home

NYT/CBS Poll: Obama's Support "Softening"

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:26:27 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Has Barack Obama peaked? That's one reading of the NY Times/ CBS poll of registered voters of both parties released today:

Senator Barack Obama’s support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.

More...

Obama's favorability rating is down 7 points.

Obama v. McCain: Obama ahead 47% to 42%.
Hillary v. McCain: Hillary ahead 48% to 43%

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now effectively tied among Democratic voters, with 46 percent saying they want the party to nominate Mr. Obama, compared with 43 percent for Mrs. Clinton. In late February, 54 percent of Democrats said they wanted Mr. Obama to win the nomination, compared with 38 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Among men:

Mr. Obama’s lead among men has disappeared during that period. In February, 67 percent of men wanted the party to nominate him compared with 28 percent for Mrs. Clinton. Now 47 percent back him, compared with 42 percent for her, a difference within the poll’s margin of error. Similarly, his lead has shrunk among whites, voters making more than $50,000 annually and voters under age 45.

< Who's Winning the Popular Vote Total? | Obama Proposes 50/50 Michigan Split: Just Say No >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NYT/CBS Poll: Obama's Support "Softening" | 167 comments (167 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Has to be financial insecurity (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:37:35 PM EST
    Wright would be mitigating, but I think that many people are getting to the end of the month and realizing they're not the well-heeled, latte dems they once thought they were.  We need someone who can start digging us out of this mess immediately.

    I have long thought that the reason there have been so many calls for Clinton to step down are because the longer the race goes on, the worse the economy get, and the more the candidates are scrutinized, the better it is for Clinton.

    If his peak came from caucus victories, she can certainly get more of a boost from a string of big state wins.  Another good polling day for Clinton supporters!  Thanks, TL!

    You're right on! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by felizarte on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:23:28 PM EST
    and as Hillary said on Jay Leono, "it's the stupid economy," and the isolated items that accumulated;  his association with Rezko, Nafta/Canadian fiasco/Rev. Wright/His legislative record in Illinois and being propped up by his mentor; Sam Powers; These are things that had negative impact on his claim of 'good judgement.'  So now voters are looking at the experience factor in view of the grave problems facing the country. Healthcare/Recession/Iraq/energy/environment/education/

    Obama clearly does not have the experience or the demonstrated ability to handle these issues.

    [ Parent ]

    heh... (none / 0) (#56)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:05:11 AM EST
    she recycled a comment I just watched on Adam Curtis' - The Century of the Self this evening, Carvilles old comment 'it's the economy stupid', clever play or plagarism!?

    I'm leaning towards the former right now, but I need to see the the context.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't she say it backwards? (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:20:29 AM EST
    That was the War Room cry of the Clinton campaign in 92. So in reality, it was Carvel who used it all the time and had a sign if I remember, but it was so that would remember to keep focus. By her saying it is the stupid economy was a cool play on words. Good for her.

    [ Parent ]
    well, right before she said it (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:11:02 AM EST
    iirc, Jay mentioned that it was the same issue now as when Bill ran, the economy, and then she responded.

    I sure wouldn't call that plagiarism . . .  

    [ Parent ]

    well (none / 0) (#69)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    in that context it was a clever play on the words, but we need substance not just words right?

    [ Parent ]
    Her words contained plenty of (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:13:48 AM EST
    "substance" and solutions. Might want to check out her site for her plans. Compare her speech to the AFL-CIO in Pitts to his perhaps. Compare the info they both supply on their sites daily in their news sections.

    Did you even watch the appearance on Leno?

    [ Parent ]

    I think that... (none / 0) (#80)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:34:09 AM EST
    it is jobs, shifts in tax cuts from the 250,000+ to the under $100,000 and yeah, when unemployment claims jump as they did today, refactored January and February like they did today, the economy is front and center.

    I suppose we could all get hung up in the various phraseology of the moment but the simple fact is, it still is the economy stupid...it was the economy in 2004 but Kerry lost complete control over the issues and was fighting against the war.

    but yes...we need substance and not just words

    [ Parent ]

    I'm old enough... (none / 0) (#160)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    ...to recall it from Bill's '92 campaign as is more than half of America.  One of those phrases that needs no attribution since it is almost universally known among the politicos.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know if I'm representative, but (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:03 PM EST
    I guess I'm a swing voter, as my preference between the candidates  has changed twice already; I think they're both strong candidates. On a gut level Obama appeals to me on foreign affairs, while Hillary appeals to me on the economy, health care and so on. So maybe there's something to it. In a previous thread, someone put a link to an interview of Kramer with Hillary that's impressive. Maybe people who want to see Hillary elected should be passing that around to their friends who are still on the fence. :)

    [ Parent ]
    If this is a continuing trend (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hairspray on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:42:55 PM EST
    I think it makes a very strong case for a Clinton/Obama ticket.  Obama can be a wonderful president in time.  He needs more seasoning.  In the meantime our economy is tanking and we need some serious financial experience.

    [ Parent ]
    Rezko (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:06:22 AM EST
    I think Obama has a Rezko problem still to come, unfortunately.  I also think his ego wouldn't allow him to take the VP spot as second place to a woman.
    If he were to accept VP that would go a long way to restoring my confidence in him.

    [ Parent ]
    Third fiddle (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:53:26 AM EST
    Whoever is Hillary's VP will not be the second seat but the third.  Bill will be the de facto VP.  Hillary's running mate will have to accept third fiddle.

    [ Parent ]
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:54:58 AM EST
    that is such a right-wing talking point. Seriously.  IT was what we heard when Bill was president--that Hillary was his VP-- and then just like now it is absolutely false.

    Last time I checked Bill ran a very influential, very busy foundation, not to mention all the speaking engagements he has.  So kindly please do not recylce right-wing (and shockingly now Obama TP's) that whoever is the VP will actually be less-than.  It's not only fallacious but insulting to HRC as as candidate and a statesman.  Let Limbaugh be the one to repeat such lies.  Not alleged Democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, incase you hadn't noticed, (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:12:33 AM EST
    Bill already has plenty of important work to do. Also, since the law doesn't allow her to give him a Cabinet post, I imagine they've already had this discussion. He'll be what she was to him (and BTW I think she will actually be a better President than he was).

    [ Parent ]
    She would absolutely (4.75 / 4) (#135)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:17:36 AM EST
    be a better President.

    Not to mention the inherent misogyny in making such a statement. Like the Little Woman wouldn't be able to tell her husband that he is not the VP.  I believe she's been quite clear and effective on that point.  As a woman, I am offended. Oh, a little girl like me wouldn't know what to do if her husband wanted to run the show...I'd just have to let him I guess.   It's in line with how I feel about Obama though...after the kiss incident in PA and calling a worker "sweetie." Argh.  Makes my feminist skin crawl.

    [ Parent ]

    My feminist skin (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    has been crawling since I read on O's website that Michelle was not allowed to take a job until Obama met with her potential future employer and gave the okay.

    Makes me sick again just writing about it.  I mean--wtf?  By all accounts, based on her resume at the time, she was even better educated and more qualified than he was.

    [ Parent ]

    I've always and (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    thought and continue to think that he's got quite the sexist streak. I ignored it at first (back when it was "We have 2 great candidates!) but the more I saw it the less I could ignore it.  Not only does he use misogyny to his favor in the media (Tweety, KO, etc) but he himself does it.  I don't care how charming everyone tells you you are. Do not turn a grown woman into a child by calling her sweetie. Never mind offering a kiss for a vote. Ew ew ew.

    [ Parent ]
    That was not his best moment. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:54:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama and His "Kiss" (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Athena on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    Is there a link for this?  Sounds right out of a fundie playbook.  Geez.

    IMHO, Obama's offer of a "kiss" to a female voter the other day was appalling and disqualifying for a Presidential candidate.  It should have gotten wide condemnation - women would like to know how this candidate thinks.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    the link forthe sweetie business.  

    [ Parent ]
    Bill thinks so too..LOL (none / 0) (#156)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    He said so when asked about Chelsea's comment on the same subject. I think Bill Clinton would be wonderful as a special Presidential Envoy when the occasion arises. Other than that, he has plenty to keep him busy. And he can also take on an agenda, like First Ladies do, and be extremely effective with that agenda. He has the political chops, after all. :D

    [ Parent ]
    Hairspray I too used to believe that Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 07:55:06 AM EST
    ...would make a great president some day. Now I'm starting to think maybe not. He'd make a better president than a lot of the other lily livered Dems with presidential ambitions but a great president? Why? The more I see and hear of him the more I wonder what these great "gifts" are that he is supposed to possess.

    [ Parent ]
    He talks nice and (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    he gets along really well with Republicans. Even supports some of their agenda and votes for their judicial candidates. That's what he calls "reaching across the aisle". That is pretty much it as far as I can see. The rest of his "accomplishments" are apparently other peoples'. He just got his name on them. Sort of like his MI stance. He didn't give people a chance to vote for him, and now he wants the votes he didn't earn. Like not working on legislation and getting to sponsor it when it goes to the vote. His greatest gift seems to be the ability to sell an empty suit as a viable candidate for the highest office in the country. That isn't my idea of a qualified candidate, frankly.

    [ Parent ]
    Just watched the interview (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:09 AM EST
    Obama simply can't address the issues like Hillary Clinton can.  She has a significant grasp of policy and a deep understanding of the complexities of our economy and how policy affects those complexities.  Obama simply doesn't have that capability.  Although not directly related to the economy I believe that the Roberts confirmation issue is a crystal clear look into Obama's disconnect with the realities of government and the consequences of his acts.

    Perhaps voters are beginning to grasp this important distinction and may be one of the factors in his decline in the polls.

