Sixty-eight percent?
posted at 7:43 am on June 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
I’ve been participating in the AOL Hot Seat poll for a few months now, and the results are usually not terribly surprising. Since most of us create questions that concern the election, mostly the results reflect the partisan split. Anything critical of one candidate will generally spur people to reflect their own positions, and in a 50/50 nation, we get 50/50 results, and usually the most interesting aspect is the state-by-state breakdowns.
Yesterday’s poll broke from that pattern in an interesting way. I asked people to answer whether Barack Obama’s broken promise to use public financing made him smart for seizing a fundraising advantage, or whether it made him look like a hypocrite with no principles. I expected a 50/50 result and wondered whether we would see anything interesting in the state breakdowns. Instead, 68% of the straw poll respondents have thus far chosen — hypocrite with no principles.
Bear in mind that the AOL Hot Seat poll is not scientific, and most of the first 5,000 votes came from Hot Air, which is obviously not Obama territory. However, most of these votes have come from AOL, which hasn’t shown much indication of partisanship in either direction during the history of the Hot Seat polls. AOL does a good job of limiting the potential for ballot-stuffing in its Hot Seat mechanism, so it doesn’t get gamed (and I’ve asked Ron Paul questions in the past to test that). The large response (over 110,000 votes) shows that the question resonated with voters.
And the rather overwhelming response came from across the nation. Only DC credited Obama with intelligence rather than dishonesty. Every other state has scolded Obama for his unprincipled reversal on public financing. Pennsylvania, which he needs to hold, cast almost 5,000 votes and 69% believed him to be a hypocrite. Oregon, which he’ll almost certainly win, cast a thousand votes, 64% of them in the negative. Obama hopes to steal Georgia, but 65% of the 3,000 straw-poll respondents think him unprincipled.
Has the glow dimmed on the political messiah? I think this latest reversal may have permanently crippled that feeling of phenomenon and returned Obama to Earth as just another politician. Unfortunately, Obama has nothing else to offer but that sense of difference — and if he’s lost that, he’s in big, big trouble.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
The question is, who is buying Obama? You don’t get all that money with $100 contributions from ordinary folk. All I ask is that candidates list who their contributors are, I just want to know who’s buying whom.
rbj on June 20, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Most politicians [all?] calculate that at this stage of the game whatever they do will be forgotten long before the election. So, cynical? Of course, what else is new? He’s sure laid up a lot of ammunition for the Reps though.
ligneus on June 20, 2008 at 7:55 AM
WaPo isn’t giving him a pass on it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903026.html
Dudley Smith on June 20, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Ed, keep in mind that by only giving two options, you can’t say 68% of voters think Obama is unprincipled. You can’t use the wording of your poll and say anyone who cast that vote holds that view.
Basically, when given two choices, you’re asking people was Obama right or wrong in declining campain financing.
This claim:
Obama hopes to steal Georgia, but 65% of the 3,000 straw-poll respondents think him unprincipled.
Is simply laughable. They think he was wrong in this instance, they don’t necessarily think he’s unprincipled in general. You loaded the answer. For someone who regularly criticizing MSM polls, you show a shockingly ignorant understanding of polls and what conclusions one can draw from them… OR you know the system very well and are dishonestly playing it.
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Once the decision was announced,though, it’s really only worth one news cycle. I mean, you can’t go rapping the guy for the next five months over the fact that he flip-flopped on how he would fund his campaign. It won’t matter.
Although it will be interesting to see if anyone in the MSM wants to look into where his funding comes from and report it.
BigD on June 20, 2008 at 7:59 AM
The NYT clucks its tongue a few times, but then devolves into how sad it is that McCain has “invited” the 527’s to help him out, so really, what can be done? Such a shame it had to work out this way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Dudley Smith on June 20, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Wait a minute. An internet poll being given credence on HotAir? This…this reminds me of…um…all the times that Ron Paul’s internet poll results were bashed on HotAir!
Speaking of hypocrisy…
fossten on June 20, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Tom,
I’d think the strong wording of the negative response would cause some people to shy away from the answer – specifically anyone who doesn’t approve of Obama’s decision, but is not willing to call him a “hypocrite, has no principles”.
