself,” Scripter said.
The prevailing sentiment was that even the hard-core fanatics will come around and realize that what they’ve got is better than another choice.
As one MAD member recalled, some Democrats in 2004 said they’d move to Canada if Bush were re-elected. “They’re all still here,” she pointed out.
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com) is retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post.
