Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Drops

While the latest CNN poll has Sen. Barack Obama 8 points ahead of McCain, a new Newsweek poll shows Obama ahead of McCain by only 3 points.

A month after emerging victorious from the bruising Democratic nominating contest, some of Barack Obama's glow may be fading. In the latest NEWSWEEK Poll, the Illinois senator leads Republican nominee John McCain by just 3 percentage points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The statistical dead heat is a marked change from last month's NEWSWEEK Poll, where Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

Is it a fluke? Or, if it's accurate, what's the reason for the drop and is it temporary or permanent?

Personally, I don't think it's due to buyer's remorse or dropping support among liberals. I think it's that his recent changes of position on multiple positions have made people unsure of where he really stands -- and whether his new stands reflect his true beliefs or are caluclated to get votes. It could be a trust issue. [More...]

Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.

I never liked the emphasis his campaign put on reaching out to Independents. And, right now at least, it's not working.

In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.

It's not Hillary supporters that are causing his lower poll numbers:

Only 17 percent of former Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain in the general election, and 13 percent of undecided voters are former supporters of the New York senator.

His base is still strong:

But 61 percent of registered voters who support Obama say they support him strongly, compared to just 39 percent who say they strongly support McCain. At a similar point in the 2004 presidential race, only 53 percent of supporters of Democratic nominee John Kerry said they supported him strongly.

He still lags among white voters:

The new poll suggests white voters continue to be a challenge for Obama, with McCain leading the Democrat in that category 48 to 36 percent.

Reuters calls it the summertimes blues.

So, what strategy do you suggest for Obama to regain his strength?

[As always, personal or character attacks on Obama will be deleted.]

< Friday Evening Open Thread | Murder or Defense of Property? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    In Senator Obama's own words... (5.00 / 13) (#1)
    by Lysis on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    FISA was a dealbreaker.  I can't vote for Obama or McCain after that debacle.  McCain's dodge of the vote was cowardly, and Obama's change of position was despicable.

    The FISA vote is my new bottom line. Thankfully, I can still vote for my senators (Schumer and Clinton) because they did the right thing.

    You permanently lose my vote when you swear to uphold the Constitution, then fail to intervene when it's being demolished.  

    Me Too! (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by COgator95 on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:56:17 PM EST
    FISA was a deal breaker for me too, I won't vote for McCain so I will either leave that portion of my mail in ballot blank or maybe vote for Bob Barr. Crap I was really looking forward to this election now I just can't wait for it to be over.

    Another thorn in my side is the tax payer funded faith based initiative which really ticks me off. For a constitutional lawyer I guess Obama doesn't understand the separation of church and state.


    The people I've spoken to (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by reslez on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:37:26 AM EST
    react in one of two ways. For myself, FISA is indeed a point of no return. But a friend of mine -- #1 Obama supporter -- told me he'll still donate to Obama and vote for him, even though he was extremely disappointed by the FISA vote. His reason? Obama's better than McCain. He had no other argument.

    Is this is what the Obama faithful are reduced to? You Have Nowhere Else To Go? That's not an argument that appeals to independents; in fact it's guaranteed to turn them off. I'm not surprised to see the numbers.


    Cynical betrayer (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by makana44 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:45:57 AM EST
    This man ran a campaign espousing idealism and integrity, and new way of doing things - hope and change. That is the only reason people voted for him, because they couldn't point to a single thing he had done. Yes, they so wanted to believe in him, especially the young. And then literally the moment he gets the nomination he morphs into the most cynical, calculating, manipulating, cutthroat, betrayer of a candidate. And he sells us all out on some of the dearest and most critically important issues and values. I mean he promised to filibuster FISA (blatantly lying just to get the nom) then turns around fully 180 degrees and votes aye in favor of it without blinking an eye. Then says tough you don't like it? Like a guy who screws around on you then laughs in your face and thinks you'll keep taking him back cause he's a gorgeous hunk. Just that alone makes me both livid and ill. I don't have to run through the entire litany here, we've gone over it countless times. I don't know how any honest, self-respecting, thoughtful person can bring themselves to vote for this arrogant 2-bit poll without some sense of remorse. And compared to Hillary Clinton, it's a travesty.

    absolutely! (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:32:22 AM EST
    DK diary on rec list now - railing against the corporate media that sold the Iraq War.  But no acknowledgement that it's the same media that sold Obama, another corporate toy.

    Better Than McCain (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:51:48 AM EST
    is a fine argument as far as I'm concerned. It's a couple steps above lesser of two evils.

    I'm an Obama supporter who is also angry about his FISA shift, but I intend to vote for him for other reasons beyond any comparison with McCain's deficits.

    He advocates and promotes positions I agree with on the policies that are important to me. Yes, FISA was one. But there are probably at least a half dozen others that are also important and on which he is steady. If he veers off radically on these, then I'll reconsider. But so far he has not.

    Never drank the koolaid. Never worshiped him as an icon. Liked some of the 'soaring rhetoric' but never got my hopes all tangled up in it so much I ever lost sight that he is a politician.

    And he's a skillful one, who may, as president, finally lead us back from this long national Bush-Cheney nightmare. That's not something anyone can say about McCain. At least not with a straight face.


    His FISA vote was self destructive (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by BernieO on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:42:34 AM EST
    in more than one way. Not only did he betray his supporters and show no willingness to fight for our constitutional rights, he was also naive. Barack just voted to give Bush the ability to spy on his own campaign! The new bill has given Bush the right to do what led to Nixon's ruin - spy on his political opponents without consequence. If what I have read is correct Bush can now spy on anyone, including Barack and company, without a warrant for 7 days and if a judge objects he can petition and get 60+ additional days, more than enough time to dig up dirt that Republicans can use against Barack. Since the court proceedings are super-secret, there is no way we can find out if this is being done but given that Bush was willing to use the Justice Department for political prosecutions, he will have no qualms about legally spying on Democrats.
    Most people do not feel threatened by this law because they think, generally correctly, that it will not happen to them. What no one points out -least of all Democrats or the media (who are also likely targets) - is that it may well be used to defeat the politicians they support. How hard would it have been to remind/inform people that not too many years ago we had the head of the FBI using info from wiretapping to blackmail a president(JFK)? Not to mention that Hoover also gave dirt obtained this way to a Democratic president, LBJ, which he then used to pressure his opponents into giving him what he wanted. This is the real threat posed by allowing people's privacy to be invaded. Bush has really out Nixoned Nixon with this one.

