Now that it looks like Obama has a very strong shot for the candidacy, one has to ask this question: will he be able to get Clinton supporters on board with him?

As unfortunate as it may seem to Obama supporters, Clinton supporters make up about 50% of the Democratic party. She has won huge states, including two enormous states whose delegates probably won't be seated. Sure she might be losing momentum, but the margins are not by enough where Obama can feel as if the Clinton camp is fully on board with him.

And as unfortunate as it may seem to Obama supporters, he needs the voters that she has. These voters aren't swayed by his rhetoric, and aren't that impressed with his record.

But, more importantly, his constituents cannot seem to support their candidate without shitting on the other candidate. It is one thing for a politician to fling some mud, it is expected, it's another for his supporters to spew vitriol all over someone else's candidate. I know I've been personally turned off by it.

So this begs the question: can Obama find a way to get these reluctant Dems on board with him, despite the fact that this ungracious supporters have spent the last few months vilifying Clinton in every possible way? Will there be enough time between the primary and the general to make amends and reunify the party? What tools will he use, since there seems to be a large percentage that just aren't buying what he's selling?

Good point. On the other hand, what will they do instead? Vote for McCain?

Actually, the Clinton's situation was pretty much reversed back in 92. They had completely alienated the Bradley/ Tsongas wing of the party. Yet when it came down to it, these people were not turned off enough to bolt for Perot or GHW Bush.

The primaries always have to end with a little unity & healing pow-wow. I don't see why this one would be any different.

I think that they just might. Or they might just sit out. No one wants to feel coerced into the vote. Obama supporters feel the same way if Clinton had won the primaries. I'm not saying there won't be unity and healing, I'm saying, how is he going to make it happen?

To be honest, I actually think that Clinton would have had an easier time healing the party because she could at least fall back on her policies and the idea that, although you don't like her or she doesn't represent philosophical changes, she will represent tangible social and economic change, and make the country better (that is what she would say at least). Whereas Obama is still a roll of the dice, and that doesn't bode well for a voter who is both smarting *and* skeptical.

This is how I see it going down (or at least, what he would need to do to garner my support): he's going to have to get specific, which is something everyone has been waiting for, and it will have to be better than McCain (in terms of workability as well as ideology. We've all seen what happens when ideology overrides practicality).

Clinton and Obama also have to do some reconciliatory photo-op, or some such, and Obama supporters will have to put a lid on it for once.

Any other thoughts?

mercadia, Hillary supporters have been doing the same thing over and over again. So this begs the question, can Hillary find a way to get these reluctant Dems on board with her? What makes his supporters ungracious? Because they don't buy into her rhetoric. You are no better than you claim the Obama supporters are.

See, that is not productive. I already said how I would expect Hilary to go about it.

And I personally do not like my candidate being ridiculously compared to Nixon, Eva Peron, and Satan. That is just going too far. You can discuss a candidates past, and how that might affect a presidency, without perpetuating it yourself.

So, do you have something substantial to say about unifying the party, or not?

Actually, I think the vast majority of people on both sides are civil and respectful of their opponents. Otherwise, why is there such support for the "dream ticket" scenario of Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama? (Not that such a scenario would ever happen--Obama would not want to be fighting for second place with Bill, nor would he want Hillary's negatives if he were the nominee.) Yes, there is a noisy, nasty minority on both sides who spew venom, but they are a minority and I think most voters are aware of that.

Bear in mind also that venom is vastly magnified on the Internet, and nowhere more than in forums dedicated to political discussion. What we online political junkies see isn't necessarily what most people experience.

Very true!

So, do you think Obama won't have to do anything stragically to garner the support of the Clinton supporters? That could be true.

You're right about Clinton having to reach out to the Tsongas supporters in '92...and obviously they came on board, because the guy won (Perot helped by splitting the conservative vote). Back in '04, the Deaniacs pretty much got on board with Kerry, I think...at least, I didn't see any fallout in the results and the Dems *won* VT, ME, and NH, where one would expect dispirited Deanies to fall away (of course, Kerry was from New England, too). No, I think the big rift was in '84, when Gary Hart lost the nomination to Walter Mondale in a contentious primary season. Now, I do think either man would have been steamrollered by Reagan, but I think all the Hart supporters were pretty much able to get on board with Mondale, even though he didn't pick Hart, but Geraldine Ferrarro as his running mate.