A straight right/wrong option may have produced even more “wrongs”.
forest on June 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM
rbj on June 20, 2008 at 7:53 AM
Bingo! This is the dynamic that matters the most. Exactly where is the 50 million a month coming from? Transparency means everything. It’s obvious that Obama is a rookie, and is winging it. Who is the puppet master? I’m of the belief that Soros owns Obama in every way. I could be wrong, but I’m not going to believe anything other than that unless Obama can prove otherwise. Our country needs solutions immediately; our government has been failing us for at least a few decades now. We must have control over our own energy demands. For the USA to be dependent upon others to provide our energy needs, is self destructive and foolish beyond comprehension.
Shipley,
You’re an admitted Liberal with at least traces of common sense. What do you have to say about Soros and the power he has over your party? Does this dynamic matter to you?
Keemo on June 20, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Wait a tick,the math is all wrong on that
68%,according to Obama,theirs 59 States,
so where’s the other polling results from
the other eight States that don’t exist!
(Sarc!) :)
canopfor on June 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Ron Paul!
bikermailman on June 20, 2008 at 8:17 AM
He really is the emporor with no clothes. The BHO SOP continues to highlight that this is a person who accepts absolutely no responsibility for anything. He really does suffer from a god complex.
In the past 24 hours, witness not only the flip-flop on federal funding, but the blaming of “volunteers” for the headscarf/photo debacle.
At a some point, his naked, shallow, and self-serving nature becomes obvious to anyone willing to be a little opened-minded, for even a moment.
The masses have been blinded by the hype, marketing and packaging of this new, exciting model of a politician… even MO was pretending to be like Vanna White on the View!
Anyone willing to get close enough to kick the tires, will not be so eager to drive him off the lot.
singlemalt_18 on June 20, 2008 at 8:18 AM
The bloom is off the rose.
flipflop on June 20, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Oh, and you guys need to feature this Ralph Peters column that was in the HA headlines yesterday.
flipflop on June 20, 2008 at 8:20 AM
“Hypocrite with no principles”
Being a hypocrite IS a principle with some. As can be lying to get what you want or where you want to be. It’s not that politicians do it but that that occupation tends to draw the people who have those principles.
As for that 68% poll result, you should really follow up by asking whether “hypocrite with no principles” is a good or bad thing.
Dusty on June 20, 2008 at 8:20 AM
forest on June 20, 2008 at 8:14 AM
It may have, but Internet polls like this really aren’t scientific. They’re more a lark than anything.
It really is a joke to draw any conculsions from this poll beyond that 68% of people who voted in it believe this was a bad decision on Obama.
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Plus, look at the wording of the questions. “what does Obama’s broken promise… say about him?”
The poll is basically asking:
Do you think that politicians who break campaign promises are “smart” or “hypocrites”?
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Heck, in DC, if you’re of the right persuation, a politician can even smoke crack and not pay taxes, and still get elected.
Over30 on June 20, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Tom_Shipley, I’ll agree that internet polls are not projectable, period. That’s really all one needs to say here so I’m not going to waste a lot of time on analysis.
But you’re contradicting yourself here spinning for your guy.
Which is it?
You recognize immediately above that the wording of the question is, “What does Barack Obama’s broken promise to use public financing say about him?” [Emphasis added] — it’s asking whether the decision has influenced people’s overall view of the candidate.
DrSteve on June 20, 2008 at 8:40 AM
Tom,
I never said the poll was scientific, but thanks for taking time to condescend to the straw man.
forest on June 20, 2008 at 8:40 AM
I think the O! balloon is going to start leaking pretty badly soon. I mean, how many times can you prick the damn thing and have it still retain air? I guess the MSM bandaids are holding all that hot air in for the moment, but I have a sense that by November they will have fallen off.
JimK on June 20, 2008 at 8:40 AM
This is true. Hypocrite and Democrat are synonyms.
The sad part of this is that Obama will dismiss it as McCain’s fault and once again the masses will swallow the Kool-Aid.
Democratic politicians know how stupid their supporters are.
drjohn on June 20, 2008 at 8:41 AM
We can only hope.
Hawkins1701 on June 20, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Keemo, exactly. We need to keep an eye on who’s sending money to The Obamassiah. Is he going to release the information on who gives what to him?
Well Tom, what do you think?
