I'm nervous about that Iowa caucus group

These people on Hardball really concern me. The criteria was that they had to be people who had been caucus members in the past and might be this election cycle, solid Democrats. Did I get that right?

Okay, the first thing that startled me was when the one woman said Graham was nuts. He was talking about Niger and impeachment standards and she said he was talking in circles and she didn't understand anything he was talking about. Uh oh, she has no clue what's really going on because she hasn't been paying attention.

The second thing I noticed was one woman saying she had always heard Dean was shrill or something to that affect. She had a better opinion of him after seeing the MTP clip. She doesn't KNOW what Dean is like speaking in person? That means she hasn't seen him at all, very scary.

The little voting thing went down when candidates spoke bad about Bush. These people said they didn't want to hear finger pointing and bad things about Bush. What!!!! How will they ever know how awful Bush is if they don't want to listen to anybody say anything bad about him???

And these are the people who are going to choose the Iowa candidate?

Like I said, I'm very nervous!!!

We've got to realize that the majority of the VOTING public is not going to be as tuned in to the issues and candidates as we are. We're political junkies while most of America is not. Although, I take with a grain of salt anything that Luntz is involved in, it's probably a pretty safe bet that what we saw in that focus group is MORE representative of the voting public than we, as a group, at DU are.

way too often to be considered just an objective viewer of the pollees.

"... The current thinking, according to strategists and those involved in the campaign, is that Bush remains personally popular among swing voters, even if they disagree with some of his policies. At a time of intense concern about national security, many voters are inclined to defer to the president, and still suspect that Democrats are weak on defense. Thus, they said, the party's candidates must zero in on weaknesses in the economy and the chaos in Bush's postwar Iraq policy, while persuading the electorate that they, too, are vigilant against terrorism.

The result has been many candidates competing for the mantle of Clintonian moderation.

But to many in the party's base, Bush's assertive tone and message call for a similar response. They yearn for a sharper line of attack and echo the Republicans in foreseeing a combative campaign with strict ideological dimensions...

... As the costs of the war add up, and information comes out casting doubt on Bush's assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons, those who opposed the war become angrier, strategists say, and their efforts to defeat Bush take on the dimensions of a moral crusade. In that mindset, core Democratic loyalists are increasingly unhappy to hear their candidates measure their words in the Clinton style."



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0812-05.htm

These people did not want to hear criticism of Bush, they had no idea what's going on with the intelligence and lies, were completely turned off by war remarks; they responded positively to Dean and his is the only clip that was really about the economy. Still they were surprised he wasn't shrill and they shouldn't have been surprised at something you would only need to watch him a few times to figure out.

They're living in la la land. The people on this board want candidates to talk about impeachment and war crimes trials and Mr. & Mrs. America responds 'that's nuts'. People have their expectations too high of what these candidates can do when dealing with the reality of the average voter.

was how the impression of Kerry on the graph sunk so low for women but raised among men. There was a definite gender division. What is it that men and women are seeing differently? Is it because the military swagger impresses men more or do women intuit something that they find in Kerry lacks credibility?

Luntz would make sure that the women in this group dumped on him.

I guess his arguments didn't work with the men.

he's all yours.

Some lame attempt to smear by association or something to distract from the discussion?

some of the candidates were trying to agree and disagree with Bush at the same time (we all know who they are) and this *does* make them look like they are merely trying to score political points.