From: baldwin@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Excited about Clinton?  (was Re: As the sun sinks slowly in the west)
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:26:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dep't., U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
In-reply-to: jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com's message of 04 Nov 92 17:12:24 -0400

jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>>The election was far more anti-Bush than pro-Clinton...
>
>Exit polling shows that over 50% of voters are excited about the prospect
>of a Clinton presidency. This includes 20% of Bush voters (source: USA
>Today 11/4). Give it up.

According to Mark Shields on Macneil-Lehrer last night (11/4) [and I
didn't catch his source, though I'm pretty sure he gave one; his
numbers went unchallenged by David Gergen], exit polling showed:

	17%	"excited" about a Clinton presidency

	25(?)%	[???] about a Clinton presidency (I don't remember the
		    exact word used here, but it fell between "excited"
	 	    and "concerned")

	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.)

I'd sure be interested to know your source for 50% "excited" about
Clinton (unless you mean something different by that word than I
think), seeing as he only roused 43% of 55% == 23.7% of eligible
voters (substantially less, even, seeing as the numbers for "other"
candidates are being withheld) to vote for him.  I think it would be
fair to say that a large proportion of *those* voted not out of
"excitement" over the ticket, but as a vote against Bush.

No one knows, of course, how the Perot support would have played out
if he hadn't been a candidate.  I had always believed (much earlier
than the pundits were telling me it was so) that they drew more
support from Clinton than from Bush, but now I'm not so
sure--particularly given Perot's rather pointed attack on Clinton's
economic plans last Sunday.

>Sixty percent of voters said that whatever Bush was doing, please
>stop it. We will, and that is Clinton's mandate.

Sixty percent of voters said "whatever Clinton has planned for us,
don't do it."  This numbers game cuts both ways, you know.  And using
the word "mandate" in this context is downright humorous.

Note distribution and followup.  Change if desired.
--
 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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc