Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Inside the Post Poll: What Obama-Clinton Divide?

The political chatter over the last few days has centered on the continued rift between backers of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

First came the report over the weekend that Obama had, in a private conversation with a Democratic donor friendly to Clinton, said that former President Bill Clinton would be a "complication" to his wife's chances at the vice presidency.

Then came a story by Huffington Post in which three major donors to Clinton's campaign expressed their doubts and hesitations about jumping on board with Obama.

A look inside the numbers of the most recent Washington Post/ABC News poll in which Obama lead John McCain 50 percent to 42 percent suggests, however, that while elements of discontent remain, Obama is not suffering broadly among any group that overwhelmingly sided with Clinton in the primary season.

(A note of thanks to Post polling director Jon Cohen and polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta for making the numbers available to The Fix.)

Among women, the strongest pillar of Clinton's support in the primary, Obama holds a wide 54 percent to 39 percent lead over McCain. And, even among white women, who were one of Obama's weakest constituencies in the primary season, he fights McCain to a statistical draw -- 47 percent to 46 percent. Compare that to the 2004 presidential race in which Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) lost white women by 11 points to President George W. Bush and won women overall by just three points.

As for the white, rural, blue-collar voters of whom much was made following large Clinton victories in places like Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, there also seems to be no entrenched resistance to Obama's candidacy.

While Obama is losing among white voters (50 percent McCain, 42 percent Obama), there is no gap between how he performs among whites with college degrees and those without a college education; McCain lead 51 percent to 44 percent among white college graduates and 50 percent to 41 percent among white non-college graduates.

Among white voters who make $50,000 a year or less -- those lower middle class voters some strategists believed would abandon Democrats after Clinton lost the nomination fight -- Obama and McCain are running even (45 percent Obama, 44 percent McCain).

In both voting blocs, Obama is overperforming Kerry's showing in 2004. Kerry lost white non-college voters by 23 points to Bush and came up short among white voters earning less than $50,000 by seven points.

Older voters, who went strongly for Clinton over Obama in the primaries, also seem to have come home to the Illinois senator. He took 47 percent to McCain's 46 percent among voters between 50 and 64 years of age and only trailed the Arizona senator by five points -- 45 percent to 40 percent -- among those 65 and older.

In 2004, Bush won a narrow 51 percent to 48 percent victory over Kerry among those 45 to 59 years of age, while taking a broader 54 percent to 46 percent edge among those over 60 years old.

The news of the poll is not entirely hunky-dory for those Democrats who hope to leave the "Obama vs. Clinton" narrative behind heading into the fall election, however.

Among those who said they supported Clinton in the primary, nearly one in four (23 percent) said they would back McCain over Obama in a hypothetical trial heat -- a significant chunk of voters given that the vast majority of backers of the New York senator are far more likely to agree with Obama rather than McCain on issues.

Overall, however, the results of the Post/ABC poll seem to contradict the conventional wisdom that a major rift remains in the party. There are, without question, a group of Clinton allies -- particularly in the major donor community -- who can't, and may never be able to, bring themselves to back Obama.

But, for the average person, the scars of the primary (if they ever really existed) seem to have healed. That's good news for Democrats who have long believed the one thing that could keep them from the White House in the fall is a significant fracture within their base of supporters.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 16, 2008; 12:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Case for Charlie Crist
Next: Wrestling for Control of Iraq

Comments

It's apparent that quite of few of the authors of these posts are entrenched in their positions to such an extent that they're just not going to begin to understand why people on the other side feel the way they do. I guess we'll always have that . . .

I support Obama, not because I think that he's perfect, but because any misgivings I have about him pale into insignificance when I consider what a McCain presidency would mean. In so saying I'm not trying to damn Obama with faint praise. Rather, I am simply acknowledging that Obama will NOT be EVERYTHING I want in a candidate, and I get it that others have reservations. For the record, NO candidate EVER gives us all that we want.

It seems to me that Obama is being faulted for being a politician, and worse, for being a hypocrite for claiming to be above politics. There may be some measure of truth in this. I must say, however, that in the final analysis, he is no worse or more cynical a politician than either of the Clintons or (certainly) John McCain. And because I mostly agree with his policies, which, for the record, are quite similar to Hillary's, I'll be voting for Obama despite his feet of clay. For the record, if Hillary had won the nomination, I would been voting for her in a heartbeat.

I don't agree with the many disaffected Democrats who believe it's a good idea to sit out the election or vote for McCain. I don't believe that Obama's flaws are NEARLY serious enough for me to believe that another Republican administration is remotely a good idea. I say let's give the Repubs a ferocious spanking in November.

Posted by: old white male democrat in WV | July 18, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Any true Democrat, who would for John W McCain, would be dishonest with themselves. If you, like me, have felt angry over the incompetence of the Bush administration, voting for McCain would be an endorsement of the past 8 year humiliation. Wake up people!

Posted by: Dwayne U | July 17, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

I Cannot For The Life Of Me, Understand How Any True-Blue Supporter Of Sen. Hillary Clinton, Can Say They Are Not Going To Support Sen. Obama!!--It Has To Be Race, Because They Agree On Almost Every Major Policy, While Sen. McCain Is A Million Miles Away From What Hillary Clinton Believes & Wants To See Happen For Our Country!!-We ALL Need To Band Together & Support Mr. Obama 100%, Unless We Want Another 4 Years Of The Policies Of George Bush!!--Wake Up Hillary Supporters & Get On Board The Fast-Moving Winning Obama Train!!!--Yes We Can In '08!!!

Posted by: Corrie Gillikin | July 17, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

I think you are overestimating the Hillary supporters who will support Obama. If the three diehard democrats in my family are voting McCain he is in big trouble. Please stop calling me racist because I won't support an inexperienced politician with the most important job in the country. I voted and contributed to African American candidates before Obama, and will again.

Posted by: kathyt1 | July 17, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Every time anything is written about or against the media's rock star, Obama, Hillary is to blame. I've never seen so many idiots. How about us having some one with experience for a change. I do not care one bit about Obama's speaking ability. What's wrong with American is that we act like and maybe are a bunch of idiots. We vote for people who run popularity contest instead of their ability to lead. Look at Bush, here for 8 years. He was the popular candidate and look where that jerk has taken this country. I won't be voting for Obama because he does not have enough experience, not because he is African American, like some would like to accuse any one that doesn't vote for him as being. People with open minds, not the ones that still have stars in their eyes, will see that Obama would not be good for this country. He is no different than any other politician no matter how often he and his mouth pieces try to say different. He has divided this country more than I've seen before. He does not unite all of us but divide us even more. I believe in voting for the best candidate that will help not hurt our country and not on party lines. If anything Obama brings more racial division than togetherness. He is a candidate for his race not all of the United States of America. I want a candidate that speaks to all Americans not just one race.

Posted by: Barbara | July 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

If you die hard Hill supporters are still harping on your hate for OBAMA and won't vote for him, that is your choice.Put Mcsame in office and see how Mcsame will make W look like he was the greatest president ever was.You hate OBAMA so much,because he is a blackman, to put a man in who suffers from dementia, who thinks women should be in the kitchen, bare foot and pregnant, and who thinks women should not have any sat so over their body,well you go ahead.Just stop taking it out on OBAMA. Hill lost because she chose to put people around her who didn't care about her, they were working for themselves. They wanted money, and positions they thought they would get in her, preceived entitled Adm.So let's put the blame where it belong.

Posted by: tygirl | July 17, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

You glorified Obama idiots will see that he is not the person you think he is. He has his own agenda just like George Bush did. He will not bring high paying jobs back to America. When a bill is put to him about NAFTA,he will say it is not in America's interests to revamp it. He's world view's are shallow. He does not see things the way they are. Iran and countries like them will play along with his sweet talk to keep America off thier backs,and still make nukes and sponsor terrorism. Where is this guy comming from, thinking the world wants to live in peace. It never has and never will. He will let America's guard down and then we will get it. He has non-conforming views of how to fix our domestic problems. He will be going at it with the Democratic Congress.

Posted by: glen | July 17, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

You have not accounted for the "dittohead" factor. Many of Rush's racist, sexist and homophobic followers voted for Senator Clinton with no intention of ever voting for her in Novemeber. They may not even vote in November, since Senator McCain won't inspire those feelings.

Posted by: PDS | July 17, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

This paper is woefully and intentionally lying about the REAL polls. Zogby and Rasmussmen have McCain ahead.

Deseo que Obama acaba de cerrar su boca. Él es un idiota de proporciones gigantescas.

Posted by: Adrian | July 17, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

YOU PEOPLE ARE CRUEL AND HATEFUL. YOU SAY CLINTONITES ARE HATEFUL.....NO!! READ YOUR OWN COMMENTS! HYPOCRITES!!!

AS FOR YOU, WASHINGTON POST...YOU OBVIOUSLY AREN'T POLLING THE RIGHT PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE ARE MILLIONS OF US THAT WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR YOUR FLIP-FLOPPING WONDER BOY!

Posted by: Done with Dem | July 17, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Wow, three whole people in the Democratic party are complaining on the Huffington Post? That is all for all the sturm and drang during the primary (I know there are others, but they are an insignificant number)? Primary votes are not indicative of general election behavior, only Clinton's campaign tried to make the media believe otherwise, and the media bought and is still buying. Yes, those white working class voters in West Virginia will not vote for Obama, because many are simply racist, but working class whites west of the Missouri river had no issues voting for Obama, and the Clinton campaign and the MSM perpetuated an insulting stereotype to Clinton's benefit. Now we see this meme put to rest in places where Obama was supposed to have difficulties like Pennsylvania (where he has opened up a very healthy lead compared to Kerry and Gore), Ohio (where he is slightly outperforming Kerry and Gore, and has an almost statistically significant lead), Michigan (which was supposed to be difficult for him to win because his campaign forced Michigan to play by the rules, and they lost their votes, and he has a solid lead there, which is growing), or even states like Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota, where he is within striking distance of McCain with the aid of white working class voters. Nope, he will not win Kentucky or West Virginia, and probably by large margins, but in the grand scheme of things does that matter when he has consolidated his lead in almost all of Kerry's electoral votes, including swing states, and has started to push states like Colorado, Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia into his column, and is playing it close in SD, ND, Montana, Georgia? The rednecks in the mountains are more racist than the rest of the country? Having grown up in Maryland, this is just as shocking to me as it seems to be to the mainstream media, but it does not mean that is extends to the rest of the country beyond the south.

Posted by: bradleyhirsh | July 17, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I work in the Obama campaign and it is a a fact. Turns out Hillary's supporters were most likely the source of the hate, not the republicans. Things are quiet now, draw your own conclusions.


)))))))))
"Funny thing, since the end of the primaries the bomb threats to Obamas offices and the threats and name calling of his workers, I.E. nigg&r loves has pretty much stopped. Now that Hillary is out this all stops, interesting."

Where did you hear something as dumb as this and why would you accuse HRC of anything like this. You are an idiot. Unortunately, without any knowledge of anything you can still vote. God help America.

Leon

Posted by: | July 16, 2008 9:33 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 7:51 AM | Report abuse

What do you think of Hillary's new lesbian hair due?
------------
Where are you getting these poll results? I am a real American voter, and a die hard democrat. It is against my every being to vote for a republican, until now. I will not support or vote for Barack Obama, he and his campaign ran a race baiting campaign along with the media's help against President Bill Clinton, a president who has done more for African Americans than any president in history. Obama in a crowd of African Americans threw the finger at the mention of Hillary's name, unforgiveable. He is a sexist and a ageist. Obama is the most unqualified, inexperienced candidate the Democrat Party has nominated and they have nominated some "real losers" before. I am going to make sure Obama will be defeated and return to the senate. Obama your constituents consist mainly of African Americans (90%), guilt ridden liberal elites, and that is not enough to carry you to the top. This blue collar democrat is voting red.

Posted by: Victor Flores | July 16, 2008 11:43 PM

Posted by: Anonymous | July 17, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse

Where are you getting these poll results? I am a real American voter, and a die hard democrat. It is against my every being to vote for a republican, until now. I will not support or vote for Barack Obama, he and his campaign ran a race baiting campaign along with the media's help against President Bill Clinton, a president who has done more for African Americans than any president in history. Obama in a crowd of African Americans threw the finger at the mention of Hillary's name, unforgiveable. He is a sexist and a ageist. Obama is the most unqualified, inexperienced candidate the Democrat Party has nominated and they have nominated some "real losers" before. I am going to make sure Obama will be defeated and return to the senate. Obama your constituents consist mainly of African Americans (90%), guilt ridden liberal elites, and that is not enough to carry you to the top. This blue collar democrat is voting red.

Posted by: Victor Flores | July 16, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

The main stream media is not paying attention if they think there is not a wide rift in the democratic party. The NOBAMAs are in the thousands and growing every day. Obama continues to dig a hole for himself and thinks if he discounts his adversaries they will go away. He cannot flick us off his shoulders as easily as he thinks. We will be out in force and Denver will not be a shoe in. The main stream media can also try to discount us but they will be wrong as past polls have shown. If they think their fake polls will discourage voters they are underestimating us. Even if Obama emerges from the convention in one piece, he will not win the general election. The people will not stand for a selected not elected president.

Posted by: lee,sarasota | July 16, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

I think there's definitely a lingering rift, especially among the Hillary supporters that I know (and these aren't even the hardcore fanatic ones).

I know for me personally, I've moved into the "Undecided" category because I can't quite bring myself to vote for McCain, but at the same time, do not feel Obama is the right candidate for me either.

Yeah, its true that his positions are similar to Hillary's but to me, that's not enough to automatically vote for him. I also care about how he plans on turning his positions into real laws and policies and how effective he would be at governing. What's the good of voting for someone who thinks like you if he can't get things done effectively? (see Jimmy Carter)

Another point of lingering bitterness is how hypocritical and sanctimonious his campaign was during the primary, pretending to be a new kind of politics while basically doing the same exact thing as any other politician.

It really got my goat that he constantly attacked Hillary for her more centrist views and god forbid, the mortal sins of "triangulation" or "policies based on polls." Those are just negative ways of saying "compromise" and "listening to the people."

Now that it's over, like the hypocrite he's been throughout the process, he and his supporters are suddenly perfectly fine lurching to the center and changing his positions to whatever is needed to most effectively win.

Who's the "say anything do anything" candidate now? I don't mind a candidate moving to the center, since realistically that's what it takes to win for either parties, but it's the hypocrisy that gets me. He's doing all the things that he tore Clinton apart for doing, and in his world view it's perfectly okay for him to do it. Is that what "new kind of politics" mean? Plus ca change plus c'est le meme chose?

I guess this election, I'm going to have to sit it out for the first time in my adult life. I think the closeness of the polls reflect a certain amount of people who may be "undecided" or siting it out this time too.

I also know several friends who have already moved over to the McCain side who have never voted republican before. I think that's definitely boost his numbers, given how unpopular the republican party itself is.

Posted by: john_ccy | July 16, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

There is something seriously wrong with a
person who would support Hillary and vote for
McCain out of spite. Its lunatic fringe, not a true factor in this race. Obama is inspirational. That is the most important thing any candidate can offer at this pathetic low point in our history. I don't agree with all his positions either, but considering the Republican alternative the choice is clear.

Posted by: JohnDoug | July 16, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"Funny thing, since the end of the primaries the bomb threats to Obamas offices and the threats and name calling of his workers, I.E. nigg&r loves has pretty much stopped. Now that Hillary is out this all stops, interesting."

Where did you hear something as dumb as this and why would you accuse HRC of anything like this. You are an idiot. Unortunately, without any knowledge of anything you can still vote. God help America.

Leon

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama can't win in the general. While he did real well with white working class voters in the early Democratic Party primaries, once the Wright tapes and his cheap shot speech re. Pennsylvanian working class voters "clinging to their guns and their religion" came out, Hillary cleaned his clock. This sudden change wasn't because Hillary was loved by the white working class voters, but because the white working class voters came to know the real Barack Obama. They learned that Barack Obama was a member of a racist white and America--hating church for over 20 years that was in league with the likes of Louis Farrakhan. They learned that Obama was a my-do-do-doesn't-stink elite Harvard educated snob who looked down his nose at white working class people, and they learned that while he got the gift of gab, he's in fact nothing but a con-artist with no convictions who just tells people what they want to hear. He may be able to sweet talk the white liberal usefull idiots who are not too bright anyway, but in the general he'll get his clock cleaned.

Posted by: madhatter | July 16, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Let's get real. A recent posting of a "Broadway Joe" poll showed HRC behind Richard Speck, John Wayne Gacy, Bea Arthur, M.K. LaTourneau, the so-called "Marks of Excellence" (Marc Rich and Mark Foley), and Stephen Baldwin. How do you finish behind Richard Speck? She finished behind Richard Speck! That's not good. After months of nonsense, HRC is finally in BO's rear-view mirror. BO needs to gun the motor now. Let Harriet Christian, Carmella Lewis, or Rutger Hauer pick HRC up.

Posted by: Captain America | July 16, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

I still say Obama will never win the Presidency if he doesn't pick Hillary as his Vice President and yes he can too use Bill just as Hillary was going to use him, as USA Ambassadore, he is still the very best speaker there is..
Bam Bam NEEDS the HILL

Posted by: nannyb715 | July 16, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Random thoughts from LK:

How about that Obama? Ever notice "Obama" and "Oprah" both start with O and have five letters? Obama's a cinch to win now, O-my. Remember you read it here...And isn't that Michelle something? We had Jackie O and now we'll have Michelle O. And that fist bump thing. I tried to do that with McMahon and Ed hasn't been the same since.....Why haven't they paired Doris Day with Brad Pitt yet on film? Maybe a remake of Pillow Talk or Don't Eat the Daisies"? If Doris isn't available get Carol Channing. Carol, give Spielberg a call....How great a President was Reagan. Simply the best. Was anyone ever a better host of GE Theatre on Tuesday nights?....Glad Borgnine got the Oscar for "Marty" but why nothing for "Dirty Dozen." Ernie deserved better....Did Patrice Munsel ever play Broadway? If not, it's a shame...Hear anything about Alan Ladd for Spiderman 4. He's been pretty quiet since Shane. Alan, come back...And what's with the racial stuff against Barack? Hillary, New Yorker, the rest of you morons -- cut it out. Joe Louis stopped all that stuff when he knocked out Schmelling. What a fine gentleman that Joe Louis was...Was that Jolson I thought I saw at Sardis yesterday. Is he playing Baltimore this year?...And why no lifetime achievement award for Soupy Sales, long overdue...I tried to find "77 Sunset Strip" last night on TV. Did they switch networks? Couldn't find "Richard Diamond" either...And how about that Rhonda Fleming? Wasn't she something? That's all the time we have...

Posted by: LKing | July 16, 2008 7:53 PM | Report abuse

I believe that you have missed the boat on the polling. There are alot of resources going into producing biased numbers because of their known effect on campaign contributions. And, if there are any actually valid measures, the values are being manipulated. The GOP has gotten good at it. They are spending just enough money and resources to keep McCain slightly behing Obama until after the DNC Convention. If the DNC persists with the Obama insanity then they are going to cut loose after Labor Day. Until then, you are just playing with numbers.

Obama is not qualified and has demonstrated no leadership capabilities beyond the inspirational. And even that is phoney. He is a grafter from Chicago.

I am supporting Clinton all the way. Chris, I hope you have some friends and family that can get you into Koolaid rehab.

Posted by: RU Kidding | July 16, 2008 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama is a zero; McCain is a hero. 'nuff said.

Posted by: RelevantOne | July 16, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Why would anyone believe in Obama for anything? He has changed his position so many times on so many issues. He can't be trusted. Obama is bad. Real bad.

Posted by: NoPampers | July 16, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Obama does not have a position on any issue (he seems to blow with the wind). His FISA vote was the 'nail in the coffin' for me. Even Hillary voted against it. Obama is not the right choice for America. Vote Nader, Barr, or McCain. Not Obama.

Posted by: Pragmatist | July 16, 2008 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who still supports obama is an idiot.

