Hillary Afraid Of The Youth Vote?
When I saw this, I showed it to Thomas and he said I was better able to gauge this story, given the fact I fall within the demographic in question. Professor Glenn Reynolds points out a piece from Eric @ Classical Values in which he highlights a new poll from the Des Moines Register.
The paper's poll "Sources of support among likely caucus participants" (towards the bottom of the page, left-hand side) shows that Senator Obama has widened his lead over Senator Clinton, but the striking piece of the poll is the 18-34 demographic. Senator Clinton is polling at only 11% with them as opposed to Senator Obama's 56% and Mr. Edwards' 16%. This is a telling statistic.
When I turned eighteen in 2004 I was excited that I had my first opportunity to vote. I gladly cast my vote for President George W. Bush. I know many of my friends that voted at the time decided that Senator Kerry was a better man (Lord knows what they were thinking). But the youth vote is an important one due to the fact that they are the future.
Senator Clinton seems incapable of uniting them under her banner. This, I believe, has a great deal to do with three simple factors:
First, she is a polarizing figure, and one that has not answered the questions posed to her effectively.
Second, she does not appeal to the youth due to her lack of charisma. It may be just the way she is portraying herself, but she seems flat, dull, and about as charismatic as a dead fish.
Third, the tales of her temper may be influencing the look that people have of her. Young adults are reminded of the temper their parents may have had at one time when they broke the rules. By comparison, Senator Clinton's is far worse, and adding to that is her vindictiveness.
Many people who are turned off by her do not trust her. She has stated her positions on issues, and either she sounds completely obtuse, or she sounds like a Marxist. The 18-34 demographic reflects college age people who would have certainly received lessons on Marxism in school. The appeal she thought she had is lost on those that cannot possibly fathom supporting a person like her.
Eric @ Classical Values tacks this up as a serious weakness on her part, and that the solution might possibly be removing the muzzle that has been placed on her daughter, Chelsea. I beg to differ. I do not think Chelsea's participation in the campaign directly would really help her much. Voters in Iowa, especially those within the demographic in question, are naturally distrustful of her, it seems. Chelsea's stumping for her mother would likely be disbelieved. I know if I were in Iowa, and I heard Chelsea speak, I would be unable to believe it for the sheer fact that it would probably be scripted.
As I stated above, her campaign and statements are calculated. It is impossible to believe that Chelsea would be allowed to stump off the cuff. Her comments and statements would most definitely be scripted.
Marcie
The paper's poll "Sources of support among likely caucus participants" (towards the bottom of the page, left-hand side) shows that Senator Obama has widened his lead over Senator Clinton, but the striking piece of the poll is the 18-34 demographic. Senator Clinton is polling at only 11% with them as opposed to Senator Obama's 56% and Mr. Edwards' 16%. This is a telling statistic.
When I turned eighteen in 2004 I was excited that I had my first opportunity to vote. I gladly cast my vote for President George W. Bush. I know many of my friends that voted at the time decided that Senator Kerry was a better man (Lord knows what they were thinking). But the youth vote is an important one due to the fact that they are the future.
Senator Clinton seems incapable of uniting them under her banner. This, I believe, has a great deal to do with three simple factors:
First, she is a polarizing figure, and one that has not answered the questions posed to her effectively.
Second, she does not appeal to the youth due to her lack of charisma. It may be just the way she is portraying herself, but she seems flat, dull, and about as charismatic as a dead fish.
Third, the tales of her temper may be influencing the look that people have of her. Young adults are reminded of the temper their parents may have had at one time when they broke the rules. By comparison, Senator Clinton's is far worse, and adding to that is her vindictiveness.
Many people who are turned off by her do not trust her. She has stated her positions on issues, and either she sounds completely obtuse, or she sounds like a Marxist. The 18-34 demographic reflects college age people who would have certainly received lessons on Marxism in school. The appeal she thought she had is lost on those that cannot possibly fathom supporting a person like her.
Eric @ Classical Values tacks this up as a serious weakness on her part, and that the solution might possibly be removing the muzzle that has been placed on her daughter, Chelsea. I beg to differ. I do not think Chelsea's participation in the campaign directly would really help her much. Voters in Iowa, especially those within the demographic in question, are naturally distrustful of her, it seems. Chelsea's stumping for her mother would likely be disbelieved. I know if I were in Iowa, and I heard Chelsea speak, I would be unable to believe it for the sheer fact that it would probably be scripted.
As I stated above, her campaign and statements are calculated. It is impossible to believe that Chelsea would be allowed to stump off the cuff. Her comments and statements would most definitely be scripted.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home