Will You Support the Nominee?
Jeff Alworth
It's hard not to notice that things are getting touchy between supporters of Obama and Clinton--just look at the comment threads here on BlueOregon. While I tend to think that this is just the emotion of the moment, I don't doubt it's real. So here's a buzz poll to test the moment. If your candidate doesn't win, will you support the nominee in November? I may take the temperature again after the nominee is clear, just to see a before and after. (Note: I had to make two polls; I couldn't break one into two questions. The first is for Hillary supporters, the second for Barack supporters.)
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:59 a.m.
Apr 1, '08
I don't even want to answer the poll because I would be voting on pure emotion. But my partner (he hates when I say that) and I both thought we may get crazy and vote Nader if Hillary manages to win.
I should also mention this happened after we were watching the McLoughlin group where John proclaimed Hillary the nominee and then said, "BUH BYE!" Scary.
11:02 a.m.
Apr 1, '08
I saw that--every one of the panelists said they thought Hillary would be the nominee (that was either on Friday or the Friday before).
And actually, I'm trying this out to measure "heat." I think that when I run a follow-up in July after the nomination is set (let's hope!), the results will come back to earth. (Or would, anyway if 1) by assumption is accurate, and 2) this were a scientific survey.)
Apr 1, '08
I do not support anyone because both of them are becoming too uptight and anal for my taste. I want someone who can lead - not gripe and groan about petty items and act like spoiled 6 year olds. I want an adult in the white house - not a spolied rich brat.
Apr 1, '08
Let me say it this way: Despite her Republican-style campaign tactics over the past month, if Sen. Clinton manages to get the nomination without having the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, including caucus voters, I will vote for her. I think the reason some people say that they won't vote for her is that they don't believe such a scenario is mathematically possible.
Apr 1, '08
There's a heck of a difference between winning the nomination and stealing it. Legitimacy matters. If winning means the candidate with the most pledged delegates, won in caucuses and primaries, no problem. If it's a back room deal that over-rules the primary results, then all bets are off. That's not winning, it's stealing. I vote no for stealing. Legitimacy does matter. Hence I vote yes under that premise.
Apr 1, '08
I want an adult in the white house
That's the stated reason my neighbor gave me for voting for Dubya in 2000.
Apr 1, '08
So, Bill, your main benchmark for your Presidential vote is some idea of "legitimacy" as opposed to who would be the better choice to pursue a progressive agenda? You'd rather have McCain in there, prolonging the war, appointing bad Supremes, continuing Bush tax policies, because he was somehow a more "legitimate" nominee than Hillary?
I don't think Bush won the 2000 election legitimately because of how Florida played out. Hillary may only have a 5% chance of winning, but barring an outright and overt Bush-style cheat, it would have to be within the rules and therefore "legitimate" (broadly defined).
At this point, national politics is a pretty ugly game, and I'm hoping Obama will win and move the whole thing in a better direction. But if he doesn't, I'm not ready to sacrifice the next generation to a purist ideal, when the policy differences are so stark.
12:46 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Jeff, All of them said Obama actually. Even that hotpot Monica Crowley. That's why it was more stark for that "BUH BYE" to freak me out :)
Apr 1, '08
It's The Supreme Court, stupid.
As much as I loathe Senator Clinton, if she is the nominee, then I'll be forced to vote for her unless the polls show she is well ahead in Orygun....something I doubt.
But ultimately it is The Supreme Court. This is our last chance, folks. If McSame gets in there, kiss The Constitution goodbye forever. There is still time to get it back. (Frankly, I'd rather see Hillary on SCOTUS)
1:22 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Echo what Backbeat12 said. I'm no more fond of Hillary than he/she is but ultimately my civil rights and those of my children are more important than my view of Hillary Clinton. I just hope it doesn't come to that...
Apr 1, '08
Kevin, I'm a she with 2 high school boys. Scared out of my wits that HRC voted yes on that stupid Iran bill by her buddy Lieberman. As a woman, I'd prefer the first female president be a peacemonger. I can't stand the DLC and all it represents, especially how they distain populism and have worked to weaken the Democratic Party. 50 state strategy, baby.
But ultimately it is about our kids and the future. Bush has destroyed the Constitution. So, I'll volunteer as usual to get the vote out, etc.....gagging and trudging if it is HRC, rather than skipping and a jumping.
1:45 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Thanks. It's impossible to tell the gender of commenters a lot of the time. I'm glad that I did it the way I did because at first I was going to go with a generic male default and then thought better of it.