    [ Parent ]

    Remind you of anyone? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    That was the most striking contrast to me during the 2000 campaign.  Gore had a thesis on nearly every and any issue that was thrown at him while Bush would fall back on generalities and platitudes ('we need to get Americans back to work!')...

    Obviously Presidents have numerous expert advisers, but without any basis to sanity check the advice, the results - as we've seen - can be disastrous.  I don't think Obama means any harm, but he is terribly susceptible to being swayed.  All the nonsense about his willingness to consider all sides doesn't really appeal to me.  I'm not really thrilled about a 46 year old Presidential candidate who is still open to revising his fundamental principles.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:56 AM EST
    for the link, that was great :)

    [ Parent ]
    i saw that, too. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 05:31:15 AM EST
    She hit it out of the ballpark. Thanks for the link for others to view it.

    [ Parent ]
    For Wright, this is a good (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:33:10 AM EST
    oped by Juan Williams in the WSJ.  Contrasts Obama and MLK with comments on Rev Wright.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    I'm going to bask in this (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:42:14 PM EST
    good feeling for the next few minutes before the pile on begins.... aaaaahhh.....

    I can't wait for Penn.

    OK, now reality.... here come the troops with all of the 'other' polls.  Buckle up.

    next week (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:49:27 PM EST
    Blurb on top of SurveyUSA's web site says...
    Next week, watch for our first look at the Democratic primaries for President and U.S. Senate in Oregon, exclusively for KATU-TV in Portland; we'll also have fresh numbers on the North Carolina primaries for WTVD-TV in Raleigh and on the Pennsylvania Democratic presidential contestfor WCAU-TV in Philadelphia, KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh, WHP-TV in Harrisburg, and WNEP-TV in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre.

    should be interesting...

    SUSA has been one of the more accurate polling companies this cycle and they had Hillary up 12% in PA, up 9% in Indiana, up 29% in KY this past week.

    [ Parent ]

    walden, on AC360 tonight, they decided (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:30 PM EST
    that a single digit loss in PA is a win for Obama. I'm back to feeling hopeless again. I remember how Ohio tightened up and I think Obama even lead in the polls for the Texas primary, so I'm hoping the people of PA will do the same as those voters did.

    [ Parent ]
    media narratives are nothing more... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:56:20 PM EST
    than media narratives.

    One could point to the leaked Obama internal prediction of a 5% loss in Pennsylvania as the margin for what is considered a win.

    In reality, a loss is a loss and a win is a win...so says Obama about Missouri (which he won in a squeaker) or Hillary would say about New Mexico (which she won in another squeaker).

    Personally, I don't see how Obama gets this loss into single digits unless something unforseen happens...he has minimal support from politicos in PA, the demographics don't favor him, it's a closed primary (though clearly some Republicans and Independents did register as Democrats for the day) but in the end, this isn't a state that he can say he's out if he loses.

    [ Parent ]

    Leaked spreadsheet (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:10:19 PM EST
    Do you know where that is still available?  I remembered his projection for 5 in Penn but not the others.  I wanted to see what the original expectations were.

    [ Parent ]
    try Ben Smith...Politico... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:15:14 PM EST
    L I N K - Here

    Google is your friend

    [ Parent ]

    Politico (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by standingup on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:16:46 PM EST
    has it available here.  They have a link to download the full spreadsheet.

    [ Parent ]
    curiously... (none / 0) (#31)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:22:21 PM EST
    if you look at the spreadsheet, they have them winning Indiana by 7 (ain't gonna happen), losing Kentucky by 14 (in their dreams), and generally winning states the rest of the way that they are likely to lose.

    Of course, that was then and this is now and things have changed as as the Times says...Obama support has softened.

    [ Parent ]

    My thoughts (none / 0) (#34)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    He will win Indiana. He's down by a few points, with over a month to go.

    [ Parent ]
    And don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Suma on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    the additional advantages of money and free media. As I keep saying, it is a miracle that Clinton is still in the race.

    [ Parent ]
    down a few points? (none / 0) (#37)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:29:02 PM EST
    I suppose that depends again on who do you trust to tell you that...

    Survey USA on 4/1 says Obama down 9%

    Just sayin'

    [ Parent ]

    I see (none / 0) (#60)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:08:53 AM EST
    so this media narrative (Times) is acceptable while the one mentioned above is not...ok got it, this is excellent news for Hillary!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm too confused by the point... (none / 0) (#67)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:15:49 AM EST
    you are trying to make to respond in a meaningful way, other than I detect sarcasm because you believe that I am blinded by my support of Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Be very cautious... (none / 0) (#163)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    ...everything that gets 'leaked' is intended for public consumption.  The Obama campaign is notorious for 'leaked' strategy memos.  Nothing more than a PR routine to get their version of reality out into the media.  Remember Axelrod is a long-time veteran of public relations.

    [ Parent ]
    Thousands of young people flown and bus'd in (none / 0) (#104)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:52:31 AM EST
    I read that this morning.

      They are coming in by the thousands to help him register new voters, and they're concentrating on the young, on any Independents and Republicans they can find.

      He's very effective on this, with the Dem processes.

    [ Parent ]

    Will the media (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Coldblue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:30 PM EST
    report the moral victory if Obama loses by a single percentage point in November?

    Nope.

    Mandates, anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    I need to have the Obama Team (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:17:08 AM EST
    talk to the NFL and MLB so my teams are assured wins even when they lose as long as they stay under 10 in the spread ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I don't happen to think (none / 0) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:08:46 PM EST
    getting 37% of the white vote is a very strong showing (he has variable stats depending on the state)  but I haven't plugged that in to my GE spreadsheets yet.  (I'm lazy, I haven't finished entering all my state demographics yet) :)

    Does anyone have his overall number of the white vote?  I thought he was getting 45% or so.

    [ Parent ]

    He's down among white men, which (none / 0) (#136)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:20:15 AM EST
    does NOT bode well for the GE (or Indiana for that matter)and is also loosing ground in the 25-to-44 groups. Their new strategy is to target HOGH SCHOOLERS - 17-year olds who will be 18 by the GE and are thus eligible to vote in the primary. Talk about a loophole. He obviously doesn't have teenagers if he thinks they'll all even show up having registered! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    He's down among white men, which (none / 0) (#137)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    does NOT bode well for the GE (or Indiana for that matter)and is also loosing ground in the 25-to-44 groups. Their new strategy is to target HIGH SCHOOLERS - 17-year olds who will be 18 by the GE and are thus eligible to vote in the primary. Talk about a loophole. He obviously doesn't have teenagers if he thinks they'll all even show up having registered! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    sorry for the double post - I (none / 0) (#139)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    pushed the wrong button (snark)

    [ Parent ]
    perhaps the duplicity (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    of NAFTA and the under currents of his commitment to pull all the troops out of Iraq as suggested by Samantha Powers and now Colin Kahl are indicative that we really don't know much about what he truly thinks and what he will will do...the empty vessel thing again.

    The thing that strikes me is the reverence he gets for his speeches but I find their pacing to be quite boring and his speech patterns too much like a religious service that I want to desperately end soon.

    While I appreciate the vast differences in content and the fact that he doesn't butcher the English language, I fear that would dread Obama speeches as much as I dread Bush speeches.

    The fact is that the spotlight tends to fade people over time and he's not the 'New Kid in Town' any longer (one of my favorite Eagles songs). The problem that Obama has is that between now and the last vote, there is probably only North Carolina and possibly Oregon where he can hope to stop the downward slide.

    I suspect that it was the recognition that the remaining states were likely to give Hillary the momentum at closing and the concerted efforts to get her to drop out have had some very negative effects on Obama.

    So (none / 0) (#5)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:45:50 PM EST
    This would explain his narrowing gaps in Indiana and Penn., I presume?

    [ Parent ]
    seems to me... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    that being down 12% in PA and 9% in IN still represents a substantial problem for Obama but hey, celebrate you candidate if you wish...

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#11)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:53:14 PM EST
    Some polls have him up in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:58:00 PM EST
    PPP - that had Hillary up by 29% just 2 weeks ago.

    I suppose if you want to fish around for unreliable polling to hang your hat, then you've found your source.

    [ Parent ]

    But (none / 0) (#18)
    by BlacknBlue on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:02:55 PM EST
    The average on realclearpolitics is under 7 percentage points in Clinton's favor.

    [ Parent ]
    fine... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:12:50 PM EST
    knock yourself out.

    RCP uses accurate and absurdly inaccurate polls.

    Feel free to believe whatever you want but I am certain that the end result will be between 8-15% in Hillary's favor and the reliable polling companies are clearly within that range.

    [ Parent ]

    Except that (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by badger on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    simply averaging polls with different samples sizes and methodologies is meaningless, especially when the results vary from Clinton winning by double digits to Obama possibly winning by a small margin, and one poll swung by 25 points over a short period.

    [ Parent ]
    Before polls came out in Indiana, I thought (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:52:49 PM EST
    it was considered a probable win by the Obama camp.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the issue of Indiana... (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:07:35 PM EST
    is far more interesting at this point and probably more crucial for both candidates.

    Hillary is more or less expected to win Pennsylvania and to do it comfortably. Whether it is 8% or 15% probably doesn't matter in the analysis but does matter in popular vote counts.

    In media analysis though...if Hillary wins Indiana, this goes right to the heart of the electability issues that favor Clinton over Obama as discussed in great detail here at US News and World Reports

    It's conceivable that the Democratic party could select a nominee that has no chance whatsoever of winning the general election - at least in any way that is predicted from past results.

    I think when it comes down to it, the issue of electability is the entire point of having 'super delegates'

    [ Parent ]

    Great Analysis (none / 0) (#70)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:18:24 AM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    [ Parent ]
    narrowing (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sas on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:35:43 PM EST
    in your dreams

    polls had him winnin ohio by 4 at the end

    and she won by what - 12? 15?

    Pa in the bag for hillary by about 12

    [ Parent ]

    I think it was 10, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:44:04 PM EST
    and that was pre-Wright stuff.... He would have been crushed in Ohio if it had come out sooner.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm read more than most politically but, (none / 0) (#50)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:11 PM EST
    I still can't figure out what the NAFTA thing was really about (except I've noticed both Hillary and Obama supporters have claimed it shows the other candidate in a bad light), and while I know who Samantha Powers is I imagine most have forgotten her, and I haven't heard about Colin Kahl (follows link). I doubt these issues are in the forefront of most voters' minds.

    There's been a lot of hard campaigning between Obama and Clinton, and that sort of thing would usually bring both candidates' favorability down (which is why I think Obama might be wishing the contest was over). This poll was about Obama's favorability; i wonder if there's been any change in Hillary's?

    Obama was hit by the Wright scandal, then perhaps had a bounce from his speech. Perhaps what her seeing is that bounce fading, and the earlier doubts raised from that are still there, consciously or unconsciously?

    [ Parent ]

    surely there is a dichotomy (none / 0) (#55)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:03:53 AM EST
    of levels of attention to the various details during the campaign and there is likely a substantial percentage of registered Democrats that missed the whole thing on NAFTA. You can read about it here. Sensing the damage that this revelation portended for Obama's campaign, they fought hard to suggest that Hillary's campaign did similar but that has never been established. The worst part of this is that the main stream media found this story too complicated to cover in a meaningful way and then the Ohio and Texas vote happened to wipe the story off the front page.

    The Wright story will clearly not ever go away...Obama made certain that it will remain by saying that he can no more reject Jeremiah Wright than his own grandmother. Whether his connection to Jeremiah Wright ultimately damages his candidacy cannot be known...there hasn't been an election since the public revelations.

    I don't think that there will ever be a way to evaluate how much Obama's connection to Wright hurts Obama's chances. If he is the nominee however, you can be certain that it will be featured prominently in various 527 based campaigns to maximize the white votes.

    [ Parent ]

    Try looking up FACTCHECK.org (none / 0) (#57)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    for some of these squabbles.  I learned a great deal about the NAFTA stories and the Candian telephone calls. There are also some fact check articles on Hillary and experience.  Of course, there is usually a mixed bag, but they do quote the various actors and you get to decide whose credibility you prefer.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#75)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:28:43 AM EST
    NAFTA is a non story, thats why the media gave it up.

    And, BO and HRC are still close (with the edge to BO) in polls because most people (and wingnuts like Wallace, Kemp, McCain, and Huckabee) think that the guilt by association with the pastor is too much.  Plus, the pastor has done more to serve this country than many.  Not to mention, how could he be a 100% nut and still be invited to the Clinton White House with other religious leaders?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure if he was a 100% nut (none / 0) (#85)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:39:03 AM EST
    when he was invited to the Clinton White House in the '90s, but he's more than met the test now.  I still would like to know if Obama doesn't share the pastor's views, why did he stick with that church?  I doubt I'm alone in that question.


    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure you've (none / 0) (#99)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:26:43 AM EST
    heard why he says he stayed there, that's good enough for me.

    The guilt by association thing doesn't work for me on this.  Maybe this is because I've always been close to (including my schools until the first part of HS) religion, although my church was the plain vanilla protestant flavor.

    More power to others if they want to divine BO's soul, that's not my thing.

    Clever line, if I do say so myself.

    [ Parent ]

    Wright made an ass of himself. (none / 0) (#114)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:06:16 AM EST
    The disgusting personal remarks about the Clintons and the accompanying gyrations were so beneath any pastor. And that imbecilic AIDS rant was not what I would deem "unifying".

    The RNC already has a loop of Wright comments ready to air for the GE, should Obama be the candidate (according to Vin Weber, republican heavyweight). Drip, drip, drip.

    I doubt we know the full impact of the Rev yet, but I sure hope we know sooner, rather than later.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree... (none / 0) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:49:52 AM EST
    that the NAFTA story is a non-story.

    It goes right to the heart of character, and as described here, in an article in a Canadian paper with no axe to grind at all (and much later) than the other links provided.

    The problem is while Obama is posturing that he doesn't do 'politics as usual' and getting out in front of the story by stating as he did, that no such meeting ever took place, clearly a meeting did take place and it is only that Goolsbee disputed the characterization in the memo of that meeting.

    The fact that the media got distracted by Ohio and Texas was to Obama's benefit.

    It remains a story that only those who are following the race very closely get and if Obama supporters deny what went down, I quickly get it, that they are only concerned with beating Hillary.

