Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

More than 60% of Clinton supporters in Iowa have never participated in the caucus.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:50 PM
Original message
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."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/politics/18dems.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. I admire any effort by any Dem to broaden the tent by bringing in new voters...
That being said, I find this surprising. People say Obama has a pool of unreliable caucus-goers... I guess Hillary does too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. My thoughts exactly. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yup. Name-recognition is very soft support.
The numbers show that Edwards' support is strongest as far as people who actually show up. Clinton also has the lowest favorability ratings of the top three.

With the numbers as they are today, Edwards will most likely win Iowa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #2
19. Which means that party insiders are favoring Edwards.
There goes the claim you here all the time here that party insiders are pushing Hillary down everyone's throats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #19
29. Makes no sense.
???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Or it could also mean that some of those supporters are gopers
going to the caucuses to ensure she has a good showing here. Conventional wisdom in the gop being she'll be a pushover in the general election due to her polarizing effect among voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
16. When spreading a slander, do try for a shred of evidence.
None? Oh, well. We should just believe you then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wapsie B Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
34. Slander? Give it a rest.
I'm just stating what I've observed from gopers around here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #3
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. I misread that "C" word. I thought it had read "circus".
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. LOL.
Good one! And ain't it the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. Having experienced one, I'd say that's a logical mistake. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
7. Worried yet? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. $$$
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. "senior strategists say" Who? Obama employees? Edwards shills?
Anonymous pundits? The NYT hates the Clintons. Always has. Always will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The NYT is a respected publication.
They referred to senior strategists in the Clinton campaign. It is extremely unlikely the NYT or the senior strategists are lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Best laugh of the day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clintonista2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:11 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. So is Robert Novak's stuff, right Calguy?
Edited on Sun Nov-18-07 01:12 AM by Lirwin2
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jonnyblitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. He likes Dick Morris , too.
:crazy: :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
25. Dick Morris means nothing to me, but I think he was spot on in the article. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
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.

I've lost the respect I used to have for the NYT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Very interesting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
11. I'm not sure why anyone would find this surprising.
Only a couple of the candidates are repeats from '04. In addition, new people enter the caucus field every election cycle.

Studies have shown that the majority of Iowa caucus-goers don't decide on a candidate until the last few days before the caucuses. Perhaps their "newness" has something to do with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
24. Because so many DUers are convinced that party insiders are the
main source of HRC's support, and that they're shoving her down everyone else's throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #24
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #31
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
18. Disproving the all too common claim that it's party insiders forming the backbone
of her support and pushing her down everyone else's throats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Froward69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:56 AM
Response to Original message
27. Hillary's policy of having a
caucus goer in every precinct "regardless of residency". although not illegal, is most unethical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Debi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Fro - a non-resident can 'observe' the caucus but not participate
and won't count toward the delegate count for Clinton.

It's not unethical under Iowa's Caucus rules.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
33. Maybe they didn't have a reason to.
Hillary gave them a reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antiimperialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
35. I like chubby girls
There's something about their fluffiness that attracts me, even though I'm a skinny guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 21st 2014, 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

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.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC