It’s one daily tracking poll, but…

This Rasmussen poll seems to be getting quite a bit of attention, bolstered in part by a big Drudge headline about McCain’s “double digit” lead.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows John McCain’s lead growing against both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% margin. African-American support for Clinton has collapsed, falling to 55% in the general election match-up. Obama, on the other hand, earns solid support from African-American voters but attracts only 36% of white voters in a match-up with McCain.

Over the past month, McCain has gained ground in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Both Democrats continue to lead in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and California.

This either a very big deal or not at all a big deal, depending entirely on one’s disposition.

If you’re among the latter, you’ll note that it’s only one poll — a daily tracking poll, at that — and Rasmussen, while not bad, is still an automated system that hasn’t batted 1.000 this year. McCain enjoys a relatively comfortable lead, but that comes at a time when he’s facing very little scrutiny, and the media has decided that Jeremiah Wright is the single most important person on the planet.

And if you’re among the prior, Rasmussen is reinforcing your worst fears.

After all this campaigning from two very talented Democratic candidates, the Republican candidate who’s promising voters four more years of Bush/Cheney is ahead? In Clinton’s case, by double-digits?

And if we’re willing to look beyond just the Rasmussen numbers, there’s also evidence that independents are moving to McCain in large numbers right now?

Look, it’s March. Campaigns that panic in March look pretty foolish, given that so much can and will happen.

That said, there’s been considerable discussion in Democratic circles in recent weeks whether a prolonged primary would hurt the party’s chances in November. And now we’re seeing at least a few polls in which the Dems’ big leads over McCain have evaporated, and in Rasmussen’s case, it’s now McCain with the lead.

Granted, there are multiple factors playing out simultaneously, but as Isaac Chotiner noted, poll numbers like these are only going to make the Democratic establishment a lot more antsy.

The Clinton campaign is probably right in assuming that the only way they can win the nomination is to destroy Obama’s electability argument with superdelegates. The obvious problem is that intense campaigning and attacks may hurt her popularity, too. But the Clintonites should be wary of Drudge headlines like “McCain now leads by double-digits” for another reason. If superdelegates begin to think that the party is blowing it’s chance at the presidency, it’s all the more likely that they will want to end this tiresome primary sooner rather than later.

With each passing day, I’m looking forward to ending this process more and more.

Not just wright…
The Spitzer and lt guv junk weighed them both down for the moment.
The Lewinsky fluff pieces should be good for a point or two more.

Then the population will come to its senses again for a little while until the next batch of irrelevant data comes along.

  • Listen, it’s Clinton’s right to keep this thing going. There’s no rule saying she can’t, and she still thinks she has a chance.

    But there is not a single human being on this planet who could convince me that, if the situation were reversed between her and Obama, that she would not be calling for him to step out.

    Think about it … if she had the lead in delegates, votes and states … if the lead could only be lost if Obama won 98% of the vote in every single remaining contest … if he was planning to destroy her reputation to get more superdelegates … if he was willing to start a civil war within the party just to keep this thing going … do you really think Clinton, her campaign, and her supporters wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops and on every single news show for Obama to do what’s best for the party — and the country — and give up his campaign?

    They would in a second, and everyone knows it.

    Yet she’s willing to keep this thing going, thus giving McCain several months of unchallenged campaigning, tearing the party in half, and on the way to ensuring at least another four years of Bush’s policies.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with her staying in IF she and Obama were focusing more on issues and what they’d do as President, instead of constantly going after each other.

    But they’re not, and will not, until it’s settled.

    And that apparently won’t happen for a while. Which is sad.

  • It’s only March. Wait for the debates. Either one of the Democrats will humiliate him, and all his friends too.

    It would also be nice if a few of the more candidate-obsessed bloggers would turn their ire on McCain instead of the other Democrat, because neither of them is pure as the driven snow.

    For me, it’s about the next Supreme Court pick, period. And that pick needs to be made by a Democrat.

  • To me it’s more about integrity in government and respect around the world. And the problems aren’t limited to Republicans.

  • When I first looked at the Rasmussen Report a little while ago, you could read the results of the Rasmussen Markets report without having to click a link for every percentage. The market has Obama heavily favored to win the nomination and favored by five percentage points to win the presidency.

  • I’ll end up voting for which ever Dem candidate survives but I’m starting to see the right-wing caricature of Clinton as a do-anything-to-win power mad harridan. Pity. Actually, given their closeness, she might prefer McCain as president if it can’t be her.

