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.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

That being said, I find this surprising. People say Obama has a pool of unreliable caucus-goers... I guess Hillary does too.

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."

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.

There goes the claim you here all the time here that party insiders are pushing Hillary down everyone's throats.

???

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.

None? Oh, well. We should just believe you then.

I'm just stating what I've observed from gopers around here.

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.

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.

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

:hide:

Good one! And ain't it the truth.

Anonymous pundits? The NYT hates the Clintons. Always has. Always will.

They referred to senior strategists in the Clinton campaign. It is extremely unlikely the NYT or the senior strategists are lying.

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.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

:crazy: :crazy:

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.

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.

main source of HRC's support, and that they're shoving her down everyone else's throat.

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.

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.

of her support and pushing her down everyone else's throats.

caucus goer in every precinct "regardless of residency". although not illegal, is most unethical.

and won't count toward the delegate count for Clinton.

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

:hi:

Hillary gave them a reason.

There's something about their fluffiness that attracts me, even though I'm a skinny guy.