Posted by: SlowBurn | July 16, 2008 6:38 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing, since the end of the primaries the bomb threats to Obamas offices and the threats and name calling of his workers, I.E. nigg&r loves has pretty much stopped. Now that Hillary is out this all stops, interesting.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

In that WaPo/ABC poll it is an 8% lead for Obama with registered voters but ONLY a 3% lead for Obama (49% to 46%) among "likely" voters. Additionally, among young voters there is a 20% drop in those likely to vote (it was 66% now it's 46%). Those figures on the Clinton supporters voting for Obama is highly unlikely. One in four, are more likely to vote for Obama. I think 75% of her supporters are not going to be voting for Obama. Right now, all over the US, grass root groups are forming to oppose Obama's candidacy. Just last night, we Clinton supporters and former volunteers, met to form a coalition with other state groups to ensure the DNC knows we do not support Obama and will not vote for him. We will be campaigning against him. My group includes young, old, white, hispanic, black, college educated, non-college educated, white collar, blue collar. Obama's days as a Chicago politician are not fully vetted, he is inexperienced, flip-flops on his policy positions, and is driven by his own ambition and has exhibited little compassion for our country's citizens.

Posted by: Janet8 | July 16, 2008 4:43 PM
=========================================

Oh, ok then. Polls suggest otherwise, but if you, your gut feeling and your anecdotal experience say that only one in four Clinton supporters will vote Obama, I'll take your word for it.

PS: I really don't get why the media is so crazy about nationwide polls. I though the 2000 elections would have been enough to educate everyone on our electoral college.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/

Of course, these numbers are not nearly as interesting to discuss. Gotta sell those papers.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Janet8 writes
"In that WaPo/ABC poll it is an 8% lead for Obama with registered voters but ONLY a 3% lead for Obama (49% to 46%) among "likely" voters."

Janet, I don't see the 'likely' data in the WaPost poll (there's a link to it earlier in the thread). What data is your statement based on?

Posted by: bsimon | July 16, 2008 5:52 PM | Report abuse

snObama, Kansas values, let see, the world is 6,850 years old, the eqarth has four corners, there is no evolution, God wanted "W" elected, God talks to Bush, etc.. I was born there 70 years ago, I left 50, nothing has changed.

P.S. Have you found your father yet?

Posted by: Luke | July 16, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you would be better off counting Jews for Jesus or Log Cabin Republicans. There are more blacksmiths in this country than die-hard Clinton supporters bent on voting for McCain.

I don't know what Obama was thinking reaching out to those lunatics. They care more about their personal agendas than the Clinton one, and if they had any money Hill wouldn't be 10 million in the hole.

Posted by: bondjedi | July 16, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I think the lack of a rift holds true in Montana. Obama visited blue-collar Butte on the Fourth of July and got a hero's welcome, in spite of the fact that Butte was the only Montana urban area he lost to Clinton.

The Rassmussen poll shows him five points in the lead here. Of course those are robo calls, so statiticians look at them with disfavor, but clearly Obama is running better in Montana than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | July 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Report abuse

I see the Liberal sheep are trying hard to sound intelligent.

not working.

when all else fails, go back to chanting. It suits you.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 16, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Scrivener: Good to see you on this thread. I did some checking on David Broder's price and it isn't that high. I could afford to pay it for grins. Looks like 12-large could get him to say pretty much anything.

I'm into this. I'm not going to make him do anything really silly like write something loving about the Klan. But my 12 thousand should at least get him to do a ringing endorsement of Cynthia McKinney, whom I kind of like. Or get him to wear a Cindy Sheehan for Congress t-shirt on his next TV appreance.

Or get him to say that Bush stole the elections in 2000 and 2004, the public didn't get the full story on what happened on 9/11, Iraq was a mistake morally, ethically and in terms military planning, and that John McCain isn't fit to sit on a school-board, let alone in the Oval Office.

12 dimes. No problem.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 16, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse


Aw, c'mon Zouk, even the Iraqis know the surge can't and won't last forever and even your god Bush knows that the violence dropped because Iraq is now ethnically partitioned like Kosovo. Why would Sadr bother to send the Mahdi Army against the Iraqi troops now? People in Iraq have learned from Afghanistan and are playing the waiting game.

Posted by: Mike in CA | July 16, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

In that WaPo/ABC poll it is an 8% lead for Obama with registered voters but ONLY a 3% lead for Obama (49% to 46%) among "likely" voters. Additionally, among young voters there is a 20% drop in those likely to vote (it was 66% now it's 46%). Those figures on the Clinton supporters voting for Obama is highly unlikely. One in four, are more likely to vote for Obama. I think 75% of her supporters are not going to be voting for Obama. Right now, all over the US, grass root groups are forming to oppose Obama's candidacy. Just last night, we Clinton supporters and former volunteers, met to form a coalition with other state groups to ensure the DNC knows we do not support Obama and will not vote for him. We will be campaigning against him. My group includes young, old, white, hispanic, black, college educated, non-college educated, white collar, blue collar. Obama's days as a Chicago politician are not fully vetted, he is inexperienced, flip-flops on his policy positions, and is driven by his own ambition and has exhibited little compassion for our country's citizens.

Posted by: Janet8 | July 16, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

It's amusing watching the deadenders in the McSame campaign try to pretend they're Democratic supporters of Clinton ...

But not very believable.

Posted by: Will in Seattle | July 16, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Zouk (I distrust anyone who claims to be king of anything) says we would have won in Vietnam if we hadn't given up.

I can think of fifty-eight thousand reasons - all listed on a black wall - why you're as wrong as anyone has ever been.

Posted by: FlownOver | July 16, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse

silly zouk wrote "He is clueless about the military, having spent his last few years strictly running for office." Then wrote "I would not characterize McCain as someone who doesn't know much about the military."


Which is it? Does strictly running for office make a person clueless about the military or not? Sounds like you're saying it makes a person clueless when you want it to, but not when its inconvenient for your argument. Keep on hittin' the hookah there Carroll.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

wow, I've been censored. I guess one can not say that HRC has lost the black vote (TRUE) but other's can post something about a "whitey" tape. Interesting.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

I love you like a brother. But the man-love you are displaying towards Obama has really crossed the line. You're into idol worship. And you're polling the wrong people.

The Dem cognoscenti has picked up the malodorous scent of impending defeat -- most of the aroma generated by Obama himself; not some cartoon, not his enemies on the right (although I'm not convinced that cartoon's intent wasn't premeditated by Hillary supporters among the New Yorker overlords).

The polls, as you well know, are lagging indicators. The narrative for Obama, so well-tuned and so inspiring earlier in the cycle, has turned into one of calculated cynicism and superficiality.

The superdelegates know it; why don't you poll THEM?

Gee, Chris, I expect better from you. You're the harding-working bloke in the chatocracy... but sometimes you let your politico-social fantasies rule your brain).

It's time to reset. And play nice to Hillary; she very well may call the tune in Denver.

__________________________________

IF YOU VALUE OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE
RULE OF LAW, CLICK ON THIS LINK:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/vigilante-injustice-organized-gang-stalking-american-gestapo-are-they-doing-hi-tech-torture

Posted by: scrivener | July 16, 2008 3:43 PM | Report abuse

I know that making a statement like - "we will withdraw X number of troops in X days" despite any conditions on the ground, our allies, the enemy, etc. is just plain arrogant, naive and stupid.

what is it with you Libs and the military. no wonder you keep losing election after election. another coming soon, based pretty much on this same problem you have.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 16, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

To the 23% of Clintonistas voting for McCain - remember "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." - comedy stylings of John McCain.

Posted by: RollaMO | July 16, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

truthbetold posted:

"American Jews are Hillary supporters by about 70 percent or so. Barack Obama will be very, very lucky to get half of these, consitering his flip-flops on the question of a divided Jerusalem; his wishy-washy maybe-yes, maybe-no support for Israel; his a**kissing kow-towing to Iran's Mullahs, and his 20 year assocciation and friendship with Jew-hater Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. With American Jews, Barack Obama's chickens are comming home to roost. They'll probably vote for McCain.

Posted by: truthbetold | July 16, 2008 2:36 PM"

As one of those American Jews who voted for Clinton in the primary (as did my entire family, and most of my friends in my congregation), I disagree with your assertion. Frankly, I know very few Jews who do NOT intend to vote for Obama-- certainly none in my congregation, regardless of who they supported during the primary.

Obama may indeed get somewhat fewer Jewish votes than Kerry or Gore did, but I doubt the number will be all that much less. We're smart enough to know that the nonsensical points that you made just aren't fact.

I disagree with Blarg on one point, however. He's correct that Jews are only 2+ percent of the population, and tend to be concentrated in states that generally vote Democratic in elections anyway. However, we vote in very high proportions to our numbers, tend to be politically active, and therefore could make a difference in a state where the race is otherwise close-- such as Florida.

Posted by: Dori | July 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Zouk: Interesting. You claim to have absolutely no idea how many troops need to remain in Iraq, now that we've finally achieved victory. You know that Obama is wrong, but you can't even guess what would be right. If you were anyone else, I'd say that your sudden ignorance hurts your credibility.

Complete this sentence: "Now that we've won the war in Iraq, we should..."

Posted by: Blarg | July 16, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

TRUTHBETOLD: I assume you're Jewish. You are, right? Because if you're not, I'm going to crawl through the fiber optic cables and slap you silly in front of you wife and kids.

Well, I am Jewish and I'd like to know what McCain plans to do about the 100,000 Persian Jews in Teheran when he "gets tough" on the Mullahs. Has the magnificent US armed forces figured out bombs that distinguish between Muslim, Jew, Copt, and Atheist?

If so, I'm impressed. I'm still glad I'm not an American, but I'm impressed.

Posted by: DexterManley | July 16, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

simple simon, I would not characterize McCain as someone who doesn't know much about the military. It is the family business (after beer now). He was the principal agitator for the surge, the winning strategy, while the Liberals were all calling for immediate surrender and withdrawal. surely this credits his judgment on such matters. not like your guy who proclaimed it a loss before it even began. Some "judgment" there. not the judgment I am looking for.

who gives a speech without finding the facts first? Liberals. they did it with global warming amd now Iraq and Afghanistan.

you will have a fair trial and then you will be shot.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 16, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris your an ignorant wretch. Leave the blogosphere world and join the Obamaites zombies.

Posted by: nroman26 | July 16, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

"So what's the prooper number of troops to keep in place, now that we've achieved victory? 20000? 50000? 150000?"

How would I, or any civilian sitting in my comfortable home possibly know that? you have exposed the Liberal weakness with your question - the presumption that you are all so smart you know everything.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 16, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Once McCain's bumbling ways get thoroughly exposed he's fried. He changes positions on issues more than I change underwear. His economic advisor is a crook, he's underacheiver in college finishing bottom 1% of his graduating class, pro-abortion, pro-war and admitted himself that he doesn't know much about the economy at a time when the US is and will be in a deep recession. Enough for most people to run the other way but then again we did nominate Dubya for a 2nd term. Let's not make it a 3rd for McBush.

Posted by: Ryan | July 16, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Let me be the first to congratulate everybody on McCain's smashing victory for the term of President Of The United States Of America beginning in January of 2009.

I didn't think he could do it, but America loves its War Heroes and hates their Black people. Twas ever thus, twill ever be.

I couln't vote, but I preferred Obama. I'm disappointed by his defeat but I'll get over it pretty quickly.

Most of my net worth is in things anti-correlated with the US dollar and extremely correlated with the high price of crude oil and products. I like the idea of an expansion of the War On Terror throughout the Middle East for those reasons. I also like the idea of a 100-year commitment if necessary to this policy.

No reason for me to abandon an investment strategy that has worked beyond my wildest dreams for the past 6 years. Soon, I'll be a little too old to worry about that, so I'll turn it over to my son and I'm imagining that I if my son gives me a child a can throw a pretty cool bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah with all of this gelt that the Bush War and National Security Machine has thrown at me and which McCain will continue to throw.

How can McCain go wrong with Carly Fiorina as Secretary Of The Treasury? What was Bill Clinton thinking of appointing Bob Rubin and Larry Summers?

Being a little slow with English someone will have to remind me about Secretary Fiorina. I seem to recall she nearly bankrupted one of the greatest corporations in US business history. I could be wrong.

Don't forget to support the troops. I support them with my best wishes and thoughts. Their civilian masters have been supporting me in STYLE!

Posted by: DexterManley | July 16, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

zouk writes
"how could any thinking person take this bozo seriously. He is clueless about the military, having spent his last few years strictly running for office. Promising whatever it takes to win and making few decisions of impact."

Sounds like you're talking about McCain, who's shown up for fewer Senate votes in the last year than any of his colleagues, except, perhaps, Tim Johnson - though even that could be close.

Posted by: bsimon | July 16, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Wait.... So the majority of the Clinton-supplied MSM-distributed narrative since the beginning of March was empty speculation designed to sell papers or keep hope alive?

I'm Shocked. Shocked.

Posted by: Mason | July 16, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Zouk, didn't you read that anonymous post? The war in Iraq is already won! We can't lose in Iraq, because the war is over.

So what's the prooper number of troops to keep in place, now that we've achieved victory? 20000? 50000? 150000? Surely our recent victory must allow us to bring most of our military home. Otherwise this "victory" is another meaningless Republican milestone in a never-ending occupation. But we all know that isn't true!

Posted by: Blarg | July 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see if the polls shift after Obama names his VP .. many Hillary supporters will say they support him now but if he doesn't pick Hillary for VP ... that may all change.

Posted by: Jesus Cardenas | July 16, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

If Obama is up by only a few points, then he's not up at all. Some whites probably are telling pollsters they'll vote for Obama when they really won't.

Posted by: EricF | July 16, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

truthbetold: According to a poll released today, 58% of American Jews will vote for Obama. Not 35% as you guessed.