    Barack has repeatedly lectured us about how he would lead people by inspiring them to follow him instead of caving on matters of principle. This would have been a great issue to start with.


    Two words (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by makana44 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:54:37 AM EST
    Elliot Spitzer

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    I agree that it reflects the last two weeks of "moving to the center". We are not happy about it and this poll is a message.

    What can Obama do, though (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:03:54 AM EST
    as moving back again where he was would be called, what, flopflipping?  It was an egregious error this early -- although I can see that Obama may have seen need to try to get the independents before the 527s for McCain begin now.

    As reflected in the piece linked here, (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:42:56 AM EST
    obama's dismissive and seemingly arrogant style is a big turnoff for many in the electorate.  He said it, so it is so, just doesn't fly.  And, didn't he say he speaks two languages and some spanish, or was I reading wrong?



    Yes, he said he spoke Indonesian (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:12:10 AM EST
    but now it turns out, not so.  He's having to flipflop on his own life story.  It's just weird.

    And it's just wearying.  The guy just takes so much work on the part of the public, trying to figure out who he is and what he means.  Anything I hear from him one day now, I presume will change the next day.

    This is a time that this country wants stability.  Not a guy who is more work than the ones I dated in high school.  


    Cream, Here's another interesting tidbit.... (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:23:03 AM EST
    [Jim Lindgren, July 10, 2008 at 10:23pm] Trackbacks
    Barack Obama's Four Languages.--
    Via Instapundit and Kaus, I read that Barack Obama couldn't speak Spanish. But in 1997, he claimed to a reporter that he could speak a barely passable Spanish, one of four languages that he claimed varying abilities to speak:

    Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, April 26, 1997

    David Heckelman

    "Living in Indonesia was a fascinating time," Obama said, "because it gave me a good sense of what the Third World was like and what an emerging nation goes through." He learned to speak the Indonesian language while living there.

    "I also speak a barely passable Spanish, and sometimes a barely passable English," he said, having studied the Spanish language and English literature at Occidental College in Los Angeles and at Columbia University in New York.

    "I have a smattering of Swahili," he added, "because my father was from Kenya." He said he had traveled to that country to learn more about his father, who had died in 1980 and whom he had not known very well.


    Can you imagine if Hillary were found to have (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by kempis on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:18:39 AM EST
    exaggerated her skill in foreign languages? Would we never hear the end? Wouldn't it be the occasion of another "Have you no shame, Madam!" screed from KO? Wouldn't Matthews and Wolff and Alter be snickering about it?

    Back to Jeralyn's question of what Obama can do to turn this around, I'm not sure. Once trust is lost, it's hard to regain. This is precisely why the flip-flopper charge is so effective. How do you decide that the person is FINALLY taking a principled stand? When is the person FINALLY telling the truth? Destroy a candidate's credibility and you cut the legs out of from under him, especially if all he was standing on was "a new kind of politics" and inspiring rhetoric to begin with.

    He's going to need to deliver the speech of his life at the convention. But I can guarantee that even that will not bring back into the fold those who feel betrayed. Again, you have to believe someone to be affected by his speeches.



    This. Is. Too. Much. Work. (4.83 / 6) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:43:09 AM EST
    I can't tell you how many times I have found myself having to take notes! to try to figure out what he said where and when to whom . . . and then what else he said somewhere else and sometime else to someone else, while I click from one story to the next.


    And I think that this foreign-language line could be a problem down the line.  It's freeking the nativists.  And for others, this one isn't like trying to figure out FISA.  This one is easy: he's saying to do as he says, not as he does.  It's that paternalism again, as in his lecturing.  It's an obvious hypocrisy on his part this time.  Too bad.


    The language thing is pandering (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:32:32 AM EST
    Just more pandering.  

    Obama has been around the USA.  He knows that Spanish isn't the only second language being spoken here.  There are so many languages spoken in the USA on a daily basis that anyone could get whiplash.  (I live in LA and there are probably 1000 different languages spoken here on a daily basis -- I realize that 1000 is an exaggeration but there are a lot more than just Spanish/English.  Spanish/English is like a joke!  Where I live, everyday I can pickup an Armenian newspaper and a Korean newspaper and a Spanish newspaper without even venturing off my block!)


    The repubs must be running (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:01:20 AM EST
    out of paper taking notes on all the flips and untruths he tells.

    But (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:32:54 AM EST
    You seem to have an endless supply. If they do run out of paper, I am sure your contributions will be appreciated.

    In a way I don't blame Obama. (none / 0) (#117)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    He was fronted by some bigwigs in the Democratic Party. Who were they?  People who didn't think Hillary could win, or power jockeyeing  competitors for top positions in the administration?  Or simply, people who hated Clintons so much they wanted to put someone, anyone up to prevent another  Clinton presidency sucessful, nothwithstanding? I am totally baffled that they thought they could get anywhere with this plan.

    He should have held his ground. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Radix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:08:04 AM EST
    The press would have given him play and allowed him to counter the 527's, unlike Kerry. Which he could have done by constant and never ending recitations of the Republicon policy failures.

    just 1 more attack on the constitution (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:10:04 AM EST
    There have been so many such shocks by the Bush administration that I suppose we should be numb by now. And then for Mr. Change to engage in the same scenario...

    No, it was more than "an egregious error"... One cannot call an act like this an error.


