PUMAs stalk political relevance–and irony
The PUMA is an interesting species. Some critics might view PUMAs in the way many wrongly characterized Hillary Clinton, as bitter harpies. Others might see them as the type of women that misogynists typically prefer: silly, irrelevant, perhaps even cute.
Either characterization is mistaken (PUMA, by the way, generally stands for “Party Unity My Ass,” though one group has claimed “People United Means Action.”). PUMAs obviously are wrong and misguided, in my view, but passionate. And now they’re getting what many of them want most, some media attention.
PUMAs are angry people, mostly women, many of whom now say they’ll support John McCainover Barack Obama. There’s no denying that there are quite a few of them(though how many are GOP fronts can’t be determined) or that many are bitter. A quick scan of some of their blogs comes across such charming comments as, “Whenever I see one of those stupid “O”s on the back of someone else’s care [sic] I just want to RAM THEM!!!” and “Isn’t ‘barack’ that noise people make when they puke?” and “Do obama supporters still get headaches after they had their lobomy? [sic]” and “Even if Hillary should publicly–in person–denounce all 527s who are trying to get her nominated and elected, we can’t give throw [sic] in the towel. Clearly, the Chicago political mafia is strong-arming her to disown us.”
One blog post is titled, “If we’re PUMAs, then Obamaphiles are CHEATahs.” Cute, huh? Of course the difference is that PUMAs proundly claim the title before going on to disparage those who would prefer a different candidate. (This might be an appropriate time to remind readers that I was not an Obama supporter in the primaries, though I can’t imagine not voting for him over McCain in the general election.)
The CHEATah post comes from a blog that in its “About Us” section states: “We will start with the Democratic party and then work to bring together the rest of the country. We will come together at our common goals and go forward together, strengthened and mighty.” Its “credo,” in part: ”We will all need to come together before the fall. Let’s craft a message that even wingers will envy. … Some of us have lost our minds lately. We are putting conditions and litmus tests on our candidates. We are getting lost in the trees while failing to see the forest.”
All of that may sound good, but the blog actually devotes much of its attention to PUMA promotion and Obama bashing, and also has a heading titled ”PUMA Power” that states: “There will be a lot of calls for ‘Unity!’. But let us acknowledge what this really is. ‘Unity’ is a weapon that the party is going to use against us.” Perhaps it’s time to update one or two of the above categories.
Despite their real or manufactured fury PUMAs probably will have no meaningful effect on the Democratic Convention as far as preventing Obama from claiming the nomination, especially since Clinton likely will speak on his behalf at the convention. Still, in a tight general election (the kind we typically have) they might conceivably make a difference. Sadly and ironically, it would be a difference that goes against most of their own primary interests (at least those who aren’t secretly McCain supporters to begin with–like perhaps Fox’s favorite PUMA spokeswoman and 2000 McCain donor Darragh Murphy).
PUMAs might make a difference in the same way that Ralph Nader did against Al Gore in 2000, Ross Perot did against George H.W. Bush in 1992, Ted Kennedy did against Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Ronald Reagan did against Gerald Ford in 1976–drawing just enough attention and votes to help put the candidate their supporters disliked most in the White House. The difference in each of those cases was that the candidate’s supporters actually had a candidate who obviously still sought the position, while Clinton likely will–as she has repeatedly on previous occasions–exhort her supporters to do what they can to avoid a continuation of the Bush policies. A McCain presidency would have a good chance of turning those 5-4 Supreme Court votes against progressives into 7-2 votes against them.
Thus far, consistency, except in avoid-Obama-at-all-costs rhetoric, has not been a key part of PUMA power. Even Fox News, which would undoubtedly love to see PUMAs help swing the election for McCain and which has aired more about the group than any other network, can’t help but point out the contradictions. For example, see the YouTube videos below. The last one starts out much the same as the first, but adds some interesting context (though it doesn’t explore the disconnect between, “I don’t think it’s just to prove a point; I think it’s a very important point we’re making.”).
