Poll: Twenty-Eight Percent Of Hillary Supporters Would Back McCain If Obama Wins
This, from Gallup, is the first polling I've seen on this question -- it finds that Hillary supporters say they're more likely to bolt to McCain if their choice doesn't end up as the nominee:
Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is.
You hear lots more media attention being paid to the idea that Obama's supporters would bolt to McCain than to the possibility that Hillary's would. It's worth keeping in mind that you can't take it for granted, as some pundits seem to, that Hillary backers will all support Obama.
On the other hand, one problem with this poll is it doesn't account for how Hillary might win. If Obama won the pledged delegate count and popular vote, and the super dels put Hillary over the top, you could easily see the number of Obama supporters not willing to back Hillary spiking.
Because Hillary is losing her supporters are more likely to be bitter over the results. Moreover, these responders know they are being polled and thus are likely to give answers intended to influence the outcome. Of course it looks good for Hillary if they say they won't vote for Obama - they know that.
These polls tell us much less than we think.
March 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I will certainly vote for Obama if Clinton loses and I'm very much in support of Clinton. I disagree with you though that that large number comes from bitterness.
There are millions of so-called "Reagan Democrats" who will not vote for Obama because:
-he wants to talk to our enemies
-wants to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, so they can use them to fly planes into buildings (that's what they'll think)
-he refuses to designate the Iranian Guard a terrorist organization
-while in Illinois, he was soft on crime (example: against the death penalty for gang members because they are often "people of color")
-he's black
-his mother was white
-he refuses to wear the flag
-his wife isn't patriotic
-his "moral compass" hates white people and America
Now, before I am crucified here, let me make abundantely clear: I AM NOT A REAGAN DEMOCRAT. I agree with these positions that Obama has taken. I think some of the things he's said are politically stupid, but that's another topic.
What people generally fail to acknowledge in the media is that Ronald Reagan continued Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which basically used race baiting to move racist whites (once with populist Dems) into the Republican Party. That strategy is still alive (against blacks and immigrants), but also has adopted religious tones (targeting homosexuals and abortion) to mobilize the obvious idiots.
Obama was so much better off when he was 'transcending race'. In other words, when he wasn't the black candidate. Rev. Wright, like Hurricane Katrina, blew that cover clean off of Obama.
'Tis the trouble we are in if Obama is the nominee. Because with the race/Wright issue aside, these Reagan Dems are often just as nationalistic and strong on defense as the neocons and as tough on crime as Guiliani.
The very sad reality is we can't win without them.
And I say that as an openly gay guy, so it really is personally painful to admit.
March 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MKyleM, There are some good points in that post.
I'd also point out there are a lot of Main Street Republicans, who are sick of the pandering to wing nuts, war mongering, corruption, duopoly and oligarchy, who will vote for Obama.
I recently read a great article on Glass-Stegall from the WSJ 1999. http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/nov1999/bank-n01.shtml
One very interesting point it made was that a lot of small bankers were against the bipartisan scuttling of Glass-Stegall led by Bill Clinton, realizing full well it would lead massive mergers and monopolization of commercial and investment banking, and expose the broad economy to Wall Street meltdown.
Another point in the article was that Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods.
"The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.
Gramm and other extreme-right Republicans saw the opportunity to damage their political opponents among minority businessmen and community groups, who generally support the Democratic Party. Gramm succeeded in inserting two provisions to weaken the CRA, one reducing the frequency of examinations for CRA compliance to once every five years for smaller banks, the other compelling public disclosure of loans made under the program.
The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.
The banks and other financial institutions did not themselves oppose continuation of the CRA, which they have treated as nothing more than a cost of doing a highly profitable business in minority areas. Loans tied to the CRA average a 20 percent rate of return. Financial industry lobbyists complained that they were being caught in a crossfire between the Republicans and Democrats which was unrelated to the main purpose of the bill."
There are a lot of Main Street Republicans who are tired of the sort of partisan politics the Clintons play, who aren't religious fundamentalists, and who aren't racists or war mongers either.
March 26, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Kozmik, (quick yet long-winded reply, ignore typos please)
You are certainly right that there are many Republicans who see the tragedy that has unfolded under their party's rule and plenty of people who are extremely tired of political, partisan fighting.
Lets say Obama does (what I think is) the impossible and is elected president. What are those people going to think when Obama is forced by the realities to actually engage in partisan fighting? I am just not convinced at all that the election of Barack Obama will suddenly end the need to engage in partisan fighting. What are they going to say about Michelle Obama, who may be the one running in 15 years talking of her "scars" and how she's been through the heat, etc. etc.
People have been sick and tired of Washington DC since the late 1700s; you could even argue people were sick of DC even when it was just a concept, evident by the relectuance of many at the time to form a federal government in the first place. Candidates have been running against that city since it was founded.
But that never changes the fundamentals. The hatred of George Bush and the Iraq War has yet to spark a true revolution. They have not made the country less racist. They have not made the country less religious.
Those Main Street Republicans you speak of will be just as sick of politics by the end of Obama's era as they are now. Here's why: the Republican party will put up one hell of a fight and try their best to keep him from accomplishing anything. And I can only hope to God that the Dem Party headed by an Obama presidency hits them back with the same, if not more, fire.
And that goes straight to Hillary Clinton's best selling point. She will fight back, tooth and nail. Many Obama supporters see her as mean and nasty. However, as someone who actually works in politics and has observed two presidential candidates, decent honorable men but lousy candidates, simply roll over and die in the heat of the fight. No, I want someone who won't hesitate to throw Keating 5 right in McCain's flappy face. You call it "kitchen sink", I call it doing what you are supposed to. WIN. Do what it takes - within the law, of course.
But going back to the turn out of Main Street Republicans, I don't think that can offset the defection of Reagan Democrats. Sure, people will defect with Clinton but not by nearly as much. With Obama, though, you have to think about how his candidacy will energize every racist idiot in evry corner of the country to turn out and vote. I know many of you will say the same about Clinton, but again, it won't be nearly as much. Plus, with Clinton, you can expect millions of women (who've never participated before in elections) turn out to vote for the first woman president. These are people who don't watch the news and are not very partisan. They would do the same for Libby Dole. Millions! That would do more than offset the ignorant vote. Plus, so much is made of the "Clinton hatred" in the country. People who are sitting at home hating Hillary Clinton and buying those trashy books about her are more often than not Republicans who have voted every time they possibly could. Very partisan Republicans who will never in a million years vote for a Democrat. Their turn out is guaranteed.
On the other hand, the racist vote is not guaranteed, but ony for Hillary. I work in politics in SC, NC, and GA. I'm sure many of you are well aware of the disgusting 'rebel flag'. Well, our REPUBLICAN Gov. in SC decided to end the controversy by removing the flag from the state house. The next year, when he was up for reelection, not only was that REPUBLICAN Gov. devastated, humiliated, defeated, the Democratic Party was absolutely destroyed throughout the state. If I remember correctly, we lost both chambers in the state house. The exact same thing happend a few years later in GA, except it was a Dem gov. and they only lost the state senate.
I know many of you will dismiss this as the South and I know it is the cradle of idiocy. However, I think this poses a problem in northern FL, OH, VA, MO, even in PA and NM. I have no doubt that Rev. Wright, single-handedly, will ensure a landslide electoral defeat for our party and Barack Obama.
I've learned to NEVER underestamate the seething racism that festers in this country. There's a reason Nixon's Southern Strategy is still alive; its because racism and ignorance is alive and well!
March 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What are those people going to think when Obama is forced by the realities to actually engage in partisan fighting?"
I don't see how he will be "forced" into hardline partisan politics at all. What forces pols to play partisan politics is thier past baggage and allegiance to partisan special interests. Obama hasn't done that.
His core donor base and political mandate is coming directly from the grass roots, and a rather broad base of grass roots at that. For example, the youth vote doesn't care for outmoded ideologies, sacred cows and establishment orthodoxy, they want pragmatic results. Same goes for educated working people. All these people want a strong economy and high quality of living for working people, to protect the environment, to have healthcare, etc. But they're not partisan or ideological. They're much more like Europeans and Asians in other developed countries, who take a much more pragmatic and mixed approach to the economy, environmentalism, social issues, and so on.
For example, Hillary tried to force him into race politics, as did some of the demagogues in the black community. Both times he rose above it and refused to play that game. Both times he went directly to the public and appealed to their common sense and better nature. Rather than pandering, he treats the public like adults, and it elevates the discussion.
Sure, he won't convince some people locked into rigid ideology. But for every one of them he loses, he gains two pragmatists happy for someone finally refusing to play the old games. Many of our politicians are outmoded. The people are way ahead of most pols, a lot less partisan and a lot more pragmatic, across the spectrum. Obama has tapped directly into that.
March 26, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I think I've made my point. And I see yours, I just disagree with you.
You seem to be one of those that thinks Obama is some sort of magician.
Obama's elected and
Poof! There goes racism.
Poof! There go Evangelical Christians.
Poof! There go pro-lifers.
Poof! There goes homophobia.
Poof! There go the Republican attack dogs.
Poof! There go rich people who don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There go middle class people who don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There go working class people who don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There go the 50 million people who don't believe government should help anyone.
Poof! There goes Fox News.
Poof! There goes Rush Limbaugh and hundreds of his clones.
Poof! There go the corporations that control the media and don't want to pay taxes.
Poof! There goes the constellation of right-wing publications, publishing companies, and blogs.
Poof! There go right-wing think tanks.
Its just not going to happen. Conservatives set out, after their 1964 presidential defeat, carefully laying a foundation for their own movement. It may be weak, but it is still there. Ann Coulter still does her rounds on the morning shows and cable news. Even if Obama maintains this grass roots coalition you speak of, it will have to do battle with this giant. It may be a weak monster, but it is still a force to be dealt with.
Also, are you crazy, suggesting that Europe and Asia live in this La La Land you describe? Sure, their political spectrums may be shifted more to the left than ours. However, its hardly a bridge club!
Asian sessions regularly erupt in full flege fighting matches with shoes and mics thrown and faces slapped and punched and hair pulled. Even the British parlament often erupts in screaming and name calling. France regularly has riots. Germany goes on strike all the time.
In fact, they often make us look very civilized and orderly. And if you look back at the history of campaigns, we really have come a long way. I remember studying in college political advertiements and one that is seared into my meomry was one flier against Thomas Jefferson that said if he were president "rape, incest, murder, and mayhem would ensue." Let us not forget the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Burr (after Hamilton suggested at a dinner party that Burr had engaged in insest with his daughter).
Obama has market-tested a phrase: Change. Change you can believe in. People want change. Politics as usual. But the fact of the matter is, every election is about change. And candidates have been saying that since this country was founded; "i'm going to bring good change" and/or "my opponent is going to bring bad change."
I know you all don't want to hear it, but it really is simply politics as usual. And that's fine, he's done a fantastic job at it. My only hope is that, if he makes it to the top job, he actually hasn't started believing this non-sense and knows full well at some point the honeymoon will be over and a full fledged fight will begin.
If he knows what's up and ends up fight int well, one thing is certain: Hillary and Bill will have been the best training coaches he could possibly have had.
March 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You seem to be one of those that thinks Obama is some sort of magician."
Not at all. It's just you seem to think demographics haven't changed, and I can point to empirical evidence they have.
It's not the first time either.
For example, after the Great Crash and Depression, demographics and public opinion shifted towards pragmatism and economic reform in the form of the New Deal, which was basically a mixed economy. The ideological partisanship and rather low-brow mudslinging between communism and laissez faire ideolouges had been ongoing since the late 1800s with laissez faire generally winning due to American proclivities. After the crash the populace abandoned ideology, rejected both laissez faire and communism, and moved towards a mixed economy in the New Deal. Cultural extremes were also rejected in favor of pragmatism, for example by increasing regulation of hard drugs while prohibition of alcohol lost support.
Reagan tapped into various reactionary backlashes against radicalism and the counter culture, to great success. He set a course back towards state sponsored religiosity and legislating morality, and laissez faire. Clinton to a large extent continued those policies, such as repealing Glass-Stegall banking regulation, NAFTA, and so on.
Which brings us full circle. The economy is collapsing due to rampant corruption and predatory practices, the rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer, and most people are sick of the Religious right attempting to legislate morality without respect for liberty or privacy.
Once again we're moving towards pragmatism and abandoning extreme left/right ideology.
March 26, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, your portrayal of Europe and Asia are kinda ignorant and sound like FOX News nonsense. Have you actually spent much time in either? Our Europe and Asian allies aren't "la-la land." That's Los Angeles.
They do have a higher quality of living overall though. They do have empirically better heath care, like number of MRI per capita, superior preventative care, and superior natal care, for half what we pay. They do have superior test scores and graduation rates. They do have better public transit and infrastructure. They are greener and generate far more renewable energy. They do have better internet and wireless technology and infrastructure, will almost universal deployment with capacities often 10x ours, able to easily stream DVD quality video for example. They do make better cars. They do eat better and exercise more. they do live longer. They are increasingly buying up US companies and real estate.
It's all basically for one simple reason: our European and Asian allies have government to serve the people who are very politically active. As such, they get results. US turnout is far lower than in almost all of our allies. As such, power tends to gravitate to concentrated interests, the "special interests" like corporations and various agenda driven groups.
I personally think America, at it's best, is better, can and should do better. We have a mix of people from a broad range of experiences, with widely varying talents. We have resources and some of the most desirable real estate in the world.
But we have to put all that to work for us, instead of working against ourselves.
March 26, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With Obama, though, you have to think about how his candidacy will energize every racist idiot in evry corner of the country to turn out and vote. I know many of you will say the same about Clinton, but again, it won't be nearly as much."
btw, sorry, but that's just not reality based.
In fact, polls have repeatedly shown more people won't vote for a woman than won't vote for a black man. Which is sad, because in a more perfect world both race and gender would be irrelevant. But regardless, that's the fact. It's also worth mentioning that popular institutions from sports to the military are all way more racially integrated than gender integrated.
Also, Hillary has far higher negatives than Obama, for reasons having nothing to do with race or gender, among those who would otherwise vote for a woman or African American.
Obama is half black and transcends racial stereotypes in many regards, which I think does matter. Many people want to move past racial divides and generally want pols who represent everyone equally.
(btw, as a mixed person myself, asian and european, I know that a lot of people like it, because it puts me in a sort of "impartial mediator" category. they don't worry about offending me with sterotypes becasue there aren;t any. similarly they don't worry about me projecting my ethnic baggage onto them, because I don't have any. It frees people up to relate on a much more basic human level. In popular culture we increasingly see celebrities transcending traditional gender and ethnic roles, I think for the same reason.)
March 26, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. I really am.
I think you are, sooner or later, in for a very rude awakening.
March 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're free to feel that way. I understand. Some of my relatives insisted to me that Obama would never win in states he won, would never be ahead in the popular vote or delegate count. They insisted Hillary was a "sure thing" and would win in a landslide.
According to Hillary's calculations, she shouldn't be paying a price for her Iraq War vote, because it was supposedly the smart political move. She thought WalMart was a good company to join. She thought NAFTA was a great idea. She thought her health care plan was terrific, before it completely fell apart.
She would have been absolutely right, in another era.
March 26, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't mind me asking, how old are you?
March 26, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be honest with you. Your assessment of mainstreet Republicans is quite shallow. For those mainstream Republicans, McCain is the best the party has to offer. Since McCain was nominated, it is actually very hard for Democrats to win, no matter what!
Iraq will not become an issue and surge, you like it or not, has worked quite well. It is not a good strategy to root for American failure in Iraq! McCain has been a consistent critic of Rumsfeld and he will be trusted for his national security and his early advoctate of troop surge. The republicans will be just fine with McCain.
Now let me come back to the main point of this poll. The Obama supporters are an odd alliance of black people and liberal elitists. Most of them are vemently anti-war. If Hillary wins, they will be mad but it is difficult to see them turn out to vote for McCain to punish Hillary. They will sit home or skip the presidential line, especially those hot-head young people. Hillary supporters are more moderate to conservative Democrats. They also include a lot of latinos. The first group, especially old people, value experience and will have no problem voting for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. There are also so called "national security" moms. They may favor Hillary over McCain but will pick McCain over Obama anyday. Reagan Democrats have been voting for Republicans their whole lives. It does not bother them to vote for McCain, especially after the Wright problem. Oh, by the way, Latinos, deeply appreciate McCain's immigration effort and will be strongly motivated to vote for McCain if their first-choice Hillary is out.
So what we have now is: If Hillary wins, some Obama people will stay home - let's take people off the D side. On the other hand, if Obama wins, many Hillary supporters will cross over to vote for McCain - let's now take people off the D side and put them to the R side. what is more dramatic?
March 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Aimey May!
I think your point about Latinos and McCain is extremely important and cannot be overstated.
Democrats really should think long and hard about the consequences with this group if Obama is the nominee.
March 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as a bit of a stretch. Obama supports drivers' licenses for illegal aliens, so it is not as if he is conceding the Latino vote to McCain. I think that it is nearer the mark to say that McCain will attract a larger chunk of the Latino vote than Romney or Giuliani would have, but I am hard pressed to believe that Latino democrats will defect in any great numbers to McCain. If you were to tell me that many of them will simply stay home in November if Obama is the nominee, I could even believe that (although I would want to see the data). "Strongly motivated to vote for McCain" however rings false in my ears.
March 26, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I'd call that a huge stretch. McCain the Senator from Arizona, and McCain the President with a base of white, rural, Evangelicals, two entirely different creatures.
March 26, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, For a little context, McCain was "happy" to get the nod from that wingnut Hagee, who passionatly hates Catholics and immigrants.
Again, McCain of 2000 and McCain of 2008, very different. He realized in 2000 he couldn't get the moderate vote and the wingnut vote, and has consistently gone wingnut since.
March 26, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"For those mainstream Republicans, McCain is the best the party has to offer."
Nope. For several reasons. In a nut shell, he's been forced by the Republican base of hawks, fundies, and Wall Street, to pretzel himself to pander to the interest groups who killed his candidacy in 2000. But it was precisely his opposition to them which endeared him with moderate Republicans in the first place. He can't have it both ways. McCain can't win moderates and the Republican base.
That's the fundamental problem in the Republican party today: the Reagan coalition is unstable and impossible to maintain in power.
The fact is turnout for McCain and Republican turnout overall has been really lousy. Democratic primaries, in large part due to Obama, have been breaking all records for turnout.
Much of the traditional Democrats (i.e. working people including labor and professionals) and much of the traditional Republicans (i.e. working people including labor and professionals) are less divided by social issues, and more unified on economic and security issues around pragmatic solutions, than ever before. Call it a virtual third party, or maybe the meta-party.
Obama carries them and the base. McCain gets either/or.
March 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, it goes all ways. Some voters don't like McCain and will vote Democrat. Overall it's a wash, and these things tend to be over hyped. I don't know why Josh is suspending his common sense and sweating these silly polls so much.
Anyways, there's no point in worrying too much about irrational voters. If some people are willing to vote against their economic interest and for a war monger like McCain, then all you can do is try and educate them. But pandering to them only rewards it and that leads to a vicious cycle.
***
A lot of that will die down after the Dem nominee is picked. It's also very important how the nominee is picked. Hillary "winning" by somehow fixing the SD (which isn't going to happen) and Obama winning fairly with a lead in pledged delegates, that's very different. Polls don't address that issue.
For example, sure, if Hillary won fairly, i.e. if she somehow managed to win with the elected/pledged delegates, then sure, I'd vote for her even though I support Obama. I even planned to support her (as bad as she is) before Obama got in the race.
But, and it's a huge, there's no way I'll vote for Hillary if she somehow fixes the nomination through the SD.
That's a matter of principle. If you allow machine politics to shut out fair competition and subvert the democratic process, then you don't have a democracy anymore. That invites a vicious cycle which will inevitably produce fewer and worse choices.
You can apply that principle to anything in life.
If someone you're dating is basically an OK person, but is a psycho stalker who chases off anyone else and seeks to control your life, then it's not going to be a good marriage. If you buy a product in a store that's OK, but then you learn they're a monopoly that's deliberately preventing you from having other choices, one would have to boycott that product on principle.
Again, to do otherwise is to invite a vicious cycle inevitably leading to fewer and worse "choices" that are no choice at all.
***
March 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry but did obama get 20024 delegates?
March 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's 2024, and that's a silly question.
If the SD's go proportionately to the elected/pledged delegates, yes, he's clearly won. Many party leaders have pointed out that to do otherwise would be to disenfranchise the will of the voters, undemocratic, and split the party. Unless the SD go collectively crazy, they're not going to do so. In fact they've repeatedly signaled they're not going to do so.
So, yes, there is a single possibility Hillary can win, by somehow fixing the SD vote and disenfranchising the will of voters, and splitting the party. But no, it's not remotely likely, end even if she did pull it off, it would be disastrous.
Otherwise, it's impossible for her to catch up, and she's already lost.
So, while I respect enthusiastic support for one's candidate, as Hillary would say, her supporters need a "reality check."
March 26, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of spin is this?
This should be: MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS WOULD SUPPORT OTHER CANDIDATE IN GENERAL ELECTION
28% going for McCain means 72% going for Obama.
March 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
i dont think it's spin. it's just showing how bitter some people feel right now. one thing you can count on the GOP to do in the fall is unite the Dem base against them with rovian style politics. once obama has a chance to go after mccain, the tide will change again. the only question is, will Obama be stuck with Clinton to hold on to his base in Nov, and in turn, hurt himself with Indie's?
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can't win without Clinton's support nor Clinton can't win without Obama's.
That is a fact.
As of now, Obama has turned of alot of Hillary's supporters by his constant race baiting and personal attacks.
March 26, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course they'll bolt. HRC and saint john aren't that far apart. they got the same grade on the commander-in-chief test. (although that may be because hillary copied mcSame's answers)
March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are many problems with the poll - not the least of which is that it's a useless hypothetical at a time when the primary battle is heated. In the fall, these numbers go out the window.
UNLESS Hillary Clinton wins unfairly - which is of course the only way she can win.
March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If she wins she win fairly. If she gets the nomination it is because the SD gave it to her according to the rules. They could do that if they choose. Just the way they could choose Obama.