    I meant an error in the campaign (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:13:33 AM EST
    -- that is, in the context of the topic of this post and possible damage to Obama's chances.

    Certainly another term applies in terms of damage done to the Constitution, but that's another topic.


    Steady The Sail (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:22:45 AM EST
    And move on ahead. I think, and sure hope that he has gotten the message and will drop the rightward move because it clearly is not accomplishing appeasing his target group of independents.

    My guess is that he will regain his power with his picks, Veep et al. A new book is coming out by published by a Seven Stories Press a solid lefty publisher, by John R. Talbott, Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics

    I think things like this will help him.


    Meanwhile (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by makana44 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:04:25 AM EST
    serious damage has already been done; and at our expensive. But the forgoing of public money may come back and bite him. For now at least, the $pigot has closed down. Apparently many of those who have donated to him have already donated their maximum. He needs to find new people to contribute (new = Hillary supporters for the most part). It would be quite a blunder of hubris if he doesn't end up raking in the cash like he expected. If their fund raising numbers don't pick up, he may have no choice but to ask Hillary to be his VP. She'd be holding some pretty high cards if that happened.

    If he does drop the rightward move (none / 0) (#105)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:37:33 AM EST
    It will only serve to strengthen the impression that he has no character and no integrity, but will do anything and take any position to win. This is not the kind of person you want to put into an office where he has ultimate power and does not have to answer to anyone. Who knows what he'd do if he didn't have to court voters?

    Sorry, I think he peaked long ago and there's nowhere to go but down. He sold out his own supporters and he's not fooling anyone else.


    I haven't read the book but I do (none / 0) (#110)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    hope Obama is able to develop a solid economic policy soon.  I read the other day that he said he doesn't think he can address the budget deficit in his first term.  When Clinton was elected he had a lot of big ticket items he wanted (health care, rebuild american infrastructure, ironic, no?) but the establishment (bankers,other institutions)were dead set against it.  So he settled for the 1993 tax increase and a series of economic moves to prove to the economic community that he was serious about paying down the deficit. And it worked but infuriated people like Robert Reich. By the second term our country was booming. Our country is in a worse mess now. So welcome to the future.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#120)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    of course he can't address the deficit. He wants to expand the programs Bush has instated like Faith Based funding. He's never going to deal with the deficit.

    Really? (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:01:41 PM EST
    Is that the latest McSame talking point? Thanks for keeping us up to date with what is being said at Powerlie.

    Well, (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    instead of screeching about McCain why don't you defend Obama? FWIW, I've never read Powerline. They're nothing but a bunch of Bush apologists imo.

    Defending Obama (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:52:00 AM EST
    Is a waste of time on you. If you had any interest in Obama's plan you wouldn't be spouting mindless anti-Obama talking points over and over.

    Here is a gift from TChris.


    See (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 06:09:42 AM EST
    below. Obama has no plans to do anything about the deficit. And Obama could have the exact same plan as Hillary but it wouldn't matter because we all know that they could be under the bus tomorrow.

    See Below? (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    Nice argument.... empty as usual.

    Reports from AP reporters who interviewed (none / 0) (#128)
    by hairspray on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 02:56:24 PM EST
    Obama are ...empty as usual?  What planet do you live on?

    If You Think (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    That what Obama has said about his economic plans and how Ga6thDem has characterized those plans are the same you are an idiot. Not worth discussing.

    Really! Obama has said that he will not promise (none / 0) (#130)
    by hairspray on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 11:47:28 PM EST
    to do anything about deficit spending.  THAT is an ECONOMIC PLAN.  I don't care what is on his website. He plans to spend and not pay down the debt. Those actions have ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES. There may be some reasons not to stop the deficit hemorrhaging, like Medicare spending, but the consequences will be inflationary with slowing of growth (i.e, jobs, etc.)leading us in a number of difficult economic outcomes.  And be careful who you call an idiot.  I have not found your posts to be particularly scholarly.

    Nope. Yahoo news (none / 0) (#123)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:20:00 PM EST
    By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
    Tue Jul 8, 9:43 PM ET
    WASHINGTON - Barack Obama says John McCain's plan to balance the budget doesn't add up. Easy for him to say: It's not a goal he's even trying
    reach. Not only does Obama say he won't eliminate the deficit in his first term, as McCain aims to do, he frankly says he's not sure he'd bring it down at all in four years, considering his own spending plans.

    "I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families," Obama told reporters this week...


    A great letter to the edition in today's (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by BernieO on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:54:08 AM EST
    To the Editor:
    Gail Collins provides a well-reasoned analysis of why Barack Obama's lurch toward the center makes political sense. Here's my analysis of why it doesn't:

    Republican strategy: Move to the right and energize the base.

    Democratic strategy: Move to the center and alienate the base.

    Result in 2000 and 2004: President George W. Bush.

    Likely result in 2008: President John McCain.

    Rick Sauder
    Lancaster, Pa., July 10, 2008

    So basically the views of people on the right are catered to while those on the left are dismissed and the media thinks this makes sense! This shows just how disdainful they are of liberals and how much they cater to the and admire (or are afraid of?)the right. Until this lunacy stops, the public will never wake up to the fact that it is those on the left, the "reality-based" community, that best represent the interests of this country. It is up to us to fight back against this media theme every time we hear or read it. We need to complain in large numbers not only to the media but also to our party leaders. Bush got lelected twice by not catering to his base. Obama should be able to do the same by selling the views of the left instead of running from them.


    Apparently, the Obama VP selection (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:00:18 AM EST
    vetting comm. is checking out Sen. Dodd now.  First, vote for current FISA bill.  Then choose as your VP one of the two most steadfast opponents of the bill.

    Also, Dodd is not exactly (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:01:59 AM EST
    in keeping with his message of the politics of change in Washington. He's been there forever.

    And failed badly (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:25:22 AM EST
    in the primary.