Your mention of Lieberman seems to me to underscore why Hillary would be preferable to McCain. He too is much more socially progressive than his image among rank and file progressives would seem to indicate. Doesn't make him one of the good guys, by any stretch of the imagination. But ultimately I would very much rather that whomever selects the next SCOTUS nominee(s) be a social progressive than not because it's at the core of our civil liberties.
As I said before, I just hope it doesn't come to that... But if it does then I won't hesitate to act in my children's best interests.
1:53 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Karol, to take our bizarre little side conversation a step further--yes, you're right, all of them did say Obama. BUT, that was a repeat airing. The week before, which was live, was the one where they all said they thought Hillary would pull it out. I, of course, would have loved to hear the thinking there, but they used the question as an outro.
On the post. Since I put it up, there have consistently been about as many Obama supporters as Hillary supporters--itself an interesting finding. At present, about 80% of the backers of both candidates will cross over in November. However, 13% of the Obamaniacs would not vote for McCain, but ten percent of Clintonistas will.
That would be counterintuitive in a scientic survey, but we have an unpredictable number of selection biases going on here.
Apr 1, '08
In November we won't be voting just for a President. We will also be voting for Supreme Court nominations, Secretaries of State and Defense, Attorney General, and the heads of FEMA, EEOC, and EPA. With that in mind, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee.
2:57 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Well, I won't vote for "Bomb Iran," that would just be silly. I still struggle with a Clinton vote. My first vote at 18 was for Clinton's second term. Life looks so much different now...
Apr 1, '08
Looking at the results they appear to mirror the national polling. 20% plus or minus a couple won't support the opposing candidate. Of course, it can be mostly bluster at this stage. On the cold light of a gun stuck to one's head....
4:40 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
Karol:
I'm with you - my first vote was also for Clinton's second term. I turned 18 in January of '96, so I voted for him in the primary and then in the general. I went to the Texas convention as a Clinton alternate and we elevated to a delegate upon arriving. It was the Clinton race in '92 that brought me into partisan politics - I'd been working locally for 2 years before that.
At the time, I was excited to be voting for a Clinton. I can't say the same this time. Although, if Senator Clinton is our nominee, I'll support her. I'll volunteer. I don't know that I'll give any money, but then again I rarely give money to candidates - what money I do have to give tends to go to the party and a handful of candidates I really, really support.
That's what I love about primaries - we have the ability to choose which candidate within our party we like the most. The one who we agree with the most, the one we think will do the best job, etc. But then once the primary is over, we can come together as progressives and democrats and support the candidate we collectively chose and do everything we can to make sure he or she wins in November.
Apr 1, '08
Fair and Balanced: "So, Bill, your main benchmark for your Presidential vote is some idea of "legitimacy" as opposed to who would be the better choice to pursue a progressive agenda?"
<hr/>It's a devil's bargain in any event. I have no faith in any progressive agenda being moved by Hillary, nor do I have any faith in her not attacking Iran as McCain seems inclined to do, since her vote for providing a legal pretext for attacking Iran in the Kyle/Lieberman Resolution.
That said, Legitimacy is no small thing. In 1968, my first election as an adult,Democrats were fighting each other on the floor of the convention and in the streets of Chicago because of legitimacy. Because of the lack of legitimacy Richard Nixon won the election and the Dem. party was in ruins for a generation. People are killing each other in Kenya and Zimbabwe today because of legitimacy.
There are Dems today making reservations to show up and raise hell in Denver if the "fix" is on. So how the party handles this is critical and legitimacy definitely matters. If there is a perception that the rules have been cast aside, or the results of the primary process cast aside, to have a Hillary coronation then the Dem. party will cease to exist in its present configuration. The indicators now are that won't happen. But one can never underestimate the mischief to be done when the prize of the presidency is to be had.
As for myself, the dilemma is pretty hypothetical, just like this polling question is. Context and perception of legitimacy is everything.
Apr 1, '08
Nice theoretical question, but Barack Obama will be the nominee.
7:56 p.m.
Apr 1, '08
It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which I wouldn't cast the most effective vote possible against the disaster that is John McCain, and work hard to ensure he is not elected.
That said, there's a lot of work for Hillary to do if she wants me to consider characterizing such a vote as a vote "for" her. And she hasn't done much of that work in a while.
Obama said it best in Salem when he said there isn't much reason to believe that Hillary believes in "bottom-up" democracy. That's the only kind of democracy I believe in, and there's only one candidate in the race that seems to share that belief.
Apr 1, '08
Obama doesn't have the experience or the sense to be president. He should go back to the Senate to do.... to do... to do whatever it is he's been doing there. For another 4years and then quit.Write another book,.