It’s difficult to tell how much influence the PUMAs will have, especially since many of those now complaining will swallow hard, hold their noses and vote for Obama in the general election, perhaps without telling their fellow PUMAs. The influence of blogs on elections also is unknown, though I don’t believe the vast majority of blogs are very representative of much of anything since most tend to have a limited following of serious but somewhat cowardly anonymous supporters who talk mostly to each other–a sort of ooh-look-at-me-aren’t-I-clever form of text messaging with less emotional commitment and no added wireless fees.
PUMAs do have cause to be unhappy, though not nearly as much cause as many of them claim. The Democratic primary system was a mess, but it was a mess that Clinton helped create. Interestingly, some of her supposed staunchest supporters now hope to make a bigger one.
Note: The organization name is corrected above–thanks to the respondents who noted that I had it wrong.
Follow-up: Somewhat ironically for a group that complains about being heard, PUMA sites seem to be among those most likely to delete the responses of those who disagree with them.
You sooooo don’t get it.
Perhaps–at the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, I’m not sure what “it” refers to in your response, though I’d welcome clarification.
Although I am not part of PumaPac founded by Darragh Murphy, I do know she also donated to Gore and then Hillary Clinton. I really don’t care if she is an alien, she doesn’t influence or speak for me.
I can’t speak for all PUMA’s, so I’ll just speak for myself.
I decided (pre-PUMA) in March I wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama. I did extensive research and what I found led me to believe that he is more ego and talk than anything. His associates leave a lot to be desired and his accomplishments are non-existent. The New Yorker article confirmed my research…Barack Obama does everything with an eye on what it can profit him politically.
I will not be voting for John McCain. I might vote for Cynthia McKinney as a protest vote.
The Democratic Primary wasn’t just a mess…it was a sham. The DNC had already decided who the nominee would be. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the last day of the Democratic Primary is set on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr’s I have a dream speech? I don’t….there are no coincidences in politics.
The Democratic leadership turned a blind eye to the blatant sexism directed at Hillary Clinton while at the same time rushing to Obama’s defense over any perceived slight or racist comment. Obama, his campaign and the Democratic leadership played the race card over and over and over again. It’s amazing to me how they managed to paint “the first black president” as racist, but yet they did. That alone was enough to tell me that something very perverse was going on.
The Hillary Clinton supporters have been ridiculed, insulted, reviled and threatened. I have been told to vote for Obama or be crushed. Wow, that’s really the way to win people over.
I am no longer a member of the Democratic Party. I’m done with them. Women have traditionally been the ones to work the polls, mail the letters and fund raising requests, make the phone calls. I stood in the rain handing out literature at the polls for John Kerry. I manned the local Democratic headquarters. I made the calls. How are women repaid? Did you know that in 2004 the Democratic party took the E.R.A. out of the Democratic Platform?
I feel I have been taken for granted once to often by the Democrats. Once again women are told “not now, you’re time is coming.” Well, my time has come. I liberated myself from the abuse and constraints of the Democratic Party. My vote is my own to do with as I will. I owe the Democrats NOTHING and Barack Obama even less.
What people like Howard Dean and Donna Brazille don’t seem to get is I don’t have to get over it, I don’t have to donate time and money to Obama, I don’t have to sit down and shut up. Their insults are as meaningless as the Republican insults of un-American and terrorist lover were when I refused to support the war. What a pity the Democrats have resorted to the tactics of the Republicans.
The more I hear how we don’t matter the more frightened that we do matter the Democrats sound.
As for me…I’m not interested in party unity. I will vote my conscience. As for the Democratic party….they can make their own damn coffee.
Mountain Sage
Hi, James, that was my blog you quoted from. The Cheatahs was a more recent manifestation of the blog but we’ve been around since January and we didn’t start out as PUMAs. It’s hard to tell what effect the PUMA movement may have on the election but we can already see evidence that it is having an effect on the party. Scheduling the convention for late August may be deadly for the party. There is sufficient time and dead air time on cable news networks to get our message out there.
