Obama expands lead over McCain, the ‘age issue’ lingers

May 13, 2008

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll is chock full of interesting tidbits to mull over. Most notably, in light of the past week’s events in the Democratic presidential race, it appears that Barack Obama is largely where he wants to be.

As the Democratic race nears the end of its primary season, with the next round of voting happening today in West Virginia, this new national poll shows Obama with a 12-point advantage over Clinton as the preferred choice for the nomination.

More than six in 10 Democrats now say Obama is the one with the better shot at winning in November. Although Clinton retains her wide advantage as the more experienced candidate, for the first time Obama has the edge on being considered the stronger leader.

Just as importantly, about a month ago, when Jeremiah Wright was dominating the news, Hillary Clinton performed better than Obama in several general-election match-ups against John McCain. It appears that Obama now has a slight advantage on this point — the Post/ABC poll shows Obama leading McCain by seven (51% to 44%), while Clinton leads McCain by three (49% to 46%). This edge is even more striking among independents, who prefer Obama to McCain (51% to 42%), but prefer McCain to Clinton (49% to 46%).

In terms of the issues, Obama enjoys double-digit advantages over McCain on healthcare, gas prices, and the economy; while McCain has a 21-point lead in combating terrorism. On personal attributes, Obama excels in bringing needed change, temperament, empathy, and clarity of vision. McCain fares better on experience and knowledge of world affairs. They’re about tied on leadership and “personal and ethical standards.”

As for the septuagenarian issue, which I’ve been harping on for weeks, the polling data points to this remaining a key hurdle for McCain: “Only three in 10 said they were ‘entirely comfortable’ with the prospect of a 72-year-old new president, about half as many as those who said they would be similarly comfortable with an African American or female president.”

I don’t doubt that at least some of this is skewed by those who don’t want to admit to racism or misogyny, but I emphasize this (again) because it continues to look like an issue that few are talking about, but which may make a difference.

As for the general landscape, to say Republicans are at a disadvantage this year is quite an understatement.

Voters are really unhappy with the status quo.

Americans are gloomier about the direction of the country than they have been at any point in 15 years, and Democrats hold their biggest advantage since early 1993 as the party better