    Dodd brings few voters to the bottom line.


    Dodd might bring some of the netroots (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:35:27 AM EST
    back into the fold.  The few that actually abandoned him over FISA.  I can already hear the hand-licking.

    Or, more probably, the story was leaked that Dodd was being vetted as a sop to them now.


    I didn't support him to begin with and (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:01:58 AM EST
    because of the caucus system I felt the delegate numbers were a travesty. I hoped that he would be more liberal than he first appeared and chose Hillary as his VP.  That would make me at least able to cast a vote for him. Now it appears that his whole candidacy is based on subterfuge and I am even more angry that he is now our nominee. Either he is getting very bad advice or he really is arrogant. Either way he will lose.

    His move to the center (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:13:20 AM EST
    He is imploring, literally BEGGING people to regard it as him standing up for what he's always believed in.

    NO no no no no no.

    It's not advice.   It's what Obama really believes.


    I agree, it's not advice- it's what the whole (none / 0) (#78)
    by laurie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:47:04 AM EST
    concept was based upon from the very beginning-a great centrist Party.
    It was spoiled by Wright, otherwise it would've worked.

    the wright stuff (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:51:01 AM EST
    ruined more than just his centrist image.

    It ruined the possibility of me having one iota of respect for that most despicable candidate.


    have an operation, buy a dress (5.00 / 10) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:02:30 AM EST
    So, what strategy do you suggest for Obama to regain his strength?

    and change his name to sen. clinton. that would be about the only thing that will do it.

    Is it a fluke? Or, if it's accurate, what's the reason for the drop and is it temporary or permanent?

    it's not a fluke, it's permanent, and will only get worse. why you ask? simply put, absent all the frenetic, media-driven hoopla, the public is very quickly beginning to see sen. obama for what he actually is: smoke and mirrors.

    turns out, the public doesn't care for smoke and mirrors in their politicians. go figure.

    and this is before the actual GE campaign actually starts. once it kicks in, and repub/right-wing 527's get into the fray, he'll be newbie sen. fricasee.

    Fricasee...is a funny word. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:23:22 AM EST
    You mean "buy a pantsuit" <eom> (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:01:05 AM EST
    Polls mean nothing at this point (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by dianem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM EST
    A month ago, Obama had a predictable bump after being declared the winner of the primary. Now, that is fading. Well, probably fading. He'll have another bump after the convention. Then the fun starts and the polls will begin to mean something. How hard he is hit, how well he parry's. The polls will be all over the place for a while, then they'll settle down. Maybe one candidate will be in front, maybe they'll settle too close to predict anything.

    That's true (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:41:23 AM EST
    But I think it's a good indicator of the race thus far and the work that both candidates have cut out for them.

    only the values of polls mean (none / 0) (#118)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    nothing at the moment. Polls are valuable even now for disclosing trends and Obama's trends are bad: slippage.

    Does this poll reflect the opinion of (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:11:28 AM EST
    those polled about the Obama kids appearing on TV?

    Only maybe if you saw it. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:53:16 AM EST
    I only read that it was a bad idea which was said by Obama AFTER the appearance. Maybe it is the constant after the happening explanations that worry people. That can not be happening everyday when you are in the WH. Takes away confidence of the people. I am wondering if their campaign just wanted to get a bunch of bad stuff out of the way all at once. I have several deal breakers. Fisa of course, but the faith base additional money really annoyed me. I did not like it when George Bush did it, and it was like a deja vu when Obama started sounding like GW. I do not understand when he has so many Democrats that are not happy with him, he does not just stand for Democratic values and represent our party rather than going after indies and GOP voters and losing his base. This scares me. I suspect that he thinks we are the Verizon guys walking behind him.  

    Today he was "clarifying" his comments (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:55:53 AM EST
    about speaking Spanish. {sigh}

    It's the W.O.R.M. Effect (none / 0) (#98)
    by bmc on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:51:05 AM EST
    All those "What Obama Really Meant" clarifications from surrogates and the candidate at every step of the way.

    People are beginning to see a PATTERN here.

    What Matt Stoller says:

    Can he lose? Yes, He Can!

    If he loses, "he'll be the most hated Democrat ever!"

    Paraphrasing: If Barry loses, he won't be my BFF anymore!



    David Kuo wrote a book titled (none / 0) (#124)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:26:44 PM EST
    Tempting faith about the BushCo's faith based inititatives which were, according to KUO, sops to the Evangelicals and didn't amount to much money after all.  Interesting information.

    Change! (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by dead dancer on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:12:14 AM EST
    So, what strategy do you suggest for Obama to regain his strength?

    Sit ups would be a good strengthening strategy. Not only would his abs get a workout, but he might also develop a "backbone".

    Surprised Pelosi is not being vetted!

    Change! Bra ha ha.

    Madam Speaker is busy taking (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:13:24 AM EST
    impeachment out from under the table.

    Yeah, she's gonna pull it out now (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:55:18 AM EST
    from under her skirt...

    Oh wait!  That madame never wears a skirt, or does she?  

    Does anyone care?  

    Pelosi continues to hide all her tricks in her purse...  


    Too late for that (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by arky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:15:08 AM EST
    Sure, after they've passed all his nasty bills. Jellyfish! Pondscum!
    It'll never happen.

    I heard Jonathan Turley, the Constitutional scholar, on one of the 'news' programs, and he was talking about the US being brought before a Tribunal for War Crimes,(the Hague?). I only caught part of the segment. It might have been on Olbermann. I was scanning the channels.


    Hey! (none / 0) (#119)
    by Nadai on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    What have jellyfish and pondscum ever done to you, to be compared to Congress?

    The trackers have been ticking up and down (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:12:39 AM EST
    with Obama between 2 and 8 points ahead for two months. There could be some softening among liberals, sure, but it's hard to say what's happening from just one poll.

