"You would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?"

Cut the crap.  It's not as if HRC supporters have been silent.

One thing this poll leaves out:  Many Clinton supporters will not vote for McCain, but intend to write Hillary in.  

I am pretty sure you meant BOTH sides would learn not to alienate the other side right?

since those number are high on BOTH sides?

right? why is this only an issue on Obama's side? are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%?

its a problem on both sides and it shows why this primary needs to end, both sides are becoming to entrenched

I am pretty sure you meant BOTH sides would learn not to alienate the other side right?

since those number are high on BOTH sides?

right? why is this only an issue on Obama's side? are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%?

its a problem on both sides and it shows why this primary needs to end, both sides are becoming to entrenched

BO, his campaign, and his supporters have nothing but contempt for both HRC and anyone who supports her.  dkos is nothing more than a hate site now and MM thinks he is the fing democractic party.  The BO crowd can say all they want about how mean HRC is the the fact of the matter is BO and his crowd are going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote IMHO alot of them will be say not thanks.

But we can agree on two things.  BO supporters will accussing HRC supporters of not being REAL democracts and if BO loses they will blame HRC.

davi

So that's your answer, Jerome?

Stop being so mean to the folks that are every day using such luminaries as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Scaife, and Sean Hannity to attack Barack Obama as anti-semetic, racist, unpatriotic, and everything awful under the sun?

Geee... hadn't thought of that one.

I'll give it some consideration.

While I do so, how if you and the Clinton supporters consider that being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they get their way is a viable strategy.

I wouldn't worry.

But to blame the Obama campaign is a bit senseless. Both campaigns have engaged in typical attacks. But only one campaign has actively pronounced McCain as better than their Democratic opponent.

hmmm. Could that have an effect on her supporters???

"Arbitrarily"?

Yeah.... that's how it happened.

Howard Dean put all 50 states in a hat and picked out the two that would be penalized.

...your side can beat us up to hell and back, cast aspersions every which way, even make the occasional valid criticism, and that's testing our candidate.

And if we counter your criticisms, make our own, and unfortunately, have a few of us go further than we should (but usually without the media support to enhance/inflame the more radical accusations further), we're isolating you, chasing you away.

Uh-HUH....

Mote.  Beam.  Eye.

Think about it.

You know, I was thinking about this poll, and I'm not sure the numbers accurately reflect what would really happen. As an Obama supporter, I'd probably be more inclined to be magnanimous and reply that I would vote for Clinton at this point, especially since it looks like Obama's got it in the bag. But if Clinton came and back and somehow wrested the nomination away through superdelegates or some other undemocratic process, I'm sure I'd feel differently.

In other words, I think the numbers reflect confidence on the part of Obama supporters, and some sour grapes on the part of Clinton supporters, at this point.

    you'd think polls like this would serve to shut up the Clinton supporters who are whining that Obama supporters won't support Clinton should she win. Seems it's far more obvious whose supporters would betray the Party...it's the Clinton people.

   Might want to mention that too eh?

This is a pro-Clinton site - you guys/gals have all the power here.  The only alienation going on is in the opposite direction.

MI and FL were not arbitrarily penalized.  Stop talking nonsense.  Harold Ickes even voted for the set-up(Meaning to penalize MI and FL).  They broke the rules so they paid the price.  Besides, does Hillary really want MI to vote again?  If MI did vote again, she'd be in an even deeper hole than she is now.

and this is supposed to be a positive statement about Hillary's supporters?

Anyone who is going to vote for McCain over either Democrat is not legitimately a Democrat.

If your candidate loses in the primary, get over it.

Great. Let's prioritize petty "getback on Dean" over bringing our soldiers home from the Iraq war.

I mean...if a few thousand more soldiers die because McCAin continues the war, it's ok, as long as I can conduct some "getback" on Howard Dean! He's the devil! He didn't change the party or anything...

... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

Of course, the same follows for Clinton supporters - Hillary would need a unified base to challenge McCain as well.  It's easy for us Obama supporters to be magnanimous because he's very likely to be the nominee, but each side needs to police their own supporters (as I have done today here and here) and bring everyone on board for the nominee.

