I said right after Sen. Obama's speech on race in America that I didn't think it would "work." This may be one of the rare times that I actually get something right.
According to this poll, of the 80-something percent of respondents aware of both the controversy and the speech, 52 percent are less likely to support Obama for President.
More:
Among whites, the "less likely" answer came from 51.3 percent. Among blacks, it was 56.2 percent. (!) Among Hispanics, 54.5 percent. (The sub-sample sizes for blacks and Hispanics were 85 and 46, so it's possible that maybe it's too small a sample to get a really good reading on these demographics).
Among Republicans, the "less likely" crowd was 53.7 percent, among Democrats it was 47.6 percent, among Independents it was 55.6 percent.
Obama's unfavorables have hit 51 percent (an all-time high?) as well.
Discuss.
Was it just me or did it seem odd by how impressed Bill Richardson was that Sen Obama took a stand on a tough issue....as if all he was doing until now was giving speeches....but now that he takes a stand on an issue...so clearly he is capable.
It doesn't seem to have translated into a significant or lasting drop in the polls against Hillary yet, at least looking at the polling data on RCP... it certainly doesn't seem to have helped though. On top of the really heated rhetoric going back and forth between the dems it seems to have given McCain a boost for now. He probably lucked out on the timing by having all this come down while the Dem primary was dragging on and after most of the voting has already been done, with him on top. If it had been earlier on or during the general it probably would have been far more damaging. It's still hard to see the dems committing supercide... but stuff like this makes it a smidge more likely.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"It doesn't seem to have translated into a significant or lasting drop in the polls against Hillary yet, at least looking at the polling data on RCP..."
I don't think it will. My speculation has always been that those who already supported Obama would think the speech was magnificent (someone on here compared it to Gettysburg) while those who weren't supporting Obama wouldn't be impressed.
The whole controversy/speech will move some Dem voters on the margins, but for the few who haven't already made up their minds, I think it will be a net negative. And it will be a larger net negative for independents and moderate Rs in the general.
The exit polls from the Pennsylvania and NC primaries should be interesting.
(Someone on here compared it to Gettysburg) It was even funnier to watch the MSM that are in the "Can" for Obama or Hillary. Depending on the camp it was either the best speech in history or just ok.
A couple of things to add. First, of course the whole controversy did damage. I think that was the point of bringing it up: to do damage to the Obama campaign. And there is little doubt that the damage has been done. But there is also little doubt that Obama's speech stopped the bleeding, with integrity (ie: he didn't throw the Reverend under the bus as I am sure most politicians would have).
Second, I would like to mention that this is another incident which challenges the idea that the MSM is "liberal". This issue is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant to whether or not Obama would make a good President. I mean, do people really think Obama hates America? Do they think he blames America for 9/11? If not, what is the point of the entire issue?
Since no one has really come out and claimed that Obama hates America, or any of the rest of it, it is a mystery why the so-called liberal media would beat this story to death if they indeed had an Obama/Liberal bias. This was, after all, a week in which the McCain campaign made several major errors, and in which Hillary's WH schedules were released to the public. Yet there was hardly a blip on the radar over those issues, as the Rev. Wright's speeches were continually re-run.
Finally, in my personal opinion, the timing of this incident is way off for it to make a significant impact on the general. By August (when, I believe, the "swift boat" attacks occurred) most voters will consider it "old news". Which makes me believe the Hillary people were behind it, with the sole goal being the swaying of the super delegates. Obama's speech was directed at those super delegates and went over quite well from at least first impressions. The issue will probably not have enough traction to throw Clinton over-the-top so therefore, imo, it was a failure.
By November no one will care, as long as the Democratic Party is united behind Obama. With the economy in the tank, the war dragging on, and Bush's approval numbers as low as they are, the cards are all stacked in the Democrat's favor. One controversy, played out eight months before the general, will not mean much for McCain's chances. Unless there is something else out there on Obama, I still see the Dems as the major front runners.
But eight months is a lifetime in Presidential politics.
"This issue is, in my opinion, completely irrelevant to whether or not Obama would make a good President. I mean, do people really think Obama hates America? Do they think he blames America for 9/11? If not, what is the point of the entire issue?"