    Dukakis' lead was double digits (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by BernieO on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:58:31 AM EST
    at this stage! The fact that Obama is not up by 15 to 20 points given how unhappy people are with our current president shows how weak a candidate his really is. But the media keeps talking about him like he is walking away with it. He isn't even raising tons of money anymore.

    That is rather vague, andgarden. (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:15:22 AM EST
    What about the cross-tabs?

    More data needed (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:16:54 AM EST
    I haven't crawled into the Newsweek poll, but it's just one poll.

    But wasn't it Newsweek that (none / 0) (#107)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    had him way up in one poll? Perhaps they are "tinkering" with the numbers to have more to talk about! They certainly don't want to talk about his "words and actions." So they can talk about the black/white issue instead.

    Yeah, I'm not too sure about it not being (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:20:24 AM EST
    Clinton supporters.  Two other polls in recent weeks show that he has support/votes from only 53-54% of Clinton voters.

    This poll includes just over 200 Clinton supporters.  The MOR is +/-8.  And has 13% of Clinton supporters in undecided/other.

    Newsweek's last poll was an outlier compared to almost all the other polls at the time, excepting only the LA Times poll.  So which is the right one?  

    Rasmussen and Gallup both do daily polling and both show much more stable trendlines since the beginning of June.  Gallup has generally shown a closer race (tied for a few days about a week ago) until suddenly today Obama's up by 6.  Rasmussen was the reverse -- steady at a 5-6 point lead until today, when he's up by 1.  So it seems likely that they are veering between tied and 6-point spread.

    Today's Newsweek poll is much more in line with daily polling, which nudges me toward believing this is the more accurate one, but that big outlier still gives cause for doubt.  Even I don't think his flip-flopping has caused a 12-point drop.

    I agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:00:10 AM EST
    I think the Clinton supporters were tepid at most and with the Fisa and Faith base and abortion issues, it might be the deal breaker for many of them. I suspect that might be the leak in the boat and also those Indies who got caught up in the excitement and now being more cautious. We need to look deeper in the numbers.

    I think it goes beyond disatisfied Clinton voters (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:37:07 AM EST
    I think there are many different groups of voters who would have been fine voting for Hillary who do not like or do not trust Obama.  As for Clinton voters, my gut feeling (though the polling doesn't show) is that younger Clinton supporters will begrudgingly vote for Obama and older voters won't.  

    Re: Polling (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by arky on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:18:44 AM EST
    I'd like to see what the percentages would be if they included a third option: None of the Above.

    I'll bet that would win hands down.


    I think the race is close (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:29:19 AM EST
    Voters are not enthusiastic about McCain but many voters simply don't like Obama, don't trust Obama, don't understand what business Obama has running for president.  That said, the economy is so bad right now and people are so down in the dumps that voters simply tilt towards the Dems.  

    Now, McCain has some major challenges.  He needs to find a way to do two things.  

    1.  He has to project himself as a competent leader who will get us out of Iraq and restore our economy.  He needs to present himself as the steady old hand who can right the offcourse ship.  

    2.  He needs to find a way to provide people with hope.  Normally the GOP is into fear and not hope but McCain has to be different this year.  Right now, he's close against Obama because a lot of people strongly dislike and or fear Obama.  That won't be enough for him.  People need to feel, even if they're not crazy about him, that he gives them hope.  

    If McCain can't do that and continues down the whiny, watered down Bush path, he will lose.  But this poll and many of the others show that he can still win, even in this environment.  

    Yes, doesn't come across as this is the (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:31:13 AM EST
    year of the dems....quite the contrary.  obama needs to step aside for the good of the country and let Hillary pick him as her VP where he can get the boatload of experience he so desperately needs.

    OMG LOL ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:44:22 AM EST
    In the parlance of those who would tell their parents to vote for Obama because he's, like, so AWSUM!

    Seriously, though: I could take this opportunity for another jab and 'We told you so' comment, but to what avail? It won't change anything. The course is set, the pedal is to the metal, and the cliff is looming, and Senator Obama and the rest of his Coronation Crew have their fingers in their ears so deep their heads might as well be chinese finger puzzles.

    I don't think, since Iraq, I've ever seen such a bad decision followed by such a huge show of support (by the powers that be) in direct defiance of the people and common sense. It really is breathtaking: Obama wants to be an historic candidate, and boy is this year going to be MEMORABLE.


    I think there's a disconnect here (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:30:14 AM EST
    I don't believe Obama has as much youth support as is believed.  I think his young supporters are the loudest and most active and are lauded by the media but I don't think the numbers are that great.  I think the result of his primary successes were that his campaign heavily targeted young voters and Hillary's really didn't.  Now Obama will win a large majority of youth votes in the November GE.  However, I don't think he's going to win enough to offset potential losses in other age categories.  

    If only..... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:47:31 AM EST
    His 'brilliant' campaign cynically exploited ... (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:31:08 AM EST
    ... circumstances for the short term gain in the primaries, which worked, but these quick pivots to pander to the next group sucks oxygen from his run.

    The handlers seem to have no sense that tossing Groups A and B for the purpose of sucking up to C won't neatly be forgiven as (a) "just" politics and if not, (b) those who were so unceremoniously humped and dumped have "nowhere else to go" anyway so who cares.

    His supporters should be feeling like they accomplished something and looking forward to the next leg, instead of sour and used.

    The campaign has the arrogance to pretend they could play this crap as a big joke that their true believers would enjoy.

    Two factions you never EVER treat badly are your core activists and supporters, and your donors. That attitude of "we don't need the people, just their checks" is such Bad Budo. No amount of paid advertising can counter that.

    Good thing Rendell was not recording.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:12:47 AM EST
    we don't need the people, just their checks
    Heresay as it is, but if not, THIS would have been the 527's radio ad. And that would have really lost the people's vote. It says as much as I pretend to care about the people, I just want their money and vote. He is one lucky guy on this one.