The SD's are not under any obligation to give it to Obama or Hillary.
March 26, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this gives more credence to Mo Dowd's claim in her editorial today that they may end up stuck with each other. The more these numbers increase, the more it looks as if Obama may end up stuck picking Hillary as his VP. Not a good scenario.
March 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mo Dowd? Are you kidding me? Please! Stop reading garbage! She nicknamed Obama Obambi for crap's sake. And I'm not even an Obama supporter!
Maureen Dowd is a moron. Bob Somerby lays it out.
March 26, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
With any luck, TPM will allow this link to work.
If not, Google "Maureen Dowd Somerby" for more on Dowd's history of "feminizing" Obama.
March 26, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess they've just got a hankerin' for gutter politics and if they can't get their fix from Hillary, they'll go with the GOP, who can always be counted on to get down into the muck.
March 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cry. Me. A. River.
100 years war? YES!
Tax cuts for the wealthy? YES!
Overturn Roe v. Wade? YES!
Escalation with Iran? YES!
Same old economic policy? YES!
Torture? YES!
28% of Clinton supporters are douchebags. 19% of Obama supporters are douchebags.
Fortunately, John McCain is a bigger douchebag.
Unite in '08.
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
...or is it just their love for the status quo?
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Meanwhile, I know that we are being cautioned to suspect that a lot of these "I would vote for McCain" respondants are speaking in anger and would not feel that way by November. That said, I have a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach that too many of these folks really mean it. That is to say, while many of them will repent of this foolishness by November, many will not, and the number that will not is large enough to give McCain the edge that he needs. I hope I am wrong about that, but I feel less and less sanguine about our chances in November with each passing day of this nonsense.
March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh. I've said it in other places, but I probably wouldn't vote for McCain if HRC won the nomination at a brokered convention. In other words, if Obama won the vote but was denied by the supers, I probably still wouldn't vote for McCain.
but I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about HRC. I wouldn't volunteer. I wouldn't buy a sign. I wouldn't go out of my way to exhort people to vote. I might even stay at home and watch Captain Kangaroo instead of voting at all.
I know how damaging to the nation another term of Bush/Cheney would be, but I can't seem to well up any deep support for Clinton were she to steal the nomination. If she magically won it fair and square (and I do mean magically), I might me more inclined to vote for her....but....I dunno.
March 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you get the feeling that most of these people are like those you have worked with who threaten to quit if things don't go their way? Ever notice how they just seem to keep coming in to work?
March 26, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mercifully, I have never worked with anyone like that. I have expressed this same anxiety to many others, and regularly receive reassurances much to the same effect as the one you just offered. All I can say is that I hope you are right. I have no reason one way or another to believe that folks who say "I will vote McCain if ____ gets the nomination" really mean it. Maybe I am taking it too seriously; maybe I am not.
This much I know - if a time for healing is necessary in order to reconcile those alienated by this race, then the longer we have for that healing the better. As such, ending this quickly is in the party's (and thus both candidates') best interest.
March 26, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
One can only wonder why this is so.
March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
One can only wonder the role the "CIC threshold" and the "two candidates who love their country" statements have played in creating such divisions.
March 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, stop with the percentages. Obama has a larger slice of the pie, so saying 19% is the same as 28% is not accurate. The sad truth is the Democrats will surely win in the fall with who ever they put up. Sure, some neocons that support Hillary will go to McCain, Nader, or what not, but Obama will make up for the loss with the increase in independents and republicans that choose him. Also, this poll fails to take into account Hillary's endorsement of Obama when she finally admits she lost.
March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
very good point. as an early obama supporter, i've got no use for hillary, but compared to saint john mcHundredYears? i'll vote for her in a heartbeat. fortunately, this will most likely remain a hypothetical matchup.
March 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A larger slice of which pie? They're tied in terms of national support, as shown by this and many other polls, so 19% and 28% can be compared directly.
Like others here, I very much hope the sentiment changes come November. If I were an Obama supporter though, I'd be pretty worried about his inability to gain broad support from Democrats, despite it supposedly being a long shot for Hillary to win for over a month now.
March 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are delusional.
March 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
Comes back to bite you, buddy.
March 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has run her campaign using Karl Rove's playbook, I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary supporters wrote in "George W Bush" in the General Election.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Comments like these are what driving Hillary's supporters to McCain. You are only hurting Obama.
Remember, he or she who laughs last...
March 26, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's supporters will come to their senses. They won't vote for a neocon who promises more wars and endless occupations and that will appoint judges to overturn Roe v Wade.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama + 72% of Hillary's rational supporters STILL beats McCain + 28% of Hillary's batshit crazy supporters.
/nuff said.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
note: a huge percentage of Obama supporters will stay home if Clinton wins the nomination by any means now apparent.
and rightly so.
March 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, so much for the "those African American voters" non-issue.
March 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am sorry, but I am not following you. To what "non-issue" are you referring? Did someone say something about "those African American voters"?
March 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you enjoyed your weekend away from the blog. More of us need to do so.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/those-african-american-voters.php
March 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The poll is meaningless.
It isn't even a good talking point.
Here is why:
Hillary and her supporters are losing.
A loss always engenders bitterness and reactivity. These stings will fade with time.
They always do.
The same can be said for Barack Obama supporters's opinions in this poll. They are winning. They don't feel as much heartburn as the Clinton base currently does. So they appear to be more willing to support Clinton. If the situation was reversed their bitterness would ascend, and the numbers would be reversed.
Ergo: Meaningless^2
March 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
QED
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the situation was reversed their bitterness would ascend, and the numbers would be reversed.
The situation already has been reversed. Obama started out "behind" in the race before the primaries began and that's why every other Obama supporter I encountered on the sites I post to was saying "If Obama doesn't win, I can't vote for that bitch that killed Vince Foster" or some variant thereof. That Obama's number shows as 19% only reflects that he's ahead in delegates at this point.
The sooner they face up to it, the better. It will take both of them on the ticket to win. Short of that, it's over.
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny that she's now hanging tough with the guy responsible for the Clintons killed Vince Foster story.
March 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would not support Hillary in the general. It means she cheated, scraped, and lied her way to it.
March 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
Dear Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel: Are you reading these polls? For the love of god would you please stop this before the party bleeds out?
March 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will be the nominee and I will vote for her but how many obamaniacs will not?
March 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, where'd you get that crystal ball? It seems broken.
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only way Hillary gets to be the nominee is if McCain offers her a spot as his VP, which given her language of late, seems to be what she is angling for.
March 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, gotalife...
If Clinton gets the nomination, you'd better start honing your charm skills, because you're going to need every bit of that charm to convince me and my fellow Obama supporters to vote for your candidate. And insulting us by calling us "Obamaniacs" will not get you off to a good start.
March 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, tell me something. How does Clinton win the GE without the African American vote? How does she get them back on board?
March 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you are implying that Obama is the black candidate...the affirmative action guy.
March 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't this is quite as big a deal as people are suggesting.Don't forget. Polling that is done assumes the other person is out of the race. We already have poll numbers for many individual states and for the whole country in match-ups of McCain vs. Clinton or McCain vs. Obama. In other words, given that it seems recent polls demonstrate the Clinton or Obama perform essentially equally against McCain, this poll shows that for every Clinton Dem that Obama loses he gains another voter. Same for Clinton.
March 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a note of caution: 3% of those who support Obama, would support McCain in the fall. Three percent.
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody see this? Pretty funny
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc
March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks elonepb. LMAO and spilled the coffee.
March 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some people are FUNNY!
Thanks for the link!
March 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just saw it on DU, but you should have mentioned it's Bosnia footage of her trip. It shows Hillary at her awesome best!
Terrorists, schmerrorists.
March 26, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
as a hillary supporter i would be very disapointed if obama wins the nomination but will i vote for him? let me put it this way after 20 years of supporting the dem nominee i would most likely support obama. for the first time in my life i will be unexcited in november.
March 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were exciting?
Dude.
March 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In two months this election has turned upside down many a times. Six months to the general- no one can predict the turn of events. I concede Obama may loose in November, but it is my no means the writing on the wall.
Hillary? She's done, no point discussing her future.
March 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let em go. Emily's List will look great alongside Revs. Dobson and Hagee
March 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have a hard time voting for Hillary Clinton in the GE. However, if it came to a choice between her and the next Chieftain of the Hundred Year War, I'll vote for her. I'll vote for her even though I've said I could not, even though I've come to despise her and her tactics. But, thankfully, I don't yet have to ponder that possibility 'cause my candidate is ahead. I suspect that Clinton's voters would arrive at the same place in the GE.
March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what?
This is supposed to hold significance for the November elections? Seven percent more of the Hillary supporters that were polled report that they will turn on the party if their candidate is selected as the party's candidate for the November election. And 13 percent of the Hillary-supporters were undecided on the question.
If this is supposed to suggest that there will be a mass revolt against the Democratic Party if Obama is chosen to run against McCain, I'm underwhelmed.
March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters turning on their party are only following Hillary and Bill's example.
March 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paging idiotic...
March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with Liberal Historian and said something similar in response to a poll yesterday.
These results are skewed by where we are right now. Ask again in October.
Any Democrat, or liberal, or progressive or person with a brain and heart who would refuse to vote for the Democratic candidate is a very big ass. It's just childish to let personal feelings come between you and what it right for everyone.
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, if Hillary somehow gets the nomination at the culmination of all this, I will not be voting for her.
But, that doesn't mean I'll vote for McCain either. I think I'd write in Obama, but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for any political office.
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that sentiment.
March 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
but I will never vote for Hillary Clinton for any political office.
And Clinton supporters will return the favor. That's why neither of them can be elected.
March 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So did this poll ask supporters if they might just stay home? I think that is a much more likely result than voting for McSame. Especially for Obama supporters, many of whom are involved for the first time and would likely be quite disillusioned if Hillary somehow finds a way to steal this thing.
-- ARG
March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. This is just a mess.
March 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same if Obama finds a way to steal the election.
March 26, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, "Big Trouble" seems a tad hyperbolic. It's almost as if Josh wanted to breathe life into the melodramatic "horse-race" narrative.
Nah, he'd never do that...
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Josh get the blame in this post? Josh did not author this thread; Greg Sargent did. Mind you, I am not especially convinced that any malice-aforethought ought to be ascribed to Mr Sargent either, but one way or another Josh Marshall should not be getting either the credit or the blame for Greg Sargent's work.
March 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Because the "Big Trouble" headline on TPM's front page appears over Josh Marshall's byline. Go look.
Not long ago, Josh conceded that TPM had played a role in fostering the Clinton vs. Obama horse-race narrative when the numbers didn't really support it. I'd call the "Big Trouble" blare a bit more of the same.
March 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm. The "big trouble" referred to the general election possiblity of upset dems. not a continuing race between the two democratic candidates, which is basically over.
March 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm? Clinton's supporters are arguing that their candidate is more electable, and that "fact" should convince superdelegates and Dem officials to contravene popular results and select Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Pre-convention, Clinton could continue to campaign as a serious contender, and the press, TPM included, could continue to hype the melodrama of the horse race. I mean, look at the picture of Obama TPM selected to accompany this story. If that's not an image selected for maximum melodramatic impact, what is? He's practically crying into his blanket!
