Enthusiasm

This finding from Gallup provides an interesting look at the enthusiasm gap between the parties. Even with the Clinton-Obama race reaching a new level of heatedness in blog comment threads and email lists everywhere, it remains the case that each contender is seen as an unusually high-quality candidate over sixty percent of Democrats. By contrast, fewer than ten percent of Democrats see either contender as unusually weak. Consequently, you mostly have a primary in which two well-liked candidates are trying to secure the support of voters who like them both.

And even though I've got a clear preference in the race, I'd very much put myself in the category of people who's happy with both his options. Especially in domestic policy terms, the Clinton 2008 agenda is far, far better than Kerry 2004, Gore 2000, or Clinton 1996. In large part, of course, that reflects not the intrinsic attributes of Clinton and Obama, but the changing nature of our times and the leftward gravitational pull exercised by the Edwards campaign, but it's still the field we've got and it's a very strong one.

Comments

Matthew is ignoring the electability factor. There's no use nominating a candidate if she's not electable. Barack's charima makes it so that the more people know him, the more people like him and therefore more likely they are to vote for him. Clinton has the opposite effect that the more people know her, the more they dislike her and therefore less likely to vote for her. This makes it so that there's no contest the only possible candidate to support is Barack and not Hillary.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 9:27 AM

But who would you feel comfortable having a beer with?

Posted by Stupid American | February 14, 2008 9:28 AM

Put me in the categary that thinks Clinton is the best candidate in my lifetime.

Obama I used to think highly of. In fact before the campaign began I held him far higher and Clinton far lower in my estimation. Now I will not vote for Obama in the general election. I will not ignore my liberal values, nor my nations future for the sake of another monomaniac with no substantive moral center. We already had one of those and look where that got us.

Posted by ken | February 14, 2008 9:31 AM

Funny you mention email list.
From NPR
Reports from Clinton's campaign show that on Dec. 3, it collected payment for renting out three mailing lists, the sale of which netted them $8,225.
She's renting out her email list for a paltry $8,225. Is this something all candidates do?

Posted by bjd | February 14, 2008 9:37 AM

Ken, what on earth are you talking about?

On domestic policy Clinton is fine, but the elephant in the room is that on foreign policy she's not good, and her advisors are awful, she's clearly in the camp that believes the war in Iraq was a good idea, just poorly carried out. I don't think most Democrats really feel that way. You could argue that Clinton should be more acceptable to pro-war moderate Republicans because she's a hawk, but most Republicans are so consumed with Clinton hatred that they just don't care.

Also, why would anyone believe that Clinton will do anything to roll back the very unAmerican growth in executive power over the last 8 years?

Clinton supporters never address these issues - they just start screaming about the "cult of Obama."

Posted by vanya | February 14, 2008 10:02 AM

even McCain's advisers think Obama is a great guy.

I will not ignore my liberal values, nor my nations future for the sake of another monomaniac with no substantive moral center.

but you'll vote for Hillary ?

Posted by cleek | February 14, 2008 10:02 AM

I generally agree with Matt on this, but I have an advantage because I'm happy with all three of my options.

Hillary's biggest negative is domestic policy, where she instinctively went for the Big Government answer on the mortgage crisis. But I trust her not to abandon our principles (and principals) in Iraq.

Obama is my preference too, but he will blow his opportunity if he rides the "I was right" pony too long. He's supposed to be serious, which doesn't allow for that kind of over-simplification, especially when it's based on ideology rather than data. His best moment so far was acknowledging that he's not sure what he would have done if he'd been in the Senate at the time.

Posted by Robert Powell | February 14, 2008 10:07 AM

Matt is spot on. Support whichever who want to in the primary, but they are both good candidates. So if your candidate loses be proud that he or she put on a good campaign and then support the winner against McCain, who we cannot afford to have elected. Really, we are all on the same team here. Really.

Posted by bajsa | February 14, 2008 10:08 AM

bajsa, we are not all on the same team. Most of us are on the team supporting Barack and and his policy of change, hope, and unity. Others aren't. If Hillary wins the nomination I will vote for McCain and do everything possible to prevent Hillary from becoming President because I believe it's more important to support what is best for this nation and not just the Democratic Party.

Posted by TLM | February 14, 2008 10:16 AM

ken I read your post and I suddenly saw the urgency of the matter -- I'm an Obama supporter who will only support Clinton from now on, so the Democrats do not lose your vote in the general election. Is anyone joining me?

Posted by Barbar | February 14, 2008 10:16 AM

Then I read TLM's post -- what a fool I am! Obama it is.

Posted by Barbar | February 14, 2008 10:19 AM

I haven't seen anyone pick up the implicit conclusion from these numbers: 12 percent of Democrats think Hillary is a better candidate than her husband.

I find that hard to believe but, then again, 30 percent of Americans think George W. Bush is doing a heckuva job, and a few more than that believe in creationism over evolution, so I guess anything is possible.

Posted by Fred App | February 14, 2008 10:23 AM

Nice to see that, coming from the other side, Robert Powell agrees with me that Hilary truly is the pro-war candidate. Now why is it that so many so-called leftists and anti-war activists are in denial on this rather crucial point?

Posted by vanya | February 14, 2008 10:28 AM

I don't agree about Obama being more electable or likeable than HRC. Left-leaning swing voters I know dislike Obama intensely. They see him as a charlatan. I can't convince them otherwise. If they don't get Hillary, they have stated they will vote McCain.

Posted by Undecided | February 14, 2008 10:28 AM

The simple fact, TLM, is that I respect you less than a Clinton supporter who will vote for the Democrat in the general, even though I'm an Obama supporter myself.

It's true, we're not all on the same team. Those of us on the same team will support either Democratic candidate in the general. But as for Obama supporters who wouldn't support Hillary against McCain- that's an allegiance of political convenience and little more.

I'm not going to get fully into the case against McCain, but a continuation of empire policy coupled with Republican judicial appointments is enough to make the matter clear, in my opinion, for any person I regard as a genuine liberal.

Posted by mpowell | February 14, 2008 10:28 AM

Am I the only one who reads this as a strict electability question? Maybe I'm too jaded, but just looking at the graphic I didn't think this was a question about policy at all. My reasoning being that if you're asking who the best candidate is, it's who is best able to get elected, because that's the job of a candidate. If they wanted to know who would make the best president or who the best president was, they could just ask that, right? I would only take policy into account inasmuch as it is salable to the electorate (if I were responding to the survey).

Posted by MBG | February 14, 2008 10:28 AM

Include me among those who will be reasonably happy if Hillary wins the nomination. I'd rather have Obama, but if a plurality of Dem primary voters say otherwise, I'll be satisfied with Hillary.

Either one is so far better than McCain (or anyone else the GOP could have nominated) that they're just not in the same universe.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 14, 2008 10:34 AM

Now why is it that so many so-called leftists and anti-war activists are in denial on this rather crucial point?

For the same reason people believe that McCain is a "principled straight-talker"-- because it's a preexisting prejudice that they have, and they fudge their facts to fit their pre-existing prejudices.

Posted by Tyro | February 14, 2008 10:38 AM

I'm in no hurry to finalize our nominee, but man is the storyline going to change once we have him or her.

I think that people woefully underestimate how willing most Democrats and swing voters will be to support either candidate and underestimate how vulnerable McCain is to attack/critique from the left

Posted by Sean | February 14, 2008 10:47 AM

The hard question is not Democrats' feelings on these questions now. It's our feelings on these questions in a few months. If Hillary (or -- who knows -- Obama) grabs the nomination using a scorched-earth approach, how do these numbers change?

I am an Obama supporter who is also a Hillary fan; but if she gets the nomination through some legal maneuvering to seat delegates from Florida...well it's not quite Bush v Gore, but it would really put a damper on my enthusiasm.

Posted by ask2 | February 14, 2008 11:12 AM

Exactly what is the "electability factor?"

Apparently it's the measure of Democratic cowardice.

Frankly, I'm tired of the same smooth guys, sometimes from the Midwest, sometimes from Massachusetts, who always run on the same smooth promises to the working class and women. Promises Democrats, including many in the establishment backing Obama, have consistently compromised away or paid nothing but lip service to over the last 30 years, even during the years they've held the Congress or both the Congress and Senate).

Everyone of those compromises and sell outs can be laid at the same door; Democrat's deep envy, and fear, of Republican popularity with middle class and affluent men.

Obama doesn't represent "change." He represents just one more in a long line of more of the same. The same "electability" argument is being made for him that was made for Kerry -- this time, really, really, really, not just in the primary but in the general, this candidate will win us the votes of real men.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by mary | February 14, 2008 11:31 AM

Interesting how the Obama and Clinton curves are almost identical. If anything, her supporters seem more enthusiastic (though it doesn't seem statistically significant). Given all the belly-aching one hears about media apotheoses of Obama (and, let's face it, there are certainly some people apotheosizing him), you'd think that he'd have more enthusiasm and a higher number of people who think he's the best candidate in their lifetimes.

I've quaffed the Obama kool aid, but I do think it's important to emphasize that HRC has her own passionate supporters, even if, as Hendrik Hertzberg had to concede, they aren't the cool kids with whom "Rick" and I tend to socialize.

Posted by infirm | February 14, 2008 11:45 AM

Looking at this graph, it easy to see why Dems are fighting so much amongst themselves over Hillary and Obama. A full 24% of the electorate, or perhaps as much as 50% of the democrats think that their guy is the best candidate in their lifetime. That's crazy. Of course they'll be passionate about supporting him/her. But given the large 'better than average' percentages as well I expect to see lots of support for the winner when its all said and done.

Posted by mpowell | February 14, 2008 1:03 PM

infirm --

No, they're not the cool kids. But they may be the women whose work helped the family qualify for and pay the mortgage on the home in the better neighborhood with the good schools, or paid the private school tuition, or financed the college fund, that gave many of those cool kids a pretty good start in life. Perhaps their work provided the security and health insurance that helped the family business get off the ground, or carried it over a rough spot in the economy. Or maybe they were equal partners in that business while also accepting the responsibility of being the major caretaker at home; dealing with all the education and health and pocketbook issues involved in ensuring the best outcomes for both the family's youngest members and its eldest.

Many are people who have spent their work lives on the frontlines with society's most vulnerable; the poor, the disenfranchised, the ill, the homeless, the disabled, the most vulnerable young and elderly.

The shameful gender-bashing and disrespect shown to these women by too many "liberals" throughout this primary has opened their eyes. Many of them are entrepreneurs, professional women, working women, who have often supported Democrats against their immediate self-interest -- because they believed in that party's greater commitment to gender equity and greater understanding of the workplace, family and social welfare issues raised by women's substantial, necessary, ever-increasing and more and more broadly required participation in the "new" post-industrial economy.

Well, that apparently has been a mirage. Any illusion that the troglodytes all reside in the other party, or that the Democrat's old-guard Liberal establishment is interested in or capable of respectful and substantive, rather than merely exploitive, discussion of the issues mentioned above -- or even capable of fully recognizing how the lives of women and America's families have been totally transformed, and how those women have transformed the country, over the last 30 years -- is now, for many women, being firmly put to rest.

Worse, the arguments and ugly animosities playing out in this primary are pointing up the major, the real, reason for the Democrats' repeated failure to effectively address these issues over the last 30; abject cowardice and and unforgiveable disrespect.

The party is going to emerge from this primary season with a serious problem. But it will have nothing to do with whether Clinton wins or loses, because that isn't the point. The real significant point is not how she, but much more important, how her supporters, are being treated and characterized by people who they once, mistakenly, thought of as political allies.

