From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Excited about Clinton?  (was Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west)
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:43:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU's message of 05 Nov 92 13:28:49 -0400

rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes (quoting me):
>>	17%	"excited" about a Clinton presidency
>>	25(?)%	[???] about a Clinton presidency
>>	25%	"concerned" about a Clinton presidency
>>	28%	"scared" about a Clinton presidency
>>
>>I'm not real sure about that second number, but the point is that 53%
>>of all voters (counting those who had "no opinion" who weren't
>>explicitly mentioned) are either "concerned" or "scared" about
>>Clinton.  I should say, as a matter of revealing my own bias, that
>>given the wording of the question, I wouldn't fall into either of
>>those two categories.  (I should also say that if the Cold War were
>>still on, I would be applying to the Seychelles for a visa right now.)
>
>the second word there is "optimisitic."

In that case, I'd revise my statement to say I'm "concerned."

>of course people are concerned about the next presidents term. what
>a poorly worder question. i voted for clinton, and im concerned
>about his presidency. WHY THE FUCK WOULD I HAVE VOTED IF I WASNT
>CONCERNED?

Are you being deliberately disingenuous or merely obtuse?  It's clear
from the context that "excited" is meant in a positive sense and
"concerned" is meant in a moderately negative sense.  As in, "I am
*concerned* about Clinton's ability to deliver on his myriad promises
while maintaining economic growth and reducing the deficit."  It's not
so badly worded.  Not as badly as some poll questions I've seen.

>i guess my point is: Who cares what the f*ck a USA today exit poll
>says? 

a) Why do you c*nsor the word "fuck" only when it is in lower case?

b) I don't have much regard for USA Today ("McPaper"), but I find the
   statistic both interesting and believable.  The source is
   irrelevant.

>CLINTON WON
>BUSH LOST
>
>and thats the statistic that counts.

This is a very narrow and simplistic view of electoral dynamics.
Certainly a poll demonstrating the nature of one's popular support is
at least as important as the constant "approval ratings" presidents
get during their terms.  I'm not suggesting that a president should
live or die by these ratings, merely that they are, like it or not, an
important part of politics in this country--both during and outside of
election years.

If 53% of the electorate are "concerned" or worse, it means that
Clinton has a credibility problem which he'd better address, pronto.
("Or he'll just be bogus, too.")  That this datum is unimportant or
should be totally ignored by the new Administration is a very naive
and dangerous suggestion and illustrates perfectly why listening to
one's own True Believers is the dumbest thing a politician can do.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~