March 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
see Josh's blog entry on the main tpm page.
March 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, give me a break with these silly polls. So the supporters of the candidate backed by Emily's List are going to defect to the party that is gradually overturning Roe v. Wade, just because they are currently pissed because they are losing? Please.
Use some common sense here. Sour grapes are clearly playing a temporary, distorting role here. But the polls aren't just skewed by spleen and bitterness. People also answer poll questions strategically. Hillary's holdouts know that one of their last chances is the blackmail ploy: convince Democrats that they are all planning on defecting to the Republicans if they lose. Some of Obama supporters do the same thing. It's all BS, and by November will be a distant memory.
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan:
Haven't you been saying for months that you won't vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee? Don't you hate her as much as anyone else on here (not counting the nitwits who just spew drivel)? Indeed, last time I addressed you directly and indicated I would vote for Obama if he is the nominee, I recall you chiding me for being one of those right or wrong Democrats. And you were right I am proud to say; worry not, folks like me, etched in stone Democrats, will be charged with uniting the party this fall, whether it's Barack or Hillary.
Bruce
March 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is dumb. It's freaking March.. If we believed early polls Clinton and Giuliani would both be the nominees. Guess what.. They are not.. Neither will be.
When the DNC focuses on McCain all the hard feelings will be set aside when they realize voting for McSham would mean
more war in Iraq (more dead and injured soldiers)
more war in Iran (more dead and injured soldiers)
Healthcare for the rich (screw the rest of us)
more deficits
anti-choice
Herbert Hoover style of economic policy (bye bye jobs and “middle class”)
Get over it Hillary and Obama supporters. McSham is dangerous. Put aside your selfishness and think of our nation.
To be honest Obama has already won the nomination. It's time for the DNC to have a come to Jesus moment and tell HRC to drop out.
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Tennesseegurl, since Obama has selfishly blocked any chance for revotes in Florida and Michigan he may end up winning the popular vote. I say if we count those two states Hillary would win easily.
March 26, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The HRC supporters are just whining because their candidate is losing. I really doubt they hate America enough to vote for McMeToo. They'd sober up quick when they thought about another 4 years of failed Repug policies by a man who doesn't know his Shiite from his Sunni.
March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, more than a few Obama supporters on this thread are prepared to vote for McMeToo (or stay home which is a vote for McMeToo too). The bitterness cuts both ways as the poll indicates and many comments on this thread prove.
March 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
When the Clintons imply that only Hillary and John McCain have what it takes to be President. Have what it takes to be C.I.C. And wouldn't it be great if the general election was a race between the two "patriotic" candidates, then it's clear she's telling her supporters to vote for McCain if she's not the nominee. It's blatant.
Don't blame supporters of Hillary for following her lead.
March 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is an interesting question not answered:
The voters are identified as Clinton supporters, not Dems who voted for Clinton.
Is it possible that we are simply talking about Indies that liked Hillary?
More non-news.
Moreover there are a lot of similarities between Hillary and McCain:
a) Both voted for Iraq
b) Both are old-time established politicians
c) Both represent more of the past than the future.
I strongly support the right for people to vote candidate not party. How many of us think "My country, right or wrong" is misguided? How is that different than "Anyone from my party"?
Here's the good news: with all the sniping going on, no one has brought up Ralph Nader. I'm glad to see that going 3rd party is not considered a viable option this year.
March 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ralph who? Talk about a way to once again throw away your vote! Be my guest...
March 26, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by Publicus Hussein:
"Just a note of caution: 3% of those who support Obama, would support McCain in the fall. Three percent."
And 3% of the "Hillary supporters" say that they would vote for McCain in the fall if she's the candidate. People like to f#*! with polls.
March 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm. Aren't a lot of Republicans currently "Hillary backers" because they think she'll be easier to beat in the general election? Isn't it kind of logical that they might turn to McCain whether or not she's the nominee? How do they determine who's a"backer" anyway? What a silly poll.
March 26, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anybody see this? Pretty funny
O thanks for that link - that was hilarious.
March 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once we get a nominee who will focus attention on McCain and on selling himself to the voters, this will change.
But it's got to happen soon.
March 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't blame supporters of Hillary for following her lead.
There's something to this - as a Democrat, I was really furious with Bill for praising the Republican candidate over the Democratic frontrunner.
That really got me - the narcissism the Clintons have had on display this last couple of weeks has ruined them for me.
But I would vote for her - I wouldn't hesitate between Hilary and John effing "I'm crazy as a shithouse rat and I'll nuke Iran" McCain.
March 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does this say: Clinton supporters are more sexist and racist than Obama supporters. Sad but true.
March 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you kidding?! I guess if you and the die-hard Obama Cult repeat this enough maybe you can continue to believe it but the rest of us won't. It is NOT Clinton who has 20-years relation with a corrupt slumlord, NOT Clinton who has 20-years relation with a racist, America-hating church, reverend, and community. Nor does Clinton have a spouse who has never been proud of America. Finally, I have never heard Clinton accused of being sexist--which one cannot say about Obama.
Keep your head in the Obama Cult sand or start dealing with facts and reality.
March 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facts and reality? Are you kidding me? You're the equivalent of the guy that accuses the Clintons of having Vince Foster killed. This is insane. Mega-mega-mega-ultra-douchy.
March 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Hillary nor Obama attends a racist, America-hating church. How about pull your head out of your ass and do some research?
March 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one should see this as a surprise and it is likely a far more important number than looking at the negatives of any particular candidate. Unfortunately, the poll did not explore WHY. In my opinion, the tug-a-war between the so-called progressives and the traditional Democrats will cause these numbers to increase. I think this is what the unpledged delegates will face at the convention and since most are elected officials, I suspect they'll go with Clinton who better represents the interests of the Democratic party as a whole. Plus, I think those of us who do not find Obama acceptable will have more fodder for our arguments than the Obama Cult will have against Clinton--back to who's vetted, more experienced, and not tied with 20 years of corruption, hate, and racism.
March 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can promise you if the superdelegates overturn the pledge delegates, McCain will win the White House! The Dems will not only alienate a PROVEN voter base with AfrAm voters, but the process will alienate new voters as well progressives for the Democrats.
And these numbers are pointless anyway. They fail to incorporate the views of newly registered voters.
March 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I understand correctly, if there are insufficient votes at first ballot, all pledged delegates are released from their pledges, then the convention gets to choose without regard to primary and caucus votes. Plus, the unpledged or superdelegates can say anything they want now as they do not matter until they vote. If you want them to follow their states, then Richardson, Kennedy, and Kerry must vote for Clinton. Do you really want that?
March 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think if you look the majority of the Mass congressional delegation is with Hillary. Nowhere is it written that superdelegates need to work like an electoral bloc.
March 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did African Americans cease to be part of the traditional Democratic coalition? When did the Teamsters? When did the SEIU? When did the Boilermakers? It seems to me that the tug-of-war you describe is going on inside the "traditional Democrats" just as much as it is going on between "traditional Democrats" and "so-called progressives."
March 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DLC will destroy the party, have no coattails, lose us congress again, lose us any purple states and sell us out to lobbyists.
March 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct in that Clinton does not have 20-year ties with corruption . . . it's more like 35.
March 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, tell me something. How does Clinton win the GE without the African American vote? How does she get them back on board?
March 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"somewhat more reactive" there's the understatement of the week!It only makes sense that Hillary's angry little mob would flock to the other war-mongering neoCon in the race. Gotta go!,Think I hear incoming sniper fire.......
March 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the initial post mentions - and subsequent comments haven't really focused on - is a really interesting paradox. Obama is supposedly drawing much of his support from independents and Republicans (i.e. a demographic we would expect to break more heavily toward McCain were Obama not to win the nomination), and yet it's Clinton whose "defection"-to-McCain numbers seem significantly higher.
How do folks explain this?
I would argue that what this poll indicates is that while Obama has done well with his "post-partisan" politics, it's a mistake to interpret this as straight-forward centrism. I think the numbers shed light on an underappreciated conservatism of Hillary supporters: more comfortable with the war, hawkish on US support for Israel, and (perhaps) truly not ready for an African-American president.
In other words, it's really remarkable that Obama has done as well as he has with non-tradition-Democrat voters given that so much of his base are folks who would never vote for McCain.
Other interpretations?
March 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what we're seeing here is the fault lines of the Democratic Party; you've got the more conservative, working class voters (plus a loyal cadre of women) on one side, and the progressive, liberal wing on the other (I'm stealing this from someone else on this site, but the Tsongas/Bradley/Dean wing of the party). Is this oversimplifying things?
March 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just what does post-partisan, like post-racial really mean?! Nothing in my opinion unless you mean that a post- candidate, which I presume you mean Obama, has institutionalized both--thus his hostility to Clinton and his blatant racism--"typical white person", for example. Maybe what post- means is that Obama feels he's beyond having to apologize or be accountable for such trash. That's fine, but don't expect us to vote for him.
March 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good, stay home or vote for McCain.
March 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
to quote elonepb upthread:
Good. Stay home. We don't really give a shit.
March 26, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link fixed?
March 26, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that the poll only covers Democratic voters, not Independents. Indies are the group that would most likely switch to McCain instead of voting for Hillary.
Still even the poll's own analysis admits that these results can't truly be trusted due to the high emotions right now. As a counter point, 11% of Republican said that they would vote for a Democrat or someone else if McCain did not select a more conservative running mate and that an additional 9% would not vote at all.
March 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
-back to who's vetted, more experienced, and not tied with 20 years of corruption, hate, and racism.
I assume you are referring, in your smear-tactic way, to Sen. Obama. You know, candidates who live in glass houses really shouldn't start throwing stones.
Furthermore, Hilary does not "represent the Democratic Party as a whole." In fact, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Texas, Chris Bell, sent out an email this morning to registered Democrats, defending Obama and Rev Wright and taking the Clintons to task for that attack.
So you can make these unverifiable and unsupported statements all you want. It doesn't make them right.
March 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a silly poll, but it's a good one for Hillary to spin...and one she orchestrated. Hillary supporters believe what she says, that McCain is a better candidate than Obama, so they'd vote for McCain over Obama. If Hillary falls in line behind Obama for the good of the party and supports him against McCain they'll support Obama then, too.
March 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DLC led Clinton campaign has definitly torn your Dem party in 2. What a bunch of idiots anyway...
Lets look forward to the General election. For those of us who are not card carrying Democratic party member (Indies,newbies & crossover voters). If you are inclined to thwart the continued Bush/Cheney policies in 2009 what do you do? I would urge you to vote FOR your States Dem nominees for Senate & Congressional seats in this primary.
1 In the General vote FOR your states entire Dem Senate and Congressional seats.
2 Decide to vote AGAINST the Dem nominee by leaving the Presidential slot BLANK in Nov 08
3 Vote with your feet by not showing up to vote in Nov 08
4 Vote for the Dem Presidential nominee just because thats the only choice you have been given.
5 Most importantly vote FOR the Presidential candidate because this candidate is YOUR choice.
I am NOT a follow my party right or wrong voter..I'm not even a member. However I do wish to thwart any more of the Bush/Cheney policies of
the present.Therefore I will vote FOR my states Dem Senate & Congressional seats that are in play during this election. It will be interesting to see how many Indies and newbie & crossover voters feel the same way.
I am not a member of any organized party--I am a Democrat. Author: Will Rogers
If I cant be the Dem nominee for Commander in Chief.... I say that Republican Sen McCain passes the test... Author: A fool who will say and do anything to win the Dem nomination...
March 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one Obama supporter who wouldn't vote for Clinton in the general, but there's NO WAY I'd vote for McCain. But I'm not surprised at all about the number of Clinton voters who would vote for McCain. They're just not that different in terms of the status quo.
March 26, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the article Drudge links to:
Six percent (6%) of Democrats would like both Clinton and Obama to drop out of the race.
And they're all online.
March 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm genuinely curious...why is Obama less exciting than Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry to you?
March 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize, in advance, if this duplicates others sentiments since I have not read all of the comments.
As an Edwards supporter, including financially, I made the decision to support Sen. Obama because I believe he has the best chance to put a Democrat in the White House. (Sen. Clinton's negatives are just too high to start with.)
The most important thing to me (and what should be obvious to every Democrat) is defeating John McCain in November. I would not be happy if Sen. Clinton somehow wins the nomination (and it's the probable somehow that will make me unhappy), but I will gladly vote for her over Sen. McCain. I believe that whoever is NOT the nominee will see the big picture and fully support the nominee in every way. I hope their supporters see the light before going into the voting booth.
Let's keep our eye on the prize: it's likely that three or four Supreme Court vacancies will open up during the next President's tenure (especially if they become a two-term President). That is far more important to our democracy than who the Democratic nominee is.
March 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
i have never once said that i'll stay home or not vote for obama if Hillary is not the nominee, but to be honest, the only time it ever crosses my mind is when i read the "hillary hate" on these pages and other blogs or when someone spouts out the "end it now" meme... i think the only thing that could stick with me until november is an artificial end to the primary season...
my humble suggestion is to let it play out... let the chips fall where they may. intervention will only anger one side or the other.
March 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you direct me to any pro-Clinton site where Obama is getting a fair shake?
March 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
mydd, theleftcoaster, washingtonmonthly (but i'm not sure that kevin drum is pro-clinton... earlier in the race i believe he said that he preferred clinton over obama, but that may have changed)...
and which pro-obama sites give hillary a fair shake, schmedley? just wondering?
March 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't know. I was just looking for something more balanced than ClintonIs44. I'm trying to regain some perspective. Thanks for the references.
March 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only good ones are Talkleft and Taylor Marsh.
TMP actually lets you rebut lies about Hillary but is pro Obama.
All the others could be run by Karl Rove they are so full of Clinton hate. That of course does not cover the TV talking heads like Mathews and Olbermann who have such a homoerotic crush on Obama that mathews gets tingling up his pantlegs when he hears Obama speak, and Olbermann does special comments sliming Hillary and goes of for hour shows about Obama's passport being breached to change the subject about Rev Wright, but then does not mention Hillary's getting breached or the fact that the breaching was done under teh care of an Obama campign advisor. It is funny to see Obama supporters wonder why Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama when you see how much they have slimed the Clintons in this election. It has been worse than Rove's Bushies.
March 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And thanks to you as well.
March 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
schmedley, i don't think you'll approve of taylormarsh, talkleft, or noquarter... but if you want to balance out the extreme obama-ism of some of the progressive blogs, then these 3 might give you some idea of what's really pissing off the hardcore clinton supporters.
March 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would qualify as an "artificial end" in your estimation? If, for instance, all 339 of the remaining uncommitted (non-MI, non-FL) superdelegates were to come out for Obama over the course of the next month, thus eliminating any possibility that Clinton could make up her delegate deficit with superdelegate votes, would that be an "artificial end"? Would it make a difference if those supers all jumped willingly or were pushed by Dean?
What if they did not all break for Obama, but they all came off the bench in a roughly 50/50 split before PA had voted. That would still put an end to the idea that she could make up her deficit by recourse to the supers. Would that be an "artificial end" to the process? I guess, in other words, I am not quite clear as to what makes an end to this process "artificial" and I am trying to understand your thinking. Any clarification which you might be able to offer would be appreciated.
March 26, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
if the superdelegates independently decide to support either candidate in numbers sufficient to give them the approx 2025 delegates needed for the nomination and the losing candidate concedes, then that's fine.
as for what's "artificial" i'd say it's like that famous line about pornography: when you see it, you know it...
March 26, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that this poll probably reflects a lot of resentment from the Hillary camp, but it should not be blown off so easily. There is room for concern.
Based on the voting to date we can assume that a lot of the 28% from Hillary's camp who will not vote for Obama are core Democrats. Obama will need these votes to win the GE.
Based on the voting to date we can assume that some or a lot of the 19% from Obama's camp who will not vote for Hillary are Indy's and Republicans. Does the 19% represent Hillary-haters or Obama-lovers?
If Clinton is the nominee it will be easy for her to hold on her supporters. (core Dem's)
If Obama is the nominee it will be more of a challenge for him to hold on to his supporters. (Indy's and Republicans)
March 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
No I don't think this is accurate. While it is true Hillary has done a little better overall among Dems, it does NOT follow that her supporters are disproportionately so-called "core" Dems. In fact, the evidence suggests that her Dem supporters are disproportionately of the non-core variety, whereas Obama's are more "core". Look at the demographics. Clinton wins big among Latinos, blue collar moderate whites, and apolitical women. Those are classic non-core groups who don't always vote, and when they do don't always vote Dem. Obama wins big among African Americans, liberals, and in college towns and big cities. All reliable Dem core constituencies.
You've got it backwards.
March 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that I have it backwards. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between.
He tends to win in suburban centers where the state usually goes Republican. Or where the state will be a battleground state. Cleveland, Columbus,Dayton, Dallas, Austin, Kansas City, etc. I don't think that suburban voters can be categorized as a core Dem voting block. I think that they tend to flip flop at best if not traditionally Republican.
Blue collar is core Dem,
Higher percentage of Dems are woman voters, Hispanic voters for the most were Dems until Bush reversed the trend but now the trend has come back to the Dems, 57% to 23%
Anyway, I don't know why Obama would pander to and
register Republicans and Indy's if he is not strong with core Dems?
March 26, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad Core,(pun intended) I do have it backwards. But if you can believe it, it only elevates the alarm bells for Dems. If Hillary's swing voter are not willing to vote for Obama, its a problem. Most assume that most of the core Dems will vote Dem. The all important swing vote- Hispanics, women, blue collar do not vote for Obama, then he is in trouble.
Does that clear it up? Probably not.
March 26, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Limbaugh wins, nice job
March 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
i am one of the 28% along with many friends who are moderate and conservative democrats... you all seem to conveniently forget this fact we are MODERATES. hilliary is a moderate. we support that. OBAMA is to liberal and now too beholden to the progressive agenda for us it is easier to stomach MC Cain. as i have said before and will until MccAin is most likely president and everybody here is pointing fingers at the hilliary camp that many people vote for issues not necessarily party. many of us know with a democratic majority in the senate and congress mccain will be unable to start another preemptive war and the american public will never allow amnesty. if you evaluate mccain's very moderate/quasi liberal record he is very easy to vote for. whoever becomes president will re evaluate NAFTA and WTO.
i will also add if you think many hilliary supporters will forget how you folks have trashed her i think you are mistaken. i agree some of the numbers will flatten out. some truly believe mccain is not that bad due to the above reasons i gave. minus those 5% voting for ralph nader and you have president john mccain.
In my opinion it has been the younger new voters who have been the most vicious and arrogant and condescending here with their posting behavior. in the end i believe they will learn an awesome lesson in civility. you can fight hard and dirty but in my opinion but not go way over the top and a major turn off for your candidate. i hope they will be able to deal with a mccain presidency . we certainly can. Finally, a lesson to us all in the next election...you can not treat people with over the top negativity and expect them to forget. this is a lesson for both sides.
March 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, tell me something. How does Clinton win the GE without the African American vote? How does she get them back on board?
March 26, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I would point out that Hillary and Obama's positions are not really that far apart. Their methods are different, but their goals are largely the same, so I think it is pretty far off base to claim that he is so much more liberal than her on the issues.
Secondly, McCain's position on the war is about as far right as you can get. He is not reasonable on the issue, nor is he reasonable on Iran. I think that to try to make an argument that he is in anyway palatable to democrats, you have to ignore facts.
Thirdly, McCain is pro-life. This is not a moderate position and his supreme court nominees would reflect this. It is in no way unreasonable to predict that if another Republican is elected this year, Roe v. Wade may well be overturned.
March 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your answer presupposes that Clinton won't (further) alienate African Americans and that she can win the nomination fairly. She can't and if she does win the nomination, African Americans will probably not be so philosophical about it.
Clinton's talk at the State of the Black Union event didn't do anything to stem the flood of African American voters to Obama. Rightly or wrongly, her tactics have been identified as playing the race card.
I guess my question is "can she win the GE without the African American vote and if not, how does she practically heal the wounds that her 'damn the torpedos' strategy has caused?"
March 26, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point Michelle, I cannot tell you how many times I attempt to argue a point with Obama supporters who just throw two or three cusswords at me to support Obama. It is obvious they simply hate the Clintons and know nothing about Obama's policies except for a couple of hollow buzzwords.
March 26, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
**I will never vote for Hillary. I think Obama was right in saying that. I won't vote for McCain, of course, but just can't bring myself to vote for her. Since the democratic leadership seems to care so little for the party, why should I?
March 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
These numbers are meaningless in March ahead of a spring, summer and fall of new narratives. What will be important in determining whose supporters stick with the party is those narratives, PLUS the leadership exhibited by the conceding candidate. I have great faith in Sen. Obama (and potential surrogates such as Bell) speaking about and shepherding his supporters back into the fold in the unlikely and even ugly event of a Hillary coup for the nomination. Omigosh, do I not want to see that. Today, steeped in bitterness as I am over Hillary lying down with Scaife, I have trouble seeing Hillary gracefully ralllying around an Obama nomination; her behavior and rhetoric of late tells me she will take the ball home only to pull it away somehow, a la Lucy in Peanuts, the next time any Dem candidate other than herself is poised to kick it through the posts.
March 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, collegekid, hillary has repeatedly said that dems will/must come together in november and that the most important thing is to put a dem in the white house...
why does it not surprise me that some obama supporters never give her any credit for anything?
March 26, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, dude, are you nuts? These numbers don't bother me at all. I'm suppose to believe that women are going to vote for McCain after backing Clinton? I'm suppose to believe that Reagan Democrats are backing Clinton? I'm suppose to believe that Emily's List, NOW, and other women's groups are going to support Mccain? That labor unions are? A vast majority of the "I won't vote if" crowd will cave when they see a ancient, uninspiring Republican who supports Bush's policies on the trail. Come on, are you nuts to believe this? People are heated at the moment. These polls mean nothing. Both Hillary and Barack can beat McCain handily. Do you think the huge increase in Democrat registrations (fueled mostly by Obama) are meaningless. People hate this administration and anyone who doesn't run against it deserves to lose. Both Hillary and Obama can do that, but Obama's got the youth vote and the black vote. A significant number of them will stay home.
March 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think the huge increase in Dem registration is "due mostly to Obama"? I'm serious, I don't think that's accurate. Where's your data backing that up? Everything I've seen suggests it is due more to Clinton's support among marginal Dem demographics than to Obama's.
March 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been around many Hillary supporters, and although I can't prove it, I'm willing to bet the house that this has been true all along and is not some sort of "sore loser" phenomenon. People here seem to assume that all the Hillary supporters are just hardcore Dems with sour grapes. In truth, an awful lot of them are precisely the marginal voters and sometimes-Dems that the party has been trying to attract: Latinos, blue collar Reagan Dems, and apolitical women. They're voting in the primaries BECAUSE OF HILLARY. Why is it so hard for people to believe that a whole lot of folks are excited about her candidacy and have a hard time transferring that excitement to Obama? Spend a little time among those three groups listed above, and you'll learn a little something.
March 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's keep our eye on the prize: it's likely that three or four Supreme Court vacancies will open up during the next President's tenure (especially if they become a two-term President). That is far more important to our democracy than who the Democratic nominee is.
Well said.
March 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
March 26, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
hilliary does not tell us who to vote for. we can make our own choices. first off i was not thrilled about voting for hilliary. if she loses i am voting for mccain. EOS
March 26, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has set the tone in this campaign ("Obama is unacceptable.") and sadly her supporters have followed. As a Democrat, I am saddened to see the party getting all divided like this. A few months ago, I was confident that a Republican could never win. Now I'm not so sure.
March 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to ask this question...
On what basis would Hillary supporters have a BASIS for not supporting Obama?
After all, if he wins, he would have done so by following the rules.
He has run the better campaign.
Hillary, on the other hand, can't win without STEALING IT. By being a THIEF.
So, please explain to me what is the basis for Hillary supporters to not support Obama?
March 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not likable enough.
March 26, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
you can fight hard and dirty but in my opinion but not go way over the top and a major turn off for your candidate.
I couldn't agree more, which is why most Democrats right now are turning their backs on Hilary and Bill's smear campaign against Rev Wright.
I think Hilary sealed the deal herself yesterday when she brought the racial "controversy" back up by not just telling the reporter that that had already been talked about. Instead, she made a more over the top statement about Rev. Wright.
I've never such low-lying mass white hysteria since I was a kid and schools were integrated, I swear to god. All this nonsense over what an African American minister says in his sermons. He is an extremely well-respected person and that was a colossal mistake.
March 26, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Tena. Good to read your voice again. I am up to my neck in bitterness yet I think the story can be changed. Until Scaife the other day I thought that the Clintons could be brought back into the fold. But they are pushing the ugly narrative.
March 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's getting harder and harder to give a sh*t about the whole party. Their recent "success" has just come from the fact that the GOP botched it so badly over the last 8 years, not anything positive that the Dems are putting forward. They're as leaderless and discombobulated as ever.
I think both parties are realigning right now, and if history is a guide the GOP will realize which the way the wind is blowing and get behind a unified set of new ideas, while Dems wander around bumping into each other like blind people.
Is there no one in the party in a national position to step in and end this thing?
March 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a word, no. I don't think anyone in the DNC has the gall to approach either Clinton and tell him/her to give it up. First of all, I think they're either afraid or in awe of the Clintons. Secondly, I don't think the Clintons will put party interests ahead of their own, even if Dean could summon up the cajones for a mano a mano.
This is likely to go until August.
March 26, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greetings from Michigan,
There seems to be a lot of discussion about how Senator Clinton is willing to destroy the Democratic Party in order to win the nomination.
Why is there no discussion about how Obama is willing to destroy the Democratic party?
Obama's cynical strategy of shutting down revotes in Michigan and Florida may very well insure him the nomination at the cost of disenfranchising Democratic voters in both of those states and severely hurting the Democratic party.
This Michigan/Florida snuff-out is certainly equivalent to a Tanya Harding kneecapping.
Why is there no real discussion of this dangerous strategy?
Now, the Obama camp may understand how they can win in November without Michigan and Florida, but it certainly is a risky strategy and worthy of more discussion.
Michigan gave birth to the Reagan Democrats in 1980. Michigan might well be giving birth the McCain Democrats this fall.
March 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Michigan State Legislature refused to pass it. Why is Obama being blamed? I know he was questioning legal ramifications of voter registration, but he wasn't refusing. I could suppose he was stalling. Why did the legislature drop it so easily?
March 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to point out the obvious, but Obama isn't the reason the Michigan and Florida revotes aren't happening, it is the logistics of the process, and a failure of state legislatures and the DNC to come to an agreement over the best course of action and who should pay for it. The Obama campaign has raised legitimate concerns about making sure no voters are excluded and making sure the process is secure and safe from voter fraud. If you look at the questions they have raised they are critical to solving, and raising those questions isn't holding up the process. Obama has repeated said he will support whatever the DNC decides. Not only that, Obama has absolutely no reason to oppose a recount, because polls show he would probably win Michigan, and that he wouldn't be that far behind Hillary in Florida, so the revotes are absolutely no threat to Obama, in fact having them is in his best interest. There is no motive here, and that is the central fault in the logic of this latest Clinton scapegoat, aside from its completely lack of evidence. Blaming Obama for this is nothing more than the latest desperate Clinton ploy...and it is sad that you've bought into it. If you want to see what Hillary really thinks about counting every vote read this, and quit parroting her two-faced rhetoric:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/hillarys-only-path-to-nomination.html
March 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't stomach a vote for Hillary in the general, although I'd never, ever vote for crazy grandpa McCain.
I'll most likely vote Green in the general if Hillary is the Dem nominee. I live in blue California where whomever the Dem nominee is will likely win by 10 points, so my Green vote would not throw things to McCain. If, however, late polling shows California to be a toss-up between a hypothetical McCain/Hillary match-up, I'd hold my nose and vote for Hillary, and run straight to the shower afterwards to thoroughly scrub myself.
One unknown, should Hillary steal the nomination, is how many other progressives are out there who would chose to stay home or vote Green regardless of the risks?
March 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really buy these polls. I think emotions are at an all-time high right now and a lot of people on both sides are saying shit like this (I know I have on a few occassions) but once Obama wins I think everyone will cool down and when it comes time to cast a vote for Obama or McCain, the choice will be clear for those who had supported Hillary.
March 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably won't work aynway. Hillary's candidacy holds the groups of people most likely to bolt to McCain, Obama's doesn't. He exacerbated this by using phony charges of racism. There is a high likelihood that those who say they will vote for McCain over Obama will also vote for McCain over Obama even if Hillary is the vice-President. It is not simply a debate over whether Hillary was fairly treated but a decision as to whether or not Obama is fit to be President. And for many reasons -- some good, some bad -- many Demcrats have concluded he is not.
Obama's campaign has been tactically brilliant but strategically stupid -- he has done whatever he needed to do to win a particulare primary but has left such a growing bad taste in the mouth that it is unlikely that he can ever win the Presidency.
March 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
In following their campaigns, I get the impression that Senator Clinton draws her support almost entirely from within the Democratic Party (ignoring the Limbaugh crossover voters, since they don’t actually support her), while Obama has attracted a significant number of independents and even some moderate Republicans.
Assuming that the DLC represents roughly a third of the party (and if I’m wrong here, please let me know), that correlates pretty well with Gallup’s finding that “28% of those who support Sen. Clinton said they would vote for Republican Sen. McCain in the general election if Sen. Obama ends up being the Democratic presidential nominee”. I can’t imagine anyone other than a DLC “Democrat” who would prefer McCain to Obama.
By the same token, the “19% of those who support Obama [who] said they would vote for McCain in the general election if Clinton ends up being the Democratic nominee” could arguably come largely from among the independents and moderate Republicans he has attracted. (I would guess that those African-Americans, if any, who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Clinton under these circumstances would be more likely not to vote for President than to vote for McCain.)
This points to two conclusions: (a) that the DLC really are Republicans, as many of their critics (myself included) maintain, and (b) that Senator Obama is the only Democrat who can beat McCain in November.
March 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary attracts white partisan Dems, who ironically are also the more conservative and rural Dems, also the least educated. When I picture a Hillary supporter, I tend to think older white woman with a bee-hive, or older white guy with a mullet.
Obama attracts the most informed and free thinking Democrats as well as moderate/independent minded Republicans. That includes Progressives, young people, educated professionals.
That includes many Main Street Republicans who tend to be politically moderate, socially moderate-liberal, and economically they don't fit in polarized categories. For example, they may generally like lower taxes and hate government waste, but they may also be rather Keynesian in regards to public infrastructure and investment for long term economic growth. They also loathe monopolist practices and corporate conglomeration like many on the left. And they support business efficiencies like reduced HealthCare costs, public transit, good schools, etc. They're also going to be pro-environmentalism, so long as it's not hippies.
Obama stands to win a lot of their votes because he's a pragmatist. Hillary can't because they see her as triangulating and phony.
March 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Kozmik:
Your dripping condescension is the essence of what I have come to loathe among the Obama supporters. I have a university education, and during my adult life have come across a vast number of college-educated assholes. Are you another one of those ? You should be the poster child for every Clinton supporter who would vote against Obama in the fall.
March 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I picture you, kozmik, I tend to think older white woman with a mullet.
Other times I picture older white guy with a beehive.
March 26, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this will identify me as an Obama supporter, but I don't know precisely what Obama, or his supporters have done to elicit this sort of response from the Clinton camp. I think, however, that the Clinton's have certainly earned the enmity of the Obama supporters with the all the cheap shots and race baiting that they have been engaged in in recent weeks.
I've been on record for a while as saying I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton in a primary, but I would in a general election. I'm certainly not going to vote for John McCain, but if the Clinton campaign continues to play such divisive intra-party games, I'm going to really reconsider voting at all. I thought we'd had enough of this with the GOP for the last 15 years.
March 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so 28% won't vote for Obama. That means 72% will. You also have to remember that the Dems are outnumbering the Republicans dramatically when it comes to new voter registration and turnout and yes, I'm going to guess that those numbers skew in Obama's favor.
When faced with the choice between McCain and the Dem nominee, I'm confident that common sense will prevail over bitterness. Hillary's die-hard supporters will come around when she encourages them to support Obama and rally around him as the Dem nominee.
March 26, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still trying to figure out why Josh thinks the fact that McCain is anti-choice is going to dissuade pro-life Democrats who are voting for Hillary from voting for McCain? For at least one of the groups that Clinton holds and Obama does not, that fact is an incentive.
March 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The bitterness that people feel now is an excellent argument for ending the primary asap. That would mean after all the states have voted, call the super delegates in and make them decide then and there. They have to decide anyway so get it done. That would give this bitterness some time to dissipate and allow whomever to start running against McCain. Allowing this to continue will only deepen the divide.
March 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama was NOT responsible for shutting down revotes. Blame the idiots in your state legislatures and state democratic party.
March 26, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of the Hillary supporters won't vote for a black president. Bradley factor.
March 26, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rendell factor.
March 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Angry old white chicks who can't get laid anymore. They won't vote for Obama because in the real world he wouldn't date them.