I think the issue for some is the people with whom he surrounds himself.
For me, the issue is the self-serving and hypocritical manner in which he addressed it, but we've already agreed to disagree on that.
"Finally, in my personal opinion, the timing of this incident is way off for it to make a significant impact on the general. By August (when, I believe, the "swift boat" attacks occurred) most voters will consider it "old news". Which makes me believe the Hillary people were behind it, with the sole goal being the swaying of the super delegates. Obama's speech was directed at those super delegates and went over quite well from at least first impressions. The issue will probably not have enough traction to throw Clinton over-the-top so therefore, imo, it was a failure."
I think you're right about the timing, and about the Clinton's pushing the story. I think you're also right about the effect of Dem superdelegates. I don't think you're right about this story having no effect in November. If nothing else, the "typical white person" comment will keep circulating for a while.
"By November no one will care, as long as the Democratic Party is united behind Obama."
That's the million dollar question - will white, working-class Democrats support Obama after all of this? That's why I'm so interested in the PA and NC exit polls.
Remember - John Kerry lost in 2004 even though he got 90 percent of the African-American vote. Obama isn't going to add much to that, and so to win, he's going to need a significant percentage of white Independents and Democrats. Since Super Tuesday, he's only been getting 30 to 40 percent among white Democrats. Bringing them back home is a challenge without even considering white independent voters.
"Unless there is something else out there on Obama, I still see the Dems as the major front runners."
That's the thing - there's a bunch more out there on Obama, but Hillary can't use it, because their positions are nearly identical on all the Dem orthodoxy tests. Taxes. Guns. Abortion. All areas in which Obama's rhetoric and positions are well-suited to Democratic Primary voters but not so well-suited to independent voters.
Of course, if McCain refuses to raise money, it's a moot point. His insufferable self-righteousness may be his undoing yet.
Yeah, the "typical white person" comment wasn't helpful, even if it was probably true. I mostly agree with your analysis, but I think you are underestimating the black vote. Yes, black folks who voted in '04 went overwhelmingly for Kerry, but those were the just the voters who showed up. Obama's candidacy has the potential to bring more black voters to the polls. A lot more. And that could make a big difference.
And I know we have been down this road before, but I believe the Democratic Platform is going to better reflect the positions of most Americans today. With the economy quickly becoming the top issue, McCain's strategy of extending tax cuts is going to flop like a wet pig in the general. Health care, Iraq, education. All of the top issues seem to lean in the Dems favor. Guns and abortion? I am not sure if they will even make the top ten, and immigration is probably going to be a draw. My sense is the issues favor the Dems, especially Obama who is positioned (believe it or not) slightly to the right of Clinton.
Finally, one thing that hasn't been mentioned anywhere is Obama's use of Christianity in his speech and the appeal it may have to many churchgoers. As a guy who does a lot of church, I can tell you that the paragraph about the "most segregated hour of the week" is something that has been going around churches for years now. And there are real efforts to start to address that issue within the evangelical community. The most important part of that speech may end up being the connection it makes with many evangelical Christians, who don't have a lot of love for McCain to start with. If that part of the conservative coalition is up for grabs, then the Republicans may be in real trouble.
For better or worse, a lot of churches were discussing Obama's speech yesterday – Easter Sunday, which is the second-most popular day to attend. Sometimes these things have a way of flipping and becoming a real asset for a candidate. I am not saying that is going to happen, but it is a possibility. Just as many pro-lifers don't like being called wackos for saying 40 million babies have been murdered since 1972, many in the evangelical community understand "righteous anger" even if it offends their sensibiities.
Just my two cents.
"I mostly agree with your analysis, but I think you are underestimating the black vote. Yes, black folks who voted in '04 went overwhelmingly for Kerry, but those were the just the voters who showed up. Obama's candidacy has the potential to bring more black voters to the polls. A lot more. And that could make a big difference."
I disagree. I think that Democratic Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) efforts on behalf of Kerry ramped up turnout to record levels, especially in urban areas. In Milwaukee, there were actually more ballots cast than registered voters (which is the subject of an going Federal investigation, IIRC). I'm not sure there's that much more room for expanded African-American turnout, at least in urban areas.
"As a guy who does a lot of church, I can tell you that the paragraph about the "most segregated hour of the week" is something that has been going around churches for years now. And there are real efforts to start to address that issue within the evangelical community."
Yes. Obama is going to have a hard time convincing people that he's serious about working on such issues given the rhetoric of his own church. And, again, how do white evangelicals who are working to integrate churches feel about the "typical white person" comment?
'The most important part of that speech may end up being the connection it makes with many evangelical Christians, who don't have a lot of love for McCain to start with. If that part of the conservative coalition is up for grabs, then the Republicans may be in real trouble."
I think the abortion issue means that part of the coalition is not up for grabs. Obama will be the most pro-choice major party nominee in American history. Things like the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (which Obama voted against) means that Obama won't get many evangelicals, even given McCain's poor record on judges. It's also not going to help him with Catholics or independents.
"Just my two cents."
It's going to be an interesting year.
Second, I would like to mention that this is another incident which challenges the idea that the MSM is "liberal".
What it shows is the racial split in the Democratic Party coalition.
The MSM are largely fawning over Obama, because they want the symbolism of Dr. King's perfected successor to triumph over the hated George W. Bush. Yes, I know President Bush isn't running, and so requires little effort to defeat. It's all symbolism, so succeeding him is the same as defeating him. The MSM and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are struggling mightily to paint McCain as GWB, while for years they have loved him for his willingness to defy the President and his party.
Witness the number of pundits who thought that speech was the greatest string of words ever said by one human being to others.
What Obama should have said was :
Full stop.
But he started off with this one-sided history lesson, and tried to equate the pastor and granny. He tried to tie racism in the past to his campaign promises, and to explain how we can all get along only if America accepts his health insurance ideas, if we give more money to inner city schools, etc.
It was a non sequitur, and to the people who didn't already agree with him it meant that the whole speech was self-serving tripe.
------
See the Academy, where we start at pretension and never look back.
"It was a non sequitur, and to the people who didn't already agree with him it meant that the whole speech was self-serving tripe."
Thank you. I thought I was the only one.
The MSM and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are struggling mightily to paint McCain as GWB, while for years they have loved him for his willingness to defy the President and his party.
Ok, that is an interesting theory. Can you give us some examples?
I ask because last week McCain mixed up Shia and Sunni twice, and fired one of his staffers for posting a really racist youtube video. This was barely covered by the media, who were busy feasting on Obama. If the media is so adamantly in Obama's corner, why wouldn't they take the first piece of bad news on McCain and change the subject?
"compared it to Gettysburg"
Give me a break, it was not even on the same planet as Gettysburg.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Yeppers, 150 years from now, they will be lauding Obama's speech and have completely forgotten Gettysburg.
They will be having kids memorize Obama's CYA speech and not Gettysburg.
How about....
"....And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country......"
Oh well, it was probably better than that one to.......
Sigh...........
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I really only listen to NPR for my non-bloggy news, and they've been saying that Democrats are trying to paint McCain that way.
But you are correct, I probably should have said "to the extent that the Obama implosion is leaving room for McCain, the story is that he's just like GWB. And that he, like General Petraeus, interprets Iran supplying missiles to Al Qaeda as them being somehow hostile to us.
And yeah, I think McCain is being way too PC, but it's his campaign, not mine. I'm not a big McCain supporter, BTW, so don't ask me to be his apologist other than in the most general way.
Funny thing about the Obama "implosion" though -- it cost him a couple of points, total. And it happened at pretty much the same time as the Clinton "implosion" about non-existent sniper fire.
In both cases, it ties into what are supposed to be the key negatives: uncertainty about Obama's religion (at least partially used as a surrogate for the racial issue) on one hand, and Hillary's sporadic disconnection with factuality on the other.
Net result -- they both lose a little, but nothing much has changed, and Hillary still has only a marginal shot at the nomination, although she's prepared to inflict serious damage on the party as she holds her breath and stamps her feet.
Yes, I know President Bush isn't running, and so requires little effort to defeat. It's all symbolism, so succeeding him is the same as defeating him. The MSM and Democrats (but I repeat myself) are struggling mightily to paint McCain as GWB
If only GWB were running! Then we really might have someone to vote for. I could vote for him again, but never for McCain.