From Gallup:
A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.
Of course, if there ever was a candidate who could botch the opportunity being created by Democratic infighting, it's John McCain.
UPDATE: And then this:
There are going to be some women that think Clinton was treated unfairly in this process because of her gender, but very few of them will be able to harbor the kind of lingering resentment toward the Obama campaign that would preclude them from supporting him in the fall.
Is there a "conventional wisdom" assumption that Hillary's supporters are more likely to support Obama than the reverse? If so, why?
I have voted Republican for over 30 years. I would not vote for McCain if he were running for the outhouse.
In the context of hope, it's still not too late to do something for the GOP and the Country, by getting involved in McCain's derailment.
Sign the petition to have McCain prosecuted for violations of FEC rules. Its a bi-partisan thing that a liberal like J. Sidney would approve of.
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/petition/mccainfec/koinq
Trying to bring this back on topic here... I'll vote for McCain because he's the best candidate on the ticket. I care about whether or not I trust my candidate. I think the feeling among Obama supporters (I supported Richardson, but Obama was my second, albeit reluctant, choice if McCain didn't get the nod) is that they couldn't trust Hillary farther than they could comfortably spit a live rat. I don't think that feeling is returned in the other direction because Obama isn't toxic-- just not quite ready to be the Commander-in-Chief.
Kem
Amen, Kem, on your Hillary observation. Given her lying and prevarications, I'm always kind of flummoxed as to why her voters are willing to follow her to the destruction of the party.
If she's the Dem nominee, I'm voting for McCain. At least he fired a staffer who was egging on the Rev. Wright thing, as opposed to her staff attempting to keep flaming that mess up.
Rasmussen seems to be confirming the sentiments of Democratic voters and the growing wedge between them:
"Twenty-two percent (22%) of Democratic voters nationwide say that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that an identical number—22%--say that Barack Obama should drop out."
Another rough day for Obama... especially now that new video has vindicated Hillary's Bosnia claims of sniper fire:
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
That just shows that 22% of those polled are idiots.
There is no possible justification that Obama should drop out other than "I just want my candidate to win." They might as well have asked, "Should Obama be executed so Clinton can win?"
Oh well, this shows why I trust the Democratic party about zero and the Republican party even less.
What could be more unifying than left, right, center, libertarians, and statists pulling together against McCain?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/fit-mccain-for-leg-irons-by-dday-john.html
Imagine an election without McCain...Imagine an election with Candidates...
http://action.firedoglake.com/page/petition/mccainfec/koinq
I'd expect Dems to come to their senses and unify around their candidate. But that will largely depend on whether Hillary decides to hang on by her teeth and nails until the very last dog dies, that particular dog in this case being any hope for a Dem in the White House in 2009. It's hard not to conclude that Hillary would prefer to win the nomination and lose the general election than to have her party win the general election with someone else. The Clintons used to complain about "the politics of personal destruction" -- but that's apparently only when they're on the receiving end.
Having said that, it's also worth pointing out that Hillary's inner circle are being paid ungodly amounts of $$$ on a month-by-month basis. Their communications director gets a quarter million a month. Is he going be the one to say, "Hillary, maybe it's time to quit"?
"The Clintons used to complain about "the politics of personal destruction" -- but that's apparently only when they're on the receiving end."
I'm glad that everyone is figuring this out now. This was their SOP during the 1990s, too.
I don't think that what they gave in the 1990s was anything near what they got in the "politics of personal destruction" category. Putatively sane people were going around claiming they'd had Vince Foster bumped off.
Lynn Sweet from the Sun-Times had a little blurb late last week about how Clinton's campaign is running into $$$$ trouble AGAIN!! (fundraising has dropped off--imagine that!!)
I, for one, am curious to see how many of her staff start working unpaid again (like they did before Patty Solis-Doyle got fired), and how long they'll keep urging her to stay in the race when they haven't got money for their own rent or mortgage or groceries...