Rasmussen poll of Dems (5/23) shows why a unity ticket is essential

Link to that story on Rasmussen's site:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/fewer_democrats_want_hillary_to_drop_out

I posted about the poll using the Rasmussen headline in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6153756

but I want to focus here on what their findings suggest about the importance of a unity ticket.

Their own headline was about fewer Democrats now feeling Clinton should drop out of the race than felt that way earlier.

It was suggested here at DU that they feel that way because they expect this to be over in a week, but that ignores Rasmussen's findings that 81% of Democrats think it's at least somewhat likely this race will be decided at the convention, and 48% believe that's "very likely."

And although 32% of Democrats feel Clinton should drop out, 23% feel Obama should drop out.

That Rasmussen article also points out that an earlier survey showed that 29% of Dems feel that Clinton should run as an independent if she isn't the Democratic nominee.

And yes, of course I know that isn't a possibility.

But it shows how strong her support is in the party.

Rasmussen also found that 46% of Democrats believe she'd be the stronger candidate against McCain in the GE, while only 44% of Democrats feel that Obama would be the stronger candidate.

Obama supporters are kidding themselves if they believe Obama can ignore Clinton and her supporters and win the GE without her on the ticket. I've thought for months that neither candidate would have a good chance of winning in November without a unity ticket. After seeing the results of that Rasmussen survey, I believe there's zero chance Obama can win in November if Clinton isn't on the ticket.

I want to make it clear that this does not mean I hope he'll lose. I've posted about the importance of winning the GE before -- check my journal.

But I'm more aware than ever that some Democrats will sit out the election or vote for someone other than the Democratic nominee if their favorite isn't the nominee, or at least on the ticket.

I'm no longer going to condemn them for feeling that strongly -- and I don't think Obama supporters have any right to condemn Clinton supporters for not wanting to vote for him when so many of them say they'd never vote for Clinton. A unity ticket might lose some Democratic votes, and I'm not going to say those Democrats who wouldn't vote for it aren't Democrats. I've realized that's a ridiculous charge to make whether it's Obama supporters angry about Clinton supporters who dislike him, or Clinton supporters angry about Obama supporters who dislike her. They're all Democrats, and I don't want to lose any of their votes. But I believe the number of Democrats who won't support a unity ticket is much smaller than the number who'll refuse to vote for the ticket if their favorite isn't on it, at least as VP.

I'd like to win the general election. I believe we'll need a unity ticket, and both Obama and Clinton will have to convince their supporters to accept it.

think hillary would be good for obama...

Frankly, we will lose independents and cross over republicans if she is chosen. That will constitute more than those the will hold to their guns and defect if she is not the nominee or 2nd to Obama.

She is too polarizing.

then Clinton wouldn't be consistently doing better in polls of the relative strength against McCain in the GE.

Menino against Obama-Clinton ticket
Husband would overshadow new president, he says

Mayor Thomas M. Menino said that Hillary Clinton should not run for vice president on a ticket with Barack Obama because her husband, former president Bill Clinton, could cause problems for the new administration.
more stories like this

"If she got back into the White House, she'd bring along Big Daddy, and he would overshadow the president," Menino said in an interview.

Bill Clinton is "pushing real hard" for his wife to be Obama's running mate, Time magazine reported this week.

Menino, 65, was reelected to his fourth term as mayor in 2005. He endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, Democrat of New York, in 2007 and is a pledged Clinton delegate to the Democratic convention in August.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/05/23/menino_against_obama_clinton_ticket/

Clinton(s) on the ticket would be a disaster.

The entire campaign would be about Clinton(s) ... the radical Republicans are surely salivating at the idea of Clinton(s) as VP.

If all you want to hear from the end of August until November is "Monica! Monica! Monica!" -- then put Clinton(s) on the ticket.

The 'unity' ticket would better include someone like Gov. Strickland, a strong Clinton(s) supporter from an important swing state.

And face it, It is Billary.

I don't think Bill could be vetted now after his dealings with
the Middle East, Columbia and Presidential library funding.

that is fairly low.

Or reality.

Hill said Obama isn't qualified. If she puts him on her ticket she's either risking America's security or she's a big fat stinking liar. Either way, who in their right mind would vote for her?

Obama has been running on change, on a new direction for a year and a half. If he puts Clinton on his ticket he's advertising that he was lying about that.

If you want to lose the general election, the surest way is to publicly prove our candidate is a big fat liar. And that's what you seem intent on doing.

In fact, at the first debate with just the two of them, he opened with an observation about just how good it would be for our Republic for either of them to be our nominee and the next president. He has kept to a fairly consistent non-negative campaign against Clinton. Not entirely, as it is not possible to avoid getting into a fight with someone determined to have a shit-flinging contest, but enough so that he can still put Clinton on the ticket without 'proving he is a liar'. The 'but he is for change' argument is remarkably weak. Clinton has a bigger problem here, but it is only the VP slot.

animosity with stepping all over your own message.

The reason Obama can't put Clinton on his ticket (and visa versa if that were the case) isn't because of insults or name calling. It;'s because the core messages of each campaign already exclude the possibility.

I think Obama's change message has been remarkably strong and has resonated through the electorate. Clinton, on the other hand has run on being Bill Clinton's 3rd term. You know, back to the good ol' days.

You don't "turn the page" by re-installing the personalities of the 90s in the White House.

So, IMHO, Obama's campaign message precludes putting Clinton on the ticket.

Sure there is also animosity, but that alone wouldn't stop a "unity" ticket if there were an up side. But not only is there no up side, there is the down side of trampling on the message that won the primary and that will win the GE.

push their Bushprotecting Clintons onto the rest of the party that - guess what - has WISED UP to the Bushprotecting Clinton acts.

He is three worse than Clinton at 35%.

Obama should not pick his VP based upon a right wing poll.

The small group of people here that are so adamantly against this do not represent the majority of Democratic voters.

Neither Obama nor Clinton have ever ruled this out and I suspect that their relationship is much more positive than many here think.

I, and the majority of Democratic voters, would be very happy to see this as the ticket. Those that have bought into the lies and spin about one candidate or the other will not, but, again, they do not represent the majority of voters.

Thanks so much for taking the time to put this together. Great piece.