who's got the onus of uniting the democratic party?

[nageov3t]

which is to say, if the democratic party does *not* get united between now and november, and a sizable amount of Hillary voters do defect and put McCain in the white house, who gets the blame -- Obama as the leader of the party, or Hillary as the general whose troops switched teams?

 

[Genx87]

Guess I dont understand why anybody needs blame for vetting the process out? I would have rather liked to have a longer republican process where we got to see the good and bad of each candidate. If the democrats are so worried about the extended period of time it took this time around. Then they should work with the states to have all of the primaries done in Feb.

 

[Foxery]

Which of your three questions do you actually want answered by the poll?

 

[theeedude]

Obama, he's the presumptive nominee now. Clinton can go back to NY.

 

[Tab]

I don't if you know this but it's highly unlikely and Hilary voters are going to "defect" and either not vote or vote for McLame. With Billary in nearly $14 million in debt there's a snowball's chance in hell she'd run 3rd party.

Anyway, I'm sure once Obama officially gets nominated all the Billary supports will gladly assimilate and become Obamabots.

EDIT: The only party that has a problem of splitting or possibly dying is the GOP.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't if you know this but it's highly unlikely and Hilary voters are going to "defect" and either not vote or vote for McLame. With Billary in nearly $14 million in debt there's a snowball's chance in hell she'd run 3rd party.

Anyway, I'm sure once Obama officially gets nominated all the Billary supports will gladly assimilate and become Obamabots.

EDIT: The only party that has a problem of splitting or possibly dying is the GOP.

You're right, the whiny bitch hillary supporters will support obama and not vote for mccane when push comes to shove.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They both have a role in unifying the party, but it is Clinton's responsibility to ensure that her followers stay loyal to the Democrats...why...because she is largely responsible for the irrational and emotionally charged decisions by many Democrats to "sit this one out" or "vote for McCain" because Hillary lost.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Tab
I don't if you know this but it's highly unlikely and Hilary voters are going to "defect" and either not vote or vote for McLame. With Billary in nearly $14 million in debt there's a snowball's chance in hell she'd run 3rd party.

Anyway, I'm sure once Obama officially gets nominated all the Billary supports will gladly assimilate and become Obamabots.

EDIT: The only party that has a problem of splitting or possibly dying is the GOP.

You're right, the whiny bitch hillary supporters will support obama and not vote for mccane when push comes to shove.

Lol don't you wish. The party will get what they deserve for letting elements of the party push a leftist candidate while much of the standard base looked towards the centrist.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lol don't you wish. The party will get what they deserve for letting elements of the party push a leftist candidate while much of the standard base looked towards the centrist.

Ideologically, Clinton and Obama are essentially the same...the nuances between their policy suggestions are insignificant.

Similarly, there is a flaw in your argument...the standard base of any party represents numerical superiority over fringe elements..."elements" of any party cannot defeat the base, no matter how hard they try...Obama had more delegates, and unless you use Hillary math, he also won the popular vote.

So arguably, Obama is as appealing to the Democrat base as is Clinton...the party split along gender, racial and income brackets, which is dangerous for any party...this has nothing to do about base, but about demographics in a nomination process where the two leading canditates represent very polarizing demographics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Because everything happens exactly as it has to happen nobody is to blame for anything.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Lol don't you wish. The party will get what they deserve for letting elements of the party push a leftist candidate while much of the standard base looked towards the centrist.

Ideologically, Clinton and Obama are essentially the same...the nuances between their policy suggestions are insignificant.

Similarly, there is a flaw in your argument...the standard base of any party represents numerical superiority over fringe elements..."elements" of any party cannot defeat the base, no matter how hard they try...Obama had more delegates, and unless you use Hillary math, he also won the popular vote.

So arguably, Obama is as appealing to the Democrat base as is Clinton...the party split along gender, racial and income brackets, which is dangerous for any party...this has nothing to do about base, but about demographics in a nomination process where the two leading canditates represent very polarizing demographics.

But half of the women demographic is black right?

and half of the black demographic is female right?

you see?? The party is uniting already!!

HRC went over the top (or the bottom of the barrel depending on your POV) when her team pushed the idea that McCain would be a better President than BHO. Her team has to play a role in getting behind the D nominee if for no other reason then that single mistake alone.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Clinton supporters' statements about defecting hold as much sand as the statements made by Hollywood jsut before each election.

 

[Stoneburner]

The party's not united? I don't see evidence of that.

 

[Lemon law]

The answer is both Obama and Hillary. Already Obama is reaching out to reassure the jewish voters on his willingness to defend Israel and Hillary is also doing the same.
I fully expect Obama to spend some time assuring all the democratic and independent constituencies that he is the correct choice.

As a democrat, I think very good party unity will be achieved and GOP supporters who are clutching at the belief that the democrats will be divided will soon be unpleasantly disillusioned. Even if Obama may disturb some democratic and independent voters, they can view the McCain stances on the issues and will likely find Obama is the far better choice. We do not yet know if the general election campaign will be clean or extremely dirty, but Obama seems to be able to take a punch and lash right back with an effective counter punch. Maybe the word is charisma, Obama certainly has it and Hillary was starting to find some of her own in the ending days of the primary.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama has the job of doing it. If the party fractures it doesn't really do much to Clinton, her seat is safe, it screws Obama though.

I'm really not worried about it though, I bet you if we removed the names and did the Pepsi Challenge with their policy proposals nobody could tell the difference, that's how identical they are. (okay, I'd have to take out the health care section as there is a small but meaningful distinction there)

 

[Foxery]

Originally posted by: lupi
The party will get what they deserve for letting elements of the party push a leftist candidate while much of the standard base looked towards the centrist.

I'm sorry, slow down. If American voters screw up our own government on election day, who exactly is "getting what they deserve?"

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Guess I dont understand why anybody needs blame for vetting the process out?

I think loki means that if Obama loses in the fall, and the media and party leadership start hunting around for scapegoats, will they place the blame for the failed run in a surething year at Obama's feet, Hillary's or someone else's?

I think it's pretty clear that on P&N the Obama fans will run around screaming about how they had it locked up until Hillary destroyed their chances by running a "dirty" (i.e. normal) campaign.

 

[jpeyton]

First Clinton and Obama agreed on the nomination rules (back when she was the front-runner).

Then Clinton supported primaries, but said caucuses are unfair.

Then Clinton supported large state primaries, but said small states don't matter.

Then Clinton said proportional allocation is unfair and winner-take-all should be the new law of the land.

Then Clinton said delegates don't matter, only the popular vote matters.

Wait, scratch that, delegates do matter in MI and FL, even if they broke the rules Clinton agreed to in the beginning of the process.

But now that Clinton is still behind in delegates, popular votes matter more. That isn't as important as superdelegates, however, who really decide the nomination.

Except of course, when the superdelegates declare their support for Obama. Now the process is flawed.

How about we just give Hillary a blank sheet of paper and give her a chance to write the rules necessary to secure her the nomination?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
First Clinton and Obama agreed on the nomination rules (back when she was the front-runner).

Then Clinton supported primaries, but said caucuses are unfair.

Then Clinton supported large state primaries, but said small states don't matter.

Then Clinton said proportional allocation is unfair and winner-take-all should be the new law of the land.

Then Clinton said delegates don't matter, only the popular vote matters.

Wait, scratch that, delegates do matter in MI and FL, even if they broke the rules Clinton agreed to in the beginning of the process.

But now that Clinton is still behind in delegates, popular votes matter more. That isn't as important as superdelegates, however, who really decide the nomination.

I don't really see why what she says is untrue.

just because your candidate won doesn't mean that the DNC system isn't in need of serious reevaluation.

I mean, winning a state should mean something more than walking away with less delegates than the loser (texas).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't really see why what she says is untrue.

just because your candidate won doesn't mean that the DNC system isn't in need of serious reevaluation.

I mean, winning a state should mean something more than walking away with less delegates than the loser (texas).

There is a problem with what she said. The problem is that she said one thing at the beginning when she was up 30 points in the polls, and another thing when she was on the verge of losing.

Had she said the process was flawed from beginning to end, her words might be worth paying attention to.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't really see why what she says is untrue.

just because your candidate won doesn't mean that the DNC system isn't in need of serious reevaluation.

I mean, winning a state should mean something more than walking away with less delegates than the loser (texas).

There is a problem with what she said. The problem is that she said one thing at the beginning when she was up 30 points in the polls, and another thing when she was on the verge of losing.

Had she said the process was flawed from beginning to end, her words might be worth paying attention to.

just because she said them doesn't make the point false, though. disingenuous political maneuvering, sure, but just because a fool says the sky is blue, that doesn't make it green.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Then Clinton supported large state primaries, but said small states don't matter.

No, she didn't. Find a link where she said that. She stated that she won almost all the big electoral college states, which she did. She never said small states don't matter.

Then Clinton said proportional allocation is unfair and winner-take-all should be the new law of the land.

No, she didn't. Post a link where she said that. She said that IF the dems had the rep system, she'd have been the nom, which was true. She did not advocate switching to the rep system.

Then Clinton said delegates don't matter, only the popular vote matters.

No, she didn't. Post a link where she said that. She said she thinks the popular vote indicates she's the stronger candidate in the general election and that is the reason the supers should vote for her for the nom, which is consistent with party guidelines for superdelegate voting.

 

[M0RPH]

The fault will not lie with either candidate, it will lie in the primary process itself, which will have chosen the wrong nominee. Had the primary process been a winner-take-all like the republicans have and like the rules of the general election, Clinton would have been the nominee. The process would have worked and chosen the stronger nominee who wins the big states that are more important in the general.

Instead, democrats have this convoluted system which places unproportional influence on small states and caucases and does not give proper weight to wins in crucial big states. This flawed process is what elected Obama. In the election between Obama and Clinton, which was essentially a dead-heat among voters nationwide, it was the primary process itself that was the tie-breaker. If Obama ends up losing the general then we'll have confirmation that the process is fatally flawed.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: loki8481
I don't really see why what she says is untrue.

just because your candidate won doesn't mean that the DNC system isn't in need of serious reevaluation.

I mean, winning a state should mean something more than walking away with less delegates than the loser (texas).

There is a problem with what she said. The problem is that she said one thing at the beginning when she was up 30 points in the polls, and another thing when she was on the verge of losing.

Had she said the process was flawed from beginning to end, her words might be worth paying attention to.

just because she said them doesn't make the point false, though. disingenuous political maneuvering, sure, but just because a fool says the sky is blue, that doesn't make it green.

Wrong. The fact is, if she won the primary, we wouldn't be having a discussion about the nominating process that worked well for her husband back in 1992. No complaints there.

The real issue is that she couldn't win if she played by the rules, so the rules needed to change. They didn't. She lost.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Topic Title: who's got the onus of uniting the democratic party?

You stated the question better in your poll question. The word, "onus" means it's a negative burden. Replacing it with "responsiblity" is a start, but by definition, "uniting" the party requires willingness and effort from more than one side so the answer is "all of the above and more."

Obama's responsiblity is to reach out to Hillary's supporters while remaining true to the ideals and the image he's generated of himself and his campaign that won him the nomination.

If Hillary ever wants any future for herself in the Democratic party, her responisiblity is to get over herself and her loss and do everything she can to support Obama's candidacy as the nominee.