Apr 1, '08
Please, pretty please, I'm going to ask again. Is there an ardent Clinton supporter out there--someone who frequents this website--who will acknowledge that someone can make a rational decision to support Obama? That we're not brainwashed? Not cultists? Not Kool-Aid drinkers? That maybe we've actually talked things through with our spouses, our kids, our siblings, our friends, neighbors and co-workers?
I don't doubt the sincerity of Clinton supporters in their conviction that she is best. I like her, too. I just happen to favor Obama. I don't assume that HRC supporters only like her because of her name, or the cut of her clothes, or the color of her eyes, or some equally irrelevant detail.
I've posed this question on Blue Oregon several times and never gotten a response. So please....cuz gawd knows that on some ardently pro-Clinton/anti-Obama blogs like this one, this request would opened sneered at.
Apr 1, '08
Pete Forsyth,
“Obama said it best in Salem when he said there isn't much reason to believe that Hillary believes in "bottom-up" democracy. That's the only kind of democracy I believe in, and there's only one candidate in the race that seems to share that belief.” I don’t see any plausible reasoning in your statement. Why do you think, that Sen. Hillary Clinton doesn’t believe in “bottom-up” democracy? What proves do you have that Obama is great promoter of democracy at all? For a fact, Obama called Governor of Pennsylvania personally and stated that he is going to be nominee for Dem. Party , so governor should not campaign for Clinton too hard because it will hurt Obama chances in November. Is it “bottom –up” or ?
Apr 2, '08
In my opinion, we must not only vote for, but also support the Democratic nominee, whoever wins. What could be worse than giving McConJob a chance to appoint another Roberts, Alito, Scalia or Thomas to SCOTUS?
Apr 2, '08
Hillary's counting on a Penn. blow-out to stay alive. It's not developing that way.
from Political Wire:(Other polls recently out have Clinton ahead but by tightening margins)
PPP Poll: Obama Takes Lead in Pennsylvania A new Public Policy Polling survey in Pennsylvania finds Sen. Barack Obama has taken the lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton, 45% to 43%, a remarkable turnaround after trailing by 26 points just two and a half weeks ago.
"Obama's steep rise could be a reflection of a growing sense among Democratic voters that a continued divisive nomination process will hurt the party's chances of defeating John McCain this fall. An Obama upset in Pennsylvania would be virtually certain to force Clinton out of the race."
Apr 2, '08
Viki, could you please provide a source for the assertion that Obama called Rendell to tell him not to campaign "too hard" for Hillary Clinton? I have been looking on the Internet and cannot find anything quite like this. Apparently Rendell does claim to have received a call from Obama, but not with the message you relate.
Thanks.
Apr 2, '08
Obama just asked Rendell to help make sure nothing happens in PA that will harm the Dems' chances in November: CNN story>CNN story
Apr 2, '08
Sorry; I'm new at this link stuff. CNN story
1:00 p.m.
Apr 3, '08
Viki:
Last I heard, the average campaign contribution to the Obama campaign -- which refuses PAC and special interest money -- was $109. That's bottom-up democracy.
Obama found Republican Senators willing to work with him on the Transparency Act, which makes Federal spending more transparent to the public, the media, interest groups, etc. That's empowering bottom-up democracy. Clinton may have voted for it (not sure), as most Senators did -- but Obama sponsored it.
Don't care a bit about the Pennsylvania story you mention. There is no "bottom-up" approach to that situation available. Obama is trying to win a political contest, and will engage in politics to do so -- so what?
Apr 24, '08
All signs, except one, indicate that Barack Obama will be the Democrat's nominee come its Denver convention. The except one is that Hillary Rodham Clinton (and her supporters) think she deserves the nomination regardless of all voters' choices and wisdom in what they want for the future. So, she will fight right to the bitter end till the democratic process is annihilated and she gets the Democratic nomination.
Then comes November 2008 and the GOP successfully wages a Swiftboat war against HRC: John McCain becomes the next president so the US gets 4 more years of what it deserves because voter simply will not face realities. The GOP wins and gets to fiddle around 4 more years watching their Rome burn. At least Barack Obama doesn't have to clean up george w bush's horrors.
Come 2012, Hillary Rodham Clinton is no longer on the scene because people began to realize the incredible errors from the 2008 about 2 days after that election. This time, Barack Obama is chosen by a huge majority and hope can come to America and the world.
Question: What does it take for people to wake up and look into the future instead of into the past? Obama is the future; Clinton is the past.
If you care for your kids, you'll not vote for Clinton.
<h2>Turn on your brain: support Barack Obama.</h2>