On Democratic Defections

Frustrated bluster or a genuine weakening of loyalty?

Among Obama supporters, 20 percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, if Clinton beats their candidate for the nomination. Among Clinton supporters, 19 percent said they would support McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic nominee. (See poll)

This seems to show the hypothetical advantage of McCain's unorthodox, relatively moderate stances finally translating into potential crossover appeal despite his all-important war stance.

Would it have applied in the absence of two very strong Democratic candidates? Probably not. Would it have applied with two Democratic candidates who had significant policy differences that meant they didn't have to make largely identity-based and emotional appeals? Probably not. Would McCain himself be the frontrunner if he wasn't following eight years of President George W. Bush? Probably not.

But things being what they are, his improbable candidacy is precisely the strange puzzle piece the GOP needs - and has - to stay relevant.

I find the willingness of small sectors of each Democratic candidate's backers to defect a rather incredible measure of the depth of support for a particular candidate. Only a mark of true, all-in emotional investment can seemingly override even the anti-war sentiment.

Of course, two factors might also be at work in tempering that calculus: 1) the Iraq war continues to fade from the collective consciousness as the most critical issue, 2) some Democrats have never been as deeply opposed to the Iraq War as some factions of the party would like to portray, and these individuals make the McCain "I would have executed the war better" distinction from Bush.

Or maybe it's simply McCain's pack-leading rank when it comes to integrity.

|