    Speaking of Rendell (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:18:34 AM EST
    "HOUND" has disappeared off the PA Dems site.  No idea what's up with that.

    Ha. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:21:56 AM EST
    Maybe the Hound has left the building.

    And a further note on how counter-productive and (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:40:09 AM EST
    ... wasteful the Gimme and Buzz Off approach is, every time someone who donated sees an ad, s/he's negatively reminded of being fleeced and played for a sucker.

    The mistake can be repaired if his campaign gets off this attitude of worsening matters by blaming critics (for being stubborn, for not getting over it or "healing" or being cartoonishly The Left, and other gratuitous self-help baloney.)

    Obama shouldn't give another Best Speech Evah but take a cue from Sen Clinton when she turned doubters and critics into staunch admirers.

    She actively listened to voters and vowed to fight for us; she didn't speechify AT people or condescend to slap something on a web page.

    She didn't do appalling stuff like lecture black men on family matters or describe his own sacrificing guardian as a Typical White Person.

    But, not knowing how the poll Jeralyn discussed was phrased, what might also be at work is people simply feeling more free to say why they're not supporting him. Before they might have overstated support out of the awkwardness they might be called a racist.


    Yeah he did get lucky (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:44:52 AM EST
    He might truly be one of the luckiest men in politics.  I think incidents like that show Obama for what he is:  a politician.  And if more keep happenning, he's going to lose that mysterious appeal that has some wanting to vote for him.

    Yup, I'm again ticked off (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:31:26 AM EST
    Because the Dems could have had it ALL.  Sixteen solid years, if only they'd been smart enough to push the Dream ticket instead of the Not Ready for Primetime ticket.

    Even if Clinton hadn't picked him as VP, he'd have had 8 more years in the Senate to build up a real political resume and back up Hopey-Changey with some solid rhetoric.  He'd still be in his mid-fifties, plenty young.  He might have had to curb the pandering during the primary with a real record but then he'd also have the experience to offset that.

    And all the nastier aspects of his campaign would have still worked 8 years from now, I'm sure.

    But nooooooo....the DNC had to play craps with my future and now are just the same old sweaty gambler at the table praying for a miracle on the next roll.

    Sixteen solid years . . . (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by nycstray on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:48:22 AM EST
    That's what I thought when we started way back when. Now, not so much :(

    In 8 years time Obama will have lost his looks, (none / 0) (#83)
    by laurie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:15:20 AM EST
    his appeal to the youth vote, and his photogenics.

    If you really mean the description (none / 0) (#108)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    then we really do live in an american idol world! If you are being sarcastic, I agree.

    Sadly you're right (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:33:58 AM EST
    It's funny, I used to support Obama, like a year ago or so.  And I had read his books (well one of them, the other one just bored me) and I thought Obama was simply a guy who didn't like to talk about himself all that much.  Then I figured out that there wasn't much to talk about.  He's spent most of his life being mediocre and yet worshipped, much like Bush.  And of course when McClurkin came on the scene, I left Obama faster than a dog chasing after a pork chop.  Now I really do question his qualifications.  But it's too late now, the Democratic Party has annointed him and barring any unforseen circumstances, he is our nominee.  

    Status Quo? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:34:40 AM EST
    I'm not so sure Obama has lost any strength. If you average out the first 6 polls of June he was +4.4%. Average out the 6 most recent polls and he is at +5.3%.

    Most viewed the original Newsweek poll as a potential outlier and it looks like this recent Newsweek poll might verify that. Still there doesn't appear to be any gain or loss by either candidate over the last six weeks.

    Well, we'll see (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:53:39 AM EST
    averaging polls says nothing about the trend, unless it's the same pollsters using the same methodologies.  And even then, this Newsweek poll...

    I haven't looked but I'm interested whether there's a difference in the party-identification numbers.  IIRC, both Newsweek's 15-pointer and the LA Times polls were criticized for oversampling Dems.

    They've been bouncing back and forth between tied and 6 points.  I'm giving it another week or so to settle in -- major incidences don't seem to show up in polls for several days.  Todays numbers probably don't show the FISA effect (if there will even be one).

    However, in the tea-leaves reading department, I note that Obama has gotten a bump from Gallup's dailies after the Unity event and after Clinton hit the fundraising trail this week with Obama.  

    Disclaimer from Madame Valhalla's Psychic Underbus: I do not want Clinton to be on the ticket for VP.

    Disclaimer 2 from MVPU: Rasmussen shows just the opposite.  But they use entrails.  Eww.


    I still like averaging (none / 0) (#43)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:10:19 AM EST
    My averaging several different polling outfits balances out any potential polling bugs but won't show you incremental moves and or trends based on daily news events. I am far more interested in the long range outlook rather than whether Phil Gramm hurt McCain yesterday or what effect Obama's kids on television might have.

    I do enjoy a headline however that says "dead heat" because of the margin of error when their stats have Obama at +3. Would that mean if it was Obama at +7 the headline would read "Obama has double digit lead"?

    The Newsweek poll gets an MSNBC headline for obvious reasons. Gallup and Rasmussen and most of the rest you have to go find on your own. I'm still hunting for a trend, but don't expect to see one until the last week of August when the spinmeisters will be out in force on both sides.


    Yes, the characterizations are all over the place (none / 0) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:16:23 AM EST
    I've seen Gallup and Rasmussen call the same spread both an 'insignificant' and a 'moderate' lead.

    You know, I think he would be formidable ... (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:40:10 AM EST
    ... after some seasoning if he defined himself and developed more of an instinct of knowing which forces to obey and which to disregard.

    He's no HIllary Clinton.
    He's no Bill Clinton.
    He's not even George W Bush in that sense.

    I don't think it's up to him anymore. (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Radix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:44:05 AM EST
    Obama had an opportunity to lead, he blew it. Instead of defining the terms of debate, he conceded them to the Republicons. It's up to the press now. Does the press like McCain more, or Obama.