    The entire story represents what I consider some of the worst things about politics/politicians and seems clear to me why McCain will thump Obama if he is the nominee because Obama loses all his main stream media benefits in a head-to-head with McSame.

    [ Parent ]

    You do realize (none / 0) (#103)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 01:39:41 AM EST
    that there is no NAFTA story.

    Goolsbee was called by the Canadians, so he met them.  A small part of that meeting was about NAFTA.  The memo from that meeting says that Goolsbee made it clear that BO wanted changes for environmental and worker standards, which is exactly what BO said publicly.  The memo also claimed that Goolsbee indicated that BO's NAFTA rhetoric would overly heated in the States as part of the campaign.  Goolsbee claims he didn't say this.

    We now know that the original CTV story was wrong on where, when, who met, who initiated contact, what was said, and the mode of contact (phone v. in person.)

    [ Parent ]

    nice spin (none / 0) (#105)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:00:31 AM EST
    Actually Canada is trying to whitewash their involvement in US Politics since it clearly works against them.

    There are some facts that remain undisputed and beyond your spin of the events and the conclusions.

    There was contact.
    Both Obama and campaign initially denied any and all contact.
    Then a week later, they admitted that there was contact and then Goolsbee disputed the memorandum of the contact as inaccurate.

    This kind of stuff is amateur hour.

    And it doesn't end, as I stated, they repeat this same type of disingenuous behavior while Obama is out telling voters that he will begin withdrawing troops immediately, his primary foreign policy advisors (first Powers and now Kahl) are suggesting that we will still have massive numbers of troops in Iraq at least for 2 years after Obama would take office.

    See the problem Obama has is that on these seemingly little issues, he gives critical voters reasons to suspect that this is very much politics as usual.

    [ Parent ]

    CAFLA Columbian Free Labor Agreement (none / 0) (#120)
    by WorkinJoe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:59:49 AM EST
    So what do you think about Hillary's top advisor, Mark Penn, meeting with the Columbian government to strategize on pushing the Columbian Free Trade Agreement through?  Is Hillary for these Free Trade (free labor) agreements, or against them?  How does this differ from Obama's Canadian NAFTA issue?

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's person met re NAFTA w/o his knowing (none / 0) (#108)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:19:52 AM EST
    Obama had to deny ANY" meeting because he didn't know his senior economic policy adviser had met with them.  And I guess that Goolsbee didn't feel it was important to tell Obama.

    That's important too, unless you feel Obama did know but prefers to say he didn't.

    As mentioned, this was the most recent statement on the matter.

    [ Parent ]

    ignoring of course... (none / 0) (#140)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
    that the entire episode made Obama foreign policy acumen appear to be amateur AND the fact this points out that he's been making disingenuous comments about NAFTA which entirely undermines his posture of not practicing politics as usual, then this story was no big deal.

    Some simply can't ignore those things because they go to the core of Obama's candidacy.

    [ Parent ]

    So he can't run his own house? (none / 0) (#142)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    A meeting of this type should have been brought to his attention BEFORE it happened. Also, I am no fan of Penn and don't believe he should be with Hillary's campaign, but he's 1)not her foreign policy advisor and 2) met with the Columbians in his professional capacity, not as a rep of the campaign.

    That being said, I do think this is a good opportunity for her to cut him loose. Ot is a clear conflict of interest. She has been on record for some time as opposing CAFTA, and rightly so.

    [ Parent ]

    How's it on that limb? (none / 0) (#152)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    Do you know Goolsbee knew the Canadians because of his work, that's why he was contacted by them?  He wasn't sent on a mission by BO as an emissary.  It's interesting that you perceive great distance between HRC and her top strategic adviser who 1) has been paid a fortune by the HRC campaign donors, and 2) has been in her most elite inner circle for a long time.

    Of course the actions of advisers aren't as meaningful as those of the principles.  Why was HRC participating in pro-NAFTA meetings?  Why was she actively talking up the benefits of NAFTA so that it would be passed?  Why did she make public statements in favor of NAFTA after it passed?  Personally I think the evil of NAFTA is overblown, but we are led to believe that HRC opposed it at the same time she was supporting it, this is ridiculous.  The truth (parsing Gergen) is that she probably didn't have strong views on the policy, but for strategic reasons she would have preferred to have health care as a higher priority.  This is not a terrible narrative for her, but for some reason she decided to exaggerate her opposition.  And, the exaggeration reinforces the concern that her stated achievements and experience may not always fit with reality.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#164)
    by DudeE on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    That a senior campaign official would conduct diplomatic meetings with a foreign government on trade issues but Obama didn't know?

    Would you really prefer that he's utterly clueless as to the dealings of his senior advisers?

    [ Parent ]

    A little irony doesn't go very far? (none / 0) (#170)
    by andrys on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:16:05 AM EST
    Read my 2nd paragraph...

    [ Parent ]
    Given Mark Penn has a higher role (none / 0) (#147)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    in the Clinton Campaign, than Goolsby in Obama's you might want to rethink this.

    Fair or not, anytime Goolsby is brought up, the media will play up Mark Penn's recent gaffe. And it will play worse for HRC. It plays to all the wrong narratives.

    Penn needs to go.

    I think Obama needs to stay away from advisors like Goolsby and I thought that before Goolsby's gaffe (I am not fond of Milton Friedman and his Chicago school of economics).

    The reality is President's have all kinds of advisors, sometimes they take advice, sometimes they reject it. To assume an advisor is completely in sync at all times with the candidate is too assume to much in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    I hope you're right about Wright. (none / 0) (#92)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:57:09 AM EST
    He certainly isn't going to influence my vote, but ever since the Republicans managed to beat Kerry using of all things is service in Vietnam, I have no idea what we'll end up resonating with the electorate and what won't. And the swift voters didn't have youtube videos. As for the photo of Wright with Clinton, even a latte-drinking birkenstock-wearing Obama-supporting elitist Democrat like myself thinks there's a difference between inviting a minister over along with a group of others to a ceremony, versus being in their church and having a close relationship with them as your pastor for 20 years. I didn't think it was a good move for the Obama campaign to release that photo; it kept the issue alive, and looked like a cheap shot, especially since up until then Hillary and most of her associates hadn't said a word about the matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Spiritual adviser and mentor (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:21:41 AM EST
    That's what Obama has said about Wright's impact on him.
    Not just pastor, but his soul and mind-trainer...


    [ Parent ]
    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:39:15 AM EST
    there is a difference between the relationship the Clintons had with Wright and the Obama's relationship.  Frankly, since Obama said several years ago that democrats should talk about religion more, but only if "they can clap in time to the gospel choir", (in other words be authentic) and made it clear that he was the democratic candidate who was going to heal the gap on religion and democrats, I am not sure why his relationship with Wright wouldn't change your vote.
    HE thinks democrats should be more religious and talk about religion more.  He thinks his religious experience is more authentic than some white guy with no rhythm who can't keep time clapping to the gospel choir (because God knows only those who can keep the beat are welcome by Christ} and he is the one who sat for 20 years listening to the sermons of a bigot.  This is his only experience with Christianity.  He never belonged to another church ... but he is going to lecture me about religion and the democratic party?  I don't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    When you're outspending someone (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    at the 4:1 rate that has been touted, when you're raising twice as much money as your opponent, and your support is getting softer - that is not good news.

    We started seeing this just before the March 4 primaries, and it looks like it is continuing.

    At some point, I think Obama supporters have to take a serious and objective look at what this means, and begin to consider the possibility that he may not be the stronger and more electable candidate.  We will know more after Pennsylvania, which I see as the primary that will get this thing off the see-saw and tip the race in one direction or another.

    I believe that it is going to go in Clinton's direction, but we shall see.

    That is why it (none / 0) (#132)
    by rooge04 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:58:13 AM EST
    was imperative that she drop out before April 22. That's the great fear. Obama needed her to drop out before she goes and starts winning too much.

    [ Parent ]
    To be perfectly fair (none / 0) (#151)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:09:57 AM EST
    Raising a great deal of money is part of being the stronger candidate (not the most important part imo). Obviously ultimately it can't be everything, but let's not discount that.

    [ Parent ]
    to be perfectly fair (none / 0) (#157)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    you should look at the last reports on the total amount of money raised this season by each candidate.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, but (none / 0) (#165)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 11:17:30 AM EST
    I am not saying Sen Clinton has not raised a lot of money. But Sen Obama has raised a lot more, spent a lot more, and at the end of the day couldn't win TX and OH and will most likely not be able to win PA.

    I think its important as a Hillary supporter that I NOT follow the lead of some Obama supporters and just discount anything positive about the other candidate. I really want to be fair.

    That's all I'm saying.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe voters are wondering if Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:01:34 PM EST
    "judgment" is not as great as he claims.
    Bush's gut, Obama's "judgment": they are the same thing. I'd rather have someone who knows something!
    Obama is still talking up the possibility of invading Pakistan, which I find quite worrisome.

    More on Obama's "judgment" (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:19:03 PM EST
    This is something very interesting:

    Barack Obama appeared on MSNBC's Hardball last night and was asked about the way he would handle the 3 a.m. phone call.

    The transcript:

        MATTHEWS: Let me give you a scene that may face you in the next year or two, where the national security adviser calls you at 3:00 in the morning and tells that you a couple of jet -- commercial jets have been hijacked. And they believe it is al Qaeda. And, as we know, al Qaeda always tries a second time. They tried for the World Trade Center after '93. They came back in '01.

        They're heading for the Capitol. What do you do?

        OBAMA: Well, look, I am hesitant to engage in hypotheticals like that, because...

        MATTHEWS: But it has been predictable.

