This study has been a distressing confirmation of my publicly stated view here long ago that Clinton supporters seemed more strident than Obama supporters. When I made that point, I was shouted down and told that it wasn't true. On that simple point, it seems that those who argued--and I remember several--that Obama supporters were threatening to defect at a greater rate than the reverse have been proven categorically wrong.

Many of us have struggled above all else to keep the peace while remaining honest about our views--trying hard not to alienate opposing voters because we knew how much we'd need them in the fall, but for the most part I have seen petty gotcha-style bickering that's become monstrous in tone. I wish so much that people would allow reason to reign. A few thoughts:

1. @Carol H.: Your scenarios are based on what? All of a sudden you're discounting your own candidate's rhetoric on Iraq and taking someone else's word that she's not going to pull out right away--a charge she vehemently denies? Both Clinton and Obama have said they'd support a gradual withdrawal of troops within a couple months in office. Are you aware of how absolutely illogical it is to completely absorb as truth the new talking point that the three scenarios are 1. McCain stays longer but not in a bad way, 2. Clinton pulls out more gradually than she promised, but reasonably, and 3. Obama pulls out in trigger-like fashion and causes a bloodbath?? Literally in one day, you've accepted the talking points that McCain's plan is not so bad and Hillary's not going to keep her promise but that's OK, and Obama--whose plan is actually Clinton's plan on paper--is the only one who will stick to it and that's a bad thing?

@Michelle: So you're going to vote for McCain because you don't like Obama supporters? I'm asking you in total earnestness, Do you think Obama supporters have been happy with the attacks by Clinton supporters? In all sincerity, and it's now sort of proven that her supporters have been more strident, something that was obviously clear on this website to me long ago and could probably easily be studied empirically, can you actually say that many, many Obama voters haven't been thoroughly turned off by the mocking, sneering language of Clinton fans who've labeled them as childlike and delusional--clearly insulting--not to mention sexist? How do you justify that Obama supporters are more willing to coalesce, more willing to stay independent in looking at the candidates themselves rather than allow the immaturity and nastiness of their supporters to influence them? I'd really like an answer.

3. To all Clinton supporters: How can you not see this as absolute evidence that the Clintons are divisive? I don't care how or why--whether it's a character flaw or the media's fault or whatever--how can you possibly not see this poll as evidence that the Clintons inspire a kind of tribal mentality in people that transcends reason? You simply can't say the same about Obama supporters or claim that they "hate Clinton" because they're the ones willing to switch to her if necessary.

I'm truly confounded and wish there was reasonable dialogue once again on salon. I'm not proud of the name calling that's gone in your direction, but it's certainly gone both ways and that's no reason to throw your principles out the window.

is the only answer to prevent this from happening again. Apparently it never occurred to the Democratic party that they'd actually get two great nominees. In the future we need to vote all at once and early, before any of us gets emotionally attached.