    I propose that (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Fabian on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:33:01 AM EST
    the Democrats worst enemies are:
    The GOP
    The Media
    The mselves.

    The GOP, sure.  The Media, easily enough.  And this year and last, themselves.  People elected Dems in 2006 to kick political posterior.  It didn't happen.


    We are in the dead zone (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:44:15 AM EST
    I realize that no one seems to agree with me but the only that either candidate should be worrying about is not making some stupid mistake.

    It's early July.  So far the candidates haven't even done a photo op together much less created contrasts between each other.

    I will say this again.  Obama will win by 8-10 points minimum.

    Obama has made some mistakes, fairly large (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by Radix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:01:48 AM EST
    ones. He's already conceded the "keeping us safe" argument to the Repubs, with his FISA vote. He gave ground to the Repubs on the issue of choice. He's made some clarifications on his Iraq troop withdrawal position. These aren't little boo-boos in my estimation.

    He should... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by citizen53 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:24:57 AM EST
    but the longer he is out there, the worse he seems to look.

    He has everything going for him, however.

    As I see it, he has been anything but stellar since the Rev. Wright episode and the luster wore off after his string of victories in the smaller, red states.

    When people say he stumbled across the finish, that was accurate.  And now he looks just like another Washington politician.


    I think any enthusiasm for Obama will die (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:25:52 AM EST
    after the McCain/Obama debates.  

    McCain is not quick for his age -- but Obama is going to show that he is slow for someone his age.  

    Younger people will expect Obama to wipe the floor with McCain.  That's not going to happen.  

    I think the bigger surprises are going to be the low jabs that McCain is able to make on Obama simply because McCain has a very quick wit.  

    These are going to be interesting debates!  


    Points? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:59:31 AM EST
    Well, I agree with you flyerhawk (none / 0) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:36:22 AM EST
    Obama should win this - it's a democratic year by all accounts, and McCain's campaign is simply ridiculous. Plus, the electoral map has been in Obama's corner for quite some time.

    That said, I'm surprised at the loss of support from independents in this poll. I had been thinking that all of Obama's recent shifting to the right (FISA, guns, death penalty, etc.) was geared specifically towards attracting/solidfying independent support.


    if only obama were running as a (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by sancho on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    democrat. . . he would win handily.

    I'm not at all surprised (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by sj on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:55:17 AM EST
    Not all independents are squishy centrists who just need to be "squeezed" into the right corner.  Many of them are Independent because neither party has been standing up for their values.  Values in this case meaning the Constitution, the citizen instead of the corporation, the preservation of our environment, etc.

    Man, I never thought I'd see the day when I would consider becoming an Independent myself.  I haven't done it, but the idea doesn't seem so alien these days.


    Yeah but in the general elections (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:25:11 AM EST
    We'll have all those caucuses for Obama to win....oh wait.  

    Obama pretty much got beaten everywhere Clinton had paid staff on the ground.  There were some exceptions but most of those states overwhelmingly favored him: North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, Montana, and most famously Iowa.  Keep in mind, that when Montana and Oregon voted, the election was pretty much over so it wasn't that hard for Obama to win.  

    I don't think the field staff Obama had during the primaries was very good.  Just my opinion.  They could improve for the general but I don't know if that's going to happen.  

    C'mon (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by bocajeff on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:29:39 AM EST
    It's been 44 years since a Democratic Presidential Candidate received far more than 50% of the vote. Jimmy Carter barely cleared 50% in 1976. Bill Clinton never reached 50%. So, Obama is a few points ahead right now.

    Not to mention that you don't have to win a majority of votes to be president - you know, the electoral college thing.

    Yes, take your shots at him, but that's all it is right now.

    Besides, any thought that the last poll was a bit out of whack considering that it was so different than previous polls and now this one?

    I hate facts as they tend to ruin so many good arguments.

    Hm (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:48:03 AM EST
    The fact that Bill Clinton had a popular third-party candidate in both his elections never seems to get in the way of the "he didn't get 50%" argument.

    mmmmm such low expectations (4.50 / 2) (#104)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    on the heels of the disastrous bush years, the accepted worst president in history, a president weighing down his party's candidate with 25% approval ratings - a party widely accepted as craven, out os tep, and on the wrong track and democrats should be OK with under 50%. WOW!

    It's early (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by koshembos on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:32:42 AM EST
    I wouldn't read anything into that or any other poll in July. Until November the world will change a lot. McCain, if anything, seems like the a worse candidate than Kerry was and that's not easy. It turns out that behind a terrible temper there is an empty suit. Obama, who was quite bad in the debates, seems to come down from his own invented Olympus and is speaking in a way that people can related to. I think Obama's skills have sharpened significantly.

    In my view, the winner in November will be the candidate that will attract more blue collar workers. Independent will split. Democrats will mostly vote Obama and Republicans will mostly vote McCain. Since both Obama and the DNC have decided to ignore the blue collar workers, the one to attract them will win.

    I cannot vote Republican, but I must support blue collar workers, therefore for me 2008 is a dead year. Living in Maryland, my congressman will win even if I'll go to visit the Amazon in November.

    I think Obama's falling numbers (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:45:14 AM EST
    reflect people getting to know Obama.  A lot of people thought he was all sunshine and gold.  Now they discover that's not the total picture.  

    The more his "flip flops" hit the news, the more his ratings will fall.  The more he seems evasive on questions, the more his ratings will fall.  We've looked at the peak of his ratins.  I think everything from here on out is just a downward trend.  McCain hasn't had any such peak.  McCain has hardly had any media mention and the bit he's had has mostly been negative.  

    My explanations (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:52:43 AM EST
    Most likely explanation: The 15 point lead from before was just wrong. I don't know if 3 points is correct, but it's probably a lot closer. In that case, not a whole lot has changed.