        OBAMA: Oh, well, the--I don't think anybody predicted 9/11. And, so, we don't know what kinds of circumstances are going to come up.

    No one predicted 9/11????
    I think knowledgeable voters have got to be scared that Obama is THAT ignorant in 2008.

    ..via Jersey Girl vs. Obama

    [ Parent ]

    You need to cut Obama some slack... (none / 0) (#35)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:25:25 PM EST
    Condi Rice said virtually the same thing and she had the memo more than a month before 9/11.

    C'est la vie...he mis-spoke.

    His mistake was appearing on Hardball.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, Condi Rice told several layers of lies, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:46:30 PM EST
    First denying there was ANY foreknowledge of an attack, then denying there was any knowledge planes would be used, etc.
    I find Obama's statement typically inaccurate and insouciant. Doesn't he care about accuracy in his remarks? The US govt DID know at attack was imminent and DID know that using planes as missiles was one of the possibilities.

    [ Parent ]
    what I think... (none / 0) (#51)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    by suggesting that, you are making far too much effort to find something to criticize Obama for, this clearly isn't something worthy of criticism.

    Inaccurate? Insouciant?

    Let's get a grip...it was a Chris Matthews posing a relatively meaningless hypothetical to Obama in a typical main stream media 'gotcha' effort and it wasn't worthy of repeating at all.

    The simple fact is that Condi Rice WAS the National Security Director, and certainly had sufficient warnings.

    If Obama were elected President, I would expect him to appoint someone better.

    [ Parent ]

    His answer bothers me quite a bit. (none / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:08:01 AM EST
    For someone who bases his claim to superior judgment in knowing that we should have kept troops in Afghanistan and left Iraq alone, I find it stunning that he views 9/11 through a lens that sees it happening suddenly, with no warning.
    What's important about the 3 am call is that whatever it is, it should be something you have already considered, IMO.
    Anyway, that is my judgment.

    [ Parent ]
    when bush was running (none / 0) (#117)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 06:47:31 AM EST
    his answer to being a know nothing was always that he would appoint smarter people, experts, to tke care of the details.
    Look how well that has turned out.

    [ Parent ]
    finding someone smarter... (none / 0) (#141)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 09:30:22 AM EST
    certainly offered a pretty low bar to hurdle.

    heckuva job there ________

    [ Parent ]

    of course... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:46:32 PM EST
    and the question was a typical 'gotcha' type question from Chris Matthews and not worthy of an answer. Whey he would give the same answer as Condi did, I don't know, but it wasn't a big deal.

    My question was what is he doing appearing on Hardball? Was he sending more pulses up Matthews leg?

    [ Parent ]

    If he can't parry (none / 0) (#128)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:51:32 AM EST
    with the likes of Christ Matthews, how is he going to take on the big guns?

    Regardless of what the question was, the take-away point here is that Obama didn't handle it right.

    I'm sure over the next few days a salient reason will be devised and bandied about the blogs.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a good answer. Too bad (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    he didn't think of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, two words usually come to mind (none / 0) (#110)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:27:57 AM EST
    and they didn't work for this question/answer.

    Hope
    Change

    Now, what else is there?  Oh, right.  What I hear in that same speech over these many months now.  I can't believe he's still giving the same speech.

    And, going to a student rally and always promising them each $4,000 annually to help them with finances, but as he says, they'll have to earn it, peace corps, helping in the community.  Yes, that's one of about 21 promises he makes in each stump speech that involves giving money away in this economy of ours.  Gosh, I wonder why they like what they hear from him.  He's even promised me that he would have my age-sector not have to pay taxes any more.  I must go vote fo rhim.

      This is typical evangelism methodology though.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#126)
    by Suma on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 08:23:45 AM EST
    He can Hope that planes will somehow Change direction and not hurt us.

    [ Parent ]
    Generals don't run our country (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by dianem on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:13:03 AM EST
    There is a reason that the President is also known as the "Commander in Chief".  Generals do NOT make decisions that involve shooting down civilian aircraft in the middle of the night (or any other time). I would expect Clinton to have a better answer than Obama did. I would have a better answer, even if it were simply "Tell my aide to wake everybody up and get them to the Situation Room, then take my family someplace safe so I wouldn't have to worry about them".  The President should listen to experts - but ultimately he or she is the one who is going to make the decisions, and he or she has to be the one to decide which experts need to be heard.

    Bush should have been mocked for running in fear after 9/11 while Cheney actually coordinated the response to the attack. I can't believe that anybody who is running for President in this day and age can't answer a question about what they would do in the event of a probable terrorist attack.

    [ Parent ]

    And I believe it was Richard Clark (none / 0) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 12:31:30 AM EST
    in the WH who was giving Cheney the info and instructing him what needed to be done. Cheney was already in the bunker. I believe I read that in his book.

    [ Parent ]
    My only response to this (none / 0) (#106)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 02:04:35 AM EST
    is that the c