I would disagree with you in a couple of places. First, many of us would normally be Obama’s demographic. We’re creative class, well-educated, affluent. There is anecdotal evidence that many of us come from working class or immigrant backgrounds. And oddly enough, we’re not focused on the misogyny aspect of the primaries, although that clearly played a part. Instead, we are very concerned that the party intends to shed itself of what it sees as parasites; the elderly, poor, women, immigrants, gays and lesbians. These people need governement services, healthcare, social security. We’re a drag on the Obamaphiles. When they say change the party, they really mean it. It won’t resemble the party of shared responsibiliity and it will further weaken the social safety net. So, many of us do not agree that not voting for Obama will be against out interests. With either candidate, we’re screwed. That leaves us with one option. We must hold the Democratic party accountable and let it know that we all go forward together or we don’t go forward.
Secondly, you share the attitude of many in the party that we’re just angry but we’ll come around in the end. James, I want to disabuse you of this notion right now. It is disrespectful. We know our own minds and we are not angry anymore. We are passed that. We are determined to make our presence known in the most powerfully possible way. We are not changing our minds. We are not voting for Obama. This primary season was different than the others. The curtain was pulled back from the mechanisms of power and we got to see all of the sausage making. It’s very ugly. We don’t want that anymore. A;so, this election season saw the introducton of many new parameters in two non-traditional candidates, overweighter caucuses and the hostility of the party towards one of its strongest candidates since Bill Clinton ran in 1992. As a scientist, I feel that the number of new variables makes it impossible for me to predict with any accuracy what is going to happen in the fall. We’re developing a new model. We have to throw out the old one. It is no longer predictive.
Your complete non-grasp of the entire PUMA / JustSayNoDeal movement is evident in the number of erroneous and partial facts in your blog. You don’t even have the name right for goodness sake.
And Darragh’s donation to McCain is OLD news . . . she did it 8 years ago in a attempt to make sure Bush did not get the Republican nomination - she voted Gore. Her current donations went to Clinton.
Different organizations under one umbrella with different reasons for protest but the same short term goal in mind - Nobama.
I can not speak of the other 230+ sites, including an increasing number of FORMER Obama supporter sites.
I can tell you that PUMA PAC is organized, mobilized, and focused in their mission and their purpose. Our site and emails have been hacked repeatedly, our members have been accosted, and our Executive Director has received death threats. We’ve been cursed out, called names, and e-threatened. We’ve been ridiculed, laughed at, and slandered by the media and those who disagree with our mission or purpose.
Efforts like yours continue to try to derail us, but we stand strong.
We’re still here.
We’ll see you in Denver.
We’ll remember in November.
You are fooling yourself if you think we will vote for NObama!!! Should be fun in November to watch that empty suit fall!!!!!
NO Bama, No Way!!
And just to let you know, I have voted democratic all my life and this year I WILL vote for McCain, as will millions of other Democrats.
Keep drinking your kool-aid!!!!
I’m sensing something of a pattern, here, Jim. On this post and one other post, “What McCain might say to news media: “Who do you think you’re foolin’? Love me like Barack”,” you have two unidentified people making comments about your posts, and they are not quantifying what they find wrong about your posts. I guess that is one of the downsides of the internet, you don’t really have to reveal your identity and you can effectively snipe from the shadows without using your real name.
Aside that, very interesting post, Jim. I remember reading on article on CNN.com the other day about this very subject. You make a good point in the end stating that Hilary herself was the one primarily responsible for a PUMA movement to emerge. She found until the bitter end, as long as she could. Let’s hope the Democratic National Convention in Denver doesn’t turn into some kind of fierce fight that could disrupt it, much like the other conventions you mentioned.
Why shouldn’t Hillary have fought as hard as she could? That’s what primaries are for.
Excuse me for pointing out history to you, Mr. Lopez, but FDR won the nomination of the Democratic Party on the fourth ballot!!!! The Democratic party that I USED to believe in does not exist any more. It’s been taken over by people I do not recognize as leaders. No one can “select” a candidate for me!!! My vote is my own.