Posted by mary | February 14, 2008 1:52 PM

Is it really that amazing for one of the current candidates to be the best candidate a respondent has seen in his or her lifetime? Consider the competition:

I was born in 1973. Including elections from before I could vote, the major candidates in November have been Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, John Anderson (I'm taking a broad view here), Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

I know Bill Clinton has his fans, but really, that's not a very inspiring list on the Democratic side. The Republicans have St. Ronald, and the third-party types have their standard-bearers.

As for candidates who didn't make it to November but were reasonably viable beforehand, what does that add to the table? Since I began voting in 1992, I've liked Jerry Brown and Bill Bradley, but it's not too hard to like Obama better. Republicans have people like Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 14, 2008 2:35 PM

Mary,

Ignore the stupidities of the various candidates supporters and judge the candidates by who they are. Who do you think better understands society's most vulnerable - Obama the community organizer, or Clinton the high-powered attorney and pampered politician? A lot of us have issues with Clinton supporters for a simple reason, you refuse to deal with the fact that Clinton is a hawk, she supported the war in Iraq, and she still surrounds herself with hawks like O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack. It's as if you people have blinders on - why does her support for the war not bother you? Or are you a war supporter?

Posted by vanya | February 14, 2008 3:01 PM

vanya --

In 2004, when it was still possible to do something significant to change our policy in Iraq, I swallowed my concerns about Kerry's war vote and, once he had the nomination in hand, supported him with my money, my time and my vote.

Now, the very same people who backed Kerry and went after anti-war candidate Howard Dean with attack ads featuring Osama Bin Laden are backing Obama. Even more significant, the man who produced that vile ad -- who used the most disreputable Republican talking points and fear mongering against a Democratic candidate in a way that could do nothing except strengthen those Republican arguments against EVERY Democrat who spoke out against the Iraq war -- is Obama's Communications Director. (And he's still up to the same old tricks -- using Republican talking points to undermine a Democratic opponent with no regard for how doing so undermines important Democratic issues and voters' perceptions of the party as a whole.) Now, these same people, are telling me Clinton's Iraq vote is the only thing that counts?

A little hypocritical? Damn right.

I have no idea how Obama would have voted had he actually been in the Senate at that time. And you don't either. In fact, even Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted. What I do know is that how he has behaved since he has been in the Senate hasn't been significantly different from Clinton, and I don't believe how he will proceed as President is likely to be much different either.

I also know that Obama wouldn't be receiving the significant Wall Street and energy industry support he is receiving if any of those supporters thought he was going to radically change American foreign policy, or govern in a genuinely progressive way.

As for Clinton being a "pampered politician." What does that mean and how is she any more or less "pampered" than Obama and any of his establishment supporters?

You can dismiss Clinton's decades of work on child welfare, education and health care issues if you want. But I don't. I don't dismiss Obama's record either. But I do recognize that, when it comes to many issues I care deeply about, it is not as extensive, nor does it present the record of accomplishment, that Clinton's does.

Have the Clintons been too centrist for my taste? Yes. But one of the reasons they are so "polarizing" is because they did make an effort to serve the constituencies that congressional liberals had been failing for decades; with programs aimed at helping displaced workers adjust to a changed economy, with efforts to make education more affordable, with some excellent, innovative small business and micro business programs, and of course, with the first serious effort at health care reform in my living memory. (Many of those who criticize them now for that failure didn't put in half the effort on that front -- during all the previous years when the Democrats mostly controlled both the House and the Senate). Bill Clinton also made a point of having an administration "that looked like America." Creating a precedent that even Republican administrations now feel obligated to follow.

If Obama, as president, really does step up to the plate and attempt to make greater progress on these kind of issues, he too will soon be seen as as "polarizing."

Posted by mary | February 14, 2008 5:35 PM

I wish they'd use different colors rather than shades of the same color for those kinds of graphs--it would be so much easier to read.

Posted by BetsyD | February 15, 2008 3:35 PM