Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary Tries to Rock the Vote

Maybe it's the time we've been spending with the MTV and MySpace crowd but we've grown more and more interested in the youth vote.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has made no secret of his desire (need?) to turn out far more young people to vote in the 2008 primaries than have participated in the past. But now Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is seeking to swim in that same pool of voters -- unveiling a major push for young minds and basking in new poll results that show she is winning them over.

Hillary Clinton
Sen. Hillary Clinton at Wellesley College.

Clinton's youth outreach push began this morning with a speech at Wellesley College (Clinton's alma mater); Clinton heads to the University of New Hampshire this afternoon to make another address. In coordination with those speeches, the Clinton campaign is formally launching "Students for Hillary", a group designed to motivate and organize young people on her behalf.

"To those who say your generation is disengaged -- that you're not as passionate and committed as we were -- I say, come out to Providence and Keene and Durham and Wellesley," Clinton said. "See how every day young people here and across America are standing up, taking charge and making the impossible possible."

Clinton's push to battle Obama for the youth vote got a nice (and presumably unexpected) boost from a new poll of voters aged 18-30 by Sacred Heart University that was released this morning. In the poll, Clinton led Obama 54 percent to 24 percent among young voters with former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) coming in a distant third with 8.4 percent.

That poll is simply the latest survey that shows Clinton running strong among young voters, according to an internal memo from the Clinton campaign. The memo notes that Clinton led her rivals by 11 points among voters aged 18-34 in the September Cook Report/RT Strategies poll after trailing by 16 points in the same survey in April. The memo also states that a June CBS News/MTV/New York Times survey showed that 46 percent of women 17-29 years old called themselves "enthusiastic" about Clinton.

The larger question is whether young people will vote in any serious numbers in 2008. The question is especially important this cycle given how crucial the early contests in Iowa (Jan. 3) and New Hampshire (Jan. 8 is our best guess) are likely to be. Will college students or those recently out of college come back from their Christmas breaks to vote in the caucuses and primaries?

The Sacred Heart University poll suggests they will. Seventy-seven percent of the sample said they are paying "a great deal" of attention to the election, while 87 percent said they plan to vote next November.

Take those results cum grano salis. Remember that the survey was sponsored by two groups -- Rock the Vote and WWE's Smackdown Your Vote -- two organizations that have a vested interest in hyping the importance of the youth vote in 2008. And, there is a major difference between saying you plan to vote in an election and actually turning out on election day.

Recent history suggests that young people still do not vote in anywhere near the numbers that older folks do. In the 2004 Iowa caucus entrance polls, Just 17 percent of the electorate was between 17-29, while 68 percent was 45 or older.

Young people are -- without doubt -- a huge untapped resource in electoral politics. But, can any candidate crack the code that turns them on and out? Obama has clearly led the way in organizing and motivating young people so far in this election. Clinton's latest push is a sign that she knows that ceding young voters to Obama is a potential problem and wants to make sure she covers all her bases in the event young people do decide 2008 is the year that they want to vote in large numbers.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 1, 2007; 1:15 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Parsing the Polls: Clinton's Female Foundation
Next: Knocking Down a McCain Rumor


Remember people that this is basically A LONG JOB INTERVIEW for the MOST IMPORTANT JOB in the company (USA). The democratic panel will recommend its best candidate to be compared to the republican's best candidate for the final interview.

All resumes are in. We looked thru them, diced them up & made necessary notation. We've interviewed them several times to make sure that they truly did all those things they said in their resumes as part of their qualifications. We questioned them on their visions so we know what direction they want to take the company to. We asked them specific questions relating to the taking care of existing challenges (like Iraq, Global Warming, Healthcare, Economy, etc) so we know what their approaches are on resolving these challenges. We also evaluate not just based on their working experience but on their life experience to make sure that we choose someone who is THE BEST FIT for this particular company in this particular time.

Now, in the last interview Hillary was asked several questions on how she's going to resolve our existing challenges and we didn't get any concrete answer. She was asked about her experience as the 1st lady which she put on her resume as apart of her qualification, but she didn't want to answer and wasn't willing to provide additional information as to why we have to account that particular experience. SO, if we have a candidate applying for a position where he/she will be working for US, would you really want to hire this person to work for you? Would we really hire someone to work for us who doesn't stand for anything, who can't give a straight answer, who refused to give backup documents to her experience, who basically said "Trust me, I'm the best candidate for the job! Just take my word for it!" Are you kidding me? If we're hiring a painter to paint our house and of all the painters who have given us their quotes, pass jobs, recommendations, showed us their qualifications, explained to us what they're going to do with the house and one painter said I refuse to show you what I've done & refused to tell you what I'm going to do with your house but you can take my word that my job is good. There's NO WAY any of us would hire the painter who can't give a straight answer. SO WHY ARE WE CONSIDERING TO HIRE SOMEONE LIKE THAT TO BE OUR PRESIDENT?

These candidates are applying to WORK FOR US, we are PAYING THEIR SALARIES! The American people better start acting like THE EMPLOYERS that we are or we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot. If Hillary keeps doing what she's doing, she'll be out of the top candidate category just like that! I have a lot of interviewing to do... and she's wasting my time. I want a candidate who takes the job he/she's applying seriously.

Posted by: mbot565 | November 2, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary running strong, is this indicative of the outcome one year before elections.

If the elections were held today and the nominees are Hillary Clinton (D) and Rudy Giuliani (R), who would you vote for?


Posted by: PollM | November 2, 2007 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has the youth vote based on a poll that someone else says Sacred Heart conducts legitimate polls??? LOL!!!!

I don't see Hillary holding campaign rallys at colleges/universitys where 1,000 to 20,000 people show up.

This is the hallmark of the Obama campaign so far, well attended campaign events at a variety of colleges - elite and non-elite.

Posted by: dpsa27 | November 2, 2007 6:52 AM | Report abuse

The way to make sure the youth vote comes out in force is to reinstate the draft -- with only valid medical reasons being the way out, and make the draft applicable regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Not only would the youth come out in force, but I guarantee that the politicians will no longer be so quick to declare war - not if their children or grandchildren might be "in harm's way."

Personally, I think it's time to reinstate it...require everyone to serve for 3-4 years. If the real concern is to protect ourselves, we ought to do as several countries do - require mandatory service.

Posted by: femalenick | November 2, 2007 1:24 AM | Report abuse

The problem that Hillary is not seeing is that much of the Youth Vote born in the very late 70s to mid-80s was indoctrinated with right wing religion and political views during their parents love affair with the comedian Rush Limbaugh, the hack actor Ronald Reagan, the son of a Nazi sympathizer and war profiteer, George H. W. Bush, and other political hacks that have haunted DC since the Nixon Era. Their parents are still in love with the bumbling idiot George II. These first and second time voters will flock to whatever candidate their evangelical puppet master tells them that their god wants to be President.

Posted by: craiggger | November 2, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

That poll is simply the latest survey that shows Clinton running strong among young voters, according to an internal memo from the Clinton campaign.

Amazing - quoting an internal Clinton memo instead of independent research - but not surprising. Did the pollsters reach these young people on their land lines in their dorm rooms? Sorry, I do not believe the poll results of anyone under forty from land lines.

Posted by: dpack | November 1, 2007 11:58 PM | Report abuse

When a potential candidate is asked the question, SHOULD ILLEGAL ALIENS BE ALLOWED TO GET VALID DRIVERS LICENCES? The answer should be a firm, NO. That's it. No waffling is necessary on this issue. Are these stupid people planning on running our country well or just running it into the ground? Just say NO to foolishness in America. BTW, a recent poll of New Jersyites says that most of them would like to leave the state. And, NJ DOES allow illegals to obtain drivers licenses!

Posted by: bellhopp | November 1, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

The ONLY thing Hillary takes a stand on is getting Hillary elected to office. If she were at all effective the Senate would be slowing the needless and useless "wars" in the Mid East. She could do a great deal to stop the Bush Family War Profiteering Business in her current position. She doesn't. We do not need another dynastic President; Just look where George II got us. We need new ideas, new methods and new people to run this government or we will become a third world country. Just remember, China holds all those US government bonds that pay for the "war effort." Someday, they will want their money back and we will be working for them.

Hilliary is the Democrats own worst enemy. She is worse than a Nader or Perot for sending votes to the Republicans. Anybody right of center on the Dem's side will vote Republican as will the entire right wing. They have been weakened but not so much that they will vote for Hillary.

Bill Richardson is THE candidate that is actually qualified for the job and that starts with NOT being the superstar of the day.

Posted by: craiggger | November 1, 2007 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Met Hillary in a very small group when she was out campaigning for DEMS in NJ the sunday before Kerry's 2004 prez election .. very impressive, bright and has a warm personality..
however most qualified candidate to end the war and manage the fiasco of US foreign policy is Sen. Joe Biden... he is bright articulate and has the know how to make things happen .. he is engaging well respected by all his sen colleaguesand those around the world! so give him another look... he had the guts and brains to dig us out of the hole bush buried us in ,, and we need leadership that is based on good sound areasoning.. JOE BIDEN is that go to guy! VOTE FOR JOE!!!!

Posted by: delgirl27 | November 1, 2007 10:40 PM | Report abuse

I get the " the youth are our future" idea but what really makes us so important to presidential candidates? Most of the people voting are not considered the " youth" of this country so why do we keep tyring to target everyone by using MTV or Myspace ect. I do believe that the way Hillary Clinton approached the youth was a bit more sophisticated than say Barack Obama. Kudos to Clinton!

Posted by: david_kelley | November 1, 2007 10:33 PM | Report abuse

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles..." Okay, Hillary just had (in my opinion) her best debate performance ever, [poised/concise/knowledgeable] but the media want/need a race, so they trashed it?

Posted by: 4to125characters | November 1, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you need to poin ou that most of the "student" goups support Hillary the pycholohical basket case, are women's groups. A casual reading of the posts here and elsewhere demonstrates that he most fanatical supporters are a collection of angry women who see Hillary as someone who will get even with the men who they perceived as somehow wronging them. God help us, but the election is open sexual warfare. It has nothing to do with issues, because Ms Clinton hasn't expounded upon any issues. It's a series of one liners, snide remarks about men (and Bill), and a viceral desire for revenge and to hell with the country.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | November 1, 2007 9:59 PM | Report abuse

BTW Chris, I know this is a little late, but the link you gave is not recognized by the campaign as a pro-hillary group, nor has it been updated in 6 months. It is run privately and without consultation or support of the campaign.

Teens for Clinton

Posted by: names-bond | November 1, 2007 8:46 PM | Report abuse

As a college student majoring in political science i have to tell you that the "youth" vote consists of the hardcore partisans who make up the poli sci departments on college campuses. Most dems on my campus do not support hillary based on her record and lack of stable positions in addition to a failure on her part to answer questions. As many youth are very dovish the war is the main issue to us and hillary's position on the war is too hawkish.
My biggest problem with her speech at Wellesley is her shot at "the boys club" who apparently piled on during the debate, according to her interpretation. I watched the debate and was actually glad to see obama and edwards challenge her on her record in a serious manner. If she complains about that how is she going to deal with some of the chauvinists who run other countries?
In addition i take offense at the assertion that i am not an adult and spend all my time playing xbox.

Posted by: uclazy31 | November 1, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

The "youth" have no vested interest in the country. They are living off their parents. The parents' vote is what should count. Tell these kids to stay home an play xBox. Leave the decisions to adults.

Posted by: kmccorma | November 1, 2007 8:11 PM | Report abuse

it just blows my mind that a considerable portion of the democratic party seems to be bound to put this person in the white house that cannot seem to make up her own mind about too much of anything that matters. at least part of what she said the other night will have changed by the next time she gives another speech. but people are still determined to put the little girl in office.

Posted by: usaII | November 1, 2007 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: There's really very little of substance to discuss right now, on the federal level. The debates are a joke; the fields still need to be winnowed down considerably; and the candidates are still pandering to the partisan core.

I'll be available to discuss the Virginia election results next week. I'm sure I can squeeze you in if you're interested.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 7:54 PM | Report abuse

It sure feels like Hilary is in the lead in just about every poll involving politics. Targeting the youth seems like a really good idea but only time will tell if the time spent ends up being worth it.

Posted by: ffx4good | November 1, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

If the elections were held today and the nominees are Hillary Clinton (D) and Rudy Giuliani (R), who would you vote for?


Posted by: PollM | November 1, 2007 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I've noticed that you don't talk about Democrats. Or Republicans. Or any other political topics. You mostly pass the time exchanging insults with MikeB and Zouk, and calling people morons and liars. That's something to be proud of.

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 7:10 PM | Report abuse

LOL Blarg, I can do whatever I want, and so can you. I didn't tell proud she couldn't post about the Dem primaries, I asked her why she did it.

