79% of RK Readers Oppose "Unity Ticket"

By: Lowell
Published On: 4/28/2008 6:34:28 AM

This is about as clear cut a result as we're ever going to get from an RK poll -- 79% of readers do NOT want a Clinton-Obama "unity ticket" this year.  Of the 21% who DO want a unity ticket, the vast majority (19 of 25 people) want Clinton-Obama, with just 6 people voting for Obama-Clinton.  Given that the vast majority of RK readers are Obama supporters, it looks like support for a "unity ticket" is coming almost exclusively from Clinton supporters, while Obama supporters are completely uninterested.  Why is this?  For answers, see the comments in this diary, but in short Obama supporters don't appear to like Hillary Clinton or see what advantage she'd bring to a ticket.  As KathyinBlacksburg wrote:

Challenging Obama's patriotism ended any chance that Hillary will get anything from me.  I have always said I would still vote for her (but not work).   If she keeps, and she continues to push this line, it up it will not be worth going to the polls at all.  She will have damaged the party beyond repair.  I have agreed with those here and elsewhere that allowing others to elect McCain )I could NEVER vote for him) is no solution.  I have never missed a federal election in my life.  But every single day she makes me despair for our party and nation.  

Ouch. Unfortunately, I fear that the sentiments might be very similar in the other direction, from Clinton supporters towards Obama.  The question is, will Democrats be able to unify sufficiently to win this fall, even without an Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) "unity ticket," and even without an obvious, prototypical right-wing "threat" for Democrats to rally around?  I'm honestly not sure.

Comments



Most RK participants... (ub40fan - 4/28/2008 7:42:07 AM)
... are more involved on some level with politics (internal to the party and external) and campaigns. As a participatory population they are by definition activist. So this unscientific poll IS SIGNIFICANT as it reflects a group view from people who would naturally be an asset in the general election.

Hillary has not won that crowd (the internet demographic). Not here, not at DKOS barely anywhere. Why is that??

Simply, this more politically educated group (RK) sees what has gone on .... what the Wolfsons & Penns have delivered in terms of negative campaigning. The corrosive bullshit they sling into the ever eager Mainstream Media is damaging to the party and ultimately reflects on the candidate.

"The Fish Rots from the Head Down".

How sad is it .... when that classic quote applies to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton?



I Sooooo agree with what KathyinBlacksburg wrote... (bladerunner - 4/28/2008 9:41:44 AM)
...I mirror the thoughts she has on the tactics that the Clinton campaign are using.  


Ouch, indeed!. (KathyinBlacksburg - 4/28/2008 5:32:16 PM)
Ouch, indeed!  That will teach me......to fail to proof a comment!  :-)

Typing fast and not reading can really backfire.  



purple prose or is it real loathing? (j_wyatt - 4/28/2008 9:14:36 PM)
... The two Democratic nominees remain icily calm when in each other's vicinity - plain as it is that they cordially loathe and despise one another - while huge shudders of molten rage continue to shake the ample and empurpled yet graying frame of Bill Clinton as he broods on the many injustices to which life has subjected him. ...

http://www.slate.com/id/2190109/

One Angry Man
SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT JOHN MCCAIN'S TEMPER?
By Christopher Hitchens
Monday, April 28, 2008,



The Two Democratic Parties (Bernie Quigley - 4/29/2008 7:05:56 AM)
Was interested in reading David Brooks quote of Stuart Rothenburg referring to the "two Democratic parties" in today's NYTs. My first article in this anti-war series - Dec., 2005 - was about a "fork in the road" for the Democrats with Clintons representing the rank and file and Mark Warner and Wes Clark (running as an anti-war candidate at the time) representing a brand new direction and directly in opposition to the tradition represented by the Clintons. This lightly resembles the mid-1800 condition when the United States was also polarized between red and blue as it is today: In order for the North to consolidate its will and consciousness against the South it had to jettison the Whig party and reformulate as the Republican party. This is an organic evolution, like a snake shedding its skin. This is what is happening now in the Democratic party and demographics will tell which will be the enlightened snake which goes forward (Warner) and which will be the  discarded skin (Clinton). I think my formula is still correct but although since Clark has shifted from the free range of his anti-war creativity and "re-institutionalized" himself as a Clinton employee (and is the source and inspiration of some of Hillary's opinions on foreign policy which the Boston Globe correctly calls "madness") I'd put Sam Nunn in with Warner (and Webb, and Obama and Kathleen Sebelius) as the "new wave." I hope you all have been watching the terrific "Cohen-Nunn" debates on foreign policy these last days. They are being posted on CNN.

"Mark Warner and Wes Clark: A Fork in the Road for the Democrats" - Dec., 2005 at:
http://quigleyblog.blogspot.co...