WSJ Poll: Campaign damaging Hillary and Obama
posted at 7:38 am on March 27, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both taken some damage from the tough campaigning in the Democratic primaries, but that the general election contest for either candidate would still be too close to call. Hillary has lost some strength in her base of working-class whites, however, and that could play havoc with her hopes to ride into Denver with momentum from a sweep of the remaining primaries. Women are less likely to support her as well:
The racially charged debate over Barack Obama’s relationship with his longtime pastor hasn’t much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a “myth-buster” that showed the pastor controversy is “not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign.”
But both Democrats, and especially New York’s Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona. Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton’s support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll. …
While Sen. Clinton still leads among white Democrats, her edge shrank to eight points (49% to 41%) from 12 points in early March (51% to 39%). That seems to refute widespread speculation — and fears among Sen. Obama’s backers — that he would lose white support for his bid to be the nation’s first African-American president over the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Chicago.
The last item is more of a “yes, but” point. Yes, Obama managed to defuse the controversy among Democrats. That isn’t really his biggest problem, although it could have contributed to expected losses in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kentucky. The Reverend Wright controversy will have a much bigger impact in a general election, and the WSJ poll shows exactly that. Only 26% of the respondents who saw Obama’s speech have no issue with him; 67% of those pressed to name a concern came up with at least one, while only 28% could name no concern after the speech.
More evidence exists that the effort has damaged both candidates. Both Hillary and Obama have lost ground among white voters, five points in both cases. The poll also shows that the polarization numbers supplied by Gallup yesterday are no fluke. Around 20% of the supporters for both candidates say that John McCain will be their second choice, and not the Democrat. The general election is still seven months away, but the convention is five months out — and that polarization will continue until the nomination has been resolved.
Hillary has another problem, this time in legitimacy. She has almost no chance of overtaking Obama’s lead in pledged delegates by the end of the primaries, and has to rely on convincing superdelegates to choose her instead of Obama. However, 41% of the respondents would see that as illegitimate; oddly, only 38% of African-American voters agree. That question has fewer fence-sitters than just three weeks ago, and the numbers are trending perilously close to a majority. She needs to make her argument better that the superdelegates should act independently, because at the moment it’s not resonating.
John McCain manages to remain within the margin of error with both candidates, even with the party affiliation numbers trending Democrat. Hillary and Obama have registered a lot of voters in this primary cycle, but if they continue their game of chicken, they may become McCain Democrats in the end.
Update: As the TheBigOldDog notes, this poll looks quite different than the daily Rasmussen tracking poll. The rolling seven-day average has McCain up ten over Obama and Hillary by seven, and has majorities against both. Rasmussen also shows Missouri going from toss-up to leans Republican in their Electoral College tracking system.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I’m not buying it. Word on the street and over the air waves in New England show Maverick hands down over Obama with Hillary getting slammed by the media like as if she were a Republican.
Hening on March 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM
Why don’t B.O. and Shillary settle this whole thing the way everyone really wants to see them settle it.
Contact Vince McMahon of the WWE to arrange a special Hell-In-The-Cell match for his next pay-per-view event. Winner takes all!
pilamaye on March 27, 2008 at 7:45 AM
I wonder if NBC oversampled Blacks in this poll too? Anyway, so much for polls:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday
John McCain continues to lead both potential Democratic opponents. McCain leads Barack Obama 51% to 41% and Hillary Clinton 50% to 43% (see recent daily results).
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 7:47 AM
From the Polls results PDF:
Interviews: 800 total interviews
Crossection of 700 registered voters
Oversample of 100 African American voters
Total of 177 African American voters
Dates: March 24-25, 2008
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Now that the Republicans and Conservatives have no other choice but McCain, I think McCain can do what he does best: Being a Maverick and lean more towards the Left to pander and gain some of his favorite lefty voters.
McCain cannot be president without the Left, he knows it and he’s going to work on it.
We have a three-way race among Lefties, right now.
Don’t let the war in Iraq blind you about McCain.
All these candidates do the election-talk, but in reality, on the ground, only events will dictate the next move in Iraq.
And trust me, the U.S. will never withdraw from Iraq. It is impossible. Under any president. It ain’t going to happen.
And they know that.
Can’t you understand that international events and relations, such as wars and terrorism is much bigger than some election-stump speeches?
Don’t be fooled by rhetoric.
