The Enthusiasm Gap: Will it Matter?

Puppycow · 13th February 2008, 11:51 PM

Democrats are giving more money to candidates, and turning out in higher numbers to vote in the primaries.

A recent poll says that 79% of Democrats/leaners are more enthusiastic about this election than usual, while 15% are less enthusiastic. OTOH only 44% of Republicans/leaners are more enthusiastic, while 48% are less enthusiastic.

One would think this leads to higher turnout and more victories for democrats in November. Is it really that straightforward and easy for the democrats though? Something tells me it won't be quite so simple.

LawnOven · 14th February 2008, 12:13 AM

Ron Paul!

suds101 · 14th February 2008, 12:14 AM

I was excited until McCain won. There isn't anything about him where you think change will actually occur. But I am going to intern at for my state's Republican nominee for US Senate, who will get trounced by Dick Durbin. I know my mom who is a hardcore conservative doesn't even want to vote for McCain. And my brother who is a liberal is going to volunteer for Obama. I don't see McCain having a shot especially if Hillary isn't nominated.

Kerberos · 14th February 2008, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Democrats are giving more money to candidates, and turning out in higher numbers to vote in the primaries.

A recent poll says that 79% of Democrats/leaners are more enthusiastic about this election than usual, while 15% are less enthusiastic. OTOH only 44% of Republicans/leaners are more enthusiastic, while 48% are less enthusiastic.

One would think this leads to higher turnout and more victories for democrats in November. Is it really that straightforward and easy for the democrats though? Something tells me it won't be quite so simple.

Well it's to early to say anything definitive, but of cause it's an advantage in a nation where turnout is an issue.

leftysergeant · 14th February 2008, 01:29 AM

People seem already to be riding Obama's coattails. I heard it only briefly as i was wakiong up, but a more liberal challenger for congress upset an incumbent DLC Democrat in the same primary that handed Obama a 21% LEAD over Hillary.

(I think this election cycle is going to be rather rough on the DLC. Hillary is Mrs DLC. Ooops!)

I would hate to see the energy that I saw among the Obama supporters at my caucus go away. We really need the turnout.

If the "super delegates" try to change the outcome, it could be the death of the party. It would look like the fix had been in from the start, and a whole generation of Democrats would sink into despondancy or worse. They would probably degenerate into something resembling a twoofer.

T.A.M. · 14th February 2008, 04:09 AM

If Obama wins nod, the turn out factor will be a big deal.
If Clinton wins nod, less so, and in fact, could be better for a independent grabber like McCain.

TAM

Puppycow · 14th February 2008, 07:58 AM

Here's one symptom of the enthusiasm gap

Quote:

McCain’s campaign says he will accept public funds for the general election if Obama will do the same.

Dr Adequate · 14th February 2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

That is not so funny as it might be, because Obama has already agreed to do so if McCain will. In March last year.

Here.

dudalb · 14th February 2008, 11:03 AM

Actually the quicker the whole "Rock Star" enthusiam for Obama wears off, the more I will consider voting for him since I find the "Obama" as Messiah phenenmenon just a little to reminescent of the Ron Paul campaign for my taste.
Although I hasten to add that is not in any way meant to compare Obama with Paul.Obama is not a kook,and I will probably,in the end of the day,end up voting for him.
I just find the level of adulation for him annoyning.

Cello Man · 14th February 2008, 01:05 PM

Regarding Obamamania:

After the disastrous reign of Bush Jr. and his cohorts, it's perfectly understandable that someone like Obama gets people so excited. To those of us with a slightly left of center mindset, our country has been hijacked by extremists who have done more than their fair share of damage, both at home and abroad.

What most of Obama's supporters understand but can't quite articulate yet is this: They know his campaign isn't powered by rainbows and unicorn farts, and they know Obama isn't a messiah who will legislate that everyone gets a pony.

However, what's so different about his approach is that he's managed to shake many people out of political apathy and despair and inspired them to take an active part in making the country better. What's so different is that he's the first politician in long time whose driving message is one of optimism and unity, not playing the old cynical divide and conquer game that keeps Washington deadlocked and ineffectual.

