Chris Bowers calls "Bullshit" on netroot's "Clinton - name recognition" claim

[wyldwolf]

I read it all the time in the blogosphere. Some say "Clinton's lead in national trial heats is only a function of name recognition." "She has already hit her peak, and can only go downward from here," others croon. Another frequent mantra is that "her lead at this point in the campaign is the same thing as Lieberman's lead at this point in the 2004 campaign." Occasionally, even some actual evidence, usually in the form of a single poll, is trotted out to support thee claims. While what I am about to write will invariably result in several people calling me a Hillary supporter and / or a wholly owned subsidiary of the DLC, as someone who closely watches polls and can't stand the perpetuation of political narratives based on faulty numbers, even in the blogosphere, I simply have to call bullshit.

Anyone currently dismissing Clinton's massive national trial heat advantage as a figment of name recognition is simply not familiar either with the totality of current national poll numbers or with the numbers from this point in the campaign four years ago. If you think all other candidates need to do is introduce themselves, then you are just wrong. If you think this is the same thing as Lieberman's lead in early 2003, then you have seriously underestimated the task facing virtually all non-Clinton candidates. While not insurmountable, Clinton's national lead over everyone not named Obama is far more significant than Lieberman's lead was in early 2003, and as such will be far more difficult for other candidates to overcome.

Poll analysis follows...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/1/30/181044/219

NewDonkey responds...

Over at MyDD today, Chris Bowers goes on an endearing tirade about netroots denial of Hillary Clinton's current strength in the polls; apparently he's hearing a lot of talk that HRC is in the same position as Joe Lieberman was at this stage in the last cycle, and he demolishes that talk pretty effectively.

But by way of introduction, Chris says: "What I am about to write will invariably result in several people calling me a Hillary supporter and / or a wholly owned subsidiary of the DLC...."

I've got your back on this one, Chris. I know enough about the DLC to warrant convincingly that you aren't owned, rented, or even occasionally suborned by that organization.

I don't always agree with Chris Bowers (the subject of Democrats and religion being one topic of frequent disagreement), but do admire his stubborn, reality-based determination to follow actual evidence of political trends, even if they don't conveniently fit into his own, or his colleagues', preferred "memes." I hope that I can occasionally make the same claim when my own colleagues look sideways at polls and see what they want to see.

There is, in the end, this thing called Objective Reality, and if any of us diverge from it too far in order to grind factional or ideological axes, we do so at our peril.

http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/

[gasperc]

1. Chris is right period

I don't deny her results, I can see that she currently doesn't have much netroots and in turn grassroots support but her campaign recognizes that and is placing well coordinated blogads to overcome and in some cases overwhelm the netroots.
Clinton's lead in national polls and even in many statewide polls is substantial.

But, and this is important, she's running a campaign that she can't necessarily lose. She's a driven person and it doesn't make sense that she'd get into the race without thinking she would win. I bet Obama's momentum and announcement did accelerate her anouncement plans by probably weeks if not months. and probably to her advantage. This are moving very fast with the Iraq resolution and she is adapting quickly to the electorates demands on Iraq. To me, her position is still non-sensical and meaningless but she may have made some really stupid votes had she not been a full on candidate.
Clinton has appeal and a base of support.

What I don't like about Clinton is her nieve approach to Bush over the past six years. Instead of pushing harder on the Iraq issue, and what a lie, mess and mistake it was, she kept stating privately that she expected Bush to withdraw troops anyway so why get caught up in a vote that could be used against her that she's not supporting the troops. As if there was any evidence or hint that Bush ever intends or intended to get troops out of Iraq. Whether it's to maintain the permanent bases in Iraq, or a strategic stike zone against Iran, Bush and his neonut buddies are convinced they are doing the right things in the middle east.
She should be attacking Bush's failed FOUR FUCKING YEAR POLICY that's had umpteen corner turns, and 6 month extension and surges. Biden said it best the other day.

[rinsd]

2. Dude Chris Bowers has been reading my posts!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3086916&mesg_id=3087549

Just kidding.

Still, I am glad to see a more robust explanation at what I have been getting at.

[rinsd]

3. Also check out Joe Trippi's comments

"Chris -- Her numbers are more like Vice President Mondale's in 1984 or even Vice President Al Gore's before the 2000 primaries. It will be very difficult to stop Hillary Clinton from gaining the nomination -- it can be done -- but not by any candidate who wages a "paint by the numbers" campaign. Gary Hart challenged Mondale and almost defeated him -- but he did it with a bold -- "New ideas" unorthodox campaign. In the end the machinery of the Mondale candidacy (full disclosure - I worked for Mondale that cycle) was too much for the Hart insurgency. If Hillary Clinton is defeated it will be by a bold, new, insurgent campaign."

[wyldwolf]

4. ha! Mine, too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3086916&mesg_id=3087056

[rinsd]

5. We nibbled, he took a massive bite.

Kudos to him.

:hi:

[SaveElmer]

6. Well it won't come as a surprise that I agree with this...as I too have...

Been pointing out the netroots underestimation of Hillary's strength for some time...

They do so at their peril...