I might also point out, Mr. McPherson, that you are doing the same thing that a lot of the Nobama supporters always do.. honing in on one point and blogging about it over and over and over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. The fact that Darragh Murphy donated to Senator McCain’s campaign in 2000, which, by the way, she has never denied, is simply illrevelant!!!
I made my own decision long before the primaries were considered “over” that I could not and would not support Nobama and I own my vote!!!!
Thanks, everyone, for the comments. Most of you make some good points, some not-so-good (my view, of course), and a few irrelevant. But I appreciate them all.
Of course the not-so-gracious side of me especially appreciates those that help illustrate–intentionally or otherwise–various points I’ve made in this post and elsewhere. For examples, if interested, see http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/mccain-who-do-you-think-youre-foolin-love-me-like-barack/, http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/popos-enemy-revisited/, http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/ignorance-and-the-electorate/, http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/begging-to-differ/ and http://jmcpherson.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/democratic-self-mutilation/.
Your complete non-grasp of the entire PUMA / JustSayNoDeal movement is evident in the number of erroneous and partial facts in your blog. You don’t even have the name right for goodness sake.
And Darragh’s donation to McCain is OLD news . . . she did it 8 years ago in a attempt to make sure Bush did not get the Republican nomination - she voted Gore. Her current donations went to Clinton. Many of us are or have supported other candidates . . . myself, I contributed to Nader.
Different organizations under one umbrella with different reasons for protest but the same short term goal in mind - Nobama, November, Noway. But I can not speak of the other 230+ sites, including an increasing number of FORMER Obama supporter sites.
I can tell you that PUMA PAC is organized, mobilized, and focused in their mission and their purpose. Our site and emails have been hacked repeatedly, our members have been accosted, and our Executive Director has received death threats. We’ve been cursed out, called names, and e-threatened. We’ve been ridiculed, laughed at, and slandered by the media and those who disagree with our mission or purpose.
Efforts like yours continue to try to derail us, but we stand strong.
We’re still here.
We’ll see you in Denver.
We’ll remember in November.
We don’t want your flip-flopping fraud of acandidate. The disgrace is that anyone with his poor resume is running for the Presidency at all.
Thanks Lynn/MarylandPUMA for the note about the organization’s name. I’ve now corrected it in the text, and apology for the error. Also, if you care to send me a link chronicling Murphy’s donations, I’ll include it.
And of course there is no justification for hacking the computers or Web sites of opponents, or threatening individuals who happen to think differently than you. Ridicule and laughter, however, are an inevitable byproduct of active participation in the democratic process–and seem to be flowing freely on all sides during this campaign.
Thanks Jim, this is the first I’ve heard of the PUMAs.
I’ve enjoyed all of your posts (even where I disagree), but I’m not really sure what you were going for with this one. It seems like your point - beyond generalizing PUMAs as “angry people” who are “wrong and misguided” was simply to say that they “probably will have no meaningful effect” on anything.
Was it important to point out that PUMAs won’t be important, or did you want all the upset follow-up attention?
Thanks, Grady. I actually was surprised that the PUMAs even found my post, which was prompted by the recent attention they’d received from CNN and others. My main point was that I think they–like earlier Nader voters and others–would probably not have much effect, but that any effect they had would likely be negative in terms of the overall beliefs of the PUMAs who consider themselves to be progressives or generally supportive of women’s rights.
I find Riverdaughter’s comments interesting. They suggest that our process has become far less about party and much more about an individual. People will not really vote “Dem” or “Rep” this fall as much as they vote for BHO or Johnny Mac.
Once party platforms meant something. Now, in our celebrity culture, the current GOP wllll mean whatever Bush, then Mac, then the next nominee says it will mean. And the same is true for the Dems.
