Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Obama in Africa
- Out of Africa
- Kenyan President should be “squirming”, says country’s political analyst
- An Emotional President Obama Tours Former Slave Port with Family
- O Baby! The Obamas Visit Maternity Clinic in Ghana
- In Ghana, President Obama Gives Tough Love
- 2 Prez Obama: Questions Sent in Via Text, Email from Africa & the World
- Obama Campaign Plane Emergency: Report Shows it Could Have Been Catastrophic
- Give it Some Time, Obama Says in Defending the Recovery Act
- In Shift, US Calls for "Amnesty" for Journalists in NK
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Trouble In River City
May 05, 2008 9:30 AM
The latest New York Times/CBS poll has Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton nationally -- 50%-38%.
But Rev. Jeremiah Wright lingers.
The Times reports that "nearly half of the voters surveyed, and a substantial part of the Democrats" said that Obama condemned and distanced himself from Wright "because he thought it would help him politically, rather than because he had serious disagreements with his former pastor. The broader effect of the controversy on Mr. Obama’s candidacy among Democratic primary voters was less clear in the poll, but enough of them expressed qualms about Mr. Obama’s relationship with Mr. Wright to suggest it could sway a relatively small but potentially important group of voters in the remaining primaries."
Even worse news for Obama comes in the free newspaper outside his hotel door this morning.
In the latest USA Today/Gallup poll Obama goes from 10 points up two weeks ago to seven points behind.
In February Democrats and those who leaned Democrats thought Obama -- by 33 points -- was more likely to beat Sen. John McCain in November. Clinton now leads in that category by five points.
Other poll findings:
"One in four Americans who are following the controversy say their 'best guess' is that Obama agrees with Wright's views, even though the senator has said repeatedly he finds them offensive and wrong. Obama has lost the 8-point advantage he held over Clinton in February as someone who 'shares your values.' Clinton has a 5-point edge among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents."
The rare good news: His favorable/unfavorable ratings are still better than Clinton's -- 58%-37% compared to Clinton's 52%-45%. And he leads Clinton by 14 percentage points as honest and trustworthy.
- jpt
May 5, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (53)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
It seems unlikely that America will trust the care of country to someone who is a rookie and has so many ongoing revelations surfacing. I still find it hard to believe that he did not agree with the statements of preacher Wright until it became politically dangerous. I so wanted to see a qualified black become president, but not Obama now; perhaps later after he has matured and joins the mainstream of America and understands the Constitution and our Republic better.
Posted by: Pete LeMaster | May 6, 2008 10:41:21 AM
It seems unlikely that America will trust the care of country to someone who is a rookie and has so many ongoing revelations surfacing. I still find it hard to believe that he did not agree with the statements of preacher Wright until it became politically dangerous. I so wanted to see a qualified black become president, but not Obama now; perhaps later after he has matured and joins the mainstream of America and understands the Constitution and our Republic better.
Posted by: Pete LeMaster | May 6, 2008 10:41:03 AM
Yes, OBAMA may be a little more honest than Hillary but he is not dependable. He is willing throw anyone, anything under the bus for his career. He has no record in leadership and making sound judgment.
If Washington is a rookie camp, he may be rookie of the year but definitely not the best around.
Posted by: John_Lai | May 6, 2008 9:16:38 AM
Bad Methodology.
"Did Rev. Wright affect your perceptions of Barack Obama?"
"Who do you want to be President?"
What a stupid question to ask while polling for Presidency.
Posted by: Don | May 5, 2008 9:59:58 PM
One must wonder why he sat in this church for nearly 20 years,contributed thousands of dollars and used the members in his campaign then denounce the pastor. He used the Rev and the church for political gain and then flushed him like used T-paper for the same reason. To me, that make Obama a hypocrite. And remember, terrorist groups support him. He certainly is dishonest to the core. Go, Clinton
Posted by: Irish Gram | May 5, 2008 3:54:02 PM
"Anytime the gas tax has been alleviated..the oil companies took a couple of days and then were back up to the same level. This is a horrible solution..."
It's not a solution. It's a start. This will be a long slog against very powerful interests to get relief for people who have NO ONE to fight for them now.
Carville is right: a president needs a pair before stepping up.
Posted by: len | May 5, 2008 1:56:32 PM
I don't trust any polls even though this favors my candidate. If Obama does not win N.C. by 20 points I think he has a hugh problem. N.C. 30% black and a hugh university population he should win in a landslide.
Posted by: Chris | May 5, 2008 1:35:48 PM
I don't know how you take a 50-38 THUMPING and turn that into bad news!!!
Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!
Posted by: Jackt51 -- Vietnam Vet and Proud Liberal | May 5, 2008 1:19:50 PM
I don't know what the point of NY Times' observation regarding the rest of the primaries. The rest of the primaries do not matter. The issue is over! It has always been in the press' interest and the interests of the so-called media pundits to make this a "close" race. It's in their interest to have it drag on and on. They refuse to enlighten readers on the facts. If they did, they'd have nothing to do!!!
Posted by: Adrian Millet | May 5, 2008 1:04:37 PM
I have never been polled I am a registered democrat and have been for years but I think we should all lie to the people taking polls because they are owned by the MSM so they can have a greater say in who is president the polls are all over the place how can you be in front and nothing happen and the next day lose all your gains makes me wonder if are elections are real.
Posted by: Bishop | May 5, 2008 12:25:50 PM
The responses about Obama's motivation regarding Wright in that NYT/CBS poll do not connect with every other poll out there. Clearly, the black sample was overrepresented. Why do you think no data was shown about that?
Posted by: geevill | May 5, 2008 11:35:14 AM
Obama is damaged goods. Gray hairs popping up, looking very tired, angry, bored...not as cocky as he was a few weeks ago.
Michelle wears a constant frown and looks ready to explode at any moment. Trying to be nice all the time is killing her.
More controversy, more debates, more of Rev.Wright...It is just the beginning.
Posted by: cindy in nc | May 5, 2008 11:22:33 AM
The Zogby poll had it right in PA...
Posted by: Vanessa | May 5, 2008 11:06:23 AM
Does anybody trust NYT polls? Look at what every other poll says, except of course for Zogby's polls who is an Obama superdelegate.
Posted by: Earnest | May 5, 2008 11:03:40 AM
I have only recently begun to read the comments made on the various political blogs. Reading them answers the question that I have had for the past seven years. How could the people of this country possibly have elected a "faux pas" like Bush? It's clear to me that there are just too many stupid Democrats. Look at how many are willing to be made fools of by Hillary Clinton while she plays the same game that Bush and his co-horts played, in order to be elected.
Posted by: Saminfla46 | May 5, 2008 10:59:44 AM
I want big change in D.C. What I want is a dramatic reversal of the disastrous Bush reign, I want to see these huge problems we're facing fixed, I want to see competency and intelligence in the White House. I want to be able to relax knowing that a tough, smart, substantive person is in charge who can do the job and lift all Americans.
GO HILLARY!!
Posted by: hopesprings52 | May 5, 2008 10:59:07 AM
It is increasingly obvious to me that the NYTimes polls are outliers from the rest of the national polling. The question is, why? What is their interest in propping Obama up so that he appears stronger than all the other polls show him to be at this point? Are questions being asked in such a way as to try and "game" the poll of polls?
Posted by: commonsensenj | May 5, 2008 10:56:51 AM
The NYT/CBS did not contain ANY demographic information, so please stop trying to make this a racial issue. The total sample size was 671 total resondents, with 283 being the total number of Democratic primary voters! Reading is fundamental!
Posted by: Roxanne | May 5, 2008 10:54:51 AM
Go OBAMA all the way...The Voice of this woman can only tell me one thing.. a liar a liar and a liar..we cant afford to have this kind of person in the white house. The old times with the Oldies in power are over ..clear up for the youngs!
Posted by: Jeremy | May 5, 2008 10:51:17 AM
If people think the government shouldn't give a tax break to average people on gas because it's only "small change" $30 a month or so, then please vote for Obama. If people think that Iran is a peaceful nation with reasonable leadership that doesn't need to know exactly how we would respond if they used nuclear weapons, then please vote for Obama.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | May 5, 2008 10:46:42 AM
Post a comment