Personally I’m against taxpayer money going to candidates, but Barack’s reasons are laughable.
rbj on June 20, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Remember the Chevy Vega? That is Obama in a nutshell. As soon as they drove him off the lot he began to depreciate in value. He gets good gas mileage but the inner working are defective. :)
AnthonyK on June 20, 2008 at 8:52 AM
He and his miserable angry wife will institute racial Robin Hood policies to bring their Marxist dream to fruition.
Look to South African farm re-distribution policy to catch a glimpse of what he envisions for America.
Alden Pyle on June 20, 2008 at 8:52 AM
“Tom Shipley” misses the point.
Obama is running as some kind of “new” politician…Well, surprise, surprise, surprise.
Same ol’ – Same ol’…And, the poll gives a good indication of it.
franksalterego on June 20, 2008 at 9:01 AM
AnthonyK on June 20, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Great analogy…
Keemo on June 20, 2008 at 9:05 AM
Which is it?
It’s both.
The key words here are “broken promise” and “what does it say about him.”
So, Obama broke a campaign promise. Does that say he’s “smart” or a “hypocrite.”
Now, I probably would answer it makes him a hypocrite, rather than smart if all I knew was that he broke a campaign promise on campaign finance reform. And given all I know, I still may say it makes him a hypocrite.
But to take this poll and conclude that 68% of the people who voted think he “has no principle” because it’s tacked on the answer… it really is a joke that Ed makes that case with a straight face.
Well Tom, what do you think?
I think Obama was dumb to make the promise in the first place, and it probably doing the smart thing in breaking it. They’re making a calculated move that in the long run, the money will help him more than the hit he’ll take for breaking the promise will hurt him.
The real angle of attack here, and one that fits with other attacks on Obama, is that this shows his inexperience.
But, in defense of Obama, I don’t think he knew his fundraising would take off the way it did when he made the promise.
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I can only give the WaPo credit for recognizing Obama’s two-faced move on financing if the newspaper at least declines to endorse him, even if it does not endorse McCain. Otherwise it’s the same as all those senators who blasted Clinton for lying and effectively obstructing justice in the Lewinsky scandal, but who then voted not to impeach.
Much like Obama, I expect the WaPo to have it both ways.
I would love to believe this will take the shine off of Obamaa with big media. I just don’t have that kind of faith in them.
doufree on June 20, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Or that the surge would work.
Or that we would have to drill offshore.
Or a host of other things.
Obama just doesn’t seem to know what to do in advance. His JUDGEMENT is faulty. Didn’t he run against Hillary using that message?
Who knows, maybe his whole plan about running for President is going to turn out to be one giant miscalculation for him. It would certainly fit his track record.
JiangxiDad on June 20, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I can only give the WaPo credit for recognizing Obama’s two-faced move on financing if the newspaper at least declines to endorse him
So, because someone disagrees with one decision by a politician, they should not vote for him or her?
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM
The BHO campaign’s problems are extreme, they cannot keep the lid on his lack of responsibility, no transparency on sources of funding and unacceptable bad judgement for another 5 months. He is stinkin’ it up, and yet to be revealed is the Chicago/Rezko bomb. It tain’t going to be a pretty election.
el Vaquero on June 20, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I wonder if the Dems will try to turn the criticism around and portray Obama as financing his campaign with “voluntary donations of enthusiastic supporters yearning for change” while “McCain once again returns to the public trough to finance his attack machine with taxpayer dollars.”
factoid on June 20, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Thanks Tom. So you want an inexperience hypocrite for president? Someone who couldn’t even plan for the possibility of raising gobs of cash should lead the sole superpower in the world?
I’d say no thanks.
rbj on June 20, 2008 at 9:41 AM
So, you seem to infer that you find hypocrisy acceptable and defensible.
The fact that his fundraising took off beyond his expectations is a proper reason to break a promise, and then proceed to couch the defense of that decision in further lies? You find this decision defensible?
Win at any costs? What is the defense for that?
If it were to be discovered and proven that “his fundraising would take off the way it did” because of illegal bundling and sourcing would all of his hypocrisy still remain defensible?
Yoop on June 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Wait until his progressive base hears he’s about to waffle on his pledge to pull US forces from Iraq, suddenly the time table will be off the table, and the democrats will try to weasel out of the one issue he staked his entire campaign on, should be interesting..
saus on June 20, 2008 at 9:56 AM
No, but if one always looks at it a decision at a time it’s like a Zeno’s paradox of political dissatisfaction.