A key question seems to be this: Do Dems who supported Hilllary really want to punish BHO by voting Rep? Would they rather have a Rep in the White House in order to make a point to their own party? RealClear Politics and other polls suggest races in some states are starting to tighten. If the PUMAs do select to stay home, then Mac may have a chance. (Of course that would me happy, but perhaps that is not true for others on this post)
There
[...] home indicated nothing but apathy). That’s part of the reason that protest voters such as PUMAs usually don’t matter [...]
Mike Ingram:
“Do Dems who supported Hilllary really want to punish BHO by voting Rep?”
I can’t speak for all Dems who supported Hillary, just myself. I doubt seriously I will vote for McCain. I may very well vote third party. My reason is not really to punish BHO so much as to send a message to the Democratic Party. They cannot take my vote for granted just because I voted for a Democrat in the past. I’ve also at times voted for Republicans and just as I found that I could no longer support Republicans I am finding I feel the same about Democrats now.
It’s really about personal principles. I have to vote for who I think best represents me and who I believe is best for the country. I no longer consider myself a Democrat, I consider myself a free agent who will vote in each election as I see fit.
But absolutely I want to punish the Democratic Party for what I feel was a corrupt primary.
[...] they’re probably due, before skipping blithely on to something else. Pro-Hillary Clinton PUMAs are a recent example. Unfortunately, some of the PUMAs seem to be buying their own hype, regularly [...]
I suggest that people take note that the Democratic party LOST over 2% of their members over the past 7 months. I think if that had been a quarterly count, that number was much larger as in the 1st quarter, many people really believed there was going to be a democratic primary. I think registration was probably up. But since June, I’ve personally talked to 20 people who re-registered as independents. THAT’s a lot. And to a person, it was over how the Democratic primary was conducted. They saw it as corrupt and with a single minded goal of installing BO as the anointee regardless of the fact that he has lost by over 600,000 votes since the end of February.
For me, I’m going to resist. I don’t have to vote for McCain, I live in a red state. But I won’t vote for Obama if is is the “anointed”, handpicked by Brazile and HD, heavily using DFA (Jim Dean, HDs brother is the President) which is active in all 50 states and without a doubt in the cats bird seat at the caucuses; and the inexplicable need to not allow the candidate leading in the “real” popular vote, and only 130 or so pledged delegate behind their anointee and neither having WON the nomination, why there was such incredible pressure to force out the more qualified candidate.
Well, here is why I went PUMA. It’s simple. If we allow the installment of this hand picked candidate by the DNC & allies who are looking for a puppet to get away with this without resistence, we can kiss goodbye our future right to vote and have nominate any candidate that the DNC doesn’t bless.
I don’t know about you, but BOs inability to gain more than a few points lead over McCain, his inability to “stick” with any progressive position, BOs lack of courage in engaging McCain to debate unless he controls the agenda… well, they simply confirm my impression of him. And that’s not a good thing.
I loathe the idea of a man who has YET to stand firm on any basic progressive principal (NAFTA, Telecom immunity, off-shore drilling, Iraq) leading a basically useless Democratic congress. Matter of fact, I view it as incredibly dangerous.
Given our choices in this election, inexperienced with NO PROVEN, FIRM OR RELIABLE positions on the issues + an ineffectual, corrupt Dem congress that will rubber stamp BOs every inane or dangerous decision
or
a guy who at least can boast some experience, who has a track record of bi-partisan cooperation and action + an ineffectual, corrupt Dem congress that might be goaded into opposition and hammering out a compromise solution with a guy who has a track record that reflects his willingness to do so…
I’m voting for divided government. It just seems safer to save the Democratic party from itself and to preserve the integrity of the system as we seek to advance a progressive agenda in this country
I’m also a fan of divided government–but now that Democrats are generally more conservative than many Republicans used to be, and the GOP has managed to almost entirely purge itself of moderates, I don’t see a government of McCain and a generally conservative and largely gutless Congress as particularly divided. Do you really think this Congress would oppose the anti-women’s rights Supreme Court nominees that McCain has already promised to appoint?