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/109488.html

But it doesn't really matter. Jews make up approximately 2.2% of the national population. And every state with a significant Jewish population is reliably Democratic, except for Florida. Even if you were right about the reasons Jews dislike Obama (which you aren't), the Jewish vote isn't going to make much difference in this election.

Posted by: Blarg | July 16, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Blarg - we could withdraw all our troops as General Obama wants to do and end up with another vietnam - turning victory into defeat due to liberal confusion, or we could leave the prooper number in place and have a Germany or Japan instead.

But they don't seem to teach history at Harvard. and they have kicked the military out. how could any thinking person take this bozo seriously. He is clueless about the military, having spent his last few years strictly running for office. Promising whatever it takes to win and making few decisions of impact.

Posted by: kingofzouk | July 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

When I finally settle on some positions, I will let you know and may even be open to answering a few questions. no more than eight, and make sure they are easy ones. If I don't have it written in front of me, I tend to stumble and bumble a lot.

I won't be debating Mccain, that would involve thinking on my feet. I only do prepared remarks, as you know.

Just remember that I have middle american, Kansas values. Unless that means you won't vote for me, in which case, I don't.

Posted by: snObama | July 16, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

American Jews are Hillary supporters by about 70 percent or so. Barack Obama will be very, very lucky to get half of these, consitering his flip-flops on the question of a divided Jerusalem; his wishy-washy maybe-yes, maybe-no support for Israel; his a**kissing kow-towing to Iran's Mullahs, and his 20 year assocciation and friendship with Jew-hater Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. With American Jews, Barack Obama's chickens are comming home to roost. They'll probably vote for McCain.

Posted by: truthbetold | July 16, 2008 2:36 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican troll who never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I'll pretend I was a Clinton supporter here and say I wont vote for Obama because his candidacy is an insult to women. Oh, and I'll part with a feww choice insults directed at Obama and some male bashing tossed in for good measure. The, I'll repeat this comment on every open forum that will allow me to post under a different name ad nausium, for the rest of the day. Thank you and have a nice day.

Posted by: "Hillary" voter | July 16, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican troll who never voted for a Democrat in my life, but I'll pretend I was a Clinton supporter here and say I wont vote for Obama because his candidacy is an insult to women. Oh, and I'll part with a feww choice insults directed at Obama and some male bashing tossed in for good measure. The, I'll repeat this comment on every open forum that will allow me to post under a different name ad nausium, for the rest of the day. Thank you and have a nice day.

Posted by: GOP Troll | July 16, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Obama supporters want to quote where McCain has stood on legislation but the problem is Senator Obama is so inexperienced you can not look at his history. You have to go on what he says and that has been all over the place.

Also, the new view of the "New Democratic party" is to issue threats and intimidation, and trying to suppress freedom of speech. That is Change I can do Without. Switching my affiliation to Green Party. See Ya!

Posted by: No-Obama | July 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter that I was 100% wrong on the surge. I still claim I have perfect judgment. It doesn't matter that I flip-flopped on public finance, I have superb judgment. It doesn't matter that all my best friends are loons, they trust my judgment.

If the judgment thing stoops working (as is clearly going to happen with all these facts intefering) I will create a new mantra for my gullible followers to drink in their Kool-aid.

My cult rules!!

Posted by: snObama | July 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

When The Fix compares poll numbers between 2008 and 2004, is he comparing Kerry-Bush numbers from July or from October. Because July-July comparisons are fragile but all we have. Obama-McCain-July poll numbers versus Kerry-Bush-October poll numbers are a lot like a Gandalf the White versus Darth Vader death match discussion.

Posted by: muD | July 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter what the facts are. I will surrender and withdraw on my own schedule. I am that smart. I know more about things than anybody. Generals are overrated and always betray us anyway.

Posted by: snObama | July 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

"What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack."

That's great news. It sounds like the Iraqi insurgency is definitely in its last throes! Mission accomplished!

So, this means we can start bringing troops home, right? That's what you do when a war ends; you bring the soldiers home. Should we have them all home in 16 months, as Obama plans, or do you think we can go even faster since the war is completely over now?

Posted by: Blarg | July 16, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The draconian spending cuts needed to pay for McCain's Bush-style tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, along with his past voting record, suggest that his "new reforms" aren't what America's parents and students are looking for. For low-income black students, the results could be disastrous.

Here's a run-down:

-Cut Funding To Head Start: Nearly 280,000 African American children are enrolled in Head Start programs that have been shown to improve school performance in early grades and return up to $7 to society for every $1 invested. Sen. McCain consistently voted against funding for Head Start programs and has no plan for expanding access to Pre-K or early childhood education. His plan for a government spending freeze would allow inflation to cut funding for Head Start by over $968 million. Furthermore, the massive deficits his tax plan would rack up could increase pressure for across-the-board cuts that would slash Head Start's budget by an additional $1.6 billion, and drop over 170,000 children from the rolls.

-Slash College Aid: Approximately 45 percent of African Americans who attend four-year colleges rely on Pell Grants to pay for school (compared to around 16 percent of whites). But Sen. McCain voted with the Bush Administration to cut the value of Pell Grants, and has consistently voted against expanding access or increasing their value. Furthermore, his plan for a discretionary spending freeze would cut $1.7 billion from community learning centers, and $3.7 billion from career and technical education grants.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Recently, the McCain campaign tried to distance Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) from President Bush's record:

- Senior Advisory Carly Fiorina: I think if you look at the record, it may be Barack Obama who is running for Bush III. But it certainly is not John McCain.

- Senior Policy Advisor Douglas Holtz - Eakin: Obama's budget "is dedicated to the recent Bush tradition of spending money on everything."

But Americans aren't buying the spin. According to a new New York Times poll, "Mr. McCain is yoked to the legacy of President Bush." Indeed, a majority of Americans believe that as President, McCain "would continue Mr. Bush's policies in Iraq and on the economy":

- 78 percent: McCain would continue Bush's Iraq policies

- 61 percent: McCain would continue Bush's economic policies

- 65 percent: McCain would not bring change to Washington

Indeed, as ThinkProgress has noted, McCain represents a third term of his buddy Bush on issue after issue. According to a CQ analysis of Senate votes on issues President Bush expressed "an explicit, stated opinion," McCain voted with President Bush 100 percent of the time in 2008 and 95 percent of the time in 2007.

In April, during an appearance on Mike Gallagher's show, McCain bragged that "no one has supported President Bush more than I have." The American people agree.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse


NATO has "abandoned an Afghan outpost days after it was stormed by militants who killed nine US soldiers." The "predawn assault on the still-unfinished camp left nine US soldiers dead and was the worst single toll for US forces in Afghanistan since 2005."

The setback comes as the insurgency in Afghanistan gains "dangerous momentum," killing "more U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan in June than in Iraq for the second straight month."

