UPDATE at the end–As I anticipated writing this piece, I asked my friend Neal Zaslavasky, an Obama supporter, if he would write a response. He has done so and I have posted that unaltered at the end. Please address his remarks with the same civility with which he addressed this post. And bear in mind, his politics notwithstanding, he’s a very cool guy.
Yesterday, I blogged that exit polls in Pennsylvania could tell us a lot about Obama’s chances in the fall. And after reviewing them, they don’t look all that good for the Illinois Senator. And even though Mrs. Clinton won, the exit polls point to some problems the former First Lady will face in the unlikely (yet still possible) event that she wins the Democratic nomination.
That’s not to say John McCain is out of the woods for he will be laboring under the baggage of being the Republican nominee in a year which doesn’t look good for the GOP.
Still, if he were matched up against either of his Democratic opponents and party affiliation were not an issue, he would win this fall in a cakewalk.
As expected, late deciders broke for Mrs. Clinton by a margin of 59-41. This suggests (as all too many have said ad nausem) that Obama has yet to “close the deal.” It should be an especially troubling trend (following similar numbers in Texas and Ohio) that he can’t swing a majority of undecideds even though the media (and some Democrats) have been touting him as the all-but-certain nominee. (55% of Democrats said “they expected him, not Clinton, to be the party’s eventual nominee.“)
How can he expect to win undecideds in the fall (and hold on to his share of Independents) if he can’t convince Democrats even at a time when a vote for him seemed to be a vote for party unity–and the good for the party.
Given Hillary’s negative campaign, it seems not so much that Hillary won, but that Obama lost last night. Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff speculated that the results showed that “Obama must be fairly unpopular in Pennsylvania.”
As a sign of how Mrs. Clinton’s repeated misrepresentations have tarnished her already blemished image, polls shows that only “Fifty-eight percent saw Clinton as honest and trustworthy; in a hold-their-nose result, 23 percent of those who didn’t see her as honest voted for her anyway.” It seems many Democrats were voting for her as the lesser of two evils.
The exit polls show that Democratic voters have doubts about both candidates. Just as Republicans seem to be having problems in congressional districts which favor them demographically by picking weak candidates, the Democrats may well have a similar problem this fall in a year which favors them poliitcally.
Hillary has been unable to use this campaign to bring down her negatives. And the continued campaign allows has driven down Obama’s favorables as voters become aware of his ties to some unsavory characters with anti-American attitudes and learn of his own elitist opinions.
If this fall’s were an election on character and fitness to lead rather than on partisan differences, John McCain would beat either Democratic candidate in a walk. But, party politics does matter, so it could well be a close race this fall.
COMMENTARY FROM NEAL (OBAMA SUPPORTER):
I like John McCain. I first met him back in 1986 when I was a teenage volunteer on his very first Senate campaign in Arizona. I followed his career closely, and in 2000, I coordinated all of Los Angeles County for his Presidential bid. But when McCain was defeated in the primary season by the triumvirate of evil—George W Bush, Karen Hughes and Karl Rove—I left the GOP and became an independent.
If the John McCain of 2000 were running today, I would likely be supporting him. But McCain has moved closer to George W Bush in an election cycle when the smart money is running from him faster than our Olympic athletes in Beijing. The foreign policy of the current administration has damaged American credibility on the foreign stage worse than a visit from Jimmy Carter. The dollar, which was at parity with the Euro just a few short years ago, currently hovers at closer to $1.60 per €1. It now takes about two dollars to exchange for one British pound, and the Canadian dollar is stronger than the US Dollar for the first time since 1976. The Australian dollar, which was worth less than fifty cents in 2001, is now almost at parity with our currency.
On George W. Bush’s watch, we have seen many of our jobs disappear or head overseas to China and India, gasoline prices nearly triple to $4.00 per gallon, and we are now headed into the worst recession in recent memory. Due to lax federal oversight of predatory lending practices, many Americans are losing their homes. And with the omnipresent threat of global warming and rising ocean levels, we may be looking for beachfront property in San Bernardino.
This is probably not going to be a good year for the Republicans.
But is it going to be a good year for the Democrats?
As an independent, I crossed over and voted for Senator Obama in February’s California Primary. At the time, I not only strongly supported his campaign, but I despised the dragon-lady so much that I probably would have voted for Dennis Kucinich over her. My hatred of Hillary has only grown over time; unfortunately, for me, some of the shine has come off of Mr. Obama’s well polished appearance as well.
Can Senator Obama close the deal? Mathematically, he certainly has the best shot at it. Given his current delegate count, the likely bent of the Superdelegates, and the remainder of the electoral map, he has a very good chance of being the Democrat nominee. But the path to Denver will not be easy for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton will not simply hop on her broomstick and fly away. She will continue to aggressively pursue Mr. Obama at every possible opportunity, regardless of the effect it could potentially have on the Democrats come November. As we all know, when it comes to the Clintons, it is only about the Clintons, and everyone else be damned. Bill has certainly demonstrated this during his tenure in Washington and again during this campaign, and Hillary’s dream scenario is to weaken Mr. Obama so much that although he gets the nomination, he ultimately loses to Senator McCain so that she can run again as the party’s “savior†in 2012!
Before the revelations about the racist reprobate Reverend, I would have ordered my plane reservations for Mr. Obama’s inaugural ball. Before his ill advised and elitist comments in advance of the Pennsylvania primary, I would have posited that Mr. Obama would certainly close the deal. Now, I am not so sure. And many of the once zealous Obama supporters I know have quietly moved back into the undecided camp.
The Democrats are known for eating their young. If they are smart and want their best chance against Senator McCain, they’ll drop both Obama and Clinton in Denver, and nominate Al Gore from the floor. That would make for a far more interesting race. But since when are the Democrats smart?
The fact that Hillary can pull down Obama, should be troubling for Republicans. Obama is a much better orator, politican, and charimastic figure than McCain and even if is able to be drug down by her. The current primary is being run on canidate images, much more than the GE will be. Hillary is grinding Obama down and blowing up his negatives, though he is giving her ammunition lately. This new fighter, populist Clinton is probably going to be what we will be dealing with in the GE.
McCain will have to overcome a damaged party brand, a poor economy, less campaign money, and will have to out campaign a Clinton. If people think she is nasty now, it will be no holds bars then because now she has to hold back some to avoid pissing off party elites. Nothing unites democrats than a Clinton taking on a Republican.
I would disagree about that last comment. There’s too much hatred of Hillary in the party for her to be able to unify anything.
As to Hillary’s success in Pennsylvania, the demographics favored here. Ed Rendell’s organization favored here. And Obama’s whining over the debate did as well.
Note how her negatives remain high.
If she weren’t running against Obama, I think the late deciders would chose someone less polarizing than she.
#2
What’s more, I don’t believe for a second that liberals could unite peanut butter and jelly. Besides, their the ones dividing folks with class warfare and what not.
I think people are overstating the value of these exit polls against each other. I’m confident that once Obama is officially the nominee (and he will be) that the Democrats will be able to unify behind him.
I’m not worried.
I think it’s the GOP that should be worried because the Dems have HUGE excitement. Does anyone even care about McCain? He’s an afterthought really. The Democrats have huge a huge fund raising advantage over McCain, a huge excitement advantage, and the turnout in the primaries has been amazing. OH yeah and the sitting GOP president is about as popular as… Well I can’t even think of anyone as unpopular as Bush is.
Also to commenter #1 – what kool aid are you drinking?!?! Clinton is NOT going to be the nominee. She has no chance of winning. Literally, no chance. This is not nearly as close as the media is making it out to be (they sell more commercials saying it’s close) – Obama has an insurmountable pledged delegate lead. He will be the nominee. PA is just a blip on the radar.
Oh, I have to disagree with Darkeyedresolve too.
Remember, everyone has been concentrating on bringing down Obama. There has been virtually zero discussion of Hillary’s long, long, LONG history replete with dishonesty and corruption. She has nothing on McCain whom Americans know well and overwhelmingly like.
Hillary has travelgate, whitewater, FBI files, Rose Hill Law Firm records, cattle futures, and on and on…
Hell, all Republicans have to do is run commercials asking Americans to protect the remaining White House silverware, and she’s toast.
The MSM is certainly loudcapping the democrats. Nearly every newspaper yesterday had Hillary’s predicted win as a full page lead headline. The TV talking heads discussed every aspect of the Pennsylvania vote they wished to promote.
But, ……. John McCain has valuable quiet time to ooze around the country and build support and mend fences and to do so with little, if any media attention or interest. He is in the enviable position of not having to wear out his welcome or getting caught picking his own or somebody else’s nose.
When the Democrat nominee comes out of the convention, McCain is going to drop to second place by double digits. He will have to have all his energy and wits to change the dynamic. He knows it and is preparing to do it.
If Obama is the nominee, he will have an extremely hard time shifting to the center, which is absolutely necessary for a win. If Hillary “steals” the nomination, the Obama soreheads will stay home in droves in November.
The dems have “HUGE” excitement over defeating George Bush. They have not yet figured out what they are running for or who they are running against. They are still running from the past eight years. That is not the recipe for huge excitement.
But isn’t it worse that the Democrat nominees have continued to enjoy the lionshare of MSM coverage while McCain just trots behind? I’m so tired of hearing about Clinton and Obama 24/7, and nearly nothing about McCain.
Obama is a much better orator, politican, and charimastic figure than McCain
I dont think so. Not at all.
Perhaps until a few months ago this could be said.. but I think Obama has revealed himself to be incredibly brittle and very negative when he’s under pressure.
He could barely get a sentence out when he’s challenged. If he doesn’t have a script in front of him, when he talks he makes no sense.
He’s been hiding from the press for weeks and when the press does get a chance to ask him questions, he responds with things like “Why can’t I just eat my waffle”. McCain gives the press as much time as they want to ask him questions.. to the point where they dont have any more.
Take Obama away from his control enviroment and his demogogic teleprompter and he’s a lightweight.
But isn’t it worse that the Democrat nominees have continued to enjoy the lionshare of MSM coverage while McCain just trots behind? I’m so tired of hearing about Clinton and Obama 24/7, and nearly nothing about McCain.
I think you just answered the question.
By the time the Dem nomination is wrapped up — which will be a floor fight of epic proportions — people will be so sick of hearing of both Obama and Hillary that McCain will be a breath of fresh air.
As my track coach put it, if two people are bound and determined to kill each other to win the race, stay just a few steps behind them — and save your strength for the final sprint. They’ll be so tired from dealing with each other, they won’t have any time for you.
It seems that every election cycle we become a little more sensitive (or “politically correct”) about what candidates say about each other.
In recent days, Dan, you’ve mentioned Hillary Clinton and “negative campaigning” in the same sentence almost as often as the MSM talking heads, pro-Obama bloggers and Obama’s lemmings.
What did you consider to be negative? Lies about a candidate’s record or stated positions and personal attacks against a candidate are certainly “negative” (and in recent months were typical of Obama’s campaigning). When did it become “negative campaigning” to tell the truth about an opponent’s record or stated positions?
There were so many talking heads on TV in the hours and days after the Pennsylvania polls closed Tuesday evening I can’t be sure who said what. Either Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich (at least I think it was one of them) made the point that once something about a candidate becomes public it is fair game to use it.
So:
Was it negative for Hillary to run an ad telling voters what Obama said behind closed doors in San Francisco? He did say it, she did not misquote him. Was it negative during the campaign for Hillary to talk about the Rev. Wright and to raise questions about Obama’s judgment in remaining close to Wright? She did not distort what Wright said and it is a fact that Obama has uttered nothing but double talk — contradictory at times — about his association with Wright. Was it negative for Hillary to comment on Obama’s mysterious relationship with a Vietnam War-era terrorist who is to this day unrepentant about detonating bombs at the Pentagon, the Capitol and NYC’s police headquarters? Obama simply says he was only 8 years old when the terrorism occurred and can’t be held responsible but still does not explain why he had what his own campaign called a “friendly” relationship with an admitted terrorist. Was it negative to run an ad informing voters that despite Obama’s claim he has never taken one cent from lobbyists his campaign has in fact taken thousands of dollars from oil company lobbyists. It is the truth; oil company lobbyists bundled thousands from oil executives.
I could go on, but I’m tired of typing. Never object to the truth.
About this money issue. After culling the leftists ranks for more than 500 million dollars during this long primary season, exactly how much more are the liberals willing to part with come the general election? I see it differently. That Republicans like myself have been holding back donating to any Rep candidate (because none excited me) but now I have a full war chest to donate to McCain against either of the leftists. Half the Democrats are going to be dissappointed in a couple months. They aren’t going to be in a mood to donate to the one who beat their champion.
I think Barack “promised” he would take federal funding so that equalizes the campaign chests of Obama and McCain. Will he break that promise? The MSM would really rip him if he did. j/k
Jim Addison — April 25, 2008 @ 1:44 am – April 25, 2008
“Never object to the truth.”
But, but…those truths are so………..negative!
Dan… your friend Neal writes disturbingly like ME! LOL. I’m glad you posted his reply! Good stuff.