    If something has indeed changed, my guess is that his sprint towards/past the center has undermined the perception that he's a "new kind of politician." The notion that he's abandoning previous positions for new ones has grown quickly and with surprising strength. A month ago, people weren't calling him a flip-flopper. Now, it's a significant concern.

    Frankly, I really don't have much confidence on Obama's positions. How many of even his most ardent supporters would bet their life savings that he's actually committed to, say, withdrawing from Iraq?

    Obama took a strawman of Bill (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:22:43 AM EST
    To the woodshed.

    A lot of people like to do that.

    But usually right-wing people (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:17:20 AM EST
    liked to do that to Bill Clinton.  It lost Obama support as much as anything in this campaign, I think.

    here's a fact for you: (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 02:38:37 AM EST
    I hate facts as they tend to ruin so many good arguments.

    if sen. obama backpedals any faster, he's going to meet himself coming and going, if he hasn't tripped over his entwined legs first.

    mccain is mccain, he's not going to change, you either like him or don't. yes, he's batsh*t crazy, with the resume' of an alleycat (with apologies to alleycats everywhere), but he's a known quantity. people feel comfy with known quantities, even if they're nuts.

    obama was an unknown quantity, who's now getting known. his tongue literally twirls itself into a corkscrew, as he constantly tells us what he actually meant, vs what he actually said or did.

    the first word that came to mind, to describe sen. obama was mendacious. after additional consideration, i realize that's giving him credit where it's not due, he's not seasoned enough to qualify for mendacious, merely inept.

    the media will (and has already started to) turn on him, as it has the past two democratic nominees. unfortunately, unlike gore and kerry, they don't need to create fiction (read: lies) about sen. obama, just quote him.

    so yes, it's an early, sort of meaningless poll, as they all are, but i submit it's a harbinger.

    I've never seen (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Josey on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:07:53 AM EST
    a candidate flip flop on so many issues within days.
    What was the rationale for that?
    It seems Obama's campaign is driven by benchmarks and goals needed to be achieved within a certain time (ex: attracting a certain percentage of Repubs and Indys) - and less about all voters' perceptions and reactions.
    Or does Obama have a bad case of hubris?

    It's almost as if he thinks his flip flops to appeal to one group won't be heard outside the group. Then, when the offended group balks, he just says they're imagining things.
    Isn't that called crazy-making?

    And then Obama has the audacity to attack Gramm for his ridiculous remark about voters 'imagining' a bad economy.


    You have to be joking (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:09:22 AM EST
    I'm also a SoCal liberal.  Forget Obama.  He's off in LaLa land somewhere.  We're better off pressuring our local elected officials because they are the ones that can make things happen.  

    I'm not voting for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:13:40 AM EST
    Make note of it.  When they poll me, the polls drop one whole percent, maybe two.  :)

    It is all a question of trust (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by laurie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:06:20 AM EST
    no-one trusts a politician all the way - but they like to feel they can trust him (or her) most, or at least some, of the time.

    Obama blew up his 'new kind of pol' meme (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:39:16 AM EST
    now everyone knows (which they should of from the the outset) that Obama is the same ole, same ole pol like any other pol. This makes him completely exposed and vulnerable for the republican/US corporate media slime machine to work their magic picking him apart with their relentless republican = good / democrat = bad presentation of reality.

    As bad and unelectable as mccain is and should be in a sane country, I don't see Obama and his campaign geniuses turning things around - they haven't since they peaked in early March.  

    the superdelegates were invented to prevent (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by pluege on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:45 AM EST
    a candidate unqualified for the general election from manipulating the nomination process to win the party nomination. The superdelegates this year did exactly the opposite of what they were supposed to do.

    If this (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:23:03 AM EST
    poll is correct about Obama's numbers with white voters he will lose the general election. 36% of the white vote is what Kerry got and translates into about 48% of the vote along with other voters in the general election.

    Character (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by nellre on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    He's charismatic. Hypnotized millions.
    But he is hollow. No character. No experience.

    This cat is out of the bag. No way to hide the truth.

    Man it's gonna be hard for my to vote for him!

    Oh, what to do now (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    is a good question.  His strength is the teleprompter speech, so he should use it frequently to lay out populist strategies that underscore the policies that have gotten us into our foreign, domestic and economic disasters, and then, propose specific remedies. Do not refer us to a website.  How, for example, he will increase jobs, reduce oil/gasoline prices and deal with the housing/mortgage crises. Of course, stop being frightened of the right--that is old hat.  The damage of the FISA vote is mostly irreversible so that is water over the dam. But the attitude that seemed to underpin  his vote needs to end-- that the voter is too dense to understand the complexities, or worse, that they do not care, other than a few lefties who have no other place to go. While not in the same league as the protection of the constitution, the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae issues are also complex but need to be explained so that the public can understand the stakes. Also, he needs to take lessons on debate and impromptu comments.  The best thing he has going for him is the hapless McCain--he can depend on him to make outrageous statements. Just make sure that his media friends, such as MSNBC  provide stenographic reporting.

    Strategy for Obama to regain his strength (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by DaveOinSF on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:21:18 PM EST
    He needs to start another national conversation on race.

    His only hope (none / 0) (#25)
    by oldpro on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 12:31:21 AM EST
    is to put Hillary on the ticket.

    Otherwise...he's probably doomed to the dustbins of history.

    Btw, I love your blogger name (none / 0) (#63)
    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 01:50:39 AM EST
    Do you remember the SNL opener right after the Dems won in 2006?  "As long as there's a safe word, like Palomino."  "PALOMINO!  PALOMINO!"

    Incidentally, Palomino is the name of a restaurant in Westwood Village in Los Angeles that serves creative dishes.  

    Maybe REALLY go for UHC (none / 0) (#82)
    by splashy on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:10:11 AM EST
    Instead of the half a plan he has now.

    Sen. Obama Regrets.... (none / 0) (#95)
    by bmc on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:41:59 AM EST