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

looks like the world has passed old queenie beanie by. enjoy your turdsausages clinties. ah hahahahaha pathetic losers!

Posted by: doodoo | July 16, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

'Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq.'

That is being run by Tehran.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

I don't care if we won the war. In order to foist the fable that I have judgment, I need to retroactively go back and find a way to lose. I already have my plan. After my show visit to them fereners, I will discover that I was right all along. No need to edit the text I already wrote. In essence, we need to retreat ASAP before the enemy loses hope. hope, hope, hope remember?

As you know I have removed all mentions of the surge that was supposed to be an utter failure from my website. I am busy cleaning out the campaign finance rhetoric and all friends I once had.

all new me, coming soon. I can be whatever you want me to be, if you'll kindly donate again and remember to vote - for me.

Posted by: snObama | July 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Afghanistan, today Iran.

The rightwingers conceding Obama understands foreign policy better than they do, and following his lead.

The Bush administration has decided to "send a senior American official to participate in international talks with Iran this weekend," effectively abandoning "its longstanding position that it will only meet face-to-face with Iran after it first suspends uranium enrichment.":

President George W. Bush has authorized the most significant U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, sending the U.S. State Department's third-ranking official to Geneva for a meeting this weekend on Iran's nuclear program, administration officials said.

The decision appeared to bend, if not exactly break, the administration's insistence that it would not negotiate with Iran over its nuclear programs unless it first suspended uranium enrichment.

Bush's decision to allow American diplomats to meet with Iranian officials -- while welcome -- is surprising. In fact, just two months ago, Bush said, in a speech before the Israeli parliament, that those who favor rigorous diplomacy with Iran (including his own Defense Secretary) are supporting a policy of appeasement toward terrorists:

As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

Conservatives in the media and on the campaign trail echoed Bush's remarks. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) "wholeheartedly endorsed" Bush's comments, while Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) added that the remarks were "exactly right."

As Bush makes the "most significant U.S. diplomatic contact with Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979," the question must be asked: Will the right castigate President Bush for seeking the "false comfort of appeasement"?

Posted by: Real leadership | July 16, 2008 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Independent reporter Michael Yon has spent more time in Iraq embedded with combat soldiers than any other journalist in the world, and a few days ago he boldly declared the war over:

Barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

Posted by: no thanks to the loser Libs | July 16, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Throughout the primaries, much hype was made over the seemingly high % of Clinton voters who would vote against Obama in Novemeber if he were the nominee. Oddly, nobody every seemed to ask Clinton voters who they would vote for in November if Clinton were the nomineee. My guess is news organizations just figured it would be Clinton, a bad assumption given the high turnout among non-Democrats in the Democratic primary, some of whom were Republicans deliberatly pranking the system. This poll seems to validate the notion that much of the supposed Clinton-Obama rift is media hype and/or clever Republicans masquerading as disgruntled Clinton supporters.

Posted by: Atlanta | July 16, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama will have spent "almost half of the past decade campaigning for higher office." With experience like that, it is no wonder that he can't keep his policy positions straight; he's constantly angling and posturing for his next political move.

Those political moves are starting to have costs. In today's Washington Post, Democrat Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution was quoted regarding Obama's Iraq timetable, lividly stating: "To say you're going to get out on a certain schedule -- regardless of what the Iraqis do, regardless of what our enemies do, regardless of what is happening on the ground -- is the height of absurdity. . . . I'm not going to go to the next level of invective and say he shouldn't be president. I'll leave that to someone else."

The theme that is emerging here is an Obama who is quite an effective politician, but whose calculating political maneuvering is impacting his credibility. His inconsistencies are also calling into question his decision-making. What we are beginning to see is someone who lacks sufficient time in any position and who is always looking to the next political accomplishment (remember that 2 years 12 days in the Senate). As a consequence of that political ambition, he lacks the core judgment to make principled non-political decisions and he lacks the humility to know when he should accept the advice of those with more experience. Obama can give great motivating speeches, but when the shroud of generalties and bombast is stripped away, his inexperienced core is revealed. The fact that the wheels are starting to come off the Obama campaign wagon in July, rather than October, is a blessing for the McCain campaign (consider the Newsweek poll) and is probably a reason why the Obama campaign ran away from town hall meetings. They know their candidate can't "take the heat" (thanks to HRC for that one). The recent debate over Obama's changing, contradictory, and politically motivated positions on Iraq and Afghanistan highlight his inexperience, his poltical opportunism, and his arrogance.

Posted by: McNeal | July 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, and Obama is going to get boosts: after the convention, after the debates, and when Colin Powell endorses him. And once his ground operation has had a chance to work is large-scale persuasion.

Wealthy donors always want something in return. The Clintons play that sleazy favors game well, so they are the favorites there. But Obama will have the power; sooner or later the big donors will come through. They should temper their expectations though- Obama has a lot more decency than the Clintons.

Posted by: JR, Boston | July 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse


Heather Brewer, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico, said today that three pro-choice New Mexicans wearing NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico T-shirts were denied access to Sen. John McCain's town hall meeting at the Hotel Albuquerque on Tuesday even though they had tickets to the event.

Several security officers confronted the pro-choice attendees, but gave no explanation for ejecting them as they waited in line with the other nearly 500 participants. Instead the pro-choice ticketholders were simply told that they were trespassing and the officers threatened them with arrest....

"Our folks had tickets, followed the rules and were waiting in line just like everyone else," Brewer said. "I can only assume that it was their NARAL Pro-Choice New Mexico T-shirts that inspired security to single them out from the hundreds of other people there and to threaten them with arrest. If Sen. McCain has a problem with women accessing birth control, he should state that publicly. His voting record makes it clear that he does not support access to birth control, so why is he ducking the issue at his own town hall meeting?"

...After being confronted by security officers, all three pro-choice ticketholders left the building without incident.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

GrannyJan - losers like you are going to get us another 4 years of the same sh*t.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

YOu in the MSM are badly misjudging the anger and disgust of the average voter! The fact is both of these candidates are the weakest, poorest choices their parties could have made and WE, the VOTERS, are choosing NONE OF THE ABOVE! We are tired of the corrupt manipulations of BOTH the Dems and Repubs. WHY are you not interviewing and covering the other fine candidates--Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney and yes, even Bob Barr! I am supporting and voting for Nader--his platform is very close to Dennis Kucinich's, whom the DNC cheaply squeezed out of the field! We have other choices--now cover them!
I will NOT vote under any circumstances for either Obama or McOld!

Posted by: GrannyJan | July 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

where is leichtman? he and all his neighbors were for sen. clinton but now are for sen. mccain. polling is innaccurate because it missed leichtman and his neighbors.

Posted by: bojedi translator | July 16, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris: Why are these poll results surprising? Obama has consistently led McCain in national polling by margins of 3 to 8 percent throughout the spring and summer. He has never fallen behind and more importantly, McCain has never managed more than about 43 percent.

