CBS Poll: Support For Obama Rebounds

Source: cbs

(CBS) Democrat Barack Obama appears to have rebounded from some of the damage caused by the controversy surrounding his former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times poll.

On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright’s remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent. That compares to a tied match-up in a CBS News/New York Times poll that was released last Wednesday.

Positive assessments of how Obama has handled the situation with Wright are also reflected by a continued lead over fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton in his battle for their party’s nomination. Among Democratic primary voters (those who have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary) Obama’s lead over Clinton has increased -- he now leads Clinton by twelve points, 50 percent to 38 percent. That’s up from his eight point lead in the poll released just a few days ago.

However, among all registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats (regardless of whether they have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary) Obama and Clinton are virtually tied -- 45 percent for Clinton and 44 percent for Obama. This is similar to the numbers earlier in the week.

The poll also shows good news for both Democrats in a campaign versus McCain in the fall. Just like Obama, Clinton’s lead over McCain has jumped, from 5 to 12 points.



Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/04/opinion/polls/main4069259.shtml

---

Go Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:applause: :applause:

At this point, one might reasonably ask whether the GOP will still allow McCain to have the nomination. Under these circumstances, with the Democratic nomination still in limbo, McCain ought to be 15-20 points ahead, not behind by double digits.

This is exactly why Mitt "suspended," but did not disband, his campaign.

Talk about game changers!

:patriot:

That's what Obama represents.

McSame == Hillary == Status quo == no change == hopeless

...where I can find this phenomenal "new direction and new future"? I don't want rhetoric, but wonkish policy (proposal) detail. I personally think Ms. Clinton is a corporatist, but I find Obama slightly to her right. (As for McBush, I can't see him at all as my neck cannot turn that far right short of a Linda Blair demonic moment.)

Having said that, our party can select Daffy Duck and I'd still vote Democratic. I just don't see the fresh start for our nation that the media claims for Obama.

In fact, I don't mean to be too harsh on Obama's positions. Truth is, I will be delighted with either candidate. My number one choice was Kucinich (both now and in 2004). Edwards would be my second choice. My disappointment with Obama centers around his slighly less innovative healthcare proposals (though neither Ms. Clinton's nor Mr. Obama's go far enough), and his inistence on building bridges with the other side (I object to compromise with the enemy).

...edited to add...

In regard to compromise with enemies.

Really, nothing gets done if folks on opposite ends don't even try. I don't think it means, however, that Obama would give up major points to compromise. And if all goes well, whichever Democrat (cough, I have a preference but will vote for either) becomes the President will have long enough coattails to have majorities in the House and Senate.

That's my fervent wish, at any rate.

(changed the title, too. Too snotty by half)

As you changed your post, so do I. I'm more practical than some of my personal rhetoric would suggest. I am, however, perennially disappointed by almost all politicians.

Let's hope that this time around, you are pleasantly surprised!

Peace

I don't see the point in taking an all or nothing position on healthcare. If reaching the goal by steps gets us there, then I am for steps. We live in a country that is by no means far left in their political thinking and beliefs. If we refuse to compromise on anything, then things stagnate and a price will be paid in the next election. Democrats, like Republicans, need to learn not to take political power for granted. Unfortunately we do not all get to have our own candidate who is a perfect fit to our personal beliefs, but we do need to have one that can beat the Republicans.

However, if we prevail against electoral corruption, we will dominate Congress and have the Presidency. What excuse, then, will our politicians have for not meeting our demands for health and retirement security? Right now, although more than half of Americans want universal access to affordable healthcare, it's considered "politically" impossible. We get to 60 Senators and a Democratic President and that excuse goes away.

"Unfortunately we do not all get to have our own candidate who is a perfect fit to our personal beliefs" -- brother (or sister), that is an understatement! I am an anarcho-syndicalist, and unless Emma Goldman is running I'll continue to feel we missed the mark!! :)

Let's also hope that if Democrats attain such dominance that they do not become smug with their power and believe it is permanent. I think if we try and move the country too far to the left too fast that is what will happen and we will see the Republicans retake power.

Would you be willing to pay much higher taxes in order to obtain universal health care?

I ask out of curiosity because Americans (like anybody I presume) want to have it both ways--have universal health care and keep taxes low. Social democracies, such as Canada and many European nations, pay a lot in taxes in order to keep their social safety nets (though Canadians pay lower taxes than most social democracies, which is probably why our health care system is in jeopardy).

