By Bob Gibson
Charlottesville political blogger

    To “swift boat” a candidate is a verb that gets more and more use in our political culture today.

    The practice is hardly the exclusive preserve of Chris LaCivita and the GOP.

    Democrats do it to each other, according to a distinguished political scientist from the University of Connecticut who retired to Charlottesville.
    David RePass, in a post on George Loper’s web site, says that Barack Obama is being “swift boated” by the Clintons. Here is the top of his argument:

    “Barack Obama is being “swift boated” by the Clintons. Say what? Let’s first define “swift boating.” It is a propaganda campaign that puts doubts into people’s minds about what actually happened to someone or is happening. In John Kerry’s case, it questioned his abilities as a boat commander and cast doubt about whether his medals were actually earned.

    “This was such nonsense that Kerry did not think it would be believed by anyone.

    “Before our very eyes this primary campaign season, the Clintons (and their friends among the media commentators) have us taking seriously the following nonsense:

    “1) Counting total votes across all primary states is a legitimate method of scoring. This is like saying that the baseball team that has scored the most runs over a season should go to the World Series.

  “Baseball is scored game by game; primaries are scored state by state.

    “The ONLY way to score points in the primary/caucus process is to win delegates. And then there is the other piece of this nonsense: Hillary does not count states that held caucuses. (But almost hourly we hear someone bring up this “total vote” argument.)

    “2) Hillary claims that Michigan and Florida held legitimate primaries and their votes should be fully counted as cast. It would be undemocratic, Hillary says, not to do so (even though these elections were undemocratic, noncompetitive “contests” in which the voters had no way to learn about the candidates – especially the new kid on the block). Also, Clinton argues that many Democratic voters in Michigan and Florida will not vote Democratic in the fall if they are “slighted” by the DNC enforcing its rules. (This assumes that the overwhelming concern of many of these voters will be that they were “slighted” by the national Democratic party and that THAT concern will far outweigh their concerns about such things as the economy, Iraq and health care.)

    “3) White, working class Democrats and a great many women will not vote for Obama in the fall. Nonsense. This bogus analysis is based on primary results in which one Democrat is competing with another Democrat. Yes, many among the working class and many women preferred Clinton to Obama in these contests, but that does not mean that they will not vote for the Democrat in the fall. Primary contests between candidates of the same party simply cannot be compared with general election contests between a Democrat and a Republican.

  “I am aware of the polls that show a considerable number of Clinton supporters saying that they will not vote for Obama in the fall (and vice versa). This is bogus. In the heat of a current campaign, some supporters (who have just left the voting booth) are going to be so invested in their candidate that they cannot see any other candidate as worthy. However, come November, this intense feeling will have worn off and Democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate.

    “4) Hillary claims that there is a crystal ball that predicts that Obama will not be as strong an opponent against John McCain as she would be.

    “Again, nonsense. No reputable student of voting behavior has ever been able to find a way to measure voters’ attitudes this far in advance of a (Nov.) election. Again, the results of contests between two Democrats in primaries tells almost nothing about a contest between a Democrat and a Republican in the fall.“

    There is more on Loper’s site from David RePass. http://george.loper.org/~george/archives/2008/May/925.html
Do you agree?