Friday Funnies

Wright: over.

Obama's current 8-point advantage ties his largest lead of the Gallup Poll Daily tracking program, along with a 50% to 42% showing in Feb. 28-March 1 polling. Obama clearly has weathered the Wright storm, while the dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Back-Into-Lead-Democratic-Race.aspx

Now compare that 49% negative to where it was a month ago today, 48%.

What a disaster! It's worse than the sinking of the S. S. Minnow! Clearly Wright is having a major negative impact!

And it should be obvious why John McBush's unfavorables aren't as low: Obama and Clinton are shooting at each other, not him. Once the nomination is decided, let's put McBush under the scope and laissez les bon temps roullez.

And experience (and poll data) shows two things in a heated primary battle: people say in March they'd rather stay home than vote should the bozo -- i.e. the other candidate -- get their party's nomination, and in November, they vote for the bozo anyway.

"Unfavorably" in this case could simply mean "I'm not going to vote for him." The poll doesn't have a "neutral" category -- if you aren't with him, according to Rasmussen you're against him.

Now, when you look at a poll that actually includes a "neutral" category, the picture's a lot different. Here's a very fresh poll about Obama from the Wall Street Journal:

Very positive: 24%
Somewhat positive: 25%
Neutral: 18%
Somewhat negative: 16%
Very negative: 16%

Two things to notice. One is that when given an "neutral" option, a third of the people Rasmussen calls "negative" turn out not to be negative after all, while the positives stay positive.

For the second point, take a look at how Obama compares to Democrats in general. For context, let's take a look at another part of another recent Wall Street Journal poll, from about two weeks back, this time about "the Democratic party."

Very positive: 20%
Somewhat positive: 25%
Neutral: 18%
Somewhat negative: 16%
Very negative: 19%

So Obama's ratings are not significantly different than the ratings for Generic Democrat X. Pretty much any Democrat is likely to get numbers in this ballpark. And it's worth noting that where Obama's numbers vary, he does better, not worse, than the party as a whole.

And for completeness, let's take a look at what the same poll had to say about the miserable state of the Republican party.

Very positive: 10% (*ten* points lower than Democrats)
Somewhat positive: 24% (one point lower than Democrats)
Neutral: 15% (three points lower than Democrats)
Somewhat negative: 21% (five points higher than Democrats)
Very negative: 28% (*nine* points higher than Democrats)

But why shouldn't the GOP be taking it on the chin so badly? After all, they're slavishly devoted to the policies of a guy with a *41%* "Very negative" rating -- and now a severe economic crisis he's plainly unequipped to deal with and which may relegate his party to permanent minority status for a generation.

It's getting nasty.Hillary and Barack are really going at it. They're insulting each other, trading barbs, attacking each other's credibility. In fact, the only break they take from attacking each other is when they promise the American people, if elected, they can unite the country.

Leno