And BTW, if you've read carefully (not one of your strong suits, I realize), you'd have seen that I don't post my views on any of the Dem candidates. Do you see me comparing Obama to Clinton to Edwards to Dodd to Biden? No, you don't. I leave it up to you partisans to pick your candidates.

But as an impartial observer, I am in an excellent position to opine on who is and isn't not a loyal partisan. It's not difficult.

So there you go. Blather on!

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 6:36 PM | Report abuse

hillary avoided to play the female card at the beginning of her campaign branding herself as a tough warmonger. suddenly she camouflages into the feminist she could have been but is not. No feminist will accept the support of the military industry aiming at destroying even more our raped planet
No hillary. Feminists respect the sacredness of life. you could not care less.It's all about rabid ambition and it looks bad. very bad.

Posted by: tabita | November 1, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, you're not a Democrat? Then you REALLY have no right to be saying who is and isn't a loyal Democrat. And I'm going to have to ask you to leave the site. See, you said before that only Democrats are allowed to talk about the Democratic race. You're not a Democrat or a Republican, so you can't talk about politics anymore, by your own rules.

You're the one giving Republicans hope for victory in 2008, because you're driving people away from the Democratic Party. Rather than try to convince Jackson that he should vote for Hillary, you call him a moron and say that his opinion doesn't matter. Not exactly building a consensus.

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

i don't care what the polls say. clinton is the lee harvey oswald of the election of 2008. she will be a patsy for a republican landslide andd will have to suffer another four to eight years of republican rule. the media is setting it up to appear as though she has all this support and just like the elections of 2000 and 2004, a republican wins. but this time, it will be legitimate with verifiable data that she lost. i can hear it now, "this election was not stolen. the american people have voted for victory in iraq, more tax cuts, free markets, and a president who is strong on security. hail to the chief, jeb bush."

Posted by: glenknowles | November 1, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

TO EHARDWICK: If you paid attention to some of my other posts you would find that I am a female Democrat who knocked on doors for John Kerry in 2004, made "get out the vote" phone calls for Sen. Webb's campaign in 2006 and I am currently collecting signatures for Sen Obama so he can get his name on the Virginia Democratic Primary Ballot. Now what have you done to earn your Democratic credentials, other than perhaps post and insult other Democrats. If you listened to Imus on a regular basis, you would have found him to be extremely anti Bush, anti Cheney, anti Condi, anti Rumsfield, and very much so against the war in Iraq. Thats what his show was mainly about. He was booted out by a mob mentality. Its amazing to me that NOW went after IMUS, but always supported Bill Clinton, who sexually exploited women for his pleasure. You Clinton supporters all are alike, you can dish it out, but can't take anyone questioning the Queen's honesty.

Posted by: bringbackimus | November 1, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

When the dust settles, and Hillary is still standing as the Democratic nominee for President, her dealing with the attacks of all the Democratic men will stand her in good stead to begin dealing with the vastly nastier, and sleazier attacks that will come from the Republican sleaze machine. THEN her ability to slip the vast wave of lies, slander, deliberate distortion and totally irrelevant garbage that the Republicans are already readying, and using will, we hope, cause those Americans who profess to detest such political debauchery to vote for Hillary, if for no other reason than to refuse to even seem to reward modern Republican campaign theory.

I haven't yet decided whom to vote for in the primary, (but I find it hard to vote anti-feminist, or even look like I do), but when the inevitable happens, I will truly enjoy voting for her in the general election.

Posted by: ceflynline | November 1, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

claudialong--Clinton is definitely trying to have it both ways HERSELF:

Say what you want but a little girl in distress is not suitable to be the president. A strong, intelligent woman would be.

Posted by: roo_P | November 1, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is as insincere as it gets - when will people finally reject family dynasty politics and the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans? That would be really "standing up, taking charge, and making the impossible possible"!

Posted by: plarson | November 1, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse


Listen to Hillary at your own risk. The Corporate Shill who wants to be ordained may feign advice, opinions, and statements of various ill informed corporate Masters. USA and its populace do not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by the Corporate Wh*re, representing shill, or any front lackey acting in her behalf due to fluctuations of that days polls. Reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, or other information shall also be at your own risk.

Neither USA, its citizens, nor its Allies shall be liable to any user or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, use of any content herein, regardless of cause, for any damages resulting there from. Transmission and/or receipt of the manipulative propaganda from the Corporate Shill or her ilk does not constitute a professional-client relationship of any kind.

It is your responsibility to evaluate the deception, inaccuracies and any opinions, manipulation, future pilfering of the treasury, preemptive/optional wars, lack of services or subversion of the Constitution provided. All information and or propaganda contained on any page is distributed with the understanding that the Posers, shills and charlatans are not rendering professional advice or opinions for your benefit, and accordingly assume no responsibility and, or, accountability whatsoever in connection with their office and, or, position.

Posted by: dan3 | November 1, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse


Can the 'Vote' be 'Rocked' by Celine Dion?


Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: dial it back! Chill, baby, chill.

We're NOT in the same party, because I'm not in any party. So you can breath a big sigh of relief there, sister.

It's people like you and JacksonLanders that give people like proudtobeGOP hope for 2008. Obviously, the preferred choice of most partisans will not get the nomination; that's simple math. But proud is going to vote for the GOP nominee regardless of who it is, and so will zouk..

JacksonLanders needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Perhaps he doesn't know who nominates Justices for the Supreme Court, and that the next president will likely nominate a couple. Oh, but he'll have his precious video games! LOL

Apparently many if not most Naderites now regret their votes in 2000, but it looks like there's a new crop of morons waiting in the wings. Sad, really.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 5:07 PM | Report abuse

I have not seen any blog talk about how Edwards just ruined his chances of getting on Hillary's ticket as VP.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | November 1, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun, I don't understand where you're coming from. Why do you think JacksonLanders is a liar? You say that there's no way he'll vote, because young people don't vote, even though he said he cares about politics. (You'll note that he's posting on a political blog, a sign that he's probably going to vote.) Then you say that he must be lying, because any REAL Democrat would support the Democratic nominee, even if they personally think she's the wrong person for the job. You talk about partisanship as if it's some kind of lofty goal, and the party is more important than the person.

You need to stop claiming to be the boss around here. First you go around telling people what races they're allowed to talk about. Now you're proclaiming who's really a Democrat, and who's just lying about it. Jackson made some intelligent and serious criticisms of Hillary, and your response is to question his honesty and his likeliness to vote. I'm sorry that we're in the same party. (Unless you declare that I'm not a Democrat, that is.)

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

JD: Please allow me to help. Loud and Dumb is Zouk's "clever" revision of my screen name.

Sadly, he is fixated on claudialong, whom he calls drindl, me, and Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Zouk; 'Loud and Dumb'? Translate, please

Posted by: JD | November 1, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

jb's right, there is no 'youth vote' that can be counted on. The MSM always says that this is the year. Problem is, it's never borne out by facts. Youth participation was very similar, if I remember right, from Kerry to Gore to Clinton.

Posted by: JD | November 1, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

drindl, you are getting nuttier and more hysterical by the minute. Is this some sort of moonbat contest with Loud and Dumb to out-loony the other?

We will watch over and judge at the end of the day. continue your spiral into dementia.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

drindl's SS argument in a nutshell:
SS is in trouble. Let's just keep it in trouble. not mkaking it worse is a good idea. Fixing it need not be mentioned.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

An argument for leaving SS alone:

'We need to remember that now and for at least a decade into the future Social Security is actually subsidizing the rest of the federal budget. The program brings in much more than it pays out. As we all remember from the voluble debates two years ago, the surplus is being used to buy US government bonds which go into the Trust Fund. And that socked away money will keep the program solvent through the middle of this century as the baby boomers retire, and revenues in no longer cover promised payments out.

We've been doing that for about a quarter of a century.

The problem on the political side of the equation is that the enemies of Social Security have spent a couple decades arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist or that it is simply a bookkeeping device with no true financial meaning. If that's true, it means that American workers have spent the last twenty-five years using their payroll taxes to subsidize general revenues and make it easier to float big tax cuts for upper-income earners without getting anything in return.

If we start pumping a lot more money into Social Security coffers now it will by definition go into more government bonds, which is another way of saying that it will go toward funding our current deficit spending. In fact it will enable more deficit spending and probably more upper-income tax cuts because it will make the consequences of both easier to hide.'

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

drindl - I thought you were a true believer in manmade global warming. If you really want to end our dependence on foreign oil, you should cheer a price hike. Especially since your leaderless congress is not about to do anything.

but this idea would require an understanding of ecnomics and a decided trend away from mindless gotcha blogging. this will clearly not come from the likes of drindl.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Since the last thread degenerated due to at least one of the Two Stooges, I will reproduce my post there:

Game for everyone!

We can still safely assume that Clinton will be one of the two or three candidates who will make it through the primaries. My question: out of the supporters of all of the other candidates, how many will turn to support Clinton if theirs calls it quits? Obviously this will depend a bit on who the other two are, too, but Clinton has a pretty clear "market segment" that her supporters will fall in.

My guesses:

Biden: 70%
Dodd: 40%
Edwards: 10%
Gravel: 10%
Kuchinich: 5%
Obama: 15%
Richardson: 35%

If you like, include the splits for matchups that you think are likely: Clinton-Obama, Clinton-Biden, whatever.

Posted by: roo_P | November 1, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Dow tumbles 280... oil hits $96.24 a barrel.. remember how invading Iraq was going to bring down the price of oil? Gee, that worked out really well.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

ehardwick: being so young, JacksonLanders most likely won't vote, so nothing to worry about.

These "dedicated Democrats" are pretty funny. This one deciding who he won't vote for based on a video game. Impressive.

Most of these guys are not really Democrats of course. That's why you don't see any "dedicated Republican" posts. Real partisans hold their nose if needed and vote for their party's candidate.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

"Too many of your ilk voted for Nader in 2000. Gee, how did that work out?"

Message not received. Transmit again in 2008.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

To JacksonLanders-As a truly dedicated Democrat who voted for and gave $100 to George McGovern in 1976 (If you are too young, google or wiki or whatever him and see how he did) even though I despised him then and now, I take issue with you being a "dedicated Democrat". I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President. Too many of your ilk voted for Nader in 2000. Gee, how did that work out?

To bringbackimus-You monicker says it all you Republican troll!!

Ashley Hardwick

Posted by: ehardwick | November 1, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

To JacksonLanders-As a truly dedicated Democrat who voted for and gave $100 to George McGovern in 1976 (If you are too young, google or wiki or whatever him and see how he did) even though I despised him then and now, I take issue with you being a "dedicated Democrat". I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President. Too many of your ilk voted for Nader in 2000. Gee, how did that work out?

To bringbackimus-You monicker says it all your Republican troll!!

Posted by: ehardwick | November 1, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

How about you let drindl run the blog. then you can have NBC, MSNBC, CNN like ratings. Only the true loony leftists will remain - the 11%ers.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 1, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse


there's a lot of us here who'd really appreciate that. please stop ignoring those of us who want to hear more about our favorite candidate, becuase you've alrady decided you want Hillary vs. Rudy.

Posted by: drindl | November 1, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

i think the person who mentioned that those at non-elite schools don't really come out to vote has a point. if only 70% of students graduate from high school and only 30% of those go to college (and a miniscule percent of those go to the elite schools), having rallies at Wellesley and Harvard aren't really going to increase your youth vote turn out. the best way to increase the "youth vote" is not to think of them as a "youth vote." instead, they should focus on targeted groups of the "youth vote." for example, "young professionals" (there are tons of social events which target those people--why aren't the candidates doing this?). if you really want to increase the "youth vote," though, you've got to get to the youth who don't vote. why not hold a rally at a trade school or have a tour of community colleges? these are harder to organize because most of those students have other jobs and generally feel disconnected from politics. if you start engaging these "young people" as future members of the middle class through unions, you're locking up the youth vote now and the "middle-age vote" for the future.

Posted by: plathman | November 1, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Again with Clinton. How about a piece on Joe Biden's incredible debate performance, rather than yet another piece on the candidate with the most access to ready cash?

Posted by: soonerthought | November 1, 2007 2:49 PM | Report abuse

bringbackimus: Sacred Heart University is in Connecticut, which is completely irrelevant. Their polls are among the many that are considered legit.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

Chris, where the heck is Sacred Heart University, and who cares about their poll. Do you only report favorable poll results for H. Clinton, as opposed to unfavorable polls amoung youth? Sen. Obama has certainly proved he is the favorite of most young people. Why would youth favor an over the hill baby boomer, who can't be trusted, voted for the war in Iraq, and will likely support a war against Iran. Are you really being fair and honest in your blogs?

Posted by: bringbackimus | November 1, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Being still under 30 myself, I decided that I really hated Hillary Clinton a few years ago when she decided to loudly demand the censorship of video games following the 'hot coffee' dust-up over Grand Theft Auto, San Andreas. I grew up playing computer games and continue to do so as an adult, just like most people of my generation.

Hillary Clinton's bizarre belief that such games are only intended for children and her conclusion that this form of expression should be subject to government oversight and regulation makes her a natural object of distrust to younger voters. I have GTA, I enjoy playing it and I will never vote for someone who wishes to criminalize aspects of this emerging art form.

Hillary Clinton is out of touch with voters under 30 and her record in the Senate proves it. Should any of the other candidates open an attack on her based on this, she would be vulnerable among the under 30 crowd.

Of course, I don't actually believe that she really cared all that much about whether a video game marketed to adults contained a hidden sex scene. Why would she? The whole episode was classic Hillary Clinton. She wanted her name in the papers, saw people of my demographic as easy to dismiss and used the issue to portray herself as some sort of crusader for morality. When really she doesn't care one way or another. Nothing really matters to this candidate aside from her own immediate personal interest. Freedom of speech, morality, health care, flag burning, war in Iraq, whatever. She takes whatever position looks convenient at the moment and appears to have no actual convictions of any sort. What will she think or do next month? Who knows.

This dedicated Democrat will not vote for her in the primary and if she is nominated I will not support her in the general election.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | November 1, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it obvious?? Chris LOVES Hillary !!

Posted by: maddogjts | November 1, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

bearpaw: On the R side we have a media horserace as well, although the voters seem more inclined to decide later rather than sooner, thus throwing a kink in the media-spin plan.

But for the most part there is
the Leader, Rudy Giuliani,
the Challenger, Mitt Romney
the Also-Ran(s), Fred Thompson/ John McCain
and the Wacko, Ron Paul as portrayed in the MSM.

My preference would be to see McCain moved up to challenger status, which has almost occurred, but not quite, after he has rebounded nicely the last two months. Romney's money stands in the way of that for now.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | November 1, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: CC must have a thing for women in pantsuits.

You are correct. There are several serious (non-wacko) candidates on the Dem side, but people like CC treat them like they are on the dark side of the moon. You have to go to the Trail blog to read much about them.

Posted by: Spectator2 | November 1, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

How many blog posts in a row are about Hillary? The two newest ones are explicitly about her, in both title and content. Before that was a content-free (and mostly ignored) FixCam. Before that was a debate post, which described everyone's performance in terms of how they dealt with Clinton. The post before that was also about the debate and how everyone attacked Clinton.

So 4 of the last 5 posts are at least significantly about Clinton, and 2 are completely about her. This is getting ridiculous. I'm no political expert, but I'm fairly sure there are other candidates on the Democratic side. And I've heard rumors that there's another party out there somewhere, but you'd hardly notice it from this blog. Get a new topic!

BearPaw: That list of roles is perfect.

Posted by: Blarg | November 1, 2007 1:58 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says: "It seems the media is still letting [Clinton] drive the agenda rather than developing new stories on their own. Why is that?"

You've pretty much answered your own question, haven't you?

The horserace view of politics by the media follows a predictable storyline: the Leader, the Challenger, the Also-Ran, and the Wacko. If there are only three candidates, the last two roles are merged. If there's only two, the last two are skipped. If there are more than four, everyone else is ignored.

I haven't been following the Repubs, but who's been assigned which roles in the Dem contest is obvious.

Posted by: bearpaw01 | November 1, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris Cillizza- a question.

If Sen Clinton was, at best, a 'tweener' in the debate the other night, why has she dominated the news cycle since then? It seems the media is still letting her drive the agenda rather than developing new stories on their own. Why is that?

Posted by: bsimon | November 1, 2007 1:28 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the "youth vote" is that there is no there "there." For a generation (since McGovern's 1972 debacle & the voting age was lowered) liberals have touted the youth vote as some sort of a panacea--or at least a key cog in a new liberal coalition. The problem is--young people, who aren't at elite schools, don't vote in significant numbers. Any Democrat who is counting on a hidden youth vote--will (almost by definition) lose. Remember John Kerry's campaign counting on the youth vote? That is when everyone should have figured he would lose.

Posted by: jb326200 | November 1, 2007 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company