Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

With all of the hubbub over Barack Obama's comments over the weekend, one might assume that his support within the Democratic electorate might begin to shrink, in the short term, at the least, and perhaps also in the long term. What says Gallup on the subject? Not so much.

Barack Obama, who has come under attack by his presidential rivals for describing small-town voters as "bitter," seems to be weathering the storm to this point as far as voters are concerned. He maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, 50% to 40%, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

That 10-point lead matches Obama's best of the campaign, and even as the controversy has dominated the political airwaves, Obama's support remained strong in tracking interviews conducted on Saturday and Sunday. It is likely Clinton and Republican John McCain will continue to remind voters of the remarks, and the possibility remains that it could affect voters in the coming days, but so far they seem unaffected by the controversy.

Obama has now held a significant lead over Clinton in Democratic voters' nomination preferences for the last eight days, averaging roughly an 8-point lead, compared with the current 10-point spread. During this time, 50% of Democratic voters have supported him on average, matching the latest figure for interviewing conducted April 11-13. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

The important thing to note here is that two of the three days this poll was in the field (and thus presumably two-thirds of all interviews) came over the weekend, a period during which the airwaves were saturated with obsessing about Obama's comments. In other words, this was not a particularly low information period of time but rather a period in which Obama's admittedly poorly phrased statement was fresh in the minds of voters. Indeed, as Todd noted earlier today, Rasmussen Reports polling found that a majority of voters (all of whom were interviewed over the weeked) had followed the story at least somewhat closely, with 25 percent following the story very closely.

It is certainly the case that as voters have more time to digest this story their sentiments could begin to change, and they could view Obama in a more negative light and become less likely to support him. Let me emphasize that it could happen, not that I think it necessarily will. Yet judging by these Gallup numbers (as well as Rasmussen numbers that also have not recorded downward movement for Obama), it sure doesn't look like there's much real immediate fallout from Obama's comments.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic primaries (all tags)

Comments

129 Comments

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

His support within the democratic party voters was already less than Hillary

He needs that level of support to go UP to have any chance to win in November.

by DTaylor 2008-04-14 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

His support among pollsters with biased results has been pretty solid though...

by DTaylor 2008-04-14 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

The poll clearly disagrees with the most scientifically accurate measure...my own desires.  Therefore, the poll is

[ ] biased
[ ] a media conspiracy
[ ] only includes states that don't matter
[ ] wrong, because Clinton supporters were
    dienfranchised
[ ] not taking into account JEREMIAH WRIGHT!

Please check all that apply.

by coronado 2008-04-14 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

I think the regular posters to TaylorMarsh.com are still waiting for the huge dramatic wholesale abandonment of Obama, once this Wright stuff finally...takes....hold....why....won't. ..you...take...hold...damnit!

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-14 11:03AM | 0 recs
MSM Trying To Keep Hillary Afloat

This is merely the latest chapter in an avalanche of BS that included the Wright story. Penn and the media are convinced that they can create a campaign winning "maccaca" moment. There was Reverend Wright, the "typical" flap, and now the "bitter" nonscandal. They are convinced that they can engineer a viral craze, but maybe the GOP had already saturated the market for brain dead soundbites with their flag pin and pledge of allegiance stories.

Nevertheless the media has given Hillary the euivalent of an unlimited media budget to air these attacks, because it lets them basically phone in their stories without doing a bit of actual work. We have the media parsing sentences, words, and no doubt we'll reduce it to syllables.

Basically Hillary is saying "Shut up, shut up, shut up!" But Obama just responds to her attacks, and each time Hillary way overplays her hand and comes up looking foolish. Obama's Philadelphia speech was the best example - his response to the soundbite attack was far more effective than the attack itself.

by bernardpliers 2008-04-14 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: MSM Trying To Keep Hillary Afloat

Yup. Hillary Clinton: Candidate of the Media. rolls eyes

by world dictator 2008-04-14 12:08PM | 0 recs
Her GOP Talking Points Are MSM Comfort Food

It's like Thanksgiving as Hillary's dishes up the GOP talking points that the MSM love so much. Start with a pound of rancid lard ......

by bernardpliers 2008-04-14 12:34PM | 0 recs
I was hoping that some

Clinton supporters at least would feel a bit foolish after all the agita that was made over this episode.

