Is the Clinton / Obama fight fracturing the Democratic Party?

[JollyRoger]

Our take on it here is that if Hillary were too win, there'd be about 1 in 3 chance that black voters would stay at home or not vote for the presidency enough that it may swing a state...or two...in the south, back to the republican candidate

Swing states in the South? Unless you are talking about Florida (which really isn't all that "Southern" from a demographic standpoint), I don't know if such a thing exists. I think most of the South is pretty much conceded to the GOP.

 

[.Shane.]

That's, maybe, the 1 good thing for the primaries happening so early... the public has more time to forget the sniping. They'll kiss and make up when the time comes. Don't be shocked if Obama gets the Veep nod when its all said and done. Though I'd rank him as the 2nd possibility in line behind Richardson.

 

[Shadylookin]

I hope so. I'd love to see the democratic party fall and hopefully be replaced with the Libertarian party.

I don't think it works like that the people supporting hillary and obama are not libertarians so them splintering off would have no bearing on the libertarian party.

the 2 party system for better or worse is here to stay and third parties don't stand a chance.

 

[MobBoss]

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

It's a Peggy Noonan editorial, and she's not my favourite commentator, but she hits at something I've been feeling.

I'm for Obama but head told me Clinton would probably take this nomination. I reluctantly decided that if she did, I would vote for her despite my dislike for her, the person.

Over the past few weeks, that's all changed. Whoever wins the nomination will receive the support of the looser, but the bitterness I feel towards Clinton (and I'm sure there are Clinton supporters who feel this way towards Obama) I don't see disappearing. Am I wrong?

I don't remember the '99 Primaries. Did Bush and McCain's supporters heal?

All I know is if Obama isn't on my ballot come this November, I'm voting Green.

I have been pointing this out for awhile. As for the healing from GWB and McCain....that took years, if at all. There still seems to be a lot of conservative talk radio agnst at McCain and part of that could still be issues from that period.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have been pointing this out for awhile. As for the healing from GWB and McCain....that took years, if at all. There still seems to be a lot of conservative talk radio agnst at McCain and part of that could still be issues from that period.

No, the bashing of McCain from the right is for McCain-Feingold, and the Group of 14,and his support of George Bush on amnesty for illegals.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

JerichoHill,

I'll second JollyRoger's question: what states in the South could possibly go Democratic anyway?

Do you really think that Obama not winning in the primaries would depress black turnout 33%? That's pretty wild. Do you have any historical or polling data to back that up?

Cleo

 

[Mark1031]

The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy . . .

"The one-two style of Clintons, however, is as informative as low-life street fighters. Mr. Bill punches Obama in the kidney and from the rear. When Obama whirls around to strike back, there stands Mrs. Clinton, looking like a prim Sunday School teacher and citing goody-goody lessons she learned from her 135 years in government . . .

"We are sure to see more of Mr. Bill's intrusions because the former president is pathological about preserving his own place in the spotlight. He can't stand it when he is not the story and, one way or another, he will make himself the story. I used to be sympathetic toward Mrs. Clinton on this point. No longer. She is using her egocentric husband to do the low-road hits for her campaign

This sums up my current view of the Clintons.

 

[Speedo]

In the long run he's only hurting Hildog. Which is fine with me.

 

[gallego]

I found this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUm7tkgFGYs

 

[Elrohir]

Umm Cleo and other interested Democrats, since I deal with election stuff on a daily basis in my job, here's what I see. Keep in mind that I'm waiting to see who the nominees are, so I dont have that much bias when it comes to the Democratic candidates (cept Kucinich cause his wife is HOT!...lol)

Here's the situation. The problem of having Bill Clinton attack Barack Obama to the degree that he's done, has the potential to tick off black voters. Tick them off enough, and they may just stay home on the general election. This has happened before in Presidential contests. Normally, its not a good idea to tick off a big constituency by throwing dirt on their candidate.

That is the danger. Our take on it here is that if Hillary were too win, there'd be about 1 in 3 chance that black voters would stay at home or not vote for the presidency enough that it may swing a state...or two...in the south, back to the republican candidate

Especially since lots of blacks are already mad about immigration and the like. If I were part of the Democratic leadership, I'd be calling Bill up and telling him to shut up.

But we'll see how it all turns out.

 

[JollyRoger]

Especially since lots of blacks are already mad about immigration and the like. If I were part of the Democratic leadership, I'd be calling Bill up and telling him to shut up.

But we'll see how it all turns out.

Since all the remaining Republicans have pro-immigrant actions on their records, I think it isn't really going to be much of a factor.

 

[amadeus]

Bill Clinton is doing his greatest damage to his worldwide charity effort, the Clinton Global Initiative.

For his recent history, he's come across as a powerful orator of hope and figure who trascending political bickering. After his slug-fest in South Carolina, the world is already perceiving him differently. He's lost part of his aura, and auras are important if you're going to be a statesman of the world.

I agree. He's going from Reagan to Carter pretty fast.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

Since all the remaining Republicans have pro-immigrant actions on their records, I think it isn't really going to be much of a factor.

??? Theirs a clear distinction between McCain and the rest of the GOP field, he's Pro-immigration, everyone else is opposed. McCain is even more Pro-immigration then the Democratic field (especially on the eve of SC primary). This is another critical reason why McCain is the ONLY hope for the GOP to win in November, he can get the Hispanic vote it at a rate comparable to Bush (aka he splits it), any other Republican would lose it 3:1 leading to a flipping of the Southwest and Florida. McCain's Green policies would further lock down the West in general perhaps enough to keep it from slipping to the Democrats.


As for the Original topic, I'm an Obama supporting Democrat who's also getting an increasingly negative view of the Clinton's. I'll find it hard to vote for her and I think the Obama coalition will fracture along similar lines if hes not the nominee. Blacks, Union members and most register Democrats will support Hillary. Young voters and Independents will largely stay home allowing their normal apathy to dominate. Against a non McCain republican Hillary would be put over the top by Hispanics in Florida and the Southwest. Against McCain we have a near perfect repeat of 2000.

 

[general_kill]

It is definitely causing friction in the democratic party but it is far from fracturing it. What Bill Clinton is doing is toughening up Obama if anything.

Look at it this way. In history, warfare both weakens and strengthens states. An army may be weakened by wars, but it gains experience and hard-knock battle tested veterans. When Hannibal marched through Rome, it was able to win its victories because the armies he fought against were inexperienced and incompetent. Even though he lost men after each battle, his army's effectiveness increased.

The democrats are so supportive and civilized in their debates right now that I was having doubts about how the democratic winner will handle themselves against the republican winner. So think of Bill as a tough trainer for the democratic party.

 

[JollyRoger]

??? Theirs a clear distinction between McCain and the rest of the GOP field,

When he was governor, Huckabee held the following positions on illegal immigration: He supported higher education benefits for children of illegal immigrants, opposed a federal roundup of illegals from his state in 2005, opposed a 2001 bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state, and in 2001, a member of his administration pushed for legislation to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071204b.html

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Tuesday fired a landscaping company that worked at his home in Boston, Massachusetts, after he said he learned it employs illegal immigrants.

Romney clarified that it was the company, not him, that hired the workers and called it "offensive" to suggest he should have checked their immigration status.

"Are you suggesting ... that if you have a company that you hired to provide a service that you are now responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that might look different or don't have an accent like yours?" Romney said during the debate. "I don't think that's American."

On Tuesday, the Giuliani campaign said "the Romney statement speaks for itself" and offered no further comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/romney.immigration/index.html

While New York City has never officially declared itself a "sanctuary city," as other cities have, it is included in lists of jurisdictions that have provided some degree of protection for illegal immigrants. In New York, that protection came in the form of executive order 124 issued in 1989 by Mayor Edward Koch. The order, later renewed by Mayor David Dinkins and Mayor Giuliani, said that city employees were not to give federal immigration authorities the names of aliens unless the disclosure was required by law or the alien was suspected of criminal activity, "including an attempt to obtain public assistance benefits through the use of fraudulent documents."


Indeed, Giuliani has not backed away from his support of the executive order. He said in 1996 that the order was intended to protect illegal immigrants "from being reported to the INS while they are using city services that are critical for their health and safety, and for the health and safety of the entire City." For instance, it would encourage an illegal alien to report a murder he or she witnessed or to seek treatment for an infectious disease. Giuliani even filed an unsuccessful lawsuit in federal court in 1996 to challenge federal welfare and immigration policies that allowed – but did not require – city employees to turn in the names of illegals.


However, as many news organizations have pointed out, three cities in Massachusetts were "sanctuary cities" when Romney was governor: Cambridge, Orleans and Somerville, according to statements by Somerville's mayor and a Congressional Research Service report. We find no evidence that Romney took a hard stance against those cities' policies as governor.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_immigration_showdown.html

 

[Elrohir]

Since all the remaining Republicans have pro-immigrant actions on their records, I think it isn't really going to be much of a factor.

Pro immigrant actions on their records - and pretty hard stances against illegal immigration now. If immigration is your #1 issue, are you going to go with the Democrats, who are all soft in both word and deed, or with the Republicans, who are a mixed bag?

I'm not saying that this will permanently, or even significantly fracture the Democratic party. I'm just saying there's an awful lot of potential for even more division, if only the Republican party is smart enough to exploit it. (Or the Democratic party too stupid to deal with it.) But hey, I'm a Republican - what do I know?

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

From my point of view I see the answer to the OP question as a YES. Of coarse now that the damage is done, we are likely to see Clinton pull back and start to try and play the simpathetic character or become the victim. Slick Willy earned his nickname for good reason and I saw it on CNN when he started talking to reporters a day or 2 after the debate.

It's all a public strategy/game to them and the whole agenda is to win gullible votes in order to get into the whitehouse. It's all about the Clintons with those people.

I would seriously consider joining the Democratic party if it wasn't for the Clinton's tacticts. I do not trust them.

I'm sure the Democratic party will be more united with Barrack Obama or John Edwards as the party leader because people like Clinton and Howard Dean are nothing but dirty and divisive.

It's supposed to be about the United States citizens, not one family/group.

 

[Nylan]

the 2 party system for better or worse is here to stay and third parties don't stand a chance.

And this mentality is exactly why they don't stand a chance.

Now is as good a time as any for a moderate independent to step up. So much division...it's anybody's field. Now they may not win (thanks to the above mentioned attitude) now, but it's progress towards a better system.

 

[North King]

That is the danger. Our take on it here is that if Hillary were too win, there'd be about 1 in 3 chance that black voters would stay at home or not vote for the presidency enough that it may swing a state...or two...in the south, back to the republican candidate

Swing states in the South? Unless you are talking about Florida (which really isn't all that "Southern" from a demographic standpoint), I don't know if such a thing exists. I think most of the South is pretty much conceded to the GOP.

African Americans make up around 14% of, for example, Michigan's population. The margin of victory for the Democrats here in 2004 was less than 4%. Do the math: It's not at all a sure bet that the Republicans would win in that instance, but it certainly makes it more plausible. Add this in to, say, McCain running and drawing many independents, and you'd get a red Michigan.

 

[Drewcifer]

Does anyone know what Hillary's disapproval ratings are these days? I would guess they are close to 70%.

My prediction is that if she is the nominee the Green Party will get at least 5% of the vote and we will have a Republican President.