March 26, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, great comment mdg650hawk. The sad thing is you are probably the most articulate Obama supporter on the blogs. I am sorry your mother didn't love you.
March 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As originally a Richardson, then Edwards and now Obama supporter, I will vote for Sen. Clinton if she wins the nomination because we can't afford 4 more years of Republican regulatory and judicial appointments. Though I will do so without enthusiasm because her election will mean that the "business as usual" forces have won again.
But please President Clinton, whatever you do, keep Wolfson, Carville, Lanny Davis and Terry McAuliffe in backgound positions where we don't have to listen to their insufferable pontifications. Do you really want to be the cause of so many people shooting their TV sets? Hell, there might be neighbors on the other side of the wall!
March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Considering the differences between the candidates are mainly style and some minor policy nuances, it's very disconcerting to see such a strong split. But because their POLICY differences are small, that number will shrink in November.
March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a silly topic.
There is no way on earth or heaven or hell that I will vote for a Republican for President in November, and there is no way that I will not vote for the Democratic candidate.
All this posturing back and forth between those who favor either of the leading Democratic candidates. Anyone who would vote against the Democratic Party nominee because their favorite didn't win is INSANE and idiotic.
It is as STUPID and self-defeating as the all the idiots in Florida who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Of course there's a difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates.
A vote for McCain, or not voting for Clinton or Obama is a vote for War, Torture, and the continued dismantling of the Constitution.
Get over it and get it together.
March 26, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
All those Democrat who dismiss Michigan and Florida on the premise that "they did it to themselves" are deluding themselves. Obama may win the battle, but with constituents of two major States disgruntled at not having a role in selecting the nominee, it's entirely possible that he'll lose the war -- assuming he's the nominee. He hypocritically speaks of inclusion and unity, but he and his operatives didn't hesitate to thwart the Michigan redo, leaving Michigan Democrats out in the cold when it suited his immediate purpose. As for Florida, the results should STAND. Both were on the ballot and only Obama cheated by running national ads that he knew would air in Florida.
The Obama campaign are the Worlds biggest Hypocrites!
March 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously suggesting that Obama had the MI legislature in his pocket?
March 26, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me it's very simple. Hillary's supporters are less likely to vote for Obama than Obama's supporters for Hillary because Hillary led a more divisive campaign against Obama.
March 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is striking how quick her supporters are to play into her victim argument, blindly buying into her claim that Obama has been lying about her, has been going negative and that she has been playing clean, give me a break, could anything be farther from the truth? They seem to get all of their information straight from her (and I'm only talking about the hardcore 28% here), and don't seem to notice what is actually going on. They are no different than Bush's 28% that support him blindly no matter what, it is the same kind of willful ignorance.
I do think the number overstates the number of people who would actually not vote for Obama, many of the respondents are likely just trying to make Obama look bad in polls. You have to ask yourself, what exactly has Obama done that is so bad that Hillary supporters wouldn't support him? Has he tried to exploit racism to turn Hillary into "the black candidate"? No. Has he been lying about her record, or his own? No. Is his entire campaign strategy built around overturning the will of the voters while lying straight to the voters about her intentions? No. Has he used Republican attacks against her, including blatant fearmongering? No. Has he endorsed the Republican candidate over her a single time, let alone repeatedly? Hell no. I challenge any Hillary supporter who refuses to vote for Obama in the general to give me a good reason to support McCain over him. They can't do it because it is the most ridiculous position ever. But hey, that's what you get for trying to reason with the bedrock 28%.
March 26, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire LuxVeritas. I think the number of Hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama is vastly undereported. Now that Obama has selfishly blocked the voters in Florida and Michigan for having their voices heard his chances in those states are nill. The bottom line is that Obama is afraid to let Michigan and Florida vote for fear Clinton will reveal the full breadth of Obama's Wright catastrophe. He simply can't afford for it to be revealed what Wright will cost going forward in states like Michigan and Florida, especially in the general election. He's putting himself above counting the votes. It's not shocking, because he will do anything to win.
March 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to point out the obvious, but Obama isn't the reason the Michigan and Florida revotes aren't happening, it is the logistics of the process, and a failure of state legislatures and the DNC to come to an agreement over the best course of action and who should pay for it. The Obama campaign has raised legitimate concerns about making sure no voters are excluded and making sure the process is secure and safe from voter fraud. If you look at the questions they have raised they are critical to solving, and raising those questions isn't holding up the process. Obama has repeated said he will support whatever the DNC decides. Not only that, Obama has absolutely no reason to oppose a recount, because polls show he would probably win Michigan, and that he wouldn't be that far behind Hillary in Florida, so the revotes are absolutely no threat to Obama, in fact having them is in his best interest. The remaining races will show, just as the polls do, that the Wright "controversy" had no real lasting impact on Obama's numbers, so your reasoning isn't at all based in logic. It is simply based in what you (and Hillary) want to be true, but that doesn't make it true. There is no motive here, and that is the central fault in the logic of this latest Clinton scapegoat, aside from its completely lack of evidence. Blaming Obama for this is nothing more than the latest desperate Clinton ploy...and it is sad that you've bought into it. If you want to see what Hillary really thinks about counting every vote read this, and quit parroting her two-faced rhetoric:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/03/hillarys-only-path-to-nomination.html
March 26, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has never been able to expand his support into a significant block of the Democratic base and the reason for that is relatively simple & straightforward and has little to do with race, embitterment or the vitriol of the campaign. It has to do with stability. My guess is people feel like they pretty much know what a Hillary or McCain presidency would look like, but aren't so sure about Obama. Right now four years of a wonky, mildly corrupt, triangulating, good government HRC presidency with Bill playing back up doesn't look that bad to them. With Obama the feeling is that your rolling the dice. Maybe it works out, maybe it doesn't, but for a lot of people it's just to much of a risk to take. So if they can't get Hillary then they'll just vote for McCain, at least they know what they're getting.
March 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except the inconvenient fact that he has been close to tied with Hillary among registered democrats in most states, and in quite a few states he has actually beaten her among registered democrats. But hey, whatever, as you were, have fun talking out your ass.
March 26, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chicken coming home to roost.
Obama can call Bill Clinton a racist, second McCarty and Hillary Clinton an evil monster only for so long before sane people notice that Obama is a jerk.
March 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this overlooking the fact that Obama NEVER called Bill Clinton a racist, nor has his campaign. Some supporters have questioned the disturbing pattern of racially charged language, culminating with Bill's post-South Carolina "Jesse Jackson" comments, but no one ever implied Bill was a racist. But he (and Hillary's campaign in general) DID exploit racism for their benefit (only it didn't work). If you want to read a detailed rundown of what they did read this:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/01/jesse-jackson-plan-or-clinton-plan-b.html
The McCarthy comment was also not Obama, and the original comments from Bill were far more offensive than the McCarthy comparison they provoked.
And the monster comment, who cares, it was a candid opinion, said off the record, by an aid, it wasn't an attack, and I guarantee those within Hillary's campaign have said much worse about Obama behind closed doors. If you want to attribute those remarks to Obama, you must also grant that Ferraro's comments were attributable to Hillary, meaning Hillary essentially called Obama, the first viable black presidential candidate, an affirmative action candidate. Tell me, is that less offensive than being called a "monster"?
Come on now, a little less hypocrisy please, this is getting ridiculous.
March 26, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate mKylem's analysis, and think he points to all the right sore spots that will prevent the Reagan Democrats from coming on board for Obama. I don't think, however, that where he goes with his conclusions takes in the whole can of worms because the Democrats can't win without the black vote, and they will lose it just about 100 percent with Hillary Clinton. With the comments Hillary's been making in the past couple of days, she could lose the black vote 200 percent. Also, when considering Clinton's chances, there is the apparently very real Republican crossover issue, and the hard truth that none of these voters will bedleivering for her in the general elections. In addition, we also have to be honest about the kind of people who are racist and, really, will never vote for Obama because he's black. Or at least male racists. The women are hysterically for Clinton and probably would vote for her if they were shown in black and white that Clinton boils small children and eats them. But, back to the men...the kinds of guys who tend to be racist also tend to be misogynists too. Now that's not pretty to think about, but it's pretty much true. Working class guys don't much like the idea of voting for a broad either, so when McCain moves to the center during his campaign -- which he undoubtedly will -- Hillary Clinton's going to lose a lot of these guys. Let McCain make some positive promises on social security and Medicare and middle class taxes -- not to mention bringing back American manufacturing jobs -- and Hillary's cooked. So the Democratic party is in deep trouble with Hillary too. Maybe even worse trouble because she doesn't appeal to Independents, and Republicans hold their noses when it comes to the Clintons. What I say is she can never take the general election solely with the demographics she's got in her pocket, and, while Obama is no safe bet either at this point, the Democrats will at least have a chance. Which is why just about everybody who matters in the party is backing Obama. I sometimes wonder how it is that the Hillary supporters never stop to consider that maybe these party elders know a little more about the political landscape than they do. But they apparently don't.
March 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!!!! FOR MIKE GRAVEL!!!!
GRAVMENTUM™!!!!
March 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is he still here?
March 26, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, no. He left our race yesterday and entered the Libertarian race (I am not making this up).
March 26, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's hilarious. Just the other day, someone on this site was proclaiming about how he and Nader were the only true liberals in the race.
Anyway, it's still excellent news for him.
March 26, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
While these numbers appear alarming now, I wouldn't put so much stock into them. We're in the midst of a very heated primary race so emotions are running high, but there's still be plenty of time for wounds to heal and for the party to unify behind whichever nominee is chosen. Afterall, just a month ago, there was a ton of hoopla over whether conservatives would support John McCain and now there seems little doubt that the GOP rank and file will fall in line.
March 26, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, I thought Obama was less progressive than Hillary. After all, Paul Krugman told me:
March 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What it comes down to for me as a die hard Obama supporter - I would vote for Hillary if she were to somehow "take" the nomination, but I wouldn't donate to or volunteer for her campaign, as I've done with Obama. That's the key difference, I think.
March 26, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
it sounds like the case of sour grapes to me for the Hillary Clinton supporters.
But I wonder if in the end when Obama takes the nomination would Hillary throw her dessenting supporters under the bus and rally behind the support of the Democratic party.
I bet you that Bill Clinton will, this campaign has been total turmoil for him. Deep inside I know he wants to support Obama but he has to support his wife also.
March 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any Democrat who would vote for McCain because their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination should be drafted into the army and sent to the front lines when McCain invades Iran.
Stay home if you want, vote for a third party if you want, but do not actively propel that old bastard into the Oval Office.
March 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with ya ED, but I wish you hadn't reminded me. "Wolfson, Carville, Lanny Davis and Terry McAuliffe" Jesus, I don't know if I could take 4 years of these assholes.
I am getting awfully tired of holding my nose in the ballot box, but what the hell, its becoming a habit.
March 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as Hillary wants to push the views of The American Spectator let's read a few other comments by the same writer, Robert M. Goldberg, that her campaign is using to try to paint Obama as soft on anti-Semitism:
"Mrs. Clinton cannot be trusted to be truthful on health care. Over a decade ago, she was shrill and commandeering. Today, she shrouds and couches her intent in faux-techno-medicine chatter and cooked up citations she hopes no one will check. But tear away the fraud and you find someone still bent on expanding the government's reach into every aspect of health care and who believes that the only thing that was missing from her first attempt was a better computer. She needs to be challenged on her facts, her assertions, and her "logic" each time she opens her mouth on the health-care issue. Her objectives have not changed, only the lies and the way in which they are fabricated."