Clearly, this hope was mistaken.

by MBNYC 2008-04-14 11:10AM | 0 recs
Your use of the past tense

Gives a new meaning to the phrase "wishful thinking."

by Trickster 2008-04-14 03:42PM | 0 recs
Um...that's utterly ridiculous.

His support within the democratic party...oh, nevermind. Your words make no sense.

by bookish 2008-04-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

nope...swing and a miss. they break out the bubbly when Hillary steals the nomination.

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

I have a serious question here--

How on God's green earth does EVERYONE get away with  calling people from California (and Boston/New York/pick your coastal major metropolis) irrelevant elitist douchebags?  

I mean, if supposedly Obama's comments are so offensive about rural Pennsylvanians "clinging to guns and religion", what are the comments that seem to universally paint anyone from California as a latte-sipping traitor?  The thing that always seems to get brought up in these issues is the real-estate value in California--yet somehow this issue ignores the fact that for vast numbers of Californians, real-estate value simply means obscenely high rent and a lower standard of living.

I've dealt with this crap in election after election, and I don't know why urbanites put up with it.  It's pandering of the worst kind--who says ANY particular demographic represents "authentic Americans"?

by SoCalRefugee 2008-04-15 12:55AM | 0 recs
They will hurt him in Pennsylvania,

where there's a primary in a few days.

As for the national results, not a lot of people are paying attention. When they do pay attention, and read/hear what he said in context, it will/would hurt Obama. Whether the media will accurately portray what Obama said, and why his remarks are condescending and dismissive, is another story.

by fairleft 2008-04-14 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: They will hurt him in Pennsylvania,

You keep thinking that.  The primaries will be exactly as we expected before the fake controversy: Obam down by 10 in PA, winning narrowly in IN, crushing her in NC and OR.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 10:38AM | 0 recs
Changing the focus from PA

is a good debating move, but it doesn't help Obama in Pennsylvania. Or in, it looks like, Indiana, another state having a primary soon. The national preference is something to look at in June, when the primary season is over.

by fairleft 2008-04-14 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: They will hurt him in Pennsylvania,

Evidence???

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:36PM | 0 recs
Tempest In The Teapot

And the tea in the teapot is seasoned with fake outrage, and is stirred with grasped straws.

by toyomama 2008-04-14 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

This only works to show voters that Clinton is what everyone suspected she was. DESPERATE

by SFValues 2008-04-14 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

When a Hillary supporter is polled, they pick McCain over Obama now to send a message to Obama supporters.

When an Obama supporter is polled, they pick McCain over Clinton now to send a message to Clinton supporters.

Once Obama is our nominee, the lying will end on both sides and you will see a 10-15% point swing to the Democrats. McCain will not know what hit him.

We need to unify soon before we implode.

by comingawakening 2008-04-14 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Whatever helps Obama's supporters sleep at night. I don't think a third of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain but 10 to 15% won't surprise me at all and really thats all McCain will need.

by rossinatl 2008-04-14 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Sure - and African Americans and the new young Democrats Obama has brought on board will go fight for Clinton? That is 30% of the of Dem base.

Obama made a mistake, Clinton is a liar - several times over. Which is worse or honorable to you?

by comingawakening 2008-04-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

how can "new" voters be part of the base?

really?

by colebiancardi 2008-04-14 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Fair enough but us African-Americans are the most loyal part of the base and with us she's polling at 50% or so in the GE against McCain. Again. We're the MOST loyal Dems.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-14 11:04AM | 0 recs
most loyal democrats

Do you think they are more loyal that women?

Which do you think is a larger percent of the democratic electorate?

by del 2008-04-14 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: most loyal democrats

There is an abundance of emperical evidence suggesting that black folks,are the most reliable voting block in the Democratic Party.

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:40PM | 0 recs
Re: most loyal democrats

Yes as a group they are more loyal than women. They make up something like 20% of the Dems.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-14 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

I believe Chuck Todd recently said the same, that once the Dem nominee is clear they will get a 10 point or so boost in the head-to-head polls against McCain.  That will be true whether its obama or clinton.