I recall that while Americans value low taxes coupled with a low unemployment rate, the number one priority in most other countries is a stable social welfare system.

I would most certainly be willing to pay more in taxes -- much more -- for single payer universal healtcare, for free college tuition, for paid leaves of absence as is typical in the social democracies of Europe, for a generous social safety net, and more.

I most certainly am not willing to pay more to fund the massive debt incurred by George Bush's tax giveaways to the upper class, to fund his illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, his giveaways to the oil and pharmacuetical industries, and more.

It's a question of priorities.

There were several polls out when Hillary Clinton was assigned the task of reforming healthcare during the Bill Clinton administration. The U.S. population, when someone bothered to ask, clearly preferred a single payer system. However that got little to no mainstream media coverage. It was off the agenda, not even a remote "political possibility".

I think if we asked the U.S. they would prefer geniune progressive taxation, an end to corporate personhood, breakup of the media cartels, single payer healthcare, geniune retirement security, affordable housing, access to good schools and universities, and more. Even though they have to pay for these things. However, our elected officials usually don't put these things on the table.

Instead, we;ve been indoctrinated to accept the negative path of Jefferson's warning:

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

I agree that neither Obama's plan nor Clinton's plan goes far enough. I would prefer us to cut the crap and go for a single-payer plan. Either plan will be an improvement over what we have now, and I feel that Obama is more likely to actually get something pushed through Congress.

As far as building bridges with the other side, I think that comes from his background as a community organizer. He is practicing coalition politics, as opposed to the old-style politics of division. Do I think that the Republicans won't be actively trying to burn any bridges he builds? No. Do I think that we win points with the general populace for reaching out to the Republicans? Yes.

Personally, I would rather see Dennis Kucinich take the oath of office in January, but that is not going to happen. Obama is the best we have left.

was really unimpressed by it to tell the truth. Too bad Gore decided not to run so we could have had a REAL candidate to support in '08.

Although we haven't seen the last of the political Gore yet.

He has found a global calling that trancends politics. Wishing for it to be different concerning Gore won't make it happen. All the rage last summer was "he's going to run, just wait, just wait". Right.

We shall all see in August.

We then have the old white guy coming in after the black guy and the woman couldn't unite the Party.

I think Gore is terrific. I was really, really hoping he would run. I believe he could've been the next Roosevelt (and we sorely need one of those!) But, that boat has sailed.

in our government, and I believe he will.

... read McCain's positions.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Get excited!

And Obama remains to the right of my political perspective. However, see my "edit" post just above.

THAT'S a start for a new direction, isn't it? Is THAT a good enough new direction for ya? For the first time in the history of this nation, we've got a candidate who is actually answerable, in a major way--economically--to THE PEOPLE of this nation!

...Ms. Clinton over Mr. Obama. Not quite, I value both equally (with maybe a slight nod toward Ms. Clinton because I feel her healthcare proposal is slightly superior).

What I was claiming is Obama is not a force for major change. Kucinich was the closet to a radical break from centrist, status-quo politics, but he's out of the race. (Now, before you jump all over me, note that I think both Clinton and Obama are fine candidates within this narrowed, permissible agenda and both are progressive giants compared to McBush McCain!)

On your point about lobbyists, I fail to see the difference between Clinton and Obama. Clinton's top 5 contributors are (currently): DLA Piper (our largest law firm), Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and "Emily's List", a PAC that has as it's aim the laudable goal of electing pro-choice Democratic females into office. Obama's top five: Goldman Sachs, University of California, UBS AG, JP Morgan Chase & Co., and Citigroup. (UBS AG, interestingly, is a major manager of private fortunes and is based in Switzerland.) I fail to see a qualitative difference between Clinton's and Obama's source of funding (source: www.opensecrets.org).

I've often said (here and elsewhere) that there are two votes in America: The dollar vote, followed by the democratic vote. Nothing gets on the agenda of the democratic vote that doesn't first pass the dollar vote. The problem with these arrangements is that those with more dollars get to vote more heavily than those with less, so our "successful" politicians first and foremost advance and protect the interests of a narrow sliver of our society resting comfortably at the top. Everything else is secondary.

I think the American public intuitively agree with my position, that's why we have such poor voter turnouts compared to other democracies. The good news is there is a rising populist tide (I think we had a 60% turnout in 2004), but our campaign funding and near-monopolized media have as always cultivated "safe" candidates for our election day choice.