  • Blue Girl: I’m guardedly hopeful about the general election campaign destroying McCain simply by comparing him to his betters, but I’m not willing to bet on it. I’ve seen the Democrats blow elections too many times over the past decade or so to feel certain that it won’t happen again. Particularly with McCain’s enablers controlling the traditional media.

    The democrats really need to start the offensive against McCain. Obama has made some comments, but it isn’t enough. They really need to go on the offensive *NOW* or it may well be too late once the primary has been decided.

  • If Obama were in Clinton’s position, he wouldn’t be campaigning as ugly.

    Happy First Day of Spring everyone. Let’s hope it doesn’t mean the rebirth of McCain. And Happy Easter which I call Jesus the Undead.

  • NO way in the World do I believe that. Voters will be so motivated to get off their ass to vote next time around I predict a 60 % or greater win for Obama.

  • The Afican American support seams to be falling away from Hillary because of her underhanded campaigning.

    At poll yesterday put Hillary’s AA support in FL at ….. 51%. The race is becoming toxic. She may win thing yet, but her win will be so ugly that McCain may waltz in november.

    Anyway, I wrote a long post on this topic this morning if anyone wants to check it out.

  • What a tragedy. The year when a Democrat should walk unopposed into the White House, the party tears itself to pieces. I’m afraid the party will be too polarized to make whichever candidate (Obama) is nominated a viable contender. Leave it to Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • I might just have a little more faith in the Rasmussen poll if I didn’t click on their link and see an ad for John McCain’s campaign competing for space with the first paragraph of the results. Their balance of power calculator also shows Dems solidly winning the electoral race. Contradictions and conflict of interest don’t provide much validity for the results.

  • It’s interesting speculation, but it’s hard to read much into any kind of general election matchups this far out. Hell, in 1988, Dukakis was leading Bush by 55-38 in July.

  • Haven’t these guys been paying attention to the record voter turnout during the primaries?
    The Democrats are enjoying at two to one margin.

  • This could also just be an indication that the so-called cross-over Republicans are crossing back to their original party and the Independents who never had any intention of being Democrats are finding their natural home. You can only attribute this change to Clinton attacks if you believed that any of these carpetbaggers were actually enamored of Obama in the first place, and not just trying to mess with the Democratic nomination process.

    It is inevitable that the more people know about Obama and the less he is a blank slate, people will make a more reasoned decision. That is more likely to be consistent with their original political leanings than a new-found adherence to progressive values. What is new here is that the true level of support for Obama may be revealing itself now that there are fewer primaries at stake.

  • Commander Guy:

    The Afican American support seams to be falling away from Hillary because of her underhanded campaigning.

    So I trust you also believe Obama’s white support is falling away to McCain because if his underhanded campaigning?

    Or we could call it all what it is: campaigning.

  • That McCain is leading in 1 or more polls is REALLY IMPORTANT. That is, unless the elections are in November and not next week.

  • 1st the Clintons push the B Hussein Obama point, then they release the “Muslim” costume photo, but Barak pushes back with his 20 years of being a strong Christian and the Clintons destroy the pastor. Rove couldn’t have played it better.

    And yet when the VRWC tried to tell you how evil these people were, the left howled.

  • You can only attribute this change to Clinton attacks if you believed that any of these carpetbaggers were actually enamored of Obama in the first place, and not just trying to mess with the Democratic nomination process.

    You make it sound as though that’s somehow implausible, when virtually all of the investigative reporting and interviews on this very question suggest that the Republican votes for Obama were, in fact, wholly sincere.

    I’ve posted these before and you’ve ignored them, Mary, but on the off chance that you’re actually interested in the issue, here are just a few of them again:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1752381.ece
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/24/obama_gop/
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_550427.html

    There’s the evidence — overwhelming, in my opinion — that the Republican votes for Obama were largely sincere and not, as the case with Limbaugh’s dittoheads voting for Clinton, an effort to mess with the nominating process in our party.

    You can disagree all you like, Mary, but it would help your case if you for once addressed these issues or provided some counter-evidence.

  • Yes, Shade Tail, we do have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    But I don’t think they are going to let Lieberman on the debate stage with him to walk Grandpa back from the curb when he steps off into traffic.

    But then, even contemplating the possibility of a third Bush term causes me searing pain, too.

  • What has happened is that the tracking polls have veered significantly away from other polls. If you go to the Real Clear Politics Poll page, you will see that the majority of recent pools show both Obama and Clinton with a narrow (and virtually identical) lead over McCain (CBS News – Obama +5, Clinton +2, CNN +1/+2, USA Today/Gallup +2/+5, NBC/WSJ +3/+2). Two polls show a McCain lead over Obama and Clinton (Reuters/Zogby -6/-8, Cook/RT Strategies -2/-2). The Gallup tracking poll has McCain leading Obama and Clinton by 4 and 3. The Rasmussen tracking poll is the severe outlier, having McCain leading by 7 and 10.

  • Commander Guy:
    The race is becoming toxic.

    Yes it is.
    There is a time for venom and there is a time for antivenin.
    My own hunch is that the time to rally around one candidate and begin the reconciliation process was about two weeks ago…

    Apparently the Dems simply don’t feel good about themselves unless they can find a way to shoot themselves in both left feet. And so the superdelegates and the senior party leaders idly watch as Clinton and her fan club continue to undermine the winning candidate with no real chance of winning the math game. Couple that with the republicans piling it on Barack at the same time and the result is constant corrosion of his good name and character.

    This is sad and demented politics. I don’t see anything good happening for the Dems this Fall. The window for success is closing very rapidly.

  • So I trust you also believe Obama’s white support is falling away to McCain because if his underhanded campaigning? — ready to duck

    a) Obama’s campaigning is not underhanded.
    b) You might have a point if you show that Obama is losing white voters to Clinton, not McCain.

  • TR, in my post above, you can see that if you toss out the Rasmussen outlier, there is virtually no difference in the poll numbers between Obama and Clinton. If the Republican support for Obama was sincere, where did it go? Or if it is still there, who is he losing that Clinton is picking up?

  • NO way in the World do I believe that. Voters will be so motivated to get off their ass to vote next time around I predict a 60 % or greater win for Obama. -bobswire

    I wish that I could believe that, but the elections are rigged (gerrymandering, Diebold, etc.) in favor of Republicans, McCain is undeservedly well liked*, and the GOP are masterful campaigners.

    *I heard about a poll on the radio where a majority of respondents (mid sixty percent) said that either McCain or Obama would make the right choices on Iraq. Kind of weird since they’re diametrically opposed on that issue.

  • If the Republican support for Obama was sincere, where did it go? Or if it is still there, who is he losing that Clinton is picking up?

    I can’t answer just yet, as I like to wait for actual data before I try to parse the minds of voters. My hunch? They probably swung back to McCain during the height of the Wright flap, but after Obama’s speech and McCain’s bad press on Iraq, they might swing back. We’ll see what happens.

    But my point in that comment was to answer Mary’s assertion that a belief in the sincerity of Republicans voting for Obama in the past was insincere, when the evidence was overwhelmingly in the other direction.

  • I heard about a poll on the radio where a majority of respondents (mid sixty percent) said that either McCain or Obama would make the right choices on Iraq. Kind of weird since they’re diametrically opposed on that issue.

    Only if you think about these things logically. For many voters, it’s not policy that matters to them, it’s a gut-level sense that this politician says what he/she means and will do what he/she feels is right.

    Civil rights activist Andrew Young told a story in his memoir about running for Congress in Atlanta in 1970, and a redneck came up to him and said there were two people he was sure he was voting for — liberal black civil rights activist Young and the white conservative segregationist governor Lester Maddox. Both of them, he said, were sincere.

    I hate this stupid who-would-you-have-a-beer-with nonsense, but for many voters trust is more important than policy. Odd but true.

  • TR — you insist on interpreting my comment as meaning that the only crossovers were people intentionally messing with the primary. I also stated that the crossovers were not committed progressives but people with conservative leanings that lead them back to McCain, the conservative in the race. That is entirely consistent with the content of the links you posted.

    I have said here myself that Obama is more conservative than Clinton. It is one of my reasons for preferring Clinton. I do not perceive him as more liberal (despite being a Democrat) because of his religious beliefs (called by God to run, Donnie McClurkin), his more cautious approach to several social problems and because of his echoing of Republican talking points on issues such as social security. However, I also said that he is too liberal for true conservatives to stomach when they have another conservative to vote for. Your links don’t contest that.

    I also do not consider opinion pieces by Pol Sci professors speculating and asserting their own candidate preferences to be factual evidence. Not everything that is published is factual.

