• Your cart is currently empty.
Latina Lista: News from the Latinx perspective > Palabra Final > Politics > Latest Poll Underscores Democrats Have Forgotten Where Party Loyalties Should Lie

Latest Poll Underscores Democrats Have Forgotten Where Party Loyalties Should Lie

LatinaLista — The first time a study was done that foretold that supporters of one candidate would throw a political temper tantrum by not supporting the opponent if their candidate wasn’t nominated as the party candidate, was a study commissioned by the Obama campaign regarding Latino youth.
That these young people, who were pouring their hearts and passion into their first presidential election, would behave in such a “juvenile” fashion wasn’t surprising. They had yet to learn that though a particular candidate may be more appealing, in the end it’s all about the Party.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll that was conducted from March 14-16, revealed that if Obama wins, a majority of Clinton supporters, 51%, would be upset. It went up from being 35% in January.
In a Gallup Poll taken March 7-22, 19% of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. If Obama is the nominee, 28% of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain.
According to news reports, these kinds of numbers are striking fear into the Democratic party. The feeling is that if Democrats become so divided if their candidate-of-choice is not elected and throw their votes for McCain, then there goes the White House — again.
There are hints that some in Washington are working behind the scenes to guilt Latino voters into accepting Obama as the candidate if he should be chosen — given the fact that a sizeable number of Latinos favor Clinton over Obama.
However, again people are emphasizing the person over the Party.
For all the Latinos whom Latina Lista has interviewed since the Presidential campaigning started, none, who were Democrats, have declared themselves as “Republicans for a Day” if Clinton doesn’t get the nomination.
For those Democrats, who would rather concede the White House, rather than see another candidate from their own party win the nomination, they are the ones who have forgotten that loyalty should be afforded the party, not the individual.
The party is the collective embodiment of shared ideals, hopes and frustrations relevant to its members. The party candidate, any party candidate, symbolizes those same basic tenets of the party shared by their members and will bring those with him/her to higher office, as opposed to the opposing party’s candidate.
It’s obvious that too much weight is being given to Obama by his supporters. The biggest fear is not that he would win the nomination, alienating Clinton supporters, but that he wouldn’t be able to stay on the collective pedestal his supporters have placed him on because of unrealistic expectations in the individual — beyond what the party already promises.
That would not be fair to him or any candidate who is seen separate from their party.
It’s time to get back to party politics — as it was meant to be.

Related posts

Comment(8)

  • Avatar
    Stentor
    March 27, 2008 at 12:01 am

    I have a lot of trouble with demands for loyalty to the party. Parties are institutions and as such liable to corruption, losing sight of their goals, etc (and the Democratic Party is particularly guilty of this). And it has too much echo of demands to conform and subordinate oneself to authority.
    I think the case for Obama supporters to vote for Clinton or vice-versa in the general election is made just as effectively, and without the collectivist baggage, if we talk in terms of loyalty to values. Values are fundamental, parties are just imperfect tools for avancing them. The harshness of the primary fight, combined with the media’s fawning over McCain as some kind of moderate, make it too easy to lose sight of the fact that Obama and Clinton are comparatively similar — and leaps and bounds ahead of McCain — in terms of how well they will advance the values that make us care about who’s president in the first place.

  • Avatar
    EYES OF TEXAS
    March 27, 2008 at 8:56 am

    Worst lot of candidates I have seen in my lifetime. It comes down to voting for the one that will do the least damage to America and to the people. Clinton, in full Democrap fashion, will have to raise taxes to support all the government social services she wants to create. Obama, with his racist mentor/pastor, will set the racial divide back to the 1950,s level and also be intent on raising taxes to include a new “Green tax”. That leaves McCain, old, tired and unable to do anything with a Democrap controlled House and Senate. He has already stated that the citizens are burdened with enough taxes already and does not see any increases necessary. So, with no new taxes and not being able to do anything to damage the country, he sounds like the one for the WH.

  • Avatar
    Texano78704
    March 27, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Ha! Like the ad in the HuffPo article, someone forgot to tell the traditional media that Obama already has enough delegates to win the nomination. Congressional party leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are pushing for the super delegates to back the popular vote, which would further assure Obama’s nomination.
    There has been some serious polarization of the Democratic party between candidates Obama and Clinton, but I have a feeling that will change by the convention and a candidate is officially nominated. I really cannot imagine anyone being such a sore loser that they would embrace a Bush clone (McCain).

  • Avatar
    Irma
    March 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    Up until this election I have towed the
    party line. I voted for John Kerry because I
    am a member of the Democratic party even though I KNEW he was not going to win and that he was not my choice for
    President (Edwards was).
    No more. If my choice for the Dem
    nominee doesnt get the nomination –
    I wont vote Democrat.
    Will I vote at all ? I am still struggling with that.

  • Avatar
    Horace
    March 27, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Your youth base in the Democratic party is immature. As the result, there will be no unity after the primaries are over, and those whose candidate fails to win the nomination will either stay home in November or vote for McCain. Obama and Hillary can’t spend months of tearing away at each other without eaches supporters becoming infected beligerents. Better a solid mature adult core than two spiteful youth factions, any day. We’ll wind up with brain scrambled McCain, and the dems appearing as the laughing stock of politics, like two outfielders on the same team, bases loaded, two outs, one up in the ninth, and vying for the same pop-up ball, with neither catching it. Good luck you dems, as you’re cooking your own goose. This couldn’t be more funny if it had been scripted in Hollywood.

  • Avatar
    Publius
    March 27, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Nonsense. It makes perfect sense that the super delegates help decide the election, especially after the current self-destructive course their candidates ahave taken. By the time the finish pummeling one another, the polls might indicate that the leader in pledged delegates is unelectable. How wise would it be to select a candidate that can’t hold up to McCain?

  • Avatar
    Jax
    March 28, 2008 at 9:05 am

    I’m beginning to think that we may have a Gore/Obama ticket.
    I could support that!

  • Avatar
    EYES OF TEXAS
    April 1, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Gore/Obama!!!!!! TAX, TAX, TAX, and TAX SOME MORE. No Thanks.

Comments are closed.

8 Comments