These people are running for the Presidency of the United States to have more P O W E R.
That’s all.
Wise up America.
Nobody care about you.
It’s a greedy world.
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 7:57 AM
I find it interesting that 28% of those polled had ‘favorable” opinions of Obama, regardless of what he has (or hasn’t) said in the controversy over his virulently anti-Western “spiritual advisor”.
Because I remember that back in the 1990s, about 26-28% of people polled by Zogby, et al., back then approved of Bill Clinton even in the midst of Whitewater, Monica, the Chinese money deal, and so on.
And in the last eight years, 28% of those polled by these groups hated President Bush no matter what he did or didn’t do.
From this, I am forced to conclude that 28% of the electorate are not merely “progressive Democrats”, but are in fact ideologues who don’t care what a Democrat does- all they care about is that they’re a Democrat. And that they are devoted to the party’s dogmas, irrespective of objective conditions. (Anyone who strays off the plantation, however, will be thrown under the bus- cf. Joseph Lieberman.)
Considering that the majority of Republicans I know have no problem with criticizing their party’s leaders for stupid behavior, questioning their party’s policies on a regular basis, and voting for independents or Democrats if they seem more in tune with their personal philosophies, I have to ask;
Which party is really the most “hidebound” in their devotion to their dogmas?
cheers
eon
eon on March 27, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Again, from the pdf:
The margins of error for:
700 crossection interviews (“all voters”) is ± 3.7%
520 interviews with whites is +4.3%
I don’t think I can ever remember seeing a poll with a 7.4% margin of error….How do you get an overall lower poll margin of error than the margin of error for your 2 subgroups? How does 7.4% and 4.3% come out to 3.7%?
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Do they still make that claymation ‘Celebrity Deathmatch’ show that I never watch because it’s on a channel I hate?
James on March 27, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Strong Democrat 26
Not very strong Democrat 8
Independent/lean Democrat 10
Dem total: 44%
Strictly independent 17%
Independent/lean Republican 9
Not very strong Republican 9
Strong Republican 16
Rep total: 34%
Other/Not sure 5%
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 8:17 AM
While Indy’s a bit vague on what portion of the “left” may vote for McCain, I would submit that there is a strong portion of the moderate left, (blue dogs if we must), that are already disillusioned over their party’s choices and hesitant to admit their convictions.
The shame of all this is just when an American society believed it could elect a woman or a “black” person to become POTUS, this is the “best” representation the Democratic Party can put forward. Historians may very well write that in this era, the DNC was “Shanghaied” by the radical left of a once respected party that gave us the likes of JFK and FDR. Instead we have one candidate who’s mentor believes we should “God-Damn” America, and another that would hand you a three dollar bill with her husband’s picture on it, and tell you it’s legal tender.
A commodities trader would be a fool not to invest in the popcorn market.
Rovin on March 27, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Putting the election on the side for a moment; a dynamic that is real and continues to play out, is the hidden truths about the Democrat Party. This is an ugly bunch of people; not the type of people one would want to saddle up next to and spend some quality time with. During the 2006 election cycle, this party seemed to be a united group, one big happy family all united and down for the struggle. The MSM pushed this theme big time, and the citizens bought it. The mask has been removed and the real face of this party is deeply disturbing. This campaign cycle has also revealed much more about the MSM; CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, LAT, WAPO, et al, all have reported the news by using the exact same talking points and story lines. How could it be possible that Democrat politicians and all of these news outlets have the exact same talking points within moments of the release of the story? It has become obvious even to the deniers, that the MSM is nothing other than an arm of the democrat party.
Another dynamic of this story that must be concerning for the democrat party is the love affair the enemies of America have with Democrats. This will be the 4th election cycle in a row where sworn leaders of countries that are hostile towards America feel free to voice their support for the Democrat candidates. This is a theme that seemed to start with the Chinese support for the Clinton’s; fueled with the reports that BJ sold our country down the road to the Chinese in the form of top-secret missile data.
Keemo on March 27, 2008 at 8:22 AM
You know, you make a good point. I have been realizing lately that it is not likely that any president will withdraw troops on a timetable that their generals advise them against. Withdraw will be slow and measured under any administration; the only difference will be the narrative in the media.
Given that, what exactly was my reason for voting McCain again? In reality, I’ve already lost this election.
joewm315 on March 27, 2008 at 8:26 AM
It doesn’t matter where the president comes from.