I continue to believe that McCain has no chance.  He basically tied with both Clinton or Obama?  He doesn't even have a unified opponent yet!  I don't want us to get cocky but we Dems should feel very good about where things are.

by snaktime 2008-04-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
Stop that.

We're 10 points behind McCain.  Both Democrats.  Nothing is inevitable.  Only hard work and dedication will pull this out for us.

You can be optimistic, but don't assume we're going to win. :)

by Dracomicron 2008-04-14 10:55AM | 0 recs
right

and if Hillary wins through supers all the Obama supporters will be extactic and vote for her.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:19AM | 0 recs
Not all of us

Some will, but if she wins fair and square by winning the majority of the pledged delegates, then I'm sure most would rally behind her.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-14 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Not all of us

Definitely....

Except that seems almost impossible at the moment...

by LordMike 2008-04-14 12:03PM | 0 recs
Nearly, yep

At this point my most charitable reason for Clinton staying in is just to toughen up Obama by throwing attacks at him that would normally come from Republicans.  

A bit of an rope-a-dope strategy.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-14 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Clinton has received roughly 50% of the vote in the primary. If 10-15% of Clinton's supporters vote for McCain in the general, that's only 5-8% of the total Democratic vote.

According to exit polls, 11% of Democratic voters opted for Bush over Kerry in 2004. 11% also went for Bush instead of Gore in 2000.

Given the Democratic advantage in party ID this cycle, Obama wipes the floor with McCain if only 8% of Democrats defect. I sleep fine at night.

by DesideriusErasmus 2008-04-14 05:19PM | 0 recs
Thud

Well, one has to feel bad for alegre. Poor thing had to spend the entire weekend indoors typing the four plus diaries regarding this non-scandal... to no effect.  

Turns out that the whole thing was manufactured outrage, and that voters recognized it for what it is. Underestimating the intelligence of voters, they thought they could misrepresent Obama's words. Instead, understood what he was trying to say, and they see Hillary's an McCain's attacks for what they are.

Hillary looked especially transparent.  She desperately played from the GOP playbook and aligned herself once more with McCain.  She even took a swipe at Gore. She looked desperate, reckless and unlikable.  She goes into Wednesday's debate at a disadvantage.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

Oh, I doubt if she wrote those things herself. They probably were shipped from the Clinton campaign for her to most. There are just too many of them, too well put together, for it to be likely that a person with her purported lifestyle to be able to pull them all together.

BTW, have you seen the Hillary's Bloggers site she touts? It has all sorts of people who have been so outrageous that they got banned over here.
http://hillarysbloggers.soapblox.net/

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

I find the frequency and volume of alegre's output suspicious as well.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 10:50AM | 0 recs
I think

Alegre is an abbreviation.

That like  writers paid to spew hate.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

She tends to cut and paste from HillaryHub and directly from campaign memos, and inserts little Rah Rahs in between the huge blockquotes.

by fogiv 2008-04-14 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

I just find it nauseating.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-14 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

OMG.  It's like a greatest hits: fleaflicker, owl, alegre... they're all there, one after another.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

I will watch with great curiosity the tone and tenor of that site, NoQuarter, and Michelle Marshall's site to see how their loyal readership reacts when and if Obama gets the nomination.  I suspect they will all become McCain supporters, as yet may Alegre.

 

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-14 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

How lame to send people to your opponents events and to record them on a hidden recorder. This tells you all you need to know about Clinton's camp.

by comingawakening 2008-04-14 10:42AM | 0 recs
I'm not sure about that.

I mean, that fundraiser was supposedly for maxed-out contributers.  Would someone pay $2,300 to one's direct rival for a chance that they'd get a scratchy, painful-to-listen-to soundbyte?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-14 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Thud

If you do not think that Obama is doing the same thing, then you are living in a bubble and drinking too much of the kool-aid.

by mztower 2008-04-14 11:42AM | 0 recs
Response

I think it's pretty clear now that the times that he makes missteps or is attacked by either Clinton or McCain, his responses are quick, forceful and definitely hit back.  He is clearly not making the same mistakes that Kerry and to a lesser extent, Gore made in 2004 and 2000 respectively.

by minvis 2008-04-14 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

It hurt him with the general voting population, per Rasmussen's poll today.  But, as I said on Friday (you can check through my comments) this would only hurt him with moderates and conservatives, which disapprove of him comments by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin according to Rasmussen.  Liberals eat this stuff up though, so it won't affect him in the primary that much.

I do think it will hurt him in PA, because a lot of the Democrats there are fairly conservative, but I think it adds 3-4 points, at most.  He's going to lose there, just a matter of whether it's 6 or 20 points.  Probably 13ish

by reggie44pride 2008-04-14 10:37AM | 0 recs
too many polls are bad for you

er, fixation on polls is dangerous. let pennslyvania vote, then pontificate. hey, maybe this is the new way to success in politics, insult the voters, take em by surprise.

by blackflag 2008-04-14 10:38AM | 0 recs
It's too early to tell

Whether these comments are hurting or will hurt. And weekend polling tends to be notoriously unreliable.  

by Mayor McCheese 2008-04-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: It's too early to tell

I agree with you on both of these points.  

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 10:42AM | 0 recs
First thing we do, kill all the pollsters

I admit it, I have a problem.  I look at gallup.com every day and then head to realclearpolitics.  

What?  HRC up by 7% because ARG shows her +20%.  Didn't they just have BO and HRC as even?

Admitting the problem is step 1.  There are 11 more for me.

Off to compile the list of people I need to apologize to while waiting for VOTERS to vote......

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-14 11:25AM | 0 recs
by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

oops - an explanation of the above link - It goes to a web page where you can submit comments to the Clinton campaign on how you think the campaign is doing and what they should be doing. I hope all take this opportunity to share their opinions with an eye toward promoting peace among Democrats.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Obama: McCain's out of touch

Obama, at the Associated Press annual meeting:

Now, Senator McCain and the Republicans in Washington are already looking ahead to the fall and have decided that they plan on using these comments to argue that I'm out of touch with what's going on in the lives of working Americans. I don't blame them for this -- that's the nature of our political culture, and if I had to carry the banner for eight years of George Bush's failures, I'd be looking for something else to talk about too.

But I will say this. If John McCain wants to turn this election into a contest about which party is out of touch with the struggles and the hopes of working America, that's a debate I'm happy to have. In fact, I think that's a debate we need to have. Because I believe that the real insult to the millions of hard-working Americans out there would be a continuation of the economic agenda that has dominated Washington for far too long.

by Cristalgirl 2008-04-14 10:41AM | 0 recs
The ironic thing about this.

This flap pushed Clinton to make the Dukakis/Kerry mistake of staging fakey photo-ops to seem less "elite."

Even while she was criticizing Obama for doing exactly that.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-14 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?
Right now, Rawstory has a story up about a post-bitter poll from American Research Group saying Clinton has a 20 point advantage over Obama in Pennsylvania.
by zenful6219 2008-04-14 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Yeah, the same ARG poll that the wall street journal devotes an entire article to de-bunking.

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

No wonder team McCain and Clinton are double teaming Obama. He is really a good counter puncher, they give a jab and he gives them a right hook! oh wait he is south paw.... left hook!

by Cristalgirl 2008-04-14 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

I can't see where this comment will do anything but hurt Democratic chances this fall.  Being from South Carolina, I offen hear the "Democratic elitism" moniker thrown around, that we hate "fly-over country", etc..  Now the GOP has actual video evidence that they will spin however they want saying that the Democratic canidate thinks that smalltown people are "bitter". That will be the entire ad, btw, they will just end it there, no context, move along.  People are bitter and frustrated about the direction our government is taking.  I just don't see what religion and guns have to do with that frustration.

by ND1979 2008-04-14 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Hopefully this will help to clarify.

From Jane Smiley:

Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them--that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction.

It's about the bitterness of being left behind in the modern world and finding that your only outlet is in wedge issues that make people feel a certain degree of empowerment, all the while  not helping to remedy their situation. He rightly feels that the frustration they feel from decades of economic and political powerlessness found an outlet in the radical proposals of right wing conservatives. He thinks that if you offer people a real investment in governance through grassroots mobilization, they will focus their energies on finding solutions to their core social and economic problems rather than being distracted by wedge issues.

by bookish 2008-04-14 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Bingo.  Well said.

by fogiv 2008-04-14 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Thank God we have HRC out there re-enforcing this sad tired argument..Fucking pathetic.