"Pollack supported the private sector approach when Clinton was pushing it but trashes it now. (He also had nothing to say when Clinton proposed $59 billion in Medicaid cuts.) In fact, the Bush plan is better. First, the Clinton prescription plan was scheduled to kick in four years after it was to pass in 1999, not in two as the Bush plan anticipates. Second, it covered a lot fewer people. And third, the Clinton plan didn't cover catastrophic drug spending; it capped government spending at about $2,500 per senior with some adjustment for inflation. The Bush plan covers all drug costs over $3,600 a year."
"From what most scholars can tell, Pelosian is a unique language developed to hide the desire of Democrats to reintroduce HillaryCare piece by piece."
That's just THIS writer. Imagine what else the dozens of writers at American Spectator have to say about her. Why not quote all of them?
She's an idiot for going this route.
March 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is also worth pointing out that if Hillary were somehow to win the popular vote, but remain behind in the delegate count, and the Obama camp said that "by the rules the delegate count is more important", Hillary supporters would be enraged. The rules can be changed, the voice of the popular vote can not. Already there have been attempts to stifle the votes Michigan and Florida by the rules. Popular vote will always be seen as more legitimate than delegate count. Furthermore, if we follow the rules, then superdelegates are free to choose, not bound to rubber stamp the votes in their district, or vote for the candidate with the most pledged candidates. So the rules cut both ways.
As for Hillary supporters not voting for Obama, I can personally attest to the power of the blogs to help create exactly that possibility. As a liberal and a loyal Democrat I have been first shocked, and then infuriated by some of my favorite blogs and the way they have attacked Hillary. Americablog is a very good example. Blogmaster John Aravosis attacks Hillary on a daily basis, and in the most vicious ways, even suggesting that there will be riots in the street if she becomes the nominee. I've given up reading his blog because it was just too infuriating. It is very, very difficult to separate my anger at some Obama supporters from my feelings about Obama, and I highly suspect that I am not alone in this. If the election were today and Obama was our candidate I would find it extremely hard to vote for him. Blogs like Americablog repeatedly place all the blame for the growing division in the Democratic party on Hillary, while completely overlooking their willing participation and deep culpability.
March 26, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, the only blogs you can read these days are Talkleft and Taylor Marsh, all the other could have been written in the 80's by republican wingnuts.
March 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll is worthless, because a) Obama supporters know that if they say they'd vote for Hillary, then Mark Penn sends out a memo saying "Clinton more electible" and if Clinton supporters say they'd vote for Obama, Mark Penn would come to their house and eat them.
Wait, no, I mean David Axelrod would send out a memo saying "Obama more electible"
So neither side wants to give ammunition to the other right now. An actual useful poll on this topic can't be taken until one of them actually drops out.
March 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think one of the best outcomes in the election will be to see the Obama Cult and so-called progressives bolt the party once Clinton gets the nomination. Then, in November we'll see their low numbers--what 3-5% in the Nader or Green party columns, maybe even throw in the Communist or Socialist groups to help your numbers. But, scream all you want, but in the end a very small number. Even if the party fails in the fall and especially if the party fails in the fall with Obama as nominee, the so-called progressives and liberals will not gain control of the party.
March 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant analysis.
After 32 years of voting Dem I'll be leaving the party if Hillary "American Spectator" Clinton steals this with her sliminess. But you don't want people like me anyway - I must be a commie or something.
And African-Americans have voted 85-90% Dem in the last 2 presidential elections. You'll be losing a lot of them too. Oh right, you're not too crazy about them either.
Have a nice party!
March 26, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, Matt, the Democratic Party is a liberal party. It's a progressive party.
It's been progressive since Woodrow Wilson's presidency.
March 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a case here where Matt just outed himself as a fake Democrat. He doesn't even know what being a Democrat is. [laughs]
March 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have a case here where Matt just outed himself as a fake Democrat. He doesn't even know what being a Democrat is. [laughs]
March 26, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
avatar
Bless you, Tena. Good to read your voice again. I am up to my neck in bitterness yet I think the story can be changed. Until Scaife the other day I thought that the Clintons could be brought back into the fold. But they are pushing the ugly narrative.
And you have no idea how nice that is to hear.
even if I don't recognize the nym. LOL
March 26, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
greenlygreen - Why didn't Hillary take her name off of the Michigan ballot, as Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Obama did?
The Clinton's pal, Terry McAuliffe, was the first DNC chair to institute the rule that states that jumped the line would not be seated at the convention.
Hillary just wants some easy wins, ones she doesn't deserve. If the situation were reversed, she would be doing exactly the same thing Obama is doing.
March 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you ask Chris Dodd, Agrippina? He kept his name on the ballot too. Or you might think instead about why JE, BR, JB, and BO (and DK) took their names off. Is it because they are so freakin' virtuous? Of course not!
You can count yourself as one less low-information voter now.
March 26, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that there was a political purpose served by taking one's name off the MI ballot, but I am not convinced that the author put his finger on the actual reason. It seems to me that the reason to pull one's name off the ballots in MI and FL was so as to indulge the conceits of voters in IA and NH who feel themselves entitled to go first. In this respect, Clinton gambled and lost. Had she been able to take Obama out early we would not be having this conversation. By refusing to pander to Iowa's vanity, she lost her best chance to knock out her one real rival.
March 26, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg DeLassus,
I don't know why you would give all of the candidates so much credit for honoring IA voters and so little credit for competitiveness.
There was no rule requiring candidates to remove their names from the MI ballot. It was their choice to do so. Candidates were required to not campaign in MI (and FL), period.
Since there was no rule about the ballot, the only reason I can think of to take one's name off is to do it as a group in an attempt to pressure the frontrunner—who happened to be Clinton at the time—to join them, thereby nullifying the results and erasing Clinton's lead and potential victory in MI. (Doesn't that seem more likely than honoring the IA voters?)
If Clinton had caved in to the pressure and withdrawn her name, the primary results would have gotten mixed together and no one could be announced the winner in MI. See how that works? Well, Clinton didn't cave to the group. And, as the frontrunner, why would she? What would she have gained? Nothing. (Please don't tell me she would gain people's respect.)
I just don't believe any of the candidates care a fig about IA. If they were all so wedded to an outdated and peculiar tradition, why didn't everyone remove their names without hesitation?
I think the bigger gambler and loser turned out to be Edwards.
Twenty-five years from now we'll learn who came up with the idea of "group pressure on the frontrunner." Watch it be Edwards.
March 26, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
From my view Obama's supporters dislike of Clinton is based on more character issues than anything.
Its the win at all cost, Lie through your teeth mentality that does it.
Simply put,
She has no honor or respect for anyone who does not bow down to her when she wants them to.
The clear example is how her side handled the Bill Richardson and Ted Kennedy endorsements.
You try your hardest to get the endorsement of someone only to say they dont matter after they choose some one else or after you dont need them anymore.
You try your hardest to woo voters only to say they dont really matter after you lose that state.
You agree to a certain set of rules in the beginning only to go back on your word and try to paint your fellow democrat opponent as a devil in the eyes of the people you agreed wouldnt count.
You shy away from answering the Rev. Wright question for over a week, until you are in trouble yourself for lying, and then after it has all died down you throw it back out there via an interview with a newspaper who tried to destroy your life in the past.
And the crazy thing is the story you were trying to deflect attention from was not caused by Obama its was brought upon by you and yet she goes and rehash a story about a third party pastor just to save her ass.
Just imagine if when the Rev. Wright thing was going on, the obama camp would have said " he Rev. wright is bad but look at all the things bill clinton has done. or what about peter paul,vince foster, travelgate etc.
The Clinton campaign would have had a fit and so would the MSM...
but he took the political risk and handled it himself without because he is honorable..
He didnt bring up what was in your past during his troubles
The same past that was filled with the scandles and troubles and democrats still stuck by you through it all..
black,white, latino etc
If in the next ten contest the country swings in her favor and she takes over the popluar vote or the delegates then she will get support from african americans because she will have made a case that she won fair and square...
If Obama supporters wont support Clinton its has more to do with honor and character than it does race...
If she kneecaps her fellow democrat for three more months just to get those votes and the super delegates to pick her that has more to do with honor than race..
because its not just that he is half black its because he is winning with dignity and grace while she will have to win with dis honorable tactics.
The blacks where im from follow the code of
Death before Dishonor
March 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
um...WHY, exactly, do we trust polls, again?
really. have I missed the regulating that keeps them "honest"? the Congressional swearing-in that would make at least those with a fear of God keep from straying?
after we've seen the majority of our media lie to us on a regular basis, why should we believe anything that Gallup et al trot out? I'd imagine that they, too, have their price. and hell, for all I know, they're mega-corporately owned, too.
there certainly is a lot of enmity going on between supporters of both Democratic candidates. (see: Daily Kos diaries, Corrente, Talk Left.) but the numbers shown both here (and in Rasmussen's 22% tossup) seem exceedingly large. I really can't believe that many people, after the last eight years, can be that effing stupid. I can, however, believe that a corporatocracy that would like to see their favorite BBQ pal, St. McCain, elected, would like to make us all believe that things are that bad.
I realize that the paranoia levels here may seem excessive. but seriously...all of my previous paranoias were systematically exceeded by this administration and its complicit media. I honestly have no reason to believe anything that I don't find from independent sources any more.
if anyone can educate me as to why we should believe the polls, I'd be more than receptive.
March 26, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen
March 26, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, it's only March. A lot can happen before the conventions.
Unfortunately, Bush can do things to help McCain. He may be incompetent at everything else, but he knows how to win in the worst ways.
March 26, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, scream all you want, but in the end a very small number. Even if the party fails in the fall and especially if the party fails in the fall with Obama as nominee, the so-called progressives and liberals will not gain control of the party.
Ok, I oughtn't, but here's the thing - Hilary cannot win without African American voters and she has been working overtime the last couple of weeks to alienate as many of them as she can.
I saw African American voters turn out in stunning numbers in Dallas County for the primary. There were 4000 in one precinct in Oak Cliff, which is predominantly African American.
If you really think that she can win without those votes, you are as deluded as you seem. And I daresay, based on what I know for a fact about voter turnout in Dallas County over the years, those are people who just won't vote in November if Hilary is on the ballot.
Not after the Rev Wright debacle.
March 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the only way for Clinton to win the nomination is through super delegate override and/or pledged delegate mutiny, how could one possibly vote for her? Her nomination would be the result of the subversion of the democratic process, the will of the people would have been thwarted. How, under those circumstances, could she be seen as a legitimate candidate?
March 26, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides th epoints others have raised about how meaningless the question is at this time there si the fact that a nationwide poll is meaningless too. What matters is in each state, for example if a bunch of Hillary supporters in Red States flock to McCain it doesn't change the EC math
March 26, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the pace McCain is going and put his foot in his mouth any of the two dems will beat him. Hell a dogcatcher will get to be pres.
Like Obama, when they realize