At this point in time in America’s History, these candidates can’t change Foreign Policy or even the domestic one.
It is impossible to have Universal Healthcare.
It is impossible to withdraw from Iraq.
Everybody knows that except the stupid voter who is fooled by campaign rhetoric and goes to rallies clapping his hands and fainting.
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 8:30 AM
The Supreme Court is likely to hand down an historic ruling this summer in DC v. Heller. That would not have happened without a Republican president.
Imagine the next four years – what sort of cases are going to go before the court?
Slublog on March 27, 2008 at 8:31 AM
Now today, you’re wildly optimistic. Yesterday you were wildly pessimistic. Hopefully tomorrow you’ll be right in the middle…LOL ;)
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 8:35 AM
The last item is more of a “yes, but” point. Yes, Obama managed to defuse the controversy among Democrats… The Reverend Wright controversy will have a much bigger impact in a general election.
Then how do you explain Obama holding his 2% lead over McCain. If the Wright speech is going to hurt him in November, don’t think it — while it’s still fresh in potential voter’s minds — hurt him now?
Tom_Shipley on March 27, 2008 at 8:35 AM
The U.S. will never withdraw from Iraq or from any hot spot in the World.
Yes, a withdraw might mean in the Media: Reduction in troop level, but not a full, complete withdraw.
As I said, these people want more power, so they have to kiss some butts, and to satisfy their idiot voters, they have to say something or do something (if elected), even insignificant to shut these idiots up.
The world is much more complicated than some election speeches.
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 8:37 AM
For me, the most important issue facing Americans in this election is the selection of Supreme Court justices. I agree that any one of these three will listen to the Generals and act accordingly, as they don’t want to have a massacre on their record. If we get a Democrat, the country will move much more dramatically towards socialism; if we get McCain, the GOP base will have a full time job of managing McCain so that the country will not move very much one way or the other. I stand a much better chance of being satisfied with the SC selections under McCain than I do with either of the two Dems. In fact, I stand no chance with either of the two Dems.
Keemo on March 27, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I understand the concern about the Supreme Court, but honestly, do you think McCain has any chance to nominate a desirable Conservative Judge?
Do you think he’ll ever do it in the first place?
Do you really trust him?
Do you really think, that even if he has the intention of doing it, the Democrats in Congress, especially when they get their 60 Senate seats, will let him do it?
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Umm How come I don’t see it that way?
Someone else would’ve thought that I’m pessimistic today too.
Anyway, thank you for measuring my daily mood.
I appreciate it :-)
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM
First, yes. I trust him more than I trust Clinton or Obama. Much more.
Second, the only way the Democrats are getting to 60 this year is if enough conservatives choose petulance over what’s best for their country. Not voting for McCain? I disagree, but can understand. But if those voters extend their “keep my ballot and stay home” mentality to the lower ticket races, then they are doing this country a disservice.
Slublog on March 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM
I agree…you have to remember, Obama will always be the candidate that people diss the least in public, and not vote for in private.
We have all learned that if you say you don’t support Obama, you are labeled a racist. And no lib wants to be called that.
*
Lesson learned in Mitt’s run. If you said anything against him, you were labeled a bigot. So people, in the most part, shut up and didn’t support him. That’s what the zealots do to their man, they push the dissenters, the ones with valid issues, underground. And then they sit around afterward and mumble…”I don’t understand, they must be all closet bigots…”
*
But unlike Mitt, this is a “black liberal”, they are untouchable…case in point, his spiritual mentor was “publicly” let off the hook.
right2bright on March 27, 2008 at 8:50 AM
To think a President can’t change things dramatically is optimistic. I say optimistic because I saw Reagan do just that virtually overnight. I saw Presidents cut and run from Vietnam, Beirut and Mogadishu. I saw a President so paralyzed by uncertainty or fear that he let a country take our people hostage and give us the finger nightly by telling us we were too weak and cowardly to do anything about it. So, the idea that Obama wouldn’t cut and run from Iraq is wildly optimistic. To think he couldn’t get sweeping radical domestic legislation passed through an increasingly radical Democrat controlled House and Senate is wildly optimistic. I wish I had you faith.
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Cheer up comrade, we live in the greatest country on earth.