Salientman:
What do you think about it in terms of this primary? Has it been as contentious as I perceive it to be, or am I being miopic? The polls aren't very specific.

Mercadia:

It certainly SEEMS fractious, in a way I don't remember from Kerry/Edwards/Dean or Gore/Bradley (if that was even a race), but then again, this one has gone on longer than either of those others. However, remember the attack ads on Dean from Gephardt? With the two retirees saying he needed to take his "wine-sipping, canape-eating, hair-grooming, etc. etc. self back to Vermont where he belongs?" Pretty rough stuff.

I haven't seen any polls recently about whether Hil supporters would be happy with a Barack nominee, and vice-versa. Earlier in the campaign, the numbers indicated 77% of Obamites and 83% of Clintonians would be satisfied with the other as nominee. I don't know if that's dropped off lately. I also don't know if the MI/FL divide has polarized some folks. I'd be interested to see if anyone's taken any data on these fronts in Wisconsin or Ohio or Texas.

As a Hillary supporter, I think people would rally around the nominee. However, the worst thing Obama could do would be to *assume* our support. I'm sure, for every Obama-person who thinks Hillary is shrill and evil, there's a Hillary-supporter who thinks Obama is vacuous, cultish, and ineffectual. So, obviously, some healing has to be done.

However, there are two problems:

(1) There is an increasingly little time for the nominee to unite the party. And I see no way around this. I think Hillary owes both herself and her supporters to stick it out 'til Ohio and Texas. If she loses one, she should withdraw. However, if she wins both, she should fight on 'til Pennsylvania in April. Neither candidate will get a majority of pledged delegates before the Convention. However, either candidate can get a majority of actual votes, which would give a powerful argument for a popular mandate. Because, really, who cares about the byzantine delegate allocation rules Iowa, Nevada and Texas dream up? Count the votes.

(2) McCain, while he might not get the support of Democrats, is respected and/or *not feared* by many, many people. Thus, it is a dangerous position when many people, like me, think "Well, a McCain presidency wouldn't be *that* bad." What that translates to is less motivated supporters, canvassers, donors, etc. This is particularly true if McCain comes across (which he seems from his recent comments) as the more substantial and heavy-weight candidate. Of course, an Obama candidacy would be buttressed by someone more able to speak in the prose of governance - that would appeal to many Hillary-supporters, I think.

mercadia:

But, more importantly, his constituents cannot seem to support their candidate without shitting on the other candidate. It is one thing for a politician to fling some mud, it is expected, it's another for his supporters to spew vitriol all over someone else's candidate. I know I've been personally turned off by it.

At the risk of later being accused of shitting on you and your candidate, let me start by saying that I think the question is off-base. Are you saying you might refuse to support Obama not because of anything he's done or because of his character or because of any substantive differences with him on policy, but rather because you don't like his supporters? The Constitution doesn't specify any criteria upon which citizens should cast their votes, but this strikes me as a dumb reason. But that's up to you.

However, I don't think many people will make the same calculation you have. Whereas Hillary seems to be a love-her-or-hate-her proposition for many people, Obama is not. Most Hillary supporters quite like him, but simply think he should wait his turn and that he's not quite ready for the job. They see him as the lesser of two goods. That being the case, I don't think he will have much trouble getting Hillary's supports on board at all.

Just for one example, check out this superdelegate who was on CNN yesterday talking about how awesome Hillary is and who today announced he's supporting Obama. If Limbaugh can back McCain, surely Hillary fans can get behind Obama.

One other reason why I don't think it will be as big a problem as you think it will:

I think it may be that your perspective has been skewed by your having gotten into many flame wars with Obama supporters in the Fray before. Flame wars are often nasty, and you may therefore perceive far more nastiness from Obama supporters than the typical HRC supporter perceives. As a result, you may be overstimating the degree to which perceived nastiness of a candidate's online supporters influences his opponent's supporters to resist party-unification after a nomination has been decided. In actuality, it is only a minority subset of HRC supporters who would be influenced in this way.

Most people buy into the meme (widely circulated in the MSM) that the differences between HRC and BHO are more stylistic than substantive. HRC supporters who agree with that meme may simply find her the better of two good options, but they still like both. For them, it won't be hard to settle for their second-favorite candidate.

Hillary's base is 65+ year old white Democratic women. they'll vote Democratic in the general. they won't need persuading.

I think you're right. The debate tonight helped as well, both candidates did pretty well, and it ended nicely.