DrSteve on June 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
It’s hard to imagine a lot of people voting for a guy that they declare as basically “full of sh*t”, but there is a lot of things in this election that are hard to imagine.
Jaibones on June 20, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Let’s face it Ed, the people who are all lined up to vote for Obama do not know the meaning of terms like “public financing” and “fundraising advantage”. Chances are they would be confused by the word “seizing” as well. I doubt if they have the hand-eye coordination to read a poll question and type on their keyboard at the same time.
Try this one in your next poll and see what kind of results you get …….
Do you think “Change We Can Believe In” is a most excellent thing to say about feeling happy and other cool stuff?”
Choose one to answer:
A. FOR SHUR
B. NO
C. YES WE CAN
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:27 AM
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Yeah, plus they’re easily excitable and use “terrorist fist jabs” when greeting one another.
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Do tell Tom, oh wise one, please enlighten all of us here at HotAir and explain to us the meaning of the phrase,
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN
I’ll be waiting.
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM
tic … tock … tic … tock … tic … tock
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:45 AM
It’s all about the money. When Obama was a new candidate, and didn’t know how much money he could raise, he was all for taking $85 million from the Government. Now that he figured out a way to take more than that from people who faint at his feet, he becomes Vince Lombardi–winning is the only thing.
But as he told the graduates at Wesleyan–THEY shouldn’t join the “money culture” and try to own a big house. But HE can take their money and live in a big house using pension funds stolen by Rezko.
And all those bitter God-clingers struggling to get by, who can’t accept someone different than themselves, well they can go pound sand and pay for Michelle’s darling daughters’ dance lessons.
All hail His Maje$ty Barack Hu$$ein Obama.
Steve Z on June 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Look folks, Tom the Obama supporter is stumped. Or maybe confused.
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Just amazing.
One time you ask an Obama supporter to define the meaning of the mantra they all chant like a bunch of zombies and he can’t come up with an explanation.
Tom, if that phrase didn’t ring so hollow and actually stood for something tangible, anyone could have articulated a well thought out and rational response within 4-5 minutes.
Thanks for proving my point.
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Obama is utterly vulnerable. The democrat party’s meltdown during the primary season ended with Obama’s triumph not because he is an electable candidate, but because Mrs. Clinton is so repulsive.
I believe the democrat party knows full well that Obama is unqualified in almost every way to be President of a capitalist country; but democrats are intuitive, simple folk, and they sensed that the Clintons had to be dealt a decisive blow. They knew that the aging feminists with their code-pink clown suits were a laughing stock, and that’s a pretty serious admission for democrats, who are best known for embracing the surreal!
So libs took action, and threw Mrs. Clinton and her retinue under the steamroller, knowing full well they were choosing to forfeit what might have been an easy win in 2008.
We love ya, democrats! We couldn’t kick your asses so decisively year after year if you didn’t lend us a hand!
jeff_from_mpls on June 20, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Change = “Most ethical Congress Ever”
Both 100% BS.
And when Obama speaks, always check to see if George Soros’ lips are moving…
landlines on June 20, 2008 at 11:06 AM
I prefer the Post Turtle Analogy:
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.
The old rancher said, ‘Well, ya know, Obama is a post turtle’. Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a ‘post turtle’ was.
The old rancher said, ”When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. ”You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.”
Rovin on June 20, 2008 at 11:06 AM
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Maybe I can get 21 minutes to respond next time? Mission Accomplished, eh?
Explaining any tagline can be tricky business, as they’re abstract messages elicit a positive reaction based on the words alone. You can make the case that taglines (alone) are inherently hallow.
But, Obama is positioning himself as a “change” candidate, most notably on Iraq and Iran and on uniting the country through rising above recent political rifts (this is really nothing new, as Bush ran on the same thing in 2000).
The “we can believe in” part comes from the substance of his ideas.
I will agree that his reversing on his pledge to work with McCain on both of them taking public financing goes against that tagline.
this is why campaign finance is so hard to fix. people not in the position of trying to win an election like to talk about how broken the system is. But when faced with actually trying to win an election, you instinctively try and give yourself whatever advantage you can get (it’s important to note, he’s working within the system here). Obama has a huge money advantage. If he took public money and lost the election, this same blog would call him an idiot for doing so.