We can only take what life has put on our plate, and work with it best we can. At my business, I have a plan for the day; then there are the back-up plans; the phone keeps a-ringing, and the plan keeps a-changing. I’m forced to make logical decisions each and every morning, as the dynamics of the day unfold. We all face challenges each day; our own personal attitudes towards these challenges have much to do with the outcome.
My guy didn’t win the nomination, John McCain did. I stand no chance of having any say at the table if the table belongs to Liberals. This is where my own personal attitude must begin the process of getting on with what has been put on my plate.
Keemo on March 27, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Well, you know, I don’t trust voters. I don’t believe in polls.
I believe what I see. I believe the primaries results on both sides. It sure can tell you where this country is going.
Putting aside all personal feelings about these candidates, the global policy and strategy is the same, especially the Foreign one.
See, the president might think that he or she can set big ideas and strategies (that might have been true during Reagan time) but in reality, these days, the world has changed and any U.S. president is bound by many factors -foreign and domestic- which dictate his decisions.
Being a President as these fools are so eager to be, is not an easy job. Not only you have to kiss domestic butts, you have to be an international butt-kisser.
As for McCain, he will have to lean to the Left before the elections and after. Why after? Because he will have to “work” with the Democrats in Congress and knowing McCain from previous experiences, he will favor the “moderate left” over the Republicans and Conservatives.
Do you really think he can appoint a Supreme Court judge without the consent of the Liberals?
If you’re answer is ‘yes,’ then you don’t know John McCain.
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM
The world hasn’t changed that much since the 80s, believe me. These same arguments were made then about why RR couldn’t do just what he did, and, he did it with a very hostile media and the Dems controlling Congress. They had no choice but to go along because RR had the people behind him and a hunger for change.
TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 9:14 AM
I understand what you’re saying, but the thing is, September 11 changed everybody, even the Liberals.
Islamic terrorism became a reality on American soil and I don’t think any president will ever act again like the examples you mentioned.
The world has changed. Terrorism is in our neighborhoods.
They know that.
And any withdraw will be symbolic.
There are bigger factors and players in the world now than one person sitting on a chair in the White House.
As I said, the President, these days, count on not only his advisors, but on foreign advisors (such as head of states) and world events play a big role in decision-making.
It’s a much complicate world. You have to do a lot of concessions and a lot of butt-kissing.
Yes, I do agree that one candidate might be different than another, but looking at the big picture, they are all the same.
Reagan had his era. America was much more powerful because there was two poles. One collapsed, the other got stronger.
But today, we are faced with Islamic terrorism around the world, Europe is falling apart, China is rising, Russia is seeking its glorious military power again, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.
We must stop the nostalgia about Reagan. We must live in reality, especially in Foreign Policy.
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Ooops, I think I answered this above, also to TheBigOldDog on March 27, 2008 at 8:58 AM :-)
See? I’m smiling :-)
Well, I wish we had another Reagan. Maybe somebody should’ve cloned him :-)
But we don’t, not even close unfortunately.
I’m sorry, but I really like to live in the real world. The guessing and the prediction world in not mine.
That’s why I don’t believe in polls, in exit polls, in most of Fox News’ “commentators” or as I call them the “Ms Cleos of Fox News.”
Remember her?
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM
I look at reality too. And I describe the world as I see it not as I wish it was.
If the Liberals are in power, so be it. We can’t do anything about it.
All I’m saying is that nothing significant will change because I look at these three candidates and I don’t see a dramatic difference among them.
It’s all rhetoric.
Indy Conservative on March 27, 2008 at 10:09 AM
CNN keeps blabbing and citing polls that Obama is doing fine, there was no white erosion after all this flap, etc. I believe that CNN is one of greatest anti-American threat domestically we have. They should be awarded the Joseph Goebbels award for treachery against the free republic.
wepeople on March 27, 2008 at 10:17 AM
They are willing to beat up on America and damage her to get elected, why is it any surprise that they wouldn’t be afraid to damage each other?
29Victor on March 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I can hear it now……….. Denver, Summer 2008:
“The whole World is watching! The whole World is watching!”
Seven Percent Solution on March 27, 2008 at 12:12 PM
I used to return McCain’s Senate fundraising letters with a big “Go to Hell” written on the form. But yesterday I sent him $50. What a dreary election year, is there any silver lining at all? Wake me when it’s over.
leftnomore on March 27, 2008 at 2:25 PM