As for the so-called Obama/Clinton split and repercussions, this was a false issue from the beginning. Voters in the Democratic primaries strongly agreed with the shared policy views of both candidates. It is therefore natural that once the field has been cleared and the presumptive nominee identified, Democratic voters will overwhelmingly chose their own candidate. Only the lazier MSM journalists continue to flog the tired story of a backlash from disgruntled Clintonites.

The other inaccurate and overworked narrative about Latino voters not supporting Obama has also been effectively discarded. It never was true, but it made for a cute story for journalists looking for something positive to write about McCain.

With the new ads up today from Planned Parenthood which highlight McCain's horrible record of opposing women's choice, I predict that women of all backgrounds will move more strongly toward Obama in the coming month. The other important opinon changer will be Obama's upcoming trip to Europe and the Middle East, which will demonstrate his strong stature among world leaders and in the eyes of a world eager for a new American leadership.

Posted by: dee | July 16, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

So what all was going wrong? Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified in front of Congress that economic growth was "on a sluggish pace," and that on top of that, inflation was a risk. The Commerce Department reported that wholesale prices were up 1.8 percent, and retail sales rose just 0.1 percent in June over the previous month and were down 0.5 percent when gas-station sales were excluded. The stock market was down 93 points, and stocks in London, Paris, and Tokyo suffered as well. The dollar fell to a new low against the euro. Police in California had to be summoned to restore order at banks, where customers waited in line to withdraw their money. "It was a day of ugliness," said one analyst quoted in the Los Angeles Times. "What else can you say?"

Posted by: massive republican failure | July 16, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse


After the utter failure of conservative policies and the disastrous state of our economy, how could anyone vote for someome who will continue the exact same policies?

'Most of the lead stories are similar wrap-ups of the main economic events of the day. The Post's focuses on the international ramifications and the extent to which the world economy is dependent on the U.S. economy. It also off-leads a piece on the woes of Wachovia Bank and of the banking sector in general. The L.A. Times fronts an analysis showing how the economic crisis is making Americans lose faith in free markets. USA Today's lead is a forward-looking analysis of what future bad news the economy might hold: more U.S. assets being bought up by foreign companies, dozens of large banks failing, and the possibility of the worst economy since the Great Depression. The Wall Street Journal fronts the Securities and Exchange Commission imposing an emergency 30-day ban on short selling of the stocks of 19 financial companies, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.'

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Here's the problem with your analysis - apples and oranges.

Chris you are looking at a sample of either registered or likely voters in a general election AND you are trying to compare that sample to a sample of either registered or likely voters in a primary election contest.

The ONLY numbers that have any meaning right now about whether or not there exists a divide in the electorate are those which dealt with the people who said they voted for Clinton in the primary.

All the other numbers are bogus....because you can't compare the samples!!

Simply put, there is a DIVIDE in the Democratic Party's most engaged portion of the party's identifiers - primary voters. And we know that primary voters highly likely to turn out in general elections.

Hence, Obama is currently doing fine among those voters who engage themselves with general elections, but he has NOT healed the rifts among those voters who engage in primary elections.

In short, Obama is in trouble....

Why?

Because those who participate in general elections (but not in primary elections) haven't made up their minds yet (and they won't until we're much closer to November) - all you are doing is analyzing their generic party identification and affiliation.

Who matters right now - and who SHOULD Obama be worried about - those 23% of Clinton voters who are backing McCain!

Posted by: LM | July 16, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

interesting stuff. After some digging, I found the raw data ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/postpoll_071408.html ) which seems to be a plausible sample - more self-identified dems than repubs. When asked which party they lean towards, the numbers are a lot closer. The more interesting question is how people describe their leanings ideologically - 35% conservative, 17% (from memory) liberal. The rest are moderates. We don't get the cross-tabs, but that seems to imply that the Dems attract most liberals and a majority of self-described moderates, while the Repubs attract the majority of self-described conservatives & a minority of moderates.

Big picture implications: the meme about the Republican 'brand' is valid - more people lean Republican or are self-identified conservatives than actually self-identify as Republicans. I expect this to have a negative implication on their electoral results this year. If you look at the responses about liklihood to change one's vote for President, fewer people are committed to McCain than Obama, which points to not only the 50-42 point gap, but an additional enthusiasm gap. So far, the GOP hasn't come up with an issue that will really inspire the base to the polls. Without one, they're gonna lose big.

Posted by: bsimon | July 16, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Couple of things:

1. This information should surprise no one. The Clinton/Obama post-primary rift is a media-generated narrative borne out of no reality. Sure, there are pockets of discontent. But statistically, the number of people raising a ruckus about this are irrelevant. Personally, I view these people as sore losers as there is no doubt that Obama and Clinton are pretty much the exact same politician from a policy and philosophical perspective.

2. Obama has much more headroom to grow his lead than McCain does to secure a lead of any kind. Most Americans are too busy grilling burgers and hot dogs, mowing the lawn, and relaxing during the summer to pay any attention at all to a bunch of politicians. This will change after Labor Day. At that point, the campaign becomes real, and I think you'll see people overwhelmingly drift towards Obama. The Republicans have fielded a weak candidate, and this will become readily apparent at the two conventions. McCain can barely speak a paragraph without contradicting himself from a prior event. Obama is a once in a generation politician (and, yes, I am fully aware that he is a politician, not a Messiah, and I have fully anticipated his mad dash to the center after the primary).

As a Republican, I welcome this bloodletting. It's about time the neocons and religious nutcases were marginalized in a party that should be better known for fiscal restraint and a Libertarian streak.

Posted by: P Diddy | July 16, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

If Chris says Obama is leading in every category, why do the polls consistently show Obama is up by 3-5 points. Maybe there is latent discontent which will only show up on Nov 4.

Posted by: Va | July 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

When push comes to shove Hillary's backers may not be cheerleaders but will vote for Obama, or against McOld.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I totally understand why the newspapers are losing customers. They are concerned about the 24 hour news cycle with non-stories and speculation.

If they would spend more in-depth time dealing with hard issues rather then rediculous points and polls, people might read or buy a newspaper more often or subscribe on line when there is real news.

Posted by: jerry rubin | July 16, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Are you really that surprised Chris?

Name how Obama and Hillary are dissimiliar on the major issues affecting everday Americans? There is very little room if any between the two.

Now I pose the same question to you that was posed to the Governor of SC, Mark Sanford, name any issues that distinguish McCain from Bush?

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 16, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Another poll? YAWN!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is still another 4 months where the economic news gets "publicly" worse and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars get worse. Bush's approval rating is falling and so with it will be McCain's polling numbers. McCain may have had "maverick" moments throughout his long political career, however over the last three to four years McCain has pretty much sounded like a typical Bush-Republican.

Posted by: Obama-Junkie | July 16, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Obama and Hillary had very similar positions on just about everything -- and totally opposite from most of McCain's --so it's not really surprising.

Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company