Far More Interest Among Republicans Than Democrats in Clinton Emails, Netanyahu

[DemocratSinceBirth]

From news about the economy to controversy over Hillary Clinton’s emails and the trial of the Boston marathon bomber, no single story dominated the public’s news interest last week.


Two stories drew far more interest from Republicans than Democrats: 34% of Republicans followed reports about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address as secretary of state very closely, compared with just 16% of Democrats. Similarly, about twice as many Republicans (34%) as Democrats (18%) closely followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last Tuesday.

,,,

But young people expressed especially low interest in stories about Netanyahu and Clinton’s emails: Just 3% followed news about Netanyahu’s address to C0ngress very closely, while just 4% said the same regarding news about Clinton’s emails as secretary of state



http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/09/far-more-interest-among-republicans-than-democrats-in-clinton-emails-netanyahu/

[Cosmic Kitten]

1. People already decided about Hillary... Economy matters more

These polls should be disturbing news for Hillary.

Given the low interest in emailgate among democrats
a reasonable conclusion is that they already know
how they feel and don't need more information.
Republicans are simply gloating, and it's galvanizing
their base against the "corrupt" Clinton's.

Hillary polls at a roughly 45/45 favorable/unfavorable
with less than 10% undecided!

That means the camps have already divided and
Hillary is more likely to lose voters than gain any
with "scandals" such a emailgate.

What's missing, and MOST relevant, is how "Independent"
voters think about this issue and how it will affect their vote.
Most polls cited here at DU breakdown on partisan lines.
The X-factor is the unaffiliated voters which I have yet
to see represented in any Hillary polls.

Lastly, seeing that "economics" & "healthcare" are
rated higher by BOTH parties it's obvious what the
general electorate is concerned about.

Hillary simply has no credibility to address
either of those concerns...
Her close connections to Wall st and her failed attempt
to push the nation into HMO's in the 90's won't resonate.

It's not good news that Dems don't care about emailgate,
and it's worse that repubs are rallying around the "scandal".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Her favorable/unfavorable rating is right where Barack Obama was when he was re-elected.

Her favorable/unfavorable rating is right where Barack Obama was when he was re-elected and Willard Romney was when he was defeated. Any widely known national politician is going to split the nation right down the middle.

Anything else beyond that takes me into the realm of speculation and as a logical positivist I find speculation to be of limited utility.

[Cosmic Kitten]

3. That's not necessarily the case here.

It's unreasonable to compare a sitting president
to a potential candidate as far as "electability"

What's relevant here isn't partisan polarization,
it's the "undecided" voters that matter.

In your example Hillary compares more with Romney
than Obama in that both Mitt and Hillary are gaffe prone.
Both Mitt and Hillary are second time campaigners,
and both misspoke or committed some other "offense"
in the public's eyes.... 47%, car elevators, dead broke, etc...

Lastly, it is not a given fact that any "widely known" politician
will split the nation right down the middle...that's a false premise
based on a false dichotomy.

FDR did not split the vote right down the middle!
And guess what he campaigned on? Populist values!