Obama Still Pulls Country Together

The first major national poll since the Wright episode broke, and it's Hillary Clinton, and not Barack Obama, who has taken the biggest hit. Her positive rating is 37%.

I found this interesting:

On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off.

Comments

Better than that artificial chemical Teflon--he's well-seasoned cast iron.

Posted by observer | March 26, 2008 8:38 PM

This poll shows how dumb most pundits were when it comes to Americans' views of identity politics.

They thought the attempts to ghettoize Obama before SC would work, but it didn't.

They thought Wright would sink Obama, but it didn't.

Man, Hillary is starting to approach George W Bush approval territory.

I guess that's what happens when you use a karl Rove playbook.

Karma - it's a wonderful thing.

Posted by RKA | March 26, 2008 8:44 PM

Wright has destroyed Hillary!

Posted by Kelly Pierce | March 26, 2008 8:45 PM

I wonder how Russert feels about playing 2nd-fiddle to Brian Williams.

Anyway, more evidence that any Hillary victory is a Pyrrhic one.

Posted by socctty | March 26, 2008 8:45 PM

Well, there goes another bulls**t argument for HRC out the window. Another straw on the back of a quickly tiring camel.

Posted by SDinIA | March 26, 2008 8:49 PM

Maybe there are folks who looked at Obama and said, you know, I'm not sure about Wright but I have to admire Obama for not throwing his Pastor and church under a bus.

Then they thought about Hillary, and decided she probably would have thrown her Pastor and church under a bus.

Sometimes people suffer by comparison. John Edwards is fully aware of this.

Posted by Jake | March 26, 2008 8:51 PM

I found this interesting:
"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"
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/WSJ-20080326-poll.pdf

Only because I don't what that means. Would an "Oversample of 100 African American voters" be more favorable to Hillary? Is the oversampling usual? If not why do you think nbc/wsj decided to oversample? Is that a large overample? What difference would an oversample of that size make? And to whos benefit? I don't know maybe somebody can help me out.

Posted by hadenough | March 26, 2008 9:10 PM

Wow. I'm actually really surprised given how much this has been hyped. I guess the speech did suck some of the poison from the wound. The Obama camp was smart to attack this head on from day one with the round of interviews Friday night and then the speech on Tuesday and follow up interviews as well through the week.

Then he left the scene for a few days.

I don't think he's teflon, he took a huge hit and has a headache for the rest of the campaign. But he dug himself out of the hole fairly quickly. And this doesn't give anyone any ammunition against him. I hope the polls continue to trend this way.

Posted by Rhoda | March 26, 2008 9:12 PM

Paging Robert Ethan, you are wanted at the front desk.

Posted by Craig | March 26, 2008 9:12 PM

Nice spinning, Marc. There's been plenty of national polls since Wright. There's been Gallup, Rasmussen, CBS, that have all shown him taking hits, but you didn't see fit to mention them.

If you read the internals you'll also see that the poll oversamples Democrats.

Besides, none of these national polls matter now.

What matters is PA and how's he doing there?

Posted by Super Delegate | March 26, 2008 9:14 PM

What matters is PA and how's he doing there?

He's rebounding and will probably lose by less than 10 points.

Posted by Craig | March 26, 2008 9:20 PM

Jake - it's disorienting to see you here when there is a JakeD running around the internets calling Obama "Hussein" over and over --- but, I agree with you that not throwing his pastor under the bus must have helped.

Still, as much as I like these numbers, I'm quite confident Clinton is simply suffering much more than I expected from the Bosnia mess. This poll was taken right in the middle of the media uproar. I don't think it reveals HRC's real numbers, though it does seem clear that Obama has not been crushed by Wright. Far from it.

Posted by evie | March 26, 2008 9:22 PM

hadenough

I believe that the over sample was for specific questions they asked African Americans and not to the poll as a whole. It was oversampled to give a more accurate account of the reaction to Rev. Wright and the speech specifically.

At least, that's how I understood Mr. Todd's post.

Posted by Rhoda | March 26, 2008 9:24 PM

Obama has just been good at hiding his true nature. Once Americans realize what a deceitful, racist traitor Obama is, then no decent Americans will support him. His false face masks a twisted soul.