Again, his mistake was making the promise to begin with.
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Ha! Ha! That was worthy of a repost.
captivated_dem on June 20, 2008 at 11:21 AM
It’s also worth noting that Obama suggested taking public financing to discourage either man from being beholden to special interests. Obama has built his money lead largely through his grassroots Web campaign, through smaller donations.
Now, I’m not naive enough to think he still doesn’t get big money donations, but he’s built up a strong grassroots donation system that I think would be dumb to give up at this point.
Tom_Shipley on June 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Funny, I asked you to make sense of his silly campaign slogan and you go on at length trying to defend his position of breaking a promise to the American people.
That’s laughable. Does that include the substance of the idea he had on using public financing for his campaign? If someone tells me he’s going to do one thing, then turns around and does the opposite, he’s lost all of my trust, I will no longer believe him or take him at his word.
But that’s just silly ol’ me.
fogw on June 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Seriously believe that, Ed? This dimwit is going to be the next president of the US. gore, a psychopath, almost won. kerry, a dishonorable little creep, almost won. The US is going to elect this lowlife and get what it deserves. We can only hope that our republic survives the next 4 years although with demofascists talking openly about nationalizing corporations and possibly controlling all branches of government, things don’t look good.
300 million people and the best we can do are this two? The media has taken control of our country and given us these candidates and I don’t think that’s what the founding fathers had in mind with freedom of the press.
peacenprosperity on June 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Where does Tom the Troll go to get fed?
snaggletoothie on June 20, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Don’t Hyde
Entelechy on June 20, 2008 at 12:10 PM
My guess is dead people who live in places like Chicago since all you are required to do is record the contributor’s name address and occupation to keep a running total so the limit is not exceeded.
Funny how Obama justified his decision by trying to play it as taking the moral high ground of not using taxpayers money and then saying he’s going to need the extra bucks because those mean ‘ol right-wing 527’s are going to smear him by telling lies about him. That’s hilarious!
Rovin, we must have six degrees of separation since I got that same joke emailed to me 2 days ago.. ;)
Speaking of AOL polls, not the one your referencing Ed but the ones they put up on certain news stories. Those almost always run to the far left, liberal and Bush-bashing side because they are only limited to one vote to screen name and AOL offers you 7 email accounts. Plus school is out and the kids really enjoy playing with them. ANYWAY .. the other day there was one about negative vs positive impressions between Michell Obama and Cindy McCain. I was really shocked at the results and it stayed pretty consistent as the votes increased with about 2/3 positive for McCain and 1/3 positive for Obama. It will be interesting to see if this Michelle Obama make-over changes any of that.
Texas Gal on June 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Perhaps my hopes haven’t been dashed yet totally, but I think this is true.
4shoes on June 20, 2008 at 12:40 PM
If the money was apportioned in a way that an actual grassroots movement would be, you would have seen it in the primaries. He did worse as time went on.
And he would be obliterating McCain right now.
All the money in the world can’t buy Barry experience or accomplishment. So he’ll have to run on his character.
Whoops.
In another month: “Obama 2008: He can outsmoke McCain”
Chuck Schick on June 20, 2008 at 12:58 PM
If one expects someone to believe in the substance of their ideas then it would behoove that person to exhibit ideas which are solid and practical in character, quality and importance. It would also behoove that person to maintain a consistent stand on those ideas regardless of which way the wind blows, or how high the pile of money grows.
A person who demonstrates the very visible tendencies of a hypocrite and a liar is hardly exhibiting a substance that evokes trust. Do you personally believe that trust is not a prerequisite?
Yoop on June 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Can you see the referrers for the poll? It means almost nothing unless we can see that lefty blog readers are responding to it in representative numbers.
DaveS on June 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yawn….. unless there is a 3rd party candidate, BHO will lose 50 of 50. And that loss will be to one of the weakest opponents possible.
CapedConservative on June 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Obama should probably just take the public financing. He probably has a way of finding coins in fish mouths to pay for his campaign.
Grafted on June 20, 2008 at 2:50 PM
You’re close but we have to give him the Left Coast and Vermont. The rest is up for grabs.
Mojave Mark on June 20, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Comment pages: