Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

sozobe wrote:

I think I answered that here:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3068685#3068685

Your argument is that if three-quarters of Dem voters still have a favourable opinion of Hillary, it's because they havent really been confronted with agressive attacks on her yet...?

sozobe wrote:

This article puts it to 1999:

http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2007/12/17/diagnosis_clinton_fatigue/

At any rate, while I suspect that I'll now get a lecture about how it's a conservative construction and that I'm just buying into it, it's a genuine phenomenon that I've observed on a scale much larger than just myself.

soz
If you look at my second link, the graph goes back to 92. click on a year and stories related to that year come up. Arrows allow movement through time or up/down on graph.

I'm not sure what the right answer is to this question, soz. I'm saying that oft-repeated statements regarding the matter are based on assumptions we can't take for granted.

I'm not sure what the right answer is to this question, soz. I'm saying that oft-repeated statements regarding the matter are based on assumptions we can't take for granted.

blatham wrote:

I'm not sure what the right answer is to this question, soz. I'm saying that oft-repeated statements regarding the matter are based on assumptions we can't take for granted.

Well, I'm sure that Clinton Fatigue is a real and widespread phenomenon among the most politically aware, those who follow the news day-to-day -- the university-educated, say.

It's definitely real among those with an activist stake in the future of the party, and among progressive critics and the blogger community, both of whom have been critical of the Clintons from the start.

But outside? Among rank-and-file Democratic voters? The polls dont show it. To most lower-income Dem voters, the Clinton years just represent relative prosperity.

Hillary's standing is low among Independents and that could well cost the Dems the elections - now there is a real argument. But count me unconvinced about the spread of Clinton fatigue among Democrats.

nimh wrote:

Your argument is that if three-quarters of Dem voters still have a favourable opinion of Hillary, it's because they havent really been confronted with agressive attacks on her yet...?

Not quite.

My argument is that some segment of current Dem voters who currently have a favorable opinion of Hillary will be vulnerable to having their minds changed by aggressive attacks on her, attacks which haven't yet happened.

blatham wrote:

I'm not sure what the right answer is to this question, soz. I'm saying that oft-repeated statements regarding the matter are based on assumptions we can't take for granted.

Well, I'm sure that Clinton Fatigue is a real and widespread phenomenon among the most politically aware, those who follow the news day-to-day -- the university-educated, say.

It's definitely real among those with an activist stake in the future of the party, and among progressive critics and the blogger community, both of whom have been critical of the Clintons from the start.

But outside? Among rank-and-file Democratic voters? The polls dont show it. To most lower-income Dem voters, the Clinton years just represent relative prosperity.

Hillary's standing is low among Independents and that could well cost the Dems the elections - now there is a real argument. But count me unconvinced about the spread of Clinton fatigue among Democrats.

blatham wrote:

sozobe wrote:

This article puts it to 1999:

http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2007/12/17/diagnosis_clinton_fatigue/

At any rate, while I suspect that I'll now get a lecture about how it's a conservative construction and that I'm just buying into it, it's a genuine phenomenon that I've observed on a scale much larger than just myself.

soz
If you look at my second link, the graph goes back to 92. click on a year and stories related to that year come up. Arrows allow movement through time or up/down on graph.

I'm not sure what the right answer is to this question, soz. I'm saying that oft-repeated statements regarding the matter are based on assumptions we can't take for granted.

Reagan fatigue
Charles Krauthammer
January 29, 1988
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1236645.html

I don't much see where Clinton fatigue among Democrats is an issue, to whatever extent it exists. The choir will sing its faithful song. I do, on the other hand, see where Clinton fatigue among Independents could be a make or break phenomena. Anybody think 527's won't be able to remind any Independents why they don't want the Clintons back?

dKos Reader Poll. 1/30/07 9:58 a.m. to 8:27 p.m. PT. 17,995 respondents.

2008 2007
Jan30 Jan24 Jan16 Jan07 Jan02 Dec19 Dec12 Nov Oct

Obama 76 41 41 39 27 27 30 27 16
H. Clinton 11 9 11 7 7 6 8 9 9
Other 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
No F'ing Clue 6 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 5

-------Out of the race--------

Edwards - 42 38 43 48 41 39 33 31
Kucinich - 2 4 4 3 5 8 9 5
Dodd - - - - 4 11 2 7 21
Biden - - - - 1 2 2 2 1
Richardson - - - 1 1 1 1 1 2
Gravel* - - - - 0 0 0 0 0

Damn! Thanks Cyclo!

The latest Democratic numbers show Hillary Clinton with a 43% to 39% advantage over Barack Obama among Democratic voters nationwide. That 4-point lead is the narrowest since early January, and it is a continuation of gains by Obama. The impact of John Edwards' exit from the Democratic race is less clear. Wednesday night's numbers (the first with Edwards excluded from the ballot) show no clear indication that either candidate is benefiting disproportionately. Clinton and Obama will debate in California tonight, which could affect Democrats' support for the two candidates going into the weekend before Super Tuesday's primaries and caucuses