More than 60% of Clinton supporters in Iowa have never participated in the caucus.
I find that stunning.
"More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, which suggests that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated."
15. OR...the rage is so intense that people are doing what they've never done.
This is an angry country that feels its voice has been ignored. So the people are speaking up and trying to choose the person they best believe will represent their voice. Some have chosen Hillary, and some have chosen Obama. Or others. This may be their first entry into political activism, but it doesn't mean it will be their last.
And I don't think anyone has the right to call them "unreliable." Try "eager."
21. Or they could be party-switchers in the general, too. Don't we want to "steal" their voters?
The 75% of NY women who voted for her for Senate included millions of Republican women in Republican enclaves like upstate New York. The Rethug men hate her, but the women voted for her. Thank goodness for the secret ballot.
26. I don't think they see her as a pushover, I think they are pushing her
to get the vote out. They are counting on the anti-Hillary hoards to vote.
Was reading a Time magazine word count analysis of the last Republican debate (November issue I think) and Hillary was mentioned something like 34 times. The only thing spoken more often was the word "conservative" if I remember correctly. It was something along those lines. Surprised me.
28. I don't like Clinton, compared to other candidates - but that's bull
The "polarization" meme is crap, pure and simple. Things are already polarized. People are not going to switch to "the other guy" because of who the candidate is. In another year they might. But not for 2008 - Everybody knows that there's too much at stake to throw in to the Republicans (or stay home - same thing, really) just because the candidate is Clinton.
At this point and time, the only Republican candidate that could pose any competition to Clinton - or ANY of our candidates - would be Ron Paul. And I guarantee you, flat-out-promise-you-money-and-eat-my-hat guarantee you, that if the Repugnants are dumb enough to nominate Ron Paul, his campaign would implode within two months, tops.
Hillary is one of our weakest candidates. She has few strong positions, lots of weak ones, lots of baggage, and lots of people have an irrational loathing of her. And yet she would easily mop the floor with anyone the Republicans put in front of her. This is why I don't get our in-fighting here on DU. Our entire lineup is great. Some are better than others, and who fits where is a matter of opinion. But all of them are good for the job - and one of them is guaranteed to be sitting in the oval office by the end of January 2009
13. That broke the Whitewater and Monica stories, and shilled for Bush's Iraq war.
You might "respect" that, but most Democrats do not. And: "They referred to senior strategists in the Clinton campaign." isn't supported by anything in the story. And: "It is extremely unlikely the NYT or the senior strategists are lying." Is extremely naive.
23. Their political coverage in this century has been dismal.
And even their non-political coverage is often pathetic. I couldn't believe how they swallowed and enlarged upon the lies in the Duke rape hoax. Ed Bradley at 60 minutes showed far more integrity and responsible coverage.
31. Party insiders are not the same as caucus goers
Insiders are high elected officials of the party, high ranking employees, big donors. People like that. Some of them may be caucus voters too, but I wouldn't characterize most potential caucus goers as party insiders by any stretch of the imagination.
32. I realize that, but many DUers are making that connection.
And it is true that party insiders are much more likely than average voters to go to caucuses. Caucuses demand much more of a time commitment than many people are willing to spend. Not only do you have to spend hours at the first caucus, but you have to find people to elect who will spend the time and money to travel elsewhere for the higher level caucuses. The higher up the chain you go, the more you have to spend in time and money. This tends to weed out most of the average voters as you go along.
Which is why, having gone through the process in the past, I hate the system.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.