    I am not here to debate you or your links. I am here to state my own opinions and read those of others. If you wish to post things contradicting my opinions, feel free. That’s what people do here. But don’t get all frustrated because I won’t debate you or change my opinion because of something you post. Everyone has a right to post their opinions here and they do not have to respond to you or anything else in order to have the right to say what they think.

    Above, I saw something mentioning that Clinton distributed pictures of Obama in Somali garb. That was pure bunk — the photos were widely circulating among Republicans and appeared on Drudge Report but Obama’s folks blamed Clinton. If I got upset everytime I see one of these canards posted yet again, it would be bad for my health. I suggest you and the other Obama supporters take a deep breath and calm down too.

  • Mary, I’m not at all interested in persuading you because I know it’s a hopeless cause and a pointless effort. You’ve already said you’re not voting for the Democratic nominee unless it’s Clinton, so you’re a lost cause. And you say you live in California, which despite the asinine Only Clinton Can Win the Big Blue States! argument is going for the Democrat no matter what.

    I understand you’re not interested in anything but your own fact-free opinions, and that’s certainly your right. But I have the right to provide evidence — which are not just from those political science professors whom you feel somehow know less about politics than you do, but also from long term Republicans ranging from Susan Eisenhower to onetime “Bush Pioneers” who have all abandoned the party for Obama — to refute some of your more outlandish claims.

  • …the photos were widely circulating among Republicans and appeared on Drudge Report but Obama’s folks blamed Clinton… -Mary

    Matt Drudge credited the Clinton Campaign as the source.

  • TR, I will agree that Obama is more appealing for Republicans. I read somewhere (I can’t find it) that Obama’s pitch allows Republicans to stand down with dignity. By that, Republicans know that Dubya has been a total failure and Obama allows them to stand down from their support of Dubya with dignity because Obama says that Bill Clinton was also a failure and that we need to make a clean break with the past. However, I think such an approach is terrible for the Democrats and the country in general – Democratic ideas work and Republican ideas don’t. I want a candidate ramming that home to independents and those weakly attached to the Republican party. I don’t see Obama doing that.

  • And we all believe Matt Drudge because…

    The Clinton campaign has categorically denied it. Who do you believe, the Republican hack or a person who, despite other flaws, has not been a liar. In other situations where negative stuff was traced back to a Clinton staffer, that staffer was sent packing.

    TR — I consider many of your posts to be as fact-free as you consider mine. That is part of what makes this campaign so frustrating for all concerned. I find it easier to be respectful of other people’s opinions if I do not engage them directly. You have quite obviously found it very hard to refrain from calling people names when they upset you. Which approach do you think will win more friends for Obama?

  • TR — I consider many of your posts to be as fact-free as you consider mine.

    Despite all the facts I provide? I draw on primary results, exit polls, current polling data, multiple interviews, all the extant reporting, etc. You draw upon your memories of who can best provide a farm breakfast.

    And as someone else said to you, Mary, I’ll stop insulting you once you stop insulting my intelligence.

  • Who do you believe, the Republican hack or a person who, despite other flaws, has not been a liar. -Mary

    Clinton’s campaign has been known to leak to Drudge, and Hillary’s recent statements on NAFTA and what was contained within the newly released records from her tenure as First Lady don’t exactly sync up either. And that’s just one example off the top of my head. I could go on about her foreign policy experience which she remembers much differently than everyone else involved.

    To be honest, I don’t believe either of them, but you suggested the Obama campaign blamed the Clinton campaign for that picture, but it was Matt Drudge who sourced it to them.

  • Oh, I should have added to my post that Obama is more appealing to Republicans than Hillary, but those Republicans per the poll numbers are staying loyal to McCain. So with Obama, Democratic past successes are downplayed while Republican failures are overlooked for no electoral gain.

  • I’m fairly certain that the Primary has nothing to do with these numbers.

    War and blood always did sell better than bread and butter.

  • That seems a fair take, Dennis.

    But as we move to the general, I suspect Obama will do more of what he’s done in recent days in the last two Iraq speeches, drawing very sharp contrasts with McCain and linking him to Bush and the Republican orthodoxy in no uncertain terms.

    In fact, his ability to draw such contrasts is one of the things that drew me to him. On the war, I think Clinton would look like Kerry did in the last election, a sort of “yes, but..” approach to foreign policy which comes off as weak in the eyes of most casual voters. A flat “no” is much easier to draw contrasts and, as noted above, show convition for those swing voters who don’t give this as much attention.

