Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are Clinton's numbers "Name Recognition" just like Bush in 1999?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:31 AM
Original message
Are Clinton's numbers "Name Recognition" just like Bush in 1999?
Remember how G. W. Bush lead all the polls in 1998/1999 just on name recognition? Bill was and is very popular with the General Democratic base and Hillary can ride a great deal on those coattails.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. In the rest of the country, sure.
In New York, she's done visible work on New York issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. No, I don't think her numbers are simply name recognition
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 11:36 AM by journalist3072
She has a record of accomplishment. Things she did as First Lady of Arkansas (i.e. focusing on education), as First Lady of the United States (focusing on health care, children's issues) and of course now her record as a Senator.

Bush had the name recognition in 1999, but he didn't have a record of accomplishment, by any measure.

Besides, John Edwards and Barack Obama are not strangers. People know who they are as well. So I don't think Hillary's numbers can be explained by saying people know her but not the other candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
3. I don't know......
I don't feel alot of love for Hillary in the general public. I think 6 straight presidencys of either Bush or Clinton would be bad for the country. The USA is a country of the people, by the people, for the people. It's more and more resembling a Monarchy rather then a democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
4. Yes and no.
Hillary is certainly benefitting from name recognition. But her situation is completely different from that of George W. Bush in 1999/2000.

The difference is this: For Hillary, people are recognizing *her own name*. They know who Hillary Clinton is. But for George W. Bush, many of the people expressing a preference back in 1999 believed they were supporting *his father,* George H. W. Bush, the former president. Many people had no clue that George W. Bush was a different person from the former president. They heard the name "George Bush" and they remembered that he was a pretty decent guy and not an awful president and (to be completely honest) the only name they recognized on the list of GOP nobodies that included Alan Keyes and Tommy Thompson and Gary Bauer and Lamar Alexander and others.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. agreed. I just don't believe the numbers from WaPo.
Most people I know (GOP) hate her.
Most people I know (indie) dislike her.
Most people I know (Dem) don't trust her and don't want her.

how does she get 41% other than name recognition? I submit this poll is bogus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. oh please. most people would LOVE to see BILL clinton back in the white house
and if they have to elect hillary for that to happen, so be it.

hillary has a LOT going for her beyond name recognition.

having said that, i'll reiterate what i've been saying since i was a child: the first black president, the first woman president, etc., will be republican. politics just works that way, just as thatcher, the first woman prime minister of the uk, was conservative.

if a woman or minority candidate is conservative, then the conservative party can focus on the politics and the liberal opposition is torn. however, if the woman or minority candidate is liberal, then all it does is cost the liberal/independent bigot vote.

i'm not saying it's right, i'm just saying that's the way it is. i am optimistic that this will change in time, but the first step is not likely to be a woman or minority liberal president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. What I can't understand is the immense difference between the blogosphere's...
opinion of Hillary (and Gore!) and the poll results.

On the ISSUES, the blogs and the polls line up pretty well. But on the Democratic nomination in 2008, it's night and day.

BTW: Congrats, Dad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MindPilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. Just a couple days ago Zogby had her trailing at number four
behind Obama, Edwards & Vilsak.

Now she's waaay out in front? I know of exactly no one who thinks President H. R. Clinton is a good idea and many on this board and others say the same thing.

Where are these incredibly high numbers coming from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Here's the Zogby on Iowa...any Zogby nationwide?
Edited on Sun Jan-21-07 12:08 PM by Junkdrawer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
9. truthfully, I think a major component of Hillary's "lead..."
...is press manipulation, pure and simple. The press is SALIVATING over the prospect of a Clinton candidacy, mostly for the wrong reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-21-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Something like this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 25th 2024, 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC