Talk:Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The term is common now so it's notable enough for its own page. Obama's used it in at least 2 of his recent speeches, and the term's been around for longer than that. He probably didn't invent it. Also, Republicans for Obama uses it. SteveSims (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Still, IMO, violates WP:NEO. Q ^{T C} 06:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess a better title would be "Obama Republicans," and I could mention "Obamacan" in it. SteveSims (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NEO applies here. This term is extremely verifiable. It get thousands of hits on Google and is all over the news. It isn't just some random, unverifiable internet term. Wrad (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

People trying to delete this article obviously haven't been following the election. Their obtuseness shouldn't even be entertained with intelligent discussion. Goodandhonestwhig (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF and more importantly Stay Civil. I'm afaid, you've done just what you accuse of others. If you would of taken a few minutes to investiagte the issue instead of your knee-jerk reaction you'd notice this edit in the history. The article's original title was Obamacan. One of the policies of wikipedia is to Avoid Neologisms and that version of the article was the one put up for deletion. 130.184.98.106 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Wrad (see above a few posts) said it well, though. It's a common term now, and not just some weird Internet one used by a few people. SteveSims (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Scarborough didn't endorse Obama

When did Joe Scarborough endorse Obama? I deleted it before because it wasn't referenced and seems questionable. The reference says the following:

"Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC's "Morning Joe," says many conservative friends—including Bush officials and evangelical Christians—sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama's post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does]," Scarborough told NEWSWEEK."

That doesn't sound like an endorsement. SteveSims (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Wrad (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powelll

Just something worth noting;

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080613.BCPOWELL13/TPStory/National

Can't add it yet, since Powell is on the fence and hasn't firmly endorsed Obama. But just worth keeping an eye out, in case he does decide Obama and announces before the election.

Same goes for J.C. Watts and some other prominent black Republicans, according to this:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/black-conservatives-conflicted-on-obama/n20080614125309990044?cid=435

EJB341 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Lazy research

Please check your facts. You had the leading living anarcho-capitalist, David D. Friedman listed as a "Republican or former Republican" for goodness sake. I'm not sure Andrew Sullivan would be too delighted about falling under that heading either. The has all the hallmarks of partisan appropriation and appeal to authority. Get it right or it will be removed. Skomorokh 02:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I took off the information on Friedman. If we say something about someone and it isn't true that could be very bad for WP. I will go ahead and remove the fact tag, but if you see something else that is not backed up by a reliable source take it off right away. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Julie Nixon Eisenhower

While it is interesting that she donated to Obama's campaign, the source and her own WP bio do not say that she is a conservative or even a Republican. Although it seems reasonable to think that she is a Republican from the information, there is nothing about conservatism. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. So we need to find a source for her political stand or drop her again. --Floridianed (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed ;) --Floridianed (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved her to the Republican section since that is what the source now says. p.s. I am an Obama Republican myself. I voted for McCain in the California primary. So if things go wrong I can say: "I voted for McCain first and then Obama."  ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you for moving her to the appropriate spot. I'm kinda sloppy today (like mostly) :) . And speaking about "by the way": I didn't give my "half-vote" in the primaries since I'm not half of a person [remember Florida ;)]. --Floridianed (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL - literally :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Telegraph.co.uk090308" :
  • [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1944612/US-Elections-Julie-Nixon-and-Susan-Eisenhower-back-Barack-Obama.html Julie Nixon and Susan Eisenhower back Barack Obama] [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]]
  • [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1944612/US-Elections-Julie-Nixon-and-Susan-Eisenhower-back-Barack-Obama.html Julie Nixon and Susan Eisenhower back Barack Obama] [[The Daily Telegraph|The Telegraph]] "As their family names make clear, Susan Eisenhower and her sister-in-law Julie Nixon Eisenhower hail from Republican presidential aristocracy. But the two lifelong Republicans are spurning those loyalties this year to back Barack Obama for the nation's top job."

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why this article???

This article is stupid and it does not have any importance whatsoever. First of all, there's no such thing as Republicans who support Obama because since they support him they automatically become Democrat (no matter how long or which specific candidate they choose). Second, another better term would be convervatives who support him...

Overall, i think we should delete the article, I mean who the hell is--he has never done anything for our country (exept promoting racism) and didn't even go to war - ever. So, one article for him is way more than enought!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.1.144 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Republicans for Obama are real. I am a Republican. I am voting for all Republicans in my local elections. But I support Barack Obama. To say that you have to vote 100% Republican or you're a Democrat shows a desire for submissive Party members instead of free-thinking, intelligent members. The current Republican Party, and especially John McCain, has betrayed Republican principles, so they are being smacked for their betrayal. At the same time, Obama is for smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom, less wars, and less corruption. It's time for that kind of change, even if he's a Democrat.

I am not alone. There are many many many of us, most who are not shouting it, but are going to vote Obama in the fall. Chucklasker (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Besides, there is a counterpart. See: McCain Democrat. So I guess it's pretty balanced. --Floridianed (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Kind of, except the article is little more than a stub and before I edited it one of the fe names it had was the one "McCain Democrat" to be more or less insane. Granted part of this is because there really isn't many prominent McCain Democrats. At least not yet.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes in the footnotes

I don't object to fuller expansions of relevant quotations in the footnotes (that's part of what they're for), but extended quotations from sources that do not address the context in which they are footnoted, but rather distill the source's rhetoric to push the source's point of view should stop. It's making the footnotes read like a bad adaptation of the overall political debate. RayAYang (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I put most of them there. I just wanted to save people the trouble of going to the articles themselves. If you feel they are a distraction go ahead and take them off. Redddogg (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased ridiculous article

This is just biased and ridiculous. where is the page for mccain democrats? Come one, most of the stuff on this page is not factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.193.200 (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

McCain Democrat. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 21:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Be Deleted

Republicans support Sen. Obama in very small numbers. Democrats support McCain more than republicans support Obama. This article is extremely biased as it portrays huge numbers of republicans supporting Barack Obama. There were republicans who supported Kerry as well, but they were not a significant group. This article should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabain52 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It was already nominated, along with McCain Democrat, and it was decided to keep them. Redddogg (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You should work on improving the McCain Democrat article then. I'm trying to include everyone I can, but McCain seems to be less appealing to notable Democrats than to average Democratic voters.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think most of McCain's Democrats are ordinary people, while a lot of Obama's high-profile Republicans are "pointy-headed intellectuals" making a "point" (as we say on WP). Redddogg (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The McCain Democrat article is kind of in bad shape. It looks like some Obama supporters have tried to "tone it down." Steve Dufour (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There could also be a pair of articles: "Left-wingers who think Obama is too conservative" and "Right-wingers who think McCain is too liberal" :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

rednecks for Obama

This is a really tenuous connection. Yes most people who call themselves "rednecks" are Republicans but there's just no evidence either of the two people who comprise this group (Lee Spencer and Tony Viessman) are Republicans or Conservatives. The fact that "Most Southerners are Republicans" is irrelevant. Most Black voters are Democrats; does that mean we should put a picture of Alan Keyes on the McCain Democrat page?71.240.67.58 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I will take off the picture if it's still there. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Friedman

David Friedman consistently says "Obama is better than McCain" mostly based on his father's ideas. (His father would be a communist to McCain, so might not want to admit this...) but that is not support. can we list it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.180.51 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If David is notable and a conservative and/or a Republican then his support of Obama could be mentioned in the article. If only his dad is notable then leave David out. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

David D. Friedman is one of primary theorists of free-market anarchism. He does not support the election of Barack Obama, or anybody else, as president. Not a Republican, not a conservative, not for Obama. the skomorokh 16:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then better leave him out of the article. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens?

Why is Hitchens listed in a section about conservatives? From what I gather he describes himself as a socialist. Misodoctakleidist (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. His article seems to put him on the far left. His opposition to Islamism have resulted in him being given the label "neoconservative" by some, but he is not a conservative. I do admire his honesty and courage, although I am on the political right. Will remove him from the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I see he has been put back with the mention that he is associated with "neo-conservative foreign policy." That sounds fair enough to me. (This article is kind of "WP Lite" anyway.) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So is this "Obama Republicans" or "Obama Republicans and neoconservatives" or "Obama Republicans, neoconservatives, and libertarians?" (Hence the inclusion of Sullivan, a guy who generally touts himself as belonging to "no party or clique") If a "Scoop Jackson Democrat", or Social Democrats USA member, endorses Obama should he or she be here?--T. Anthony (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Political science" is not really science. :-) In my opinion both this and McCain Democrat should be fairly inclusive. Libertarians are mostly considered to be on the political "right" so I would include them. Conservative Democrats, I don't think should be included in the article because it would just lead to lots of arguments. Anyway, I don't think hardly anyone will change their vote because of these two articles, but they will have historical interest -- especially if Obama wins. [Change of topic] I was thinking that Mr. Hitchens probably doesn't get invited to very many parties. I'm gonna see if he wants to be MySpace friends. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan self-identifies: "I count myself as an out and proud gay conservative and know countless others." Oct 23, 2008 Having a section on non-Republicans is already stretching "Obama Republican"; adding libertarians would do so to the point of absurdity. the skomorokh 19:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This article also covers "Obamacons", conservatives for Obama, as well as "Obama Republicans." Sullivan was mentioned by several news stories (used as sources) on Obamacons. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article is an ill-fit for its scope. To clarify, I was arguing for the inclusion of Sullivan as a conservative, but for the exclusion of non-conservative, non-Republican libertarians. the skomorokh 02:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming the article "Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama"? Steve Dufour (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's less catchy, but more accurate. I'd support. the skomorokh 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, as long as searches for "Obamacan" and "Obamacon" still redirect to this article. Seems odd that McCain Democrat hasn't been similarly retitled, though. (I would have voted to keep it as it was, but didn't realize that the voting was only open for 6 hours and I missed my chance...)Demesne Lord (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain doesn't have a group of liberals supporting him like Obama's conservatives, except for Joe Lieberman -- but he is covered by the "Democrat or ex-Democrat" category. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section

Why was the entire section of Republican elected officials endorsing Obama removed? Is there an easy way to restore it? Nevermind... Demesne Lord (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Someone probably forgot to put the end thing [</ref>] on a footnote. BTW I see that the Obamacon thing is becoming so popular that I am thinking of switching back to McCain to be different. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Diggins

Is there any support for the idea that he can be described as a conservative or a Republican? I quote from his article in the McConnell magazine:

Whoever wins the White House may carry on the cynical tradition of the Republican Party. In the ’50s, candidate Eisenhower promised he knew what to do about the Korean War. Americans expected a military solution, only to discover that the general aimed to withdraw. In the ’70s, Nixon and Kissinger charged the Democrats with losing Vietnam and assured us that they had turned the war around by leaving South Vietnam stable and militarily strong—only for the whole country to fall to communism weeks after America departed. In the ’80s, Reagan withdrew from Lebanon with the same rationale: even though 241 Marines had been slaughtered in their barracks, the task force succeeded in doing the “job it was sent to do in Beirut.”

That doesn't seem to gel with the idea of him as a Republican, and although "conservative" has a very expansive definition in the context of this article, I'd like to see some sourcing. RayAYang (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

This article about 2008 events is not a good haven for 2009 (2010? 2011? 2012?) polling data, although said data may well be relevant to other articles. It is hard to imagine how we could control or contain within this article all the many vicissitudes, up and down, of a sitting President's ongoing popularity fluctuations. If somebody wants to suggest a see-also link to an article that contains such information, for those who are interested, that would be an acceptable way to direct readers to that information, IMO. betsythedevine (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is primarily about the 2008 conservative support, but there are at least two sources that cite 2007 studies and articles. The reason is that these sources contextualize the 2008 support. Likewise, the 2009 explains what happened to the 2008 support. I think the information should be included, and because of the virtues of Wikipedia, the relevant data will be continually updated. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Events of 2007 have real bearing on what happens in 2008; events in 2009 do not. Adding recent material from one conservative op ed in the WSJ is not exactly an NPOV way to "contextualize" this subject either. There are other places to discuss and debate the moving target that is Obama's popularity in the polls, feel free to add a see-also link. betsythedevine (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

2009 events naturally don't affect 2008 events; no one is arguing that. However, there is a natural line of events that should be followed, including the current status of such conservative supporters. There is no better place than this article to include information about conservative support. One suggestion I have is to remove the "in 2008" from the title of this article and instead continuously track and document the support. Here is another article explaining similar polling data from a business journal:

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/03/16/daily43.html

Ejnogarb (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is a parallel to the corresponding Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008. It contains material that is useful and well-organized in its current state and about its current topic. What interests you is relevant to Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Approval_ratings_and_opinion but not to this article. BTW, the kind of man-in-the-street polling results related to your information was covered by Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008--this article was/is primarily a list of notable people who endorsed Obama. betsythedevine

BTW another business journal, Bloomberg, has a very different take on recent poll results [1]: "In the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll of 1,007 adults conducted Feb. 26 to March 1, more than 60 percent of respondents said the legislation would help the economy only a little or not at all. The survey found that 60 percent approved of Obama’s performance. Republicans haven’t benefited from their opposition to Obama’s policies, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,013 adults conducted Feb. 20-22. The poll found that 47 percent approved the performance of the congressional Democrats, compared with a 36 percent approval rating for Republicans." Remember only 10% of Republicans voted for Obama in 2008. Right now 60% of all Americans support what he is doing. If that figure reflects zero Republican support, then I submit Republicans are in real trouble. (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You can look at and track the actual poll numbers here: [2]. betsythedevine (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a poll tracking service. There must be other websites that do that. Borock (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment for Importance Changed to Low

Every modern President and presidential candidate has had residual support from the opposing party. 10% support is nothing extraordinary and in fact almost every exit poll will attest to this point. Obama does no better statistically compared to other presidential candidates.

2000, 2004, and 2008 exit poll comparison

1996 exit poll CNN

1992 exit poll Roper Center

1988 exit poll Roper Center

1984 exit poll Roper Center

1980 exit poll Roper Center

1976 exit poll Roper Center

1972-2008 exit polls NY Times

JustGettingItRight (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that 10% is mainly of interest in comparison to Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008. The McCain team invested major effort into a wide range of PUMA front groups hoping to chip away conservative Democrats (Lieberman) and disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton. What is interesting is that Obama got the same 10% cross-party swap vote as McCain did when Election Day 2008 rolled around. betsythedevine (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Both groups invested in the idea of cross-party voters and I don't think that's particularly new. It seemed to me like Obama did so a bit more then past Democrats as he had several Republicans speak at events rather than just one or two tokens.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see the section on libertarians expanded

I'm not sure that it is necessary even to reach the "good article" status, but if someone feels up to the task I think it would be interesting to see more about how the details of libertarian political philosophy are related to this source of support for Obama. If you look up the articles on libertarianism and anarchism you'll see that there is a tremendous range of opinion covered by people who emphasize personal liberties - in a way, more than the difference between Democrats and Republicans. So when you see people switching votes I don't think it's safe to imply that it is purely a tactical maneuver by a small voting bloc to choose the better of two evils. When you've watched Sicko, seen executives steal workers' wages and even pension money to give themselves bonuses, watched "small government" hand out the better part of a trillion dollars to banks that take people's homes to let them decay when it might have been handed out directly to people in need - you could lose some faith in the belief that every detail of capitalism as currently practiced is central to preserving individual rights. Whether you phrase this as "libertarian versus anarchism" or by some other semantic, I think that there are more people who want to defend your right to keep any bumper sticker you like on your car, and fewer who stand up for the employer's right to fire anyone he wants even for having the wrong candidate's bumper sticker on their car. Have people changed their votes because the underlying basis of libertarianism is changing? Mike Serfas (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability

How is this subject notable? Obama won 20% of self-described Conservatives, this same figure was won by Al Gore in 2000. 7% of Republicans voted for Gore, 6% voted for Kerry in 2004 and 9% voted for Obama in 2008. This is not a significant change meriting an article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

During the 2008 election, there was a huge attempt by Republicans to emphasize Democrat crossover support for McCain, particularly by disappointed supporters of Hillary Clinton. Somebody started a Wikipedia article about Democratic support for McCain to gather relevant information in one place; this article is the corresponding record of crossover support for Obama. In the election, despite massive hype beforehand, neither McCain nor Obama got much more crossover support than had previous candidates. Even so, these articles reflect events that were eagerly covered during the campaign by many news media. betsythedevine (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Susan Eisenhower

It has been suggested that Susan Eisenhower, who changed her party affiliation from Republican to Independent AFTER endorsing Obama in 2008 [3], should not be included here because she is no longer a Republican in 2010. This page as per its title records the historical situation in 2008 of Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama. I am therefore restoring the information to this page that in 2008 Susan Eisenhower was then among the Republicans who endorsed Obama. betsythedevine (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple changes need to be made

I think one addition and one deletion needs to be made

Frank Schaeffer is listed under "Other national Republican figures who endorsed Obama"

Frank Schaeffer is NOT nor ever was a "national republican figure". He is not a republican figure, period. Time and again he has emphasized that he is a FORMER republican. And had long since registered as an independent. By his own admission, he left the Republican party and switched to independent in the year 2000 (and left the religious right even earlier in the mid 1980s). Obviously, by the time the election of Obama had taken place, he hadnt been a Republican for over 8 years.

The addition that needs to be made is conservative columnist Peggy Noonan who endorsed the election of Obama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.43.249 (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

2004 John Kerry supporters

Don't really seem like they are part of this phenomenon. Also, why are non-registered Republicans here? - Schrandit (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025194937/http://blogs.reuters.com:80/trail08/2008/10/23/more-gop-defections/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/23/more-gop-defections/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)