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Jonathan,

You're missing the whole point here.

White Liberals are not offended by his comments.

How do we know? Look at Kos & MYDD. Liberal whites have no problem with Obama's comments. You certainly have no issue with it yourself.

There's only one problem with all this.

Liberals can carry Obama to victory at this point in the democratic primary. Liberals & Blacks are a significant block in the primary.

But come November, you will feel & witness the REST OF AMERICA. Those that were offended by this.

You keep on forgetting that we are in the democratic primary.

You also keep on forgetting that come GE, the entire liberal community united with black voters WILL NOT be enough to win an election.

I know Jerome gets this loud & clear.

The primary is not the "hurt" part for Obama. Its the GE that every liberal democrat will come to the realization of all this.

by latinfighter 2008-04-14 10:52AM | 0 recs
Do you have a problem with liberals?

or Democrats?  Just wondering.

by GFORD 2008-04-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have a problem with liberals?

No, why?

Are you a liberal ?

You seem to be at a loss.

Are you a democrat?

At least half of our party consider themselves liberals. You should know that.

by latinfighter 2008-04-14 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have a problem with liberals?

I do know that but you seem to want to characterize Obama as only appealing to 'liberal democrats'.  That expression is used on rightwing blogs excessively.  They seem to think calling someone a liberal is a negative thing to say.

It seems you are saying Obama is too liberal which contradicts what a lot of other 'Hillary supporters' have been saying lately which is that he is not liberal enough.

by GFORD 2008-04-14 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have a problem with liberals?

First of all, you should visit moderate democratic blogs & sites. You should also talk to democrats in red states.

Just because right wingers are using "liberal" to describe him does not mean demcorats cannot.

This is the problem with being "Politically Correct". Its always been a democratic party problem.

We are about to lose an election in November, and so many democrats are still so concerned about  being labeled "Racist".

Ted Kennedy & Jesse Jackson are two of Obama's biggest fans.

What in the world do you expect people to label Obama ?

by latinfighter 2008-04-14 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have a problem with liberals?

President Obama

by Mylie 2008-04-14 11:25AM | 0 recs
We're about to lose? Really?

How do you know?  What gives you this great insight?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-14 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have a problem with liberals?

I'm a liberal progressive. So I can't vote for someone who authorized AUMF and then voted against the Levin amendment, which was a firewall against Bush taking us into Iraq.

You seem to be someone who likes to subdivide Democrats into ethnic categories ostensibly to fortify your elusive points. Do you read "Microtrends" on a regular basis? Pray to Mark Penn?

by bookish 2008-04-14 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

spot on.

the arrogance will destroy us in the GE.

seriously.  But I suppose history has to repeat itself somehow.

by colebiancardi 2008-04-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

If Hillary were truly concerned obout the affect these comments in the fall campaign,does it not stand to reason, that she would, you know, like, stop bringing it up every time she gets the chance??? Who do you think you are kidding??

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:57PM | 0 recs
See the ARG Poll

I think the comments will hurt him in smaller towns and among people who were offended by the slight to a huge segment of the American population.  Obama showed what an elitist he is, and I think that will hurt him.  Of course, I will wait until after the primary in Pennsylvania to see what the outcome is.  I think the national poll numbers may be very different if Hillary does very well.

by unabashed dem 2008-04-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: See the ARG Poll

I haven't heard the word "elitist" so much since I unwittingly followed a blind link to freerepublic.com.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-14 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: See the ARG Poll

This seems to be the hardest reasoning for liberals to understand.

They cannot seem to understand nor believe that Sen. Obama is really damaged goods for the fall.

Its like speaking to a wall.

When we lose in November, many of them still won't understand.

That's just the reality of all this.

If Obama losses by a landslide in November, maybe then, many will understand.

Obama will be very lucky if he can perform at even Gore or Kerry's level.

I believe he will lose by a huge electoral margin.

by latinfighter 2008-04-14 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: See the ARG Poll

Latinfighter, instead of arguing against Obama you should try and convince those moderates and conservatives to vote for Obama since he will most likely be the nominee and McCain will be a nightmare  if he's elected president.

McCain is really the problem not Obama

by hnic357 2008-04-14 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: See the ARG Poll

And when he wins, then what?  We don't have to pretend we are Republicans anymore?  Maybe then we can be openly progressive?  Maybe we can actually be democrats and stop being run by Republican political frames?

The DLC strategy is outdated and never really worked.  The Republican-lite strategy has failed for over a decade....  

This is the year where you can proudly be a progressive and still win!

Do not fear being yourself!!!!  The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!!

by LordMike 2008-04-14 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: See the ARG Poll

Actually, my reading says that if he takes all the regular Democratic strongholds and adds the growing number of purple states in which he's built incredibly strong GOTV and ground operations coupled with his ability to raise cash from small donors by the boatload, he should roughly double-up on McCain, winning something like 350-190, which is a landslide, just not the one that you're projecting.

by bookish 2008-04-14 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: See the ARG Poll

Yawn...Obama will be the nominee...move on..This shit is getting embarrasing.

by tommy 2008-04-14 02:58PM | 0 recs
Since when did talking about wedge issue voters

hurt a candidate?

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-14 11:01AM | 0 recs
Hillary

I was listening to Thom Hartman and he was saying how Hillary missed an opportunity to use this controversy to speak about economic issues and talk about how the electorate has gotten a raw deal from our gov't.

I think he is correct. Hillary is trying to get people to NOT vote for BO but she isn't giving people a reason to vote for her.

by hnic357 2008-04-14 11:06AM | 0 recs
Bingo!

We have a winner.

This has been my whole point from the get go.  Imagine if Hillary had taken the approach from the start of 'bitter-gate' along these lines...

'I hear my opponent made some clumsy statements the other day about people being bitter and clinging.....And while I dont agree with the way he put the words together (she could even have added a snarky comment like 'a bit of a surprise for someone who is usually so eloquent') he touched on a very important issue that faces Americans and Pennsylvanians today'.

And then she goes on to take this economic issue head on and she gets to own the issue as the leader on it.

Instead she attacked him and let him come back and clarify and take ownership of the issue.  And since the issue is valid, its to Obama's benefit to own.  Now he gets to take a short term hit for being clumsy with his first statement and the long term benefit for hitting on a serious and real issue that faces much of the country.  And now she gets the short term benefit of a nice little jab but loses the long term issue for being snarky and attacking it.

A big miss for Hillary in my opinion.

by pattonbt 2008-04-14 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

As someone who really likes both of our candidates, I was pretty disappointed with Clinton's response to this.  The "I'm not bitter" stickers are probably going to come back and bite her, but in all fairness she really does have to go for the throat to win PA by a large margin.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-14 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Same pattern every time...the pro-Obama blogosphere is very predictable...

1. Obama commits a political blunder

2. MSM ignores it

3. Picked up by pro-Clinton supporters

4. Gets some MSM play

5. Hillary campaigns on Obama gaffe

6. Obama attacks Clinton for mentioning Obama gaffe (I am rubber you are glue)

7. Pro-Obama blogosphere joins in, implying Hillary is hurting the party by pointing out Obama's many flaws and/or mistakes (while ignoring their own behavior on this score)

8. Inevitable headline "I though gaffe was supposed to hurt Obama" 1 or 2 days after the gaffe, and before it could possibly show up in polling.

9. Claims Obama's mistake is actually hurting Hillary

10. Hillary wins primary that was supposedly going to Obama based on the "Obama gaffe hurts Hillary" theory...

We are right on target then for a nice win for Hillary in Pennsylvania...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

11. Obama retains insurmountable lead in delegates.

12. Hillary still refuses to drop out.

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

13. Obama supporters, in an attempt to change the rules, declare Obama the winner despite his failure to acquire the required number of delegates

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?
No need to change the rules. Obama will reach 2025. He'll only need about 1/4 of the remaining Supers to get there. QED. As we've been saying for months now, the math is the math.
 
by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

And have the Supers that have yet to decide confided their intention to you?

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:27AM | 0 recs
nope

the trend in supers helps us with that.

Supers gap on super tuesaday: ~90
Supers gap right now: ~24

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

And of course absolutely nothing could happen in the next 4 months to change the dynamic right?

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

Seriously, what do you see happening that would cause all the remaining SDs to go to Hillary?

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

I don't know...a few more comments like those Obama made in San Fran last week might do the trick...

What astonishes me is the brazen change among those who only 4 months ago were bemoaning the fact that the primaries were overly influenced by Iowa and New Hampshire, that later states wouldn't get their say...

Now that Obama is marginally ahead they want to short circuit the process and declare Obama the winner...

If they (you?) are so absolutely sure he has it, why the constant attacks on a supposedly defeated Democrat?

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

When Hillary proclaimed that the primary would be over by Super Tuesday, I didn't hear any of her supporters say "we can't short circuit the process!"

Yes, the race for the nomination is over. The problem is that Hillary continues to throw stones at our nominee. This kefluffle over what Obama said in SF is just the latest example. Hillary's attacks are helping McCain. That's why we're ready to wind this thing up.

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

If there was a more apt demonstration of the arrogant Obama strategy than your post, I haven't seen it.

In fact it is not over...Obama is making a fool out of himself blaming others for his mistakes...and it is that, not Hillary rightly pointing them out that is going to cost Democrats the election...

Perhaps Obama should spend more time watching what he says than attacking others...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

So using math is arrogant now. Ummmm... Okay.

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: nope

No what is arrogant is the Obama supporters claiming they know what others will do with absolute certainty between now and July...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: nope

As opposed to Clinton supporters claiming they know that Obama's unelectable in November?

Between prognosticating 3 months into the future about a contest most of which votes have already been placed, and prognosticating 7 months into the future about votes that haven't yet begun being cast, which looks more arrogant to you?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-04-14 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: nope

No. It's just math. Again, Obama only needs 1/4 of the remaining Supers. And yes, we can project out into the next couple months based on past results. Again, math. Obama easily gets to 2025.

Show me a scenario where Hillary gets to 2025. There just isn't one.    

by fugazi 2008-04-15 05:38AM | 0 recs
yeah...

Perhaps Obama should spend more time watching what he says than attacking others...

I am sorry...are you making this post as you are running under sniper fire across the tarmac along side with Hillary?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah...

Actually, I was writing it in the airplane as Obama flies to Tehran to have his face to face with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 12:00PM | 0 recs
ok I see

cause I was a little worried that you were not spending enough time no watching what you say and a bit too much attacking.

Cause I hear Hillary Clinton has that problem.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: nope

Or a few more lies like Tuzla?

by danfromny 2008-04-14 11:57AM | 0 recs
I show

you a trend and you say it will be different in the next 4 months.

Got anything to back that up?

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I show

I of course did not say that...

I simply said that the dynamic could change in the next four months...it might or might not...

You are the one declaring the contest over based on a trend...not fact. Trends change in politics...as this season has shown...

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:44AM | 0 recs
I declared nothing

I simply said that the trend has been toward Obama and nothing yet shows that would change.

Hillary is going to need A LOT of super delegates to widen that gap again.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

So you're hope is that Hillary can win over ALL the remaining Supers. I would point out that three months ago Hillary had 96 more SDs than Obama. Today, she has only 26 more. The SDs have not been breaking in her favor.  

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:37AM | 0 recs
actually that sounds like clinton

in Texas where you know she actually got less delegates and declared she won texas.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?
15. Hillary Clinton throws a hissy fit on the convention floor, gets escorted out by police and is relegated to free speech zone where she gets enough signatures for a third party run.
16.Runs on the Connecticut for Lieberman ticket with Zell Miller as her running mate..Lanny Davis is her communications director.
by tommy 2008-04-14 03:06PM | 0 recs
no one even said

Obama will win PA.

by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: no one even said

Hillary will win by 10+ points

by SaveElmer 2008-04-14 11:22AM | 0 recs
um
Hillary wins primary that was supposedly going to Obama

Who even said tis going to Obama?
by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Yeah I thought the electorate would flock to Annie Oakley. Weird, huh?

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

She's gone electric and that's unexpected.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-14 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Nice Squeeze reference. That took me a second.

by fugazi 2008-04-14 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Do Hillary supporters really, honestly believe that she will be spared from the "elitist communist" attack if she were nominated?

The right wingers already call her a communist for her health plan, and the Clintons have been called elitists for their entire political careers...