There's still a long way for Obama to go before he reaches the White House, but most of the people who doubted him months ago probably never imagined he would make this far, much less maintaining a lead in delegates. He might surprise us yet.

I admit that Obama does emotionally affect me, and I know that part of it isn't just his message, but pure charisma. But when I calm down and try to remove my inner fanboy mindset and examine his policies with a level head, I still like the guy.

Puppycow · 14th February 2008, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

That is not so funny as it might be, because Obama has already agreed to do so if McCain will. In March last year.

Here.

Oh golly, i guess he really did. Well, I guess he should accept since this is apparantly his own idea. I actually don't think money will be the deciding factor. And he could instead do fundraising for congressional and senate candidates, people who might actually need the money more anyway.

Dr Adequate · 15th February 2008, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Oh golly ...

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Now, I'd rather they didn't, 'cos I'm an Obama fan and he does better at fundraising. For the first time ever, I wish that my favored candidate could be just a little less principled.

Also, I'd rather they didn't because there has to be a better way of protesting against the rules than by both of them taking public money for their campaigns, which is an idea that I hate on such a deep and visceral level that I haven't yet figured out what's actually wrong with it, if anything.

On the other hand, it might encourage grassroots democracy. Both candidates will be in the position where they have to say to their supporters: you cannot donate --- so go out and campaign instead.

Puppycow · 15th February 2008, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yeah, that's what I thought...

Obama could still raise money for his PAC, Hopefund though, couldn't he? Or for the DNC or other candidates. If so, people would still probably donate what they would have donated otherwise, and it could go to key congressional races and that would give Obama a lot of political capital as president. If my theory is true, then it actually could benefit him.

It would also take away the negative issue of course, and prove that he is indeed a candidate of integrity, which is a positive issue. Everyone knows he can raise lots of money, so this looks like he's agreeing to handicap himself and doing something for a higher principle. If he's going to go that course, he should do it enthusiastically, instead of foot-dragging so that it would appear like he was pressured into the decision.

dudalb · 15th February 2008, 04:49 PM

The danger I see for Obama if he wins is that expectations for him are so high that no way he..or anybody else... can live up to them.

Puppycow · 16th February 2008, 02:11 AM

Apparantly Obama is indicating he intends to accept McCain's deal.

Quote:

Asked about public financing, he tells reporters in Milwaukee, "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to make sure we abide by the same rules.
. . .
My folks will sit down and see whether we can arrive at common sense ground rules."

Trakar · 21st February 2008, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

People seem already to be riding Obama's coattails. I heard it only briefly as i was wakiong up, but a more liberal challenger for congress upset an incumbent DLC Democrat in the same primary that handed Obama a 21% LEAD over Hillary.

(I think this election cycle is going to be rather rough on the DLC. Hillary is Mrs DLC. Ooops!)

I would hate to see the energy that I saw among the Obama supporters at my caucus go away. We really need the turnout.

If the "super delegates" try to change the outcome, it could be the death of the party. It would look like the fix had been in from the start, and a whole generation of Democrats would sink into despondancy or worse. They would probably degenerate into something resembling a twoofer.

Speaking of which, exactly what is the cult lea...er, "presumptive Dem Candidate's" opinion with regards to the 9/11 Truther Movement?

Darth Rotor · 21st February 2008, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Now, I'd rather they didn't, 'cos I'm an Obama fan and he does better at fundraising.

What is his appeal to you, given that you won't be voting?

DR

13th February 2008, 11:51 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,738	The Enthusiasm Gap: Will it Matter? Democrats are giving more money to candidates, and turning out in higher numbers to vote in the primaries. A recent poll says that 79% of Democrats/leaners are more enthusiastic about this election than usual, while 15% are less enthusiastic. OTOH only 44% of Republicans/leaners are more enthusiastic, while 48% are less enthusiastic. One would think this leads to higher turnout and more victories for democrats in November. Is it really that straightforward and easy for the democrats though? Something tells me it won't be quite so simple.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

14th February 2008, 12:13 AM	#2
LawnOven robot Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 1,306	Ron Paul!
	__________________ Principia Discordia

14th February 2008, 12:14 AM	#3
suds101 Student Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 48	I was excited until McCain won. There isn't anything about him where you think change will actually occur. But I am going to intern at for my state's Republican nominee for US Senate, who will get trounced by Dick Durbin. I know my mom who is a hardcore conservative doesn't even want to vote for McCain. And my brother who is a liberal is going to volunteer for Obama. I don't see McCain having a shot especially if Hillary isn't nominated.
suds101 Student Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 48

14th February 2008, 12:28 AM	#4
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	Originally Posted by Puppycow Democrats are giving more money to candidates, and turning out in higher numbers to vote in the primaries. A recent poll says that 79% of Democrats/leaners are more enthusiastic about this election than usual, while 15% are less enthusiastic. OTOH only 44% of Republicans/leaners are more enthusiastic, while 48% are less enthusiastic. One would think this leads to higher turnout and more victories for democrats in November. Is it really that straightforward and easy for the democrats though? Something tells me it won't be quite so simple. Well it's to early to say anything definitive, but of cause it's an advantage in a nation where turnout is an issue.
Kerberos Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,608	__________________ Bible code: A method for obtaining hidden messages from texts that contains none, for the purpose of predicting events after they happen. "When the facts are on you side, but the law is against you, stress the facts. When the law is on your side, but the facts are against you stress the law. When both the facts and the law is against you, pound the table and yell like hell". Laywer maxim

14th February 2008, 07:58 AM	#7
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,738	Here's one symptom of the enthusiasm gap Quote: McCain’s campaign says he will accept public funds for the general election if Obama will do the same.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

14th February 2008, 01:29 AM	#5
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	People seem already to be riding Obama's coattails. I heard it only briefly as i was wakiong up, but a more liberal challenger for congress upset an incumbent DLC Democrat in the same primary that handed Obama a 21% LEAD over Hillary. (I think this election cycle is going to be rather rough on the DLC. Hillary is Mrs DLC. Ooops!) I would hate to see the energy that I saw among the Obama supporters at my caucus go away. We really need the turnout. If the "super delegates" try to change the outcome, it could be the death of the party. It would look like the fix had been in from the start, and a whole generation of Democrats would sink into despondancy or worse. They would probably degenerate into something resembling a twoofer.

14th February 2008, 04:09 AM	#6
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	If Obama wins nod, the turn out factor will be a big deal. If Clinton wins nod, less so, and in fact, could be better for a independent grabber like McCain. TAM

14th February 2008, 10:11 AM	#8
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Puppycow That is not so funny as it might be, because Obama has already agreed to do so if McCain will. In March last year. Here.

14th February 2008, 11:03 AM	#9
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,792	Actually the quicker the whole "Rock Star" enthusiam for Obama wears off, the more I will consider voting for him since I find the "Obama" as Messiah phenenmenon just a little to reminescent of the Ron Paul campaign for my taste. Although I hasten to add that is not in any way meant to compare Obama with Paul.Obama is not a kook,and I will probably,in the end of the day,end up voting for him. I just find the level of adulation for him annoyning.

14th February 2008, 01:05 PM	#10
Cello Man Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,035	Regarding Obamamania: After the disastrous reign of Bush Jr. and his cohorts, it's perfectly understandable that someone like Obama gets people so excited. To those of us with a slightly left of center mindset, our country has been hijacked by extremists who have done more than their fair share of damage, both at home and abroad. What most of Obama's supporters understand but can't quite articulate yet is this: They know his campaign isn't powered by rainbows and unicorn farts, and they know Obama isn't a messiah who will legislate that everyone gets a pony. However, what's so different about his approach is that he's managed to shake many people out of political apathy and despair and inspired them to take an active part in making the country better. What's so different is that he's the first politician in long time whose driving message is one of optimism and unity, not playing the old cynical divide and conquer game that keeps Washington deadlocked and ineffectual. There's still a long way for Obama to go before he reaches the White House, but most of the people who doubted him months ago probably never imagined he would make this far, much less maintaining a lead in delegates. He might surprise us yet. I admit that Obama does emotionally affect me, and I know that part of it isn't just his message, but pure charisma. But when I calm down and try to remove my inner fanboy mindset and examine his policies with a level head, I still like the guy.
	__________________ This is my Timey-Wimey Detector. It goes "DING!" when there's stuff. - The Doctor Last edited by Cello Man; 14th February 2008 at 01:07 PM. Reason: to replace ambiguous possessive

