Unifying the Democratic Party...
By mehale
@mehale (2200)
United States
May 28, 2008 3:59pm CST
After such a long and bitter battle for the Democratic nomination, the DNC will have its work cut out for it in trying to unify the party again. So many of each candidate's supporters say that they will not vote for the other candidate. They will either not vote at all or vote for McCain. This does not look good....So, to turn this into a discussion, what is the best way for the new nominee (when we have one) to begin unifying the party? Should they pick the competing candidate as their VP? Or is there a better way?
4 people like this
7 responses
@livinglegend7 (114)
• United States
29 May 08
How can you truly, unify a party when the loser Sen. Clinton does not want Sen. Obama to become, the next President of the United States. The way The left wing of the Democratic Party treated Sen. clinton through this primary election process is terrible and the Cinton's will not show a lot of support for Sen. Obama in the general election campagin. Therefore, if i was Sen. Obama and I wanted to win I would pick Sen. Clinton for Vice president even though Sen. Obama does not like her or her husband.
2 people like this
@janisspaggiari59 (656)
• United States
29 May 08
If they don't nominate Hillary then we will have McCain for President.Hillary can go against him but Obama would lose out against him.So if you don't want McCain vote Hillary.Obama will not win the election.If its Hillary and McCain,
Hillary will win.If its Obama and McCain,McCain will win.If your a democrate its better to vote Hillary.
2 people like this
@irisheyes (4370)
• United States
30 May 08
I don't think they can get past this. The crime of it is that it's not so much the fault of the candidates as the fault of the DNC and Democrats like Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi who have been pushing and shoving and attempting to manipulate the outcome for months. If they had shut up and let things play out, the electorate would have felt it was a fair fight and accepted and lined up behind the candidate. But because of the ridiculous strong arming, at least half of the Democrats will never be happy with the outcome of this. Dems have seen primary races go right to the convention floor and still come up with a winner. (eg JFK) But they've never felt screwed over and manipulated by party leaders to this degree and I don't think the voters are going to get 100% behind the successful candidate. I also don't think they should both be on the same ticket. That would just be another powers-that-be manipulation at this point.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
30 May 08
Yes, the DNC has handled this very badly. This time around we actually have candidates on the Democratic side that I think really could make a difference, but due to the way the party leaders have handled the primaries it is all in a mess and there are bad feelings all around. I only hope this does not give McCain an open door into the White House!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
29 May 08
I still maintain and will continue to do so until I'm proven wrong that the Democratic party will be a lot more united than people may think right now. I can't imagine there being any large number of Democrats, no matter who they support now or how strongly they support him or her, will end up voting for McCain in November especially once they get to "know" him. I really don't expect to see Obama choose Hillary as his running mate but I could be wrong. In a way that would seem like an unbeatable ticket but in another way I'm not so sure because there are so many other excellent choices plus I'm not sure how well they'd work together. They're not far apart on the issues at all but I'm afraid their personalities may clash after all that's happened. Back to the main question of your post, I think the party will be just fine come November. There have been so many new voter registrations and for the first time in decades the youth vote is going to make a real difference, I think.
Annie
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
5 Jun 08
How did the Democratic Party officials give it to Obama? The voters chose him, pure and simple, that's all there is to it. I sure wouldn't feel safe with McCain in charge of that red phone. He's so confused lately he'll probably nuke the wrong country and someone on Fox will laugh it off that he had a "senior moment".
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
30 May 08
Well I'm glad I'm not a democrat. I can't imagine being a member of a party that doesn't bat an eyelash at disenfranchising millions of voters in Michigan and Florida. I'm glad people are finally starting to realize what happened because the media did a piss poor job of covering what the DNC did to those states until they realized Florida and Michigan could be deciding votes in the end. Now we're in a situation where Clinton wants the votes counted only because she won the states, and Obama naturally wants to continue disenfranchising voters because it wouldn't serve his interests to count those votes.
Anyone who values their right to vote and have their vote counted should not vote democrat. The DNC is a sorry excuse for a political organization and frankly have no business calling themselves "democrats" when they don't even support a democratic election. If I were a democrat I'd find a new political party to support.
Feel free to attack and insult me for what I've said. The fact is, the DNC decided to disenfranchise voters and will stand by their decision no matter what happens.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
30 May 08
I do agree with you that the individual voters should not be punished. However the states knew the rules and that they were breaking them when they held their primaries so early. So there should be some sort of punishment. Personally I think they should have to have a new election - allowing both candidates the chance to campaign in the states, and giving time for a real and fair election between the two. The states should have to pay for the new elections out of their pocket in order to make up for breaking the rules. But really a new election would be the only right and fair answer for the voters in these states. I doubt that will happen though.
@mehale (2200)
• United States
30 May 08
I do understand that the voters did not make the decision and did not have anything to do with it, however the members of the democratic party in both states (the ones who DO make the decisions) and the high up people in the state that set the primary date DID know they were breaking the rules when they set the primaries early. I am not holding the voters liable, rather the state. Also neither candidate was allowed to campaign in the state and Obama did not even have his name on the ballot in Michigan BECAUSE of the rule violation. Therefor the only truly fair thing to do would be to hold a re-vote, or split the delegates down the middle.
I can not say that I would be happy about it if it had happened here in my state, but I do realize the importance of rules and that there should be consequences to breaking them. Both Hillary and Obama were aware of the results holding the primaries in these states early would be, they could have made it more clear to the voters.
In reality the voters SHOULD HAVE been informed of what holding the primary early would mean and give them the opportunity to say do it anyway or no wait until we are supposed to have the primary. But since that was not done, we are left with a mess in which no one will be happy.
I am really not trying to start a fight here, and I really don't think it is right that the votes not count. That is why I truly think the best solution would be to hold another primary election.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
30 May 08
You still don't get it do you? Voters didn't break any rules. The decision to hold the primaries early was not made by voters in Florida or Michigan. Why should we, the innocent voters be punished? Why should we the innocent voters have to pay for another primary when the first one went just fine? Governor Crist in Florida said that reholding the primaries would cost Florida taxpayers at least $25 million. Why should my tax dollars be spent on a redundant election when the cut in property taxes has already led to many government employees in libraries, schools, 911, police, and fire departments being laid off?
If the senate in your state held primaries early, would you be happy knowing your vote didn't count? Would you be so laid back and content if the DNC decided to disenfranchise you because of a decision you had nothing to do with?
1 person likes this
@tdemex (3540)
• United States
28 May 08
I think most will come together, if Hillary really helps him out? That's the big question. Also I'm form Detriot and have lived in alot of places, my biggest worry is I know alot of white people who would never vote for a black guy, sorry to say but that is reality. However so many new people registered to vote I think the republicans are toast, It'll take YEARS to undo whats happended to this country.
2 people like this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
29 May 08
I hate to say it, but you are right...there are far too many people who still believe that either race or gender is a reason to vote / not vote for someone. This decision should be based on who can best lead our country and begin to repair the damage that has already been done. I only hope that McCain does not win the general election - he is way too close to Bush in his plans and thinking to suit me! I also wonder if Hillary will endorse Obama if she does not win the nomination?? I am not too sure about that either. Unfortunately, if he gets in office and nothing seems to improve quickly, most people will be sorry they voted for him and may not re-elect. And I really don't think any of the candidates could fix the problems facing our country quickly..there just is no quick fix.
1 person likes this
@Yestheypayme2dothis (7874)
• United States
29 May 08
It is not going to happen. I know Hillary said if she loses she will support him. What support means to her, I don't know...it may simply mean that she will vote for him. She is decent enough to say that she will support him but Obama has never said that of her. He has never said he would support her, and I cannot see it. Already a lot of her supporters have said that if he she loses they will vote for McCain. Obama has been very nasty to Hillary. She has better things to do. I cannot see her endorsing a men who belongs to a church that preaches hate of white people.
1 person likes this