"What I was claiming is Obama is not a force for major change." You mean to tell me that, for the first time in history, having a candidate whose campaign is supported, economically, by the PEOPLE is not enough change for you? Jeeez. What more do you want?

You know, when I think about change, I think, FIRST, about campaign finance reform. But this happened without one law being passed! Obama is supported not by PACs, but by the people.

"Since the beginning of last year, Sen. Obama has raised more than $100 million from Americans contributing $200 or less at a time, according to data compiled by the Campaign Finance Institute.

Sen. Clinton has raised $44.1 million in net individual contributions, or 30%, of her donations from these small donors, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.

A greater percentage -- 34% -- of Sen. Clinton's contributions have come in the form of the maximum $2,300 donations. About 20% of Sen. Obama's donations come from $2,300 contributions."

From: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977495306264221.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I already stated above that I think of Clinton as a corporatist, I therefore know (and would expect) that Clinton receives a higher percentage from big money donors. It's that dollar vote thing I sketched in the last post.

I also understand that Obama's message has generated a higher number of small money contributors. Obama, like George Bush in 2000, is running as the candidate above the corrupt fray of business-as-usual. That has populist appeal (rightly, this time).

I also understand that, because Obama receives a higher percentage of the low-dollar contributors, it implies he's winning the democratic vote too (in the aforementioned "dollar vote vs. democratic vote" races). There is, as you cite, a 2-to-1 difference in small contributor preference. Indeed, that's why Obama's winning the primaries.

But it is not fair to imply that Clinton, unlike Obama, is somehow hugely supported by PAC money. 91% of Clinton's donations come from individuals, compared to 100% of Obama's, this much is true. But the next biggest contributor is Clinton herself, at $5 million of her own money. PACs have contributed just 1% (just $850,000, if I read the opensecrets.org website correctly). I do not think there is a materially significant difference there.

And it's also not fair to conclude that Obama is the candidate of radical change, of some sort of sea change in how business is conducted in Washington or for whom. I do not see a radical program outlined at Obama's website. I see something pretty much the same as Clinton's. Again, two fine candidates within the permissible limits of American politics, but neither radically transforming.

A point made by Betram Gross in Friendly Fascism comes to mind: If a truly progressive candidate ever did accidently get elected, he or she would be cut-off at the knees and rendered ineffective by the power base that truly runs this country.

...the changes proposed by our two candidates. Take a peek at politicalcompass.org (or is it .com?). Barrack and Hillary are right of center. I score in the bottom, left corner (usually scoring around -9.5, -9.5). I recognize that I am not the typical "Democrat", but I do consider myself inside the tent.

I scored right between the "Kucinich" and Gandhi" marks.

Everyone should take the test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Besides the difference in who is funding their campaigns, I see a totally different style in Obama. I see someone who doesn't play dirty. I see someone who is bringing a lot of people into the fold, and who really wants to bring this country back together, instead of just playing politics.

I DON'T see that with Hillary. I see politics as usual with her. And I see her dirty little games.

I've read over what there is on his website and I'm totally unimpressed. My issues of greatest concern; the environment / climate change/ new clean, renewable energy technologies (Obama is for capping emissions by 2030, and promoting ethanol and coal shale. May as well all put a gun in our mouths and pull the triggers now with those policies). Health care; where does Obama say that he's for a universal, single payer system? If the insurance companies are in any way involved we're screwed. Real education reform; are we going to do away with all of these absurd tests and teach kids history, science, art and critical thinking again? Are we really going to give our schools the funding they deserve? What about a withdrawal plan for Iraq-with a time line? What will he do about outsourcing, and corporate "persons" who aren't paying their taxes? Hillary is no better, but hell, we must have much better or else this country is done.

You got left behind a lot when you were a kid didn't you?

McCain is a sellout to George W. Bush. It's not even close.

Later HH confided that it was the biggest mistake he had ever made in his political life. He wasn't prefect, but he was a great American and there is no doubt in my mind that this country would be a much better place if he had been elected in 1968.

If that McCain/Bush hug photo is shown half as often as the Monica rope line clip, McCain is toast.

Hell, 10% as often would do just fine.

Will the Democrats be smart enought to use it?

Sadly, I doubt it.

“It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”

“There are those who say to you -- we are rushing this issue of civil rights. I say we are 172 years late.”

“People in places many of us never heard of, whose names we can't pronounce or even spell, are speaking up for themselves. They speak in languages we once classified as ''exotic'' but whose mastery is now essential for our diplomats and businessmen. But what they say is very much the same the world over. They want a decent standard of living. They want human dignity and a voice in their own futures. They want their children to grow up strong and healthy and free.”

“Fortunately, the time has long passed when people liked to regard the United States as some kind of melting pot, taking men and women from every part of the world and converting them into standardized, homogenized Americans. We are, I think, much more mature and wise today. Just as we welcome a world of diversity, so we glory in an America of diversity -- an America all the richer for the many different and distinctive strands of which it is woven.”

“Liberalism, above all, means emancipation -- emancipation from one's fears, his inadequacies, from prejudice, from discrimination... from poverty.”

She's got strong numbers buried in the last two paragraphs of that piece:

However, among all registered voters who identify themselves as Democrats (regardless of whether they have voted or plan to vote in a Democratic primary) Obama and Clinton are virtually tied -- 45 percent for Clinton and 44 percent for Obama. This is similar to the numbers earlier in the week.

The poll also shows good news for both Democrats in a campaign versus McCain in the fall. Just like Obama, Clinton’s lead over McCain has jumped, from 5 to 12 points.

by primary and caucus VOTES, not by CBS polls.

If SHE was the one who was effectively mathematically guaranteed to win the pledged delegate race. Then she could say to the supers "I won the votes, and there's nothing setting us apart in the polls for you to justify reversing that".

But Obama is the one in that position, not Clinton. So it's good news for him, not her.

I am floored by the cogency with which you rebutted my statement by posting a 4 digit number with three exclamation points after it. Bravo.

(BTW, that 'math' thing I mentioned earlier... it applies to that number too)

Not too worried about getting that.

Yawn, indeed.

45/44 doesn't mean squat unless those people actually vote.

It's so OBVIOUS what the mainstream media is trying to do. Why can't some people get it?

1) stop being a racist;

2) stop being obtuse;

3) stop feeling old;

4) start feeling young;

5) start keeping up with the rapidly changing world;

6) vote Obama;



This man is the best chance America have in your life time!

I am crossing my fingers and telling everyone
to back him....

Clinton's strength in a Clinton-McCain match-up, though no longer directly relevant, is good news too, as it points to the overall GOP weakness.

Obama has the potential to expand the geographical base, as well as expanding the Democratic base. Hillary does little different than in the past, and will try to cling on for dear life to what we had in 2000 and 2004...which is not a winning combination.

those demographics won't give him the swing states in a general election.

but other aspects of the poll show a glaring weakness that the repubs would exploit against her - a whopping 2/3rds of the people polled believe that Clinton tells voters what they want to hear rather telling them what she really believes. On the other hand, a majority of voters believed that both McCain and Obama say what they really believe.

Those are alarming numbers and raises serious questions about her electability, because you know the repubs will hammer her as a flip-flopper that you can't trust, ala Kerrey.

flip-flopper because he's got the same problem. He has taken too many positions publicly, and then voted the other way. I think that meme is dead to the GOP, especially with McCain as their candidate.

That being said, Obama's record in the Senate would stand up much better under the glaring light of day. He doesn't have to explain away that pesky IWR vote thingie.

NT!

I don't think they'll go after her as a "flip-flopper". First McCain was against torture, but then voted for it. He was against the obscene tax cut during war time, but now he thinks it's just great. He called people like Falwell & Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance", and then sought out their endorsements? That's just a few commercial ads I see in the fall, and I'm sure there's plenty more.

That being said, GOBAMA!

When is she going to face the facts?????

to go through the media before Obama is the nominee might turn out to work in Obama's favor in a big way.

candidate is on top, so what the hell.

and a big fat rec!
:kick:

knows that TV polls are all about drama, that's why he is so fascinated with Obama! Tom Hanks came out for Obama by the way. Tom says that the Wright thing is a news cash cow and right now it's a spin thing to pump up public attention. The intensity inside the drama! Tom Hanks just loves it! And he thinks Obama is one hell of a actor! Tom say's if he were doing the president,he would do it just like Obama! That's what it should look like!
Tom Hanks folks! Movies for real!

him soon enough.

It was simply a news media manufactured controversy.

I can't remember a year in which polling has proved to be as unreliable as it has this year. I'd love to believe that the Times' poll is on target but I'm containing my enthusiasm for the time being.