    Obama himself is making this case lately, I’m glad to see:

    “It is time to have a debate with John McCain about the future of our national security. And the way to win that debate is not to compete with John McCain over who has more experience in Washington, because that’s a contest that he’ll win. The way to win a debate with John McCain is not to talk, and act, and vote like him on national security, because then we all lose.

    “The way to win that debate and to keep America safe is to offer a clear contrast, and that’s what I will do when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party – because since before this war in Iraq began, I have made different judgments, I have a different vision, and I will offer a clean break from the failed policies and politics of the past.”

    I think he’s best positioned to make those contrasts, but only time will tell.

  • There’s a lot of time yet…and I’m with Bluegirl. In a head to head match-up in a debate with McCain, our candidate, either one, will wipe the floor with him.

  • ROTFetcetcetc said:

    Clinton and her fan club continue to undermine the winning candidate with no real chance of winning the math game. Couple that with the republicans piling it on Barack at the same time and the result is constant corrosion of his good name and character.

    If people are worried about this, then they should not be supporting Obama. Conversely, if they are supporting Obama for the right reasons, they should not worry about this.

    Either you knew and understood all along that everything being said today would be said eventually, causing the same “corrosion” of his good name, or you thought you could sneak a candidate through untested, which would be unwise both as a plan and as a way of choosing a President.

    Furthermore, the “corrosion” would either stick, in which case Obama is not a great choice, or it would not, in which case we are actually better that it happen now than in October. If Obama has nothing serious to attack, nothing he can’t adequately defend, nothing that will stick, then he is a great candidate – but even if that is true, and I have no reason to think it isn’t, the Rev. Wright story breaking in October would have been a sure way for McCain to win. Here, Obama has a chance to work through it.

    Regardless of whether we nominate Obama or Clinton, I am troubled by the extended primary more because of the fundraising, team rebuilding issued and missed opportunity to train fire on McCain, but I am not particularly moved by the notion that Clinton is “corroding” Obama. Someone was going to many, many times before November. That’s what happens in campaigns. It isn’t a big deal. If it is, we need better candidates or better run campaigns.

  • Maybe people are just getting tired of the Democrats’ psychodrama. I know I am. I don’t understand why we can’t get it together and stand behind one candidate–preferably Obama. Hillary should have withdrawn long ago, but she has shown she will use any dirty tactic to bring Obama down. I am ashamed of her–she should join the Republicans! But she could win with her dirty tactics. Many Americans are gullible and not that bright, and are easily swayed by Swiftboat stories and tales of crazy ministers.

  • Steve, @45,

    You figure you (or is it a different Steve compiling the list?) be able to add 87 more reasons before Denver? So far, it’s only 13 reasons… 🙂

    The most recent one — is a stunner; we do like to take credit where it’s not due, eh?

    My own “favourite” is one below; about her cluster bombs vote. Given that those cluster-f***s kill and maim disproportionate number of children, it’s totally unacceptable for someone who claims to be evah so concerned about the children. That one was the one that tipped the scales for me, a couple of months ago.

    The one about her spending her small-donor contributions with an overly generous hand wasn’t surprising; it fits right in with her philosophy of “only big counts” — whether it’s big donation, big state, big anything — makes no difference; it just has to be big, before she deigns to notice it. Since I tend to subscribe to the theory that, if you take care of pennies, dollars will take care of themselves, I’m more in tune with Obama’s approach on that score, also.

    But the real hoot and the “creme de la creme” was the one about the SEX SEGREGATED prayer group she attends… I don’t care that wives of fRightwing nuts attend with her; as far as I’m concerned, she’s always been Repub-lite, so there’s no news there (and, heck, it’s bi-partisanship in action, no?). But, *sex segregated*???? Mrs Feminista attends *sex segregated* prayer meetings??? Something that only the most Orthodox of Jews still put up with? Whatever next? A burka???

    Do, please, update us on the site’s progress. I bookmarked it but, there’s so much to read and so little time, that I’m not sure I’ll be able to check it out daily….

  • An uncharasmatic 97 year old with memory lapses promising endless war, more tax give-aways to Paris hilton, and essentially 4 more years of Bush. Now how could anyone NOT vote for that?

  • libra, I’m not that concerned about the sex-segregated prayer group;I think it’s all part of her secret Republicanism. She is no Democrat. No, I am more disgusted by her cluster-bomb vote. Her hypocrisy just gets worse every day. I wish she would join the Republican party and run with McCain for the nomination, so we would be rid of her for good.

  • Comments are closed.