Her attempts to pander with drinking been and whiskey wile playing "Duck Hunt" on the Nintendo Entertainment System is only going to add the same "she is pandering" fuel to the fire as it did to Kerry when he went hunting in Ohio...

*NO** democrat is immune to the attack, especiallly not Hillary.... At least Obama attacks it head on instead of begging Republicans to like him, as every democrat has done since Mondale (and yes, that includes you, Hillary).

It's not 1984.. it's not 2004...  If the "elitist" label really stuck anymore, we wouldn't have won congressional seats in 2006 after the Kerry joke....

The fact that right wing is so giddy about this makes me even MORE confident that it will backfire on them...  Their methods have lost their luster and will not be effective this year...  thank goodness!

by LordMike 2008-04-14 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

I was preparing to make about the same comment earlier.  Any Hillary supporter who thinks that she can win the infamous "Who do you want to have a beer test?" with McCain is seriously deluded.  Republicans would endlessly bash her over the head with the $100 million earnings, as well as the rich Hollywood friends like Streisand at no end.  Hillary has barely spent a day out of Governor's, President's, Senator's mansion in the past 40 years.  This "elitism" argument is one of the more ridiculous pot-kettle situations of this political season.

by GobBluth 2008-04-14 11:52AM | 0 recs
You at least have to get the cultural stuff right

And Obama displaying his disdain for the opinions of small town and working class whites kills that off for him. The right has his own words now, they have only innuendo against Hillary.

Hillary has done her cultural respect duties, like you're supposed to do. It's relatively small stuff, policy is bigger for her and voters, but you gotta do it right.

by fairleft 2008-04-14 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: You at least have to get the cultural stuff ri

Beware of cookiegate!  That will come up again... as well as a bunch of other "elitist" stuff the Clintons have been up to for years...

by LordMike 2008-04-14 12:56PM | 0 recs
only crazed Limbaughites bought that

crap when it first came out. And they don't matter to electing a Dem.

by fairleft 2008-04-14 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: only crazed Limbaughites bought that

Exactly... just as this thing is crap now!

by LordMike 2008-04-14 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Look at today's polls in PA and IN.  They appear to have hurt him there, and that's where it counts right now.

by markjay 2008-04-14 11:37AM | 0 recs
it shows nothing of the kind
that poll is from a week before:
1,600 state of Indiana adults were interviewed 04/11/08 through 04/13/08.
by kindthoughts 2008-04-14 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Nah.....Perhaps these polls would be significant were it not for the fact that they are meaningless insofar as Obama has pretty much wrapped up the nomination at this point.I guess reality can be a pretty tough pill to swallow.

by tommy 2008-04-14 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Clinton is up by 20 in a new poll in PA but will probably win by 30.

by gotalife 2008-04-14 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Oh, I think Clinton will win by more than 30 votes.  She could easily win by 152 maybe even 154 votes if her get-out-the-vote organization does its job.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-04-14 12:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

Hillary Clinton and her supporters should be very disturbed that the only way she can eke out a lead is through Barack's supposed "gaffes" AND NOT ON HER OWN merits or by conveying sound ideas.
Heh, likeability can only be achieved through throwing back shots?
The only people salivating over this sheer and utter "bitter" nonsense are the Hill Shills on this website, the ones connected to her train wreck of a campaign, and the Fox News pundits. Oh my, "arrogance and elitism under the bed, under that rock>>

You guys can finish your "whine" with your beer nuts and I will finish my wine with my cheese, thank you.

by april34fff 2008-04-14 12:16PM | 0 recs
Elitisim

I'm out in California so I'm sure the reactions of the people I know are different that PA's and IN's reactions, but nearly everyone I've talked to (Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and GOPers) brought up how they thought it was funny that Clinton called   Obama an elitist when she's the one with the 100 million dollar income.

by jkfp2004 2008-04-14 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Elitisim

What I want to know is if you've made 100 million in 7 years and you're not an elitist, what exactly does one have to do in order to achieve such a title? 200 million?

by SFValues 2008-04-14 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments

I guess we can forget about the Dream ticket, huh?

by chewie5656 2008-04-14 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

I cam across this article by Theda Skocpol that I thought summed up my own feelings perfectly:

"I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!

I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.

Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?

This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start."

by neverfox 2008-04-15 08:34AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------