"Hillary can't unite the party" is a myth. Edwards or Obama would unite the party, as well.

[TwilightZone]

Clinton's favorability was at 81% with Democrats and 80% with "liberal Democrats" in a huge (7,000+ respondents) Gallup poll released in October.

Replace "Hillary" with "Obama" or "Edwards" and the statement is equally true. Favorability polls indicate that the Democratic party would unite behind any of them.

DU is not representative of the Democratic party. Just because "we" tend to obsess over our chosen candidates and detest the rest doesn't mean that the average Democratic voter does.

Some people actually like *all* of our candidates. Imagine that.



Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3572005

[DJ13]

1. Clinton's favorability was at 81% with Democrats

The general election has more than just Democrats voting.

Outside of the Democrat party, among independants and moderate Republicans that have already repudiated Bush's Presidency (and are ready for change), her negatives are too large to overcome.

[TwilightZone]

3. First, my post says "unite the party". Second, if your assertion is true, why is she leading...

head-to-head polls against the potential Republican opposition?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_vs_clinton-227.html#charts

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_huckabee_vs_clinton-515.html#charts

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html#charts

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_thompson_vs_clinton-266.html#charts

[Steely_Dan]

2. Too Bad...

We missed our shot at a shoe-in.

-P

[thunder rising]

4. I can't loose this election, all three are great

I would like to see Obama as the nominee, but I'll support the winner of the primary.

I'll have to say the most of the negative talk here is the work of trolls. Remember, we are anonymous. A true Obama supporter would not flame another candidate.

Finally, I'll add that this post makes a statement without a link to support it, so take the opinion with as big a grain of salt as you wish.

[TwilightZone]

11. I agree. I think all three are great candidates.

I'd be more than happy to vote for any of them in November.

Good point about anonymity, it certainly allows people to say things that they wouldn't say in person.

[TwilightGardener]

5. I'm not worried about "uniting the party". I'm worried about winning in November.

[TwilightZone]

12. Uniting the party is the first step.

According to reports, Democratic voter self-identification is up, Republican voter ID is down, and independents are largely leaning Democratic. Compared to '04, the difference could be in the millions.

In addition, we did extremely well in '06, picking up seats at all levels of government and losing few, if any, incumbents. If the trend continues for '08, then uniting the party will inherently give us an excellent opportunity in November.

[TwilightGardener]

13. How many Democrats would refuse to vote for Obama? Or Edwards?

I doubt very many, unless they're racist or have some other unforeseen problem with these men. But these two would pull in more Indies/Repubs, as well as unite the party. But, no, we don't want that.

[TwilightZone]

14. "these two would pull in more Indies/Repubs"

I hope you understand how ridiculous that sounds, when all we've heard on DU for months is that Hillary is a Republican and/or a conservative. Wouldn't she inherently attract more Republicans?

In reality, she's neither. I just find it hilarious that for six months, the argument was "don't vote for Hillary because she's a Republican". Now, the argument is "Don't vote for Hillary because she doesn't appeal to Republicans." It can't be both.

Two other points:

1) What evidence do you have that Edwards or Obama would draw more Republican and Independent support than Hillary?

In NH, McCain pulled significant (I) support from Obama, and that appears to be a factor in why Obama didn't win. His lead over Hillary with (I) voters was also much smaller than anticipated.

Considering that Edwards ended up third and got significantly less of the (I) vote than Hillary, I'm not sure how you could assert that he'd be more appealing to (I) voters than she would.

NH is not indicative of the rest of the country, of course, but it provides a bit of insight.

2) If there are more Dems than Reps, and (I) voters are leaning left, then pandering to Republicans is largely unnecessary. It then becomes about turnout, and contrary to DU opinion, there is no evidence that Democrats would stay home in large numbers if Hillary is the nominee. Polls have, in fact, shown quite the opposite.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Does Hillary appeal to Repubs, or rally them against her?

That's the question. I don't know if she's a "closet Repub"--I'm pretty far right as a Dem, so her views don't bother me (except on foreign policy--I like Obama's much better). The fact that a lot of Indies voted for McCain doesn't reflect poorly on Obama at all (McCain is like a favorite son there for some reason, and right-leaning Indies didn't go big for Nutty Paul as many were expecting)--perhaps many Indies felt that Obama had it sewn up because of the polls and decided to help out the old man. Hillary HAD been favored to win NH until Iowa happened, so her win was only a surprise because of the sudden shift in polls--again, it didn't reflect poorly on Obama that he almost beat her. Edwards fares better than Hillary in almost every head-to-head matchup against Repubs, so I base his broad potential appeal on that. So, considering all of that, New Hampshire's results don't refute my point that both Obama and Edwards have broad appeal, and Hillary may not. Iowa is middle America, and she didn't play too well there. Will Dems stay home if she's the nominee? I don't know.

[TwilightZone]

18. Republicans are going to rally against the Democratic candidate, regardless.

The "Hillary will rally the Republicans" meme is misguided. The Republicans rallied against Gore; they rallied against Kerry. I don't understand how people can seem to believe that they'll just stay home if Edwards or Obama is the nominee. Makes zero sense. It's not the candidate; it's the (D).

What also makes little sense is the thought that Obama is going to magically draw in any kind of substantial Republican support. Nobody with a (D) behind his or her name is going to do that.

Iowa is indicative of nothing but Iowa. It isn't even representative of states around it, much less "Middle America." Where we get into trouble is when we try to apply one state's politics to the country as a whole. It simply doesn't work.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. The bigger question is "Can she win the general election?"

The party came together behind Kerry in 2004, and we know what happened--and the GOP had had their eyes on Kerry only since 2003. The GOP have been spouting their hatred of the Clintons for years, and in many people, this hatred is entrenched. What would you suggest the Clintons do to overcome the negative impressions of the GOP smear machine?

[TwilightZone]

8. The Republican party has had their eyes on Kerry since 1971.

Have you forgotten that little "spoke out publicly against the Vietnam War" thing?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. No, but Kerry wasn't our Presidential candidate until 2004

But that's really beside the point. I'm waiting for your ideas of how the Clintons can counteract the right wing smear machine to the extent that they can win in November.

[TwilightZone]

27. No one has been vetted as much as Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons have been public targets for more than 15 years. People were already tired of the RW whining about them by the end of Bill's presidency.

Perhap you can explain why a relative unknown (to the Republicans) like Obama is in better position to counteract the right wing than someone who has been publicly critiqued for 15 years.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

28. Why should I? I'm not an Obama supporter

I asked what I felt was a legitimate question, and one that needs to be answered, especially if Clinton becomes our candidate.

[TwilightZone]

29. Sorry, confused you with another poster.

Trying to do too many things at the same time, it would seem. Sorry about that.

I think the Republicans will attack our nominee, regardless of the choice, in the same way that they attacked Gore and then Kerry. I think Clinton is probably the most prepared for that, mainly because she's dealt with it before.

[Fovea]

7. Who knows

we may yet test your hypothesis.
I hope not, but who knows.

[BeyondGeography]

9. The Clintons have never really cared about the party

and they last time we gave them the keys they left us in shambles:

NYT: You criticize Bill Clinton in your book as an illustration of the painful limitations of charisma.

Sen. Bill Bradley: Bill Clinton was the first two-term Democratic president since F.D.R. and was enormously popular — and yet at the end of eight years in office, there were fewer Democratic senators, fewer Democratic congressmen, fewer Democratic governors, fewer state legislators, and the party was in debt. You can be regarded as a charismatic president, and yet it doesn’t translate into structure.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/magazine/25WWLNQ4.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[TwilightZone]

20. Isn't Bradley endorsing Obama?

Curious that he'd be talking about the limits of charisma, since that is one of Obama's most appealing qualities.

[BeyondGeography]

24. You could always read the rest of the interview

NYT: Which Democratic candidate do you find the most impressive?

Bradley: Right now, I suppose Obama is extremely impressive to me. He is in a cultural skyrocket, a vertical ascent.

NYT: But doesn’t that contradict your argument? Couldn’t he be seen as coasting on charisma?

Bradley: It’s not just charisma, because he has touched something very deep that had been waiting to be touched for a long time — returning idealism to a central focus of our politics. I tried to touch it in 2000 and didn’t make it.

[TwilightZone]

25. Yeah, that would help.

My bad.

[Cameron27]

10. Nope DU isn't

reprentative of our party, and I agree with your assertion.

[TwilightZone]

15. I don't really understand the "if we nominate X candidate, we're going to looooose" threads.

And, they don't just apply to Hillary, of course. I've seen the same assertion made about several candidates.

The reasoning is usually terribly simplistic: sexism, racism, everybody hates Hillary, the Republicans will be motivated, etc.

People seem to forget that we did very well in '06, won pretty much everything, and that '06 was probably indicative of a trend. If that's true, we're already inherently in very good shape for November, regardless of the nominee.

[fightindonkey]

16. You're Going To See More and More Primaries Not Giving Obama A Win

He cannot win. Caucuses, yes. Straight voting, no.

[TwilightZone]

19. I think that it will largely depend on open vs. closed primaries.

He would seem to have an edge on Clinton with Independents, so in states where they are included, he may have a better chance. Without them, it could be more difficult.

NH is a good example. Overall, the vote was 39-37 Clinton. Obama won independents 41-31, but Hillary won Dems 45-34. Without the independents, it wouldn't have even been close.


Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#NHDEM

[Blue-Jay]

21. Another brilliant post backed up by facts.

[TwilightZone]

22. Off-topic....

I've always liked that picture. I thought that it would be even funnier if the squirrel was thinking, "Chimp."

[annie1]

23. Open primarys yes, closed primarys, not as much.

[ileus]

30. It's Hillarys party, remember 50 states.