Posted by dave | March 26, 2008 9:36 PM

Face it. Americans are just plain tired of the Clintons. I don't think it was a good idea for her to position Bill so prominently in her campaign. I don't think that most people, when it comes to pulling the voter lever, really want to see him back in the White House.
When I saw Bill wagging his finger in S. Carolina, I thought, oh my Gawd, I remember that finger.
They are depressing. Boorish....and history. Now, if only they would go quietly. I wouldn't bet a dollar on that.

Posted by linda | March 26, 2008 9:44 PM

evie, actually, the Bosnia issue probably had little impact in this poll since at least 50% of it was done prior to the uproar. Also it took about 3-4 days for the Wright flap, which is of far less importance, to impact on Obama's numbers.

Posted by john m | March 26, 2008 9:44 PM

The goal with over-sampling is to have a sufficiently large number of respondents from a particular group that their answers have some statistical validity. Here, the polling firm was interested in how the Rev. Wright issues might have influenced AA voters; a typical sample would not have included enough AA voters to meet whatever statistical test they felt was important.

All polls will have some over-sampling whether it is intentional or not. Usually a pollster then re-weights the results to reflect what they believe the population actually looks like. Usually when different pollsters have radically disparate results the weighting has a lot to do with it....

Posted by sven | March 26, 2008 9:46 PM

Wow Dave. What we dislike most in others mirrors what we most dislike about ourselves.

This makes you one scary dude.

Posted by Marie | March 26, 2008 9:48 PM

I'm just waiting for *somebody* - *anybody* to admit that national approval ratings for the Dem candidates have absolutely nothing to do with who will be the nominee.

It's all about the delegates, and they know it. Why won't they report it?

Posted by justinb | March 26, 2008 9:52 PM

Here's a slightly more formal definition of oversampling. Basically, though, sven has it right.

Oversampling occurs when certain groups or units are sampled with higher probabilities than others. Analysts then have enough cases to complete analysis of subpopulations or subgroups of the population. The share of an oversampled group in the resulting sample is greater than its share in the population from which it was drawn. Although this imbalance addresses the need for increased sample sizes for certain subpopulations, analysts looking at the entire sample will need to use weights in their analyses to redress the imbalance.

Posted by THS | March 26, 2008 9:54 PM

Still, as much as I like these numbers, I'm quite confident Clinton is simply suffering much more than I expected from the Bosnia mess.

Certainly possible evie.

The thing with Bosnia is that if fits what many people already believe/suspect (or tried to forget) about Clinton. She has an interesting relationship with the truth, to put it diplomatically.

The way Wright's been portrayed, by contrast, runs against the way people view Obama. Further, upon closer inspection, Wright is going to look better to a good number of Independents, not worse.

Posted by Jake | March 26, 2008 9:56 PM

"hadenough

I believe that the over sample was for specific questions they asked African Americans and not to the poll as a whole. It was oversampled to give a more accurate account of the reaction to Rev. Wright and the speech specifically.

At least, that's how I understood Mr. Todd's post.

Posted by Rhoda"

Looking at the PDF of the poll:
"The margins of error for:
700 crossection interviews (“all voters”) is ± 3.7%
520 interviews with whites is +4.3%
177 interviews with African Americans is +7.4%"

There really were 697 voters used in polled [maybe 3 Hispanic/other?]. So to come up with the "700" voters it would had to of included the 100 over sample.

Was that done to save money on polling? Did the pollster fudge something somewhere else to make up for the over sample? With all the trouble pollsters have been having should they have just done separate polls?

The poll looks shaky. Everybody hates Hillary but she ties obama. That’s with an oversample of a group that in past polls has gone as much as 80% obama. Seems shaky to me.

Posted by hadenough | March 26, 2008 10:03 PM

What matters is PA and how's he doing there?

In the most recent Rasmussen poll, he's 10 points down. That's the most up-to-date info at Real Clear Politics.

Posted by THS | March 26, 2008 10:04 PM

I would add this to the analysis (from swimming freestyle)

* The margin of error shouldn't be ignored. Obama's decline in positive ratings (and uptick in negative ratings) is within the margin of the sample and, therefore, statistically insignificant.
* 31% of those polled didn't see Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech? I would argue those folks aren't paying a lick of attention to the primary battle and cast doubt on their poll responses.
* Both of the match-ups (Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain) are within the 3.7% margin of error. Once again, statistically insignificant difference. Bottom line: everything's tied up.
* Re: Democrats voting for McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee. I don't buy it. Come November, when those Democrats go into the voting booth and have to choose a Democrat or McCain, they won't vote for McCain. It sounds good and defiant now, but it's just not gonna happen.

from http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com

Posted by Jay McDonough | March 26, 2008 10:10 PM

I got together with my Crazy Uncle, Jebediah, a virulent racist, and we came up with this plan see.....(we were going to include my other Crazy Uncle, Antonio, but his is temorarily incapacitated [incarcerated, actually, ha ha]). But we still love 'em both to death.

Anyways, as I was sayin', me 'n Jeb came up with an idea. We want to hold a Dialogue. Not JUST a Dialogue About Race, but an all inclusive dialogue that covers all a them Ethnics, too. A Big Tent. A Beach Umbrella of a Dialogue. A Veritable ****ing Parachute of a Dialogue.

We will invite Spooks, Spics, Hunkys and Hosers. Polacks, Pakis, Greasers and Gooks. Wetbacks, Wops, Dagos and DPs. Kikes, Krauts, Japs and Jewboys. Chinks, Cheap Scots, Dumb Swedes and Dirty Irish.

Hold it somewhere in a Nice Gated Community. Like a Used Parts Compound After Hours (watch for them damn Pitbulls!). I'm sure we could work out all of our differences, and realize that ONCE YOU PEEL A PERSON'S SKIN AWAY, they are all the same.

They SCREAM and SCREAM and BLEED PROFUSELY. Till the Pitbulls get them, anyway. ;)

Posted by robert ethan | March 26, 2008 11:19 PM

Gosh, Robert Ethan, it was mighty white of you not to use the "N" word in that post. I reckon that you didn't want to look like a bigot.

Posted by Mikelx | March 26, 2008 11:29 PM

You can tell of Hillary's despair by the
hang-dog look on her face the last few days.
Her remblance to a collapsed quiche no
doubt reflects these plunging numbers. People
in deep depression don't care about make-up.
A growing number of Dem voters don't care
about Hillary. Therin lies the rub.

Posted by interferon | March 26, 2008 11:34 PM

P.S. - Much to my mortification, I've just been notified by one of my personal assistants that I NEGLECTED TO INCLUDE Ragheads and Rugriders, in the invitation.

I hope they don't feel slighted.

Please feel free to attend. It's a Big Used Auto Parts Compound, eveyone is welcome!

Posted by robert ethan | March 26, 2008 11:38 PM

"robert ethan" is either the William Jennings
Bryan of the modern Democrat party...or the
one most in need of its promised social safety
net. You go, girl!

Posted by hombre | March 26, 2008 11:43 PM

Clintonistas can take heart that Hillary
still has a positive rating well above
GWB's....well above...at least, as of today.

Posted by interferon | March 26, 2008 11:58 PM

Gosh, Robert Ethan, it was mighty white of you not to use the "N" word in that post. I reckon that you didn't want to look like a bigot.

Posted by Mikelx | March 26, 2008 11:29 PM

LOL, Mike, I just got back and saw your comment. I couldn't think of a good perjorative to rhyme with the "N" word, but while I was out at Starbucks it came to me. Nips!

Negros and Nips, how's that? Works for me if it works for you. Not to overlook Bohumks and Boat People, and last (and probably least) our own home grown Redskins and Rednecks.

A Rainbow Coalition to match the Crude and Colorful Graffiti on the walls of the Used Auto Parts Emporium, as well as the inimitable hues of the Regurgitated Dumpster Pizza on the sidewalk outside the Skid Row Hotel across the street.

Come one come all to Bobby Joe Ethan and Uncle Jeb's Diealot.......er...Dialogue!

Posted by robert ethan | March 27, 2008 12:25 AM

Wright didn't destroy Hillary. God, through Wright, right around Easter, destroyed Hillary. So I guess The Fellowship isn't a real church after all. Sounds like a CULT to me...

Posted by kravitz | March 27, 2008 12:30 AM

As an Obama supporter one thing I was thinking about was of a "Dream Team" concept. Beyond announcing and campaigning with the VP running mate, why not announce proposed cabinet members, key officials, attorney general nominees etc. Could you picture on a stage Obama, VP choice (Mark Warner, Jim Webb, Governor of Kansas etc), choice for Attorney General (Edwards-my hope), Secy of Defense (Webb-my choice), Secy of Labor, key economic team etc and basically mollify any thoughts that other potential voters might have in terms of key areas of weakness in terms of experience. Maybe have Bill Bradley on the team, the list is endless. Richard Clarke, bring him back to lead the NSA, FBI etc. Mike Bloomberg as Secy of the treasury (or VP?) or involved with humanitarian efforts, Chuck Hagel to lead the department of veteran affairs, make this a bipartisan effort.

It has never been done before but never have we seen a candidate such as Obama. I think the picture of this team on stage would leave a lasting image in the minds of voters and pull the country together

Posted by paul | March 27, 2008 1:52 AM

Gallup actually had him up over Clinton after Wright.

Posted by Reality Man | March 27, 2008 6:07 AM

Hillary's 911 Fabrication

Writers, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, disclose an even more outrageous Fabrication Hillary' has told the American public that has not been disclosed, until now. Here is an excerpt: "After Sept. 11, Hillary had a problem. New Yorkers were desperately focused on their own need for protection and they were saddled with a senator who was not one of them — an Arkansan, or was it a Chicagoan? Interviewed on the “Today Show” one week after Sept. 11, she spun an elaborate yarn. The kindest thing we could say was that it was a fantasy. Or a fabrication.

She said that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 and happened to duck into a coffee shop when the airplanes hit. She said that this move saved Chelsea’s life. But Chelsea told Talk magazine that she was in a friend’s apartment four miles from ground zero when the first plane hit. Her friend called her, waking her up, and told her to turn on the TV. On television, she saw the second plane hit, disproving Hillary’s claim that “she heard the plane hit. She heard it. She did.”

So why did Hillary make up the story about Chelsea? Most likely to was because her co-senator (and implicit rival for the voters’ affection), a real New Yorker, Charles Schumer (D), spoke of his daughter, who attended Stuyvesant High School, located next to the Trade Center, being at real risk on Sept. 11. Hillary needed to make herself part of the scene.

She invented the entire story on national television, the “Today Show,” and didn’t blink an eye. Her fabrication on the “Today Show” was no unique foray. It is her standard M.O. It gives us pause in evaluating all of her stories and calls into question her entire credibility." (From the Hill Blog, Mar. 27, 08)

It seems Hillary will do anything to win. This week, Hillary, a consumate Actress & Mistress of Spin, (=s Phony) sat down with her arch enemey, Richard Mellon Scaife the Pittsburgh Gazette, the very one who during her White House years accused her of the murder of Vince Foster and said that Bill and she had committed 60 murders to hide their crimes, in an ill-advised and ill-timed manner to re-introduce the Rev. Wright issue -- by the way, the very Rev. Wright that they Invited to the White House. Then they sent out Sen. McGovern to re-introduce the Gender Fight, so now we have a racial and gender fight to instigate more division while trying to Divert attention from her Big Gaf, the Bosnia Tale of Sniper Fire, which we all know now is a complete Fabrication told THREE times, which is a betrayal of the public trust and goes right to the Heart of character. They somtimes even Stage their audiences. They have been telling these Tall Tales for years and this time got caught. However, the American People do Demand that thier Politicians be trustworthy and truthful! And, if it was not for Rush Limbaugh, and Bill's visit to Rush during the Texas Primarys, Barack would have won Texas but for the 100,000 Republican votes casted for Hillary which put her slightly over the top. However, the Republicans who vote for Barack, genuinely like him unlike the Republicans who vote for Hillary, as a way to "bloody" Barack up, as stated by Rush Limbaugh! As for her Tonya Harding, Tonya was sent packing in disgrace! As for Hillary's scheme to make Barack look "unelectable", I say "Chickens Coming Home to Roost"! I say No More "Do and Say Anything" Politicians!

Posted by Angellight | March 27, 2008 8:10 AM

Angellight Re: Hillary 9/11 fabrication

i'm an obama supporter too, but you're on shaky ground when you start quoting newsmax.com, dick morris, and bay buchanan. i called hillary supporters out on citing richard scaife and the same applies to us.

here is the real story about what hillary said in relation ot chelsea clinton on 9/11.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705290006

Posted by rnewton | March 27, 2008 4:50 PM