Degrees of Enthusiasm among Democrats and Republicans

The Washington Post as a new story about a poll of Republicans in Iowa. It says:

Iowa Republicans Are Not Thrilled With Presidential Field

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page A03

As the Republican presidential candidates gather this morning in Des Moines for their fourth debate, Iowa GOP voters are expressing limited enthusiasm for the field of current and potential aspirants, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. Their views appear to be a microcosm of GOP sentiment across the country and point to a wide open battle for the nomination.

The poll results -- in raw form, not spun by a presumably left-leaning reporter -- can be found here. Overall, it shows that 73% of Republicans in Iowa are satisfied with the field of candidates, whereas 25% are dissatisfied. It also shows that 19% claim to be very satisfied, whereas 3% claim to be very dissatisfied (i.e., the very satisfied outnumber the very dissatisfied by about 6 to 1).

Do these numbers show that Iowa's Republicans have "limited enthusiasm" for the presidential field? To these reporters it does. To me, it says that they are pretty satisfied with the field. In fact, the satisfied outnumber the unsatisfied by 3 to 1. If people felt that way about the economy (as they should), it would rightly be described as an extremely high level of satisfaction, not as "limited satisfaction."

On the other hand, it is fair to say that the Democrats are substantially more enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards (those poll results can be found here). In fact, they seem weirdly ecstatic about these choices, with 89% expressing satisfaction and 10% expressing dissatisfaction. An amazing 53% say they are very satisfied, whereas a scant 1% says they are very dissatisfied (i.e., it is 53 to 1 in favor of the very satisfied). They are this satisfied even though one of the leading candidates (Hillary Clinton) has been a reliable hawk on the war terror, except recently, during the period of time that she has been campaigning to win the Democratic primary. During that time, she has no choice but to strongly advocate our unconditional surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. If she didn't do that, she would have no hope of winning (so don't blame her for that about face).

Although it's just speculation on my part, I think that the enthusiasm expressed by Democrats is an inverse reflection of the rage they feel towards George Bush. These Democratic candidates offer hope for change from what they see as a quasi-fascist imperialistic nightmare that will have lasted for 8 long years by the time it is over.