14th February 2008, 02:32 PM	#11
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,738	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate That is not so funny as it might be, because Obama has already agreed to do so if McCain will. In March last year. Here. Oh golly, i guess he really did. Well, I guess he should accept since this is apparantly his own idea. I actually don't think money will be the deciding factor. And he could instead do fundraising for congressional and senate candidates, people who might actually need the money more anyway.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

15th February 2008, 04:52 AM	#12
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Puppycow Oh golly ... Yeah, that's what I thought. Now, I'd rather they didn't, 'cos I'm an Obama fan and he does better at fundraising. For the first time ever, I wish that my favored candidate could be just a little less principled. Also, I'd rather they didn't because there has to be a better way of protesting against the rules than by both of them taking public money for their campaigns, which is an idea that I hate on such a deep and visceral level that I haven't yet figured out what's actually wrong with it, if anything. On the other hand, it might encourage grassroots democracy. Both candidates will be in the position where they have to say to their supporters: you cannot donate --- so go out and campaign instead.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 15th February 2008 at 04:55 AM.

15th February 2008, 04:33 PM	#13
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,738	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Yeah, that's what I thought... Obama could still raise money for his PAC, Hopefund though, couldn't he? Or for the DNC or other candidates. If so, people would still probably donate what they would have donated otherwise, and it could go to key congressional races and that would give Obama a lot of political capital as president. If my theory is true, then it actually could benefit him. It would also take away the negative issue of course, and prove that he is indeed a candidate of integrity, which is a positive issue. Everyone knows he can raise lots of money, so this looks like he's agreeing to handicap himself and doing something for a higher principle. If he's going to go that course, he should do it enthusiastically, instead of foot-dragging so that it would appear like he was pressured into the decision.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 Last edited by Puppycow; 15th February 2008 at 04:36 PM.

15th February 2008, 04:49 PM	#14
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,792	The danger I see for Obama if he wins is that expectations for him are so high that no way he..or anybody else... can live up to them.

16th February 2008, 02:11 AM	#15
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,738	Apparantly Obama is indicating he intends to accept McCain's deal. Quote: Asked about public financing, he tells reporters in Milwaukee, "If I am the nominee, then I will make sure our people talk to John McCain’s people to make sure we abide by the same rules. . . . My folks will sit down and see whether we can arrive at common sense ground rules."
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

21st February 2008, 03:35 PM	#16
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,920	Originally Posted by leftysergeant People seem already to be riding Obama's coattails. I heard it only briefly as i was wakiong up, but a more liberal challenger for congress upset an incumbent DLC Democrat in the same primary that handed Obama a 21% LEAD over Hillary. (I think this election cycle is going to be rather rough on the DLC. Hillary is Mrs DLC. Ooops!) I would hate to see the energy that I saw among the Obama supporters at my caucus go away. We really need the turnout. If the "super delegates" try to change the outcome, it could be the death of the party. It would look like the fix had been in from the start, and a whole generation of Democrats would sink into despondancy or worse. They would probably degenerate into something resembling a twoofer. Speaking of which, exactly what is the cult lea...er, "presumptive Dem Candidate's" opinion with regards to the 9/11 Truther Movement?
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,920

21st February 2008, 09:39 PM	#17
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,255	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Yeah, that's what I thought. Now, I'd rather they didn't, 'cos I'm an Obama fan and he does better at fundraising. What is his appeal to you, given that you won't be voting? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis