nimh wrote:sozobe wrote:But yes, I have been reading a whole lot about black voters who are mad at both Hillary and Bill and saying they won't vote for her if she ends up with the nomination. (Not just black voters, though.
Here's something I just read about a white voter who says, "I know 19 white people who showed up today but won't be there in the general election. And if we do it'll be for McCain or Bloomberg.")
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:people are not nearly as angry with Hillay as Obama's rabid supporters and the media would have you think...
Of these two observations, Bear's is more relevant to overall outcomes. I dont doubt that there are activists in the Obama camp and black voters who closely followed the whole race spat this month and were upset by it, who are now turned off by Hillary -- even to the point of no longer wanting to vote for her in the general elections. But that's stuff that's big within the activist world and on the blogosphere, where such complaints are magnified and repeated. But take a step back and look at the overall voting population, and all this is pretty much inside baseball. People are not nearly as angry with Hillary as you would think reading the political blogs or activists' email.
Hillary's favourables among Democrats are still skyhigh. There is hardly light between hers and Obama's among them. Among black voters some hesitation has emerged, but its still very much minority stuff. Look at that CNN poll I just quoted - the percentage of blacks who say they believe Hillary understands their problems and concerns is down 13 - but still at 75%. Three quarters is still a pretty overhwelming approval.
All of which also means that Finn's hopes of a black "anger" extending beyond the Clintons to the Democratic Party overall is pie in the sky.
Significant fractures in the Democratic coalition will reveal themselves first at the level of activists and influential opinion makers, and so looking to current polls at the voter level is premature.
Nevertheless, a drop of 13 points, in such a relatively short time, in the poll you cite
is a surprisingly dramatic shift. We need to keep in mind the place (thanks largely to Bill) where the Clintons began. Bill Clinton is, arguably, the most favored white politician in the black community since FDR. This is the man that prominent black leaders have called The First Black President. Any double digit drop in black faith in the Clintons is significant, and I'll bet you a sizeable amount of money that Hillary and her campaign staff aren't dismissing it when they are behind closed doors.
In any case, my prediction (which you characterize as my "hope") does not contemplate the structural damage in the party clearly manifesting itself any earlier than the end of the primaries, and possibly not until after the general election. It is also predicated upon the current rancor continuing or growing. For certain we should be able to see signs of it in polls and primary results going forward, but no matter what damage the Clintons are able to inflict, Obama winning the nomination will go a long way towards repairing it, and that outcome is likely still months away.
I can understand why admirers and the faithful of the Democratic party wish to dismiss this fissure as nothing more than a hairline crack caused by overzealous campaign workers and kept in the news by a blogosphere hungry for controversy. I think, though, that you're whistling past the graveyard.
We'll see soon enough. Party leaders are making a real effort to put an end to the ruckus. If they are successful the mess will fade away before too long. If they are not and the Clinton and Obama campaigns view winning the nominations more important than preserving party unity, its sure to heat up further.
Flip McCain and Hill and insert Giuliani near the top and you'd have my list there. Edwards ranks less than zero with me too. 
(I know, I know... you just forgot to include him).