All of us are deeply invested in our candidates because we care alot about our country's future.  It would be a shame to throw all that away in November and get 4 more years of Bush policies.

this diary should be updated to show that they BOTH need to stop not just obama,

otherwise you are implying that Hillary doesn't need to worry about the 19% because she will never need them to vote for her in the GE

is this what you are implying? that Hillary has nothing to worry about since she wont be in the GE?

if not please update your diary

It takes two to tango, friend.

You can claim that...

... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

But what of Hillary and her supporters poisoning the well? Isn;t that part of her strategy, as well? Read the diaries here citing rightwing news sources for damaging information on Obama or a few of your most loyal posters putting up every loony rightwing YouTube video about Obama here.

As usual, you take only one side.

This is the Height of Silly Season.

People are drunk on their candidates right now but once it is settled and the other side can't get their daily drank from the well of poison, the extreme partisanship will end.

I can't stand the thought of Clinton right now but I have 2 daughters and I'll BE DAMNED if I'll have them growing up under a GWB/John McCain Supreme Court.

I can only laugh when I see women who have fought hard for reproductive rights to even joke about voting for McCain - it is just so disengeuous. That is why I think that even the most die-hard Hillary supporters will wise up by November.

Get serious folks.

Oh and Jerome - you can finally remove the FL & MI delegate counts from the Flash thingies - that ship has sailed.

"his bandwagon of racism, hate, and divisiveness"

Ummmm.

I thought that the fight was a good thing, not anymore.  At this point it is seriously hurting us and benefiting McCain.  

I feel the same anti-Hillary passion that I see Hillary supporters expressing against Obama.  I'm trying to check my anger and realize that no matter how frustrated I may feel, it doesn't accomplish anything.  

Let's stop fighting and make a joint call for our candidates to do the same.

So you are admitting that racists and bigots are voting for Hillary? Explain to me exactly where that fits into "democratic party values."  If this is acceptable and if this is what the democratic party is about, I'll leave.

You'd think that Clinton would see the writing on the wall and gracefully bow out of the race rather than continue to tear down the party.

She has all but lost the primary. Her supporters are loyal, but they just couldn't pull it off. Obama beat her.

Her only hope is to sway the superdelegates, but she doing so runs the risk of damaging the party.

You'd think, with hers and Obama's stand on the issues she would care more about getting the country back on track than her own desire for power.

Next time she'll just need to run a better campaign.

Many of us Dems will vote for whichever comes out on top because the only other option leads to the ruin of this nation by the GOP.

If these 28% of Clinton supporters would rather lead us down that road than vote for Obama, God help us.

Who are the defectors seems the important issue.

In Hillary's case, my guess is these are the 'Reagan Democrats' who have come back to the party because of her. They tend to be working class, high school educated and national security oriented. Plus probably some Asians and Latinos.

With Obama, it is probably some AA's. Would help to have a breakdown of just who will defect.  

Prior to these presidential elections, i was member of Kos for a long time, at least 2 years. I posted, commented and took part of all the activities on that site from raising money to organizing marches and so forth. Then the elections started and my wife and I began posting and supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.

It started slow and in a low volume and then they went totally rabid on us. suddenly We were called racists, right-wingers, my wife was called a whore, and so on. Our comments were classified as troll and our diaries where derided, mocked and consistently  hijacked. So, we left Kos or we stopped posting their but something more serious happened to us. Obama who is the Messiah of the modern times--speaks no evil, does no evil, sees no evil--and who is brining this new politics or unity and hope and change has the most radical and less-tolerant supporters out there. There is a serious disconnect between Obama and his supporters. When you listen to them, there is no hope, no change and no tolerance. They stick you and qualify you as racist and that IS IT for you. YOU CANNOT SAY ANYTHING AFTERWARDS BECAUSE YOU ARE CONSISTENTLY ON THE DEFENSIVE.

I don't agree with most Republicans and will never vote for them mostly because of their supporters, the religious right. I can't stand them. Well, Obama's supporters are worse then the religious right people. So, we decided that If Obama clinches the nomination, my wife and I are staying home and we live in a serious battle ground state, Missouri. I don't mind 4 years of McCain. After all we survived 8 of Bush, i think we can live 4 years of McCain.

but the conclusion is sound.  bitterly divisive primaries end up with the other party sitting in the white house (unless the two bitter opponents unite on the ticket, which i don't think anyone thinks is likely).

since we know this, we need to prepare for that outcome.  yes, john mccain will be our president for the next four years.  but that doesn't mean we have to give him a blank check.  we can strengthen our majorities in the house and the senate, rebuild the democratic party in the south and the west, and rejuvenate it elsewhere.

and we need to accept that some people who once thought of themselves as democrats will leave the party.  all the more reason to focus on its rebuilding.

the most interesting thing about this development is that it really proves that personalities are much, much, much more important to the electorate than issues.  we are about to elect a conservative who will keep us in iraq, knows nothing about economics and has expressed a willingness to overturn roe v wade.  but none of that really matters to any but a handful of democrats.  we are unquestionably in a celebrity culture, and it pervades our politics...

It is silly wondering about what other people will do. I know what I will do.

I know Hillary Clinton to be a decent, intellegent, hard working liberal who loves her country and has served honorably for over thirty five years to help improve the lives of all Americans. I was not intially supporting her as I thought Obama would be the guy who best fit my liberal views.  The more I see of her the most enthusiatic I am to see her as our first female president.

I know John McCain as a moderate to sometimes liberal Republican who loves his country and has served honorably and heroicly to the best of his ability. He is a Republican that we know well and is basically a decent guy. He would be acceptable, but not my first choice.

I just met Barack Obama and the more I learn of him the creepier and slimier he looks. I do not like him as person nor do I like him as a politician. As a matter of long standing liberal principals I will not vote for him, ever. If he becomes head of my party I will change registration to Independent. I do not want to be affiliated with him in any manner whatsoever.

You have to keep in mind there are a HUGE amount of Obama supporters, for better or for worse, that would either sit out the election or would vote for Nader if Clinton won.  

The "22%" that wants Obama to drop out was Rasmussen's combined answer from Republicans and Democrats.  The same number for Senator Clinton was derived from only Democrats.  It's a false equivalence.

Yeah the graphs, yeah, it's close, yeah, yeah, yeah.  

We have no chance, NONE, of winning (I accidentally wrote whining and changed it but not sure why) if this keeps up.  None.  Zero. Nada.  

The superdelegates need to step in, and soon, on either side.  It's close, some support has  been lost already.  Personally, I don't see how Hillary can possibly end up with more pledged delegates or a large popular vote (I know, please, no cries about Michigan and Florida, they blew it), but if the supers want to throw it her way I will vote for her.  This needs to be over. Fast.  We need time to repair ourselves in time for November.  Otherwise, as I said, we really are not the party that is fit to govern a damn thing.  We are, if this keeps up, a dipshit fringe group.

Oh please. When McCain got the nomination all the wingnuts were clamoring over themselves to be the first to say they'd rather vote for Hillary than McCain.

Guess what happened next? The base solidified around him. There may be some initial anger and I'm sure there will be some breathless, handwringing articles from the vapid media in the initial weeks at how the democrats are divided, but that's going to fade.

In the end, when democrats have to push the lever, they're going to pull it for a democrat.

Hillary has no chance to win unless there's a superdelegate coup d'etat over the popular vote and delegate leader. She knows that but her ego can't let go. As such, she poisons the rhetoric and her diehard supporters.

If McCain squeaks out a win because Hillary kneecaps Obama, I will hold Hillary accountable for McCain's policy of continuing the war and the deaths of our soldiers.

There, I said it.

Thank you for stating the obvious.

So, all BO supporters need to do is be kinder and gentler while Clinton and her campaign continues to attack and fight on and all you Clinton supporters will vote for Obama?

Sweet!!

... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?

Actually, I was thinking that you'd think Clinton would actually care enough about her political party to stop driving wedge issues between herself and Obama when all it's doing is hurting our chances for the fall.

But no, Clinton needs to cling to that 10% victory chance and the kitchen sink is only a prelude to the bathtub, the radiator, and John McCain.

It looks to me Jerome, that Hillary Clinton is now succeeding at the expense of the Democratic Party.  

She has now turned this contest from 'who is better' into a Civil War.

Funny how on Monday all day 10 fing threads about how HRC is a lier but today Tuesday you wright BO "Clinton and her campaign continues to attack and fight on".  Funny.

david

1st of all great post.  Secondly, Never Before have we had two strong candidates that hold a solid base of support. Finally, If Obama is nominated I'm afraid we will lose because I feel as if our country would rather vote for a moderate white republican over a liberal black democrat.  I know Obama supporters might get offended by this statement, but I think its true.  Also the problem with HRC is that our country according the the CBS poll think it's harder for a Woman to get elected than a Black Man, So I guess we start off regardless, with two XX 's against us.  I guess that's what happens when you vote with your heart and not your head.

@Jerome:

I've been a consistent reader of MyDD.com for a while and I enjoyed "Crashing the Gate" but I think you're just plain wrong with the direction you've been taking with this.

I was OK with Clinton as the potential nominee when this thing started but after seeing her campaign tactics, no more.  She's poisoned the well...  You know this.  Obama has been forced to shoot back but outside pointing out policy differences with the Clinton(s), he was running a clean, positive campaign (That the Clintonistas MOCKED) before she decided to channel Karl Rove.  She has a disgusting aire of entitlement that sickens half of the democrats (ME).  The other half (YOU) is buying into her race-baiting, her yarns about dodging sniper bullets and her praising of McSame.  The Independants are getting sick of both of them, thanks to her tactics and their effects.  Now, not only is the potential for a Democratic wave subsided, McCain just might get to fulfill Bush's third term.  I wonder where the country will be in four or eight more years of the kind of willful ignorance and greed that has been ruining this country?

Before all of the Clinton's shenanigans, we had a real chance of sweeping many of the Republican members of Congress and the Blue Dog Democrats you spend so much time fundraising against.  If you dismiss her tactics as "saavy politics", you are no better than the Republicans.

Wake up...  Again, before all her (their) Rovian tactics, I would have been satisfied with her as the nominee.   But the fact is:  Contests were held and she didn't win as many delegates... in fact it has been said time and time again that she isn't capable of making up the gap.  Get over it and quite aiding and abetting the demise of the Democratic Party.  Be better than the Republicans... even if Hillary can't be.

It's too late.  The alienation started when Obama told her she was likeable enough in the debate in NH, moving on to SC to label her as a racist.  It started early and is well ingrained by now.

What made it even worse was Obama's arrogant statement a month or so ago about Clinton's supporters supporting him, but he wasn't so sure his would vote for her.  I can see him saying it now, and it was an ingnorant and clueless thing to say.

Once all the emotions cool and people get a chance to see either of the candidates compared to Father Time McCain, I think those numbers will vanish. Right now Democrats are only focused on their candidate winning, not beating the GOP.

McCain's numbers are high against both Clinton and Obama simply because nobody is paying attention to him. People have this idea of who McCain is, but once he has to step out into the spotlight, I think those numbers will tank.

To paraphrase John Stewart: McCain is the Republican candidate because he beat an almost cartoonishly weak GOP field.

I was gratified when the Clinton capaign began by staying clear of the Wright controversy, particularly after I read Wright's own words in the 911 sermon.  I guess their need to win trumps any kind of decency though at this point:

(CNN) - After staying out of the Barack Obama controversy over his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Hillary Clinton has now weighed in big time. She was asked about the flap when she met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review today. "He would not have been my pastor," she replied. "You know, you don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend."

A few moments ago, at a news conference, she essentially said the same thing before the microphones and cameras. And as she did earlier in the day, she noted that she had spoken out last year against Don Imus for his racially-charged comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. "I gave a speech at Rutgers University saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that."

Wolf Blitzer, CNN

I wish he had stayed quiet on the Bosnia thing, the media was already going after her quite enough, but he has shown remarkable restraint considering the slime that has been thrown on him.  The alienation on my side started with the use of fear to argue against him in NH, crescendoed with the Jesse Jackson comment, became anger with the condescending  attitude of the "celestial choirs" and disgust with her willingness to advocate any means necessary of winning the nomination.

Even so, I will vote for her over McCain.

I assume this post is tongue-in-cheek.

and you are saying that Hillary HASN'T taken voters for granted?

just to remind you I voted in MN, where I was told I dont count because i am a latte drinking, prius driving, liberal who doesn't even need a president so my states caucus shouldn't matter when the SD's decide the nominee because hey we are a big state.

so please tell us how one sided it is and how Hillary is fighting for every vote to count (as long as its not MN, IA, MO, VA, Maine, Wisconsin, South Carolina.)

oh but don't worry she is fighting for FL and MI, because screw those states I mentioned who needs those to win the WH right?

Most people aren't as caught up in this as we are. They don't read MyDD or DailyKos, and they haven't had their feelings hurt by supporters of the other.

The reason more Clinton supporters say they won't vote for Obama is because Clinton has spent more time tearing Obama down.  All bluster aside, this is verifiable -- this is something that can be measured.  He's not ready to be CinC. He hasn't crossed the threshold. He doesn't love his country. He didn't walk out of Dr. Wright's church.

Doesn't it make sense that the candidate who's been going more negative against her opponent would have more followers who are unwilling to vote for that opponent?  Doesn't that make more sense than people getting huffy about a pissing war between two blogs on the internets?

Additionally, it's easier to be gracious in victory than it is in defeat. People attached to a candidate who's not doing well are more likely to be bitter and spiteful.  Not innately -- I've seen Obama supporters become more spiteful when things have gone against him, as well.  It's just psychologically likely that disappointment and a bleak outlook cause people to lash out when asked if they'd support the person who's winning.

This is my first comment on this site for a long time, although I've been reading it for years, but your comment infuriates me.

Tell me why he has a message of racism, hate and divisisiveness? What you are doing is just name-calling. Start engaging in the discussion.

I expect more than just accusations of racism from a person that choses "annefrank" as username.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_v_mc cain_and_v_clinton_b.php

From Pollster

As an AA Independent who leans Democratic, I was excited about the candidates when the campaign started. My first choice was Biden and when he dropped out I started to support Clinton. Although I am upset at the things Obama's supporters have said, that did not form my decision not to vote for him, because some of Clinton's supporters gave as good as they got.

What turned me off was when Obama said more than once on national TV that her supporters would vote for him, but his would not vote for her. That sounded a bit arrogant. Most people do not like to be taken for granted and that's what he did. Also, when his campaign started the drum beat for her to drop out when the polls are virtually tied and none of them will earn the 2024 they need to clinch the nomination it rattled me.

I think this is more of a self-inflicted wound.

@Little Otter:

That's a pretty brain-washed rant, if you ask me.  I can't tell if you're a Clinton supporter or one of Limbaugh's conscripts send out to register as a Democrat to give the less favored candidate (HRC) the nomination so their candidate can have a fighting chance.  

Obama gave a speech on race because he was reacting to the Wright controversy, plain and simple.  Did you hear anything about racial issues coming from him before that?  I get so tired of hearing Clinton supporters who complain about the race card being played.  It is an effective debate device but it is  disingenuous.  Let me ask you this:  Obama is the first black candidate who actually has a chance at becoming the President.  Why the hell would he try and play the race card in his campaign?  This would be political suicide, at best. Are you so dense that you can't see this?  He has only talked about race in any significant way during that speech as far as I know.  Why do the Clinton Supporters have to "indulge" in disingenuous BS like this?

PS:  Tell me how BO has been misogynistic in his campaign?  Give me some "in-context" quotes, please.

PPS:  Tell me which is worse?  Attending a church where the pastor made some reactionary remarks 5 years ago and not throwing him under the bus

OR

...the candidate herself telling a BALD-FACED LIE about a fictional scenario when she was flown into a warzone under sniper fire in order to make herself seen more... i dunno... battle ready?  Is this not the kind of phony "mission accomplished" banner bullshit that we loathe about Bush?  

This shows the power of a Hillary endorsement. Since Obama never endorsed McCain, it is hard to know if his endorsement would carry the same weight.

Ah Jerome continues to report just one side of the facts.  So nice to see.

"Clinton earns 79% of the vote from Democrats while Obama attracts 67%. Among men, McCain leads both Democrats by a wide margin. Among women, he has a nine-point advantage over Obama but trails Clinton by five."

Higher defaction rate with Obama, shown again and again, in states we need. AND Hillary has woman advantage, she was still losing in this poll, but by 6% less than Obama (6%is alot of ground)

I only remember one campaign arguing that 40 of the 50 states "don't matter". That's the Hillary campaign.

ALso I think we can calculate which campaign has insulted the other one's race/gender more by seeing the levels of support of the candidates among black women and white men.

In both groups Obama is leading.

Oww...

I've supported Hillary from day one, and I also like Obama, though I would prefer her as the nominee.  I don't think, though, his campaign has been hateful or racist.  Can't say either one is clear of being divisive...isn't that one of the unfortunate by-products of a political campaign?

So, all I can say to that is....

Oww...

my son and his mates at Camp Loyalty in Bagdad have asked me to please vote democrat and help end this war. No matter which candidate is the nominee.

That is my stance, I can assure you.

Man, who cares if Hillary supporters vote McCain. That exactly goes a long way to show who the real candidate of change is and tells us why they are supporting Hillary, same goes for Obama people who will vote McCain over Clinton.

If you claim to be a democrat and you vote for McCain over another democrat then to hell with you, we don't need stupidity and idiots in the democratic party anyway!

It's interesting how things turn. When Nader ran in 2000, pretty much all he got was hate by whiny sorelosers despite the fact that he supported Gore's right to fight the election results more than Lieberman , the aspiring VP did. There was little blame put on the Democratic Party for being so weak as to let Nader's entreaties sway enough people in some states to make a difference. Now, I see Jerome questioning why Obama people won't do enough to minimize the Hillary voters who will vote for McCain over Obama. I actually agree that it makes sense for the Obama camp to minimize the damage.  Obama has made mistakes in the past that cost him support among some progressives which would have offset the racist people who won't vote for Obama based on his race or an association with a minister(as if a lot of ministers don't preach some sort of passive aggressive hate when they talk about people who are not saved being doomed).

I just find it interesting that concepts that generated very little support on this blog are all of sudden given legitimacy because Hillary is all of a suddent the possible losing candidate.

I'm a Hillary supporter. I don't like Obama at all. In fact, I find him to be repulsive as a person. Nevertheless, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him.

Maybe some Hillary supporters feel differently. Maybe some of them are just saying that now, because they are upset that Obama is leading, and because they don't like the smugness of some Obama supporters. Or, maybe they are telling this to pollsters to try and influence the superdelegates. After the Convention though, if Obama wins, I expect that Hillary, good Democrat and good person that she is, will call for total party unity. And that many, if not most, of these Hillary Democrats will support the nominee in November.

To me, party loyalty, and the horrible policies that McCain would implemen are more than enough. To some hard core Hillary supporters, maybe they are not. Maybe they honestly believe it would be better to vote for McCain, or third party, or not at all, than to vote for Obama. That is their right. But I don't think Obama or his campaign or his supporters can convince such people otherwise by kissing their butts, and I don't think they should try.

I wonder what percentage of that 19% who said they would vote for McCain over Hillary among Obama's support base is actually the Independent chunk?

I am willing to bet that most of Hillary's 28% are democrats who are willing to cross parties while not as much of Obama's 19% are Democrats willing to cross parties. Maybe Obama's ability to attract independents is actually making it more likely that they will vote for McCain rather than a sore loser syndrome on a part of a possible Democratic Party affiliated voter.

Looking at these numbers, I am going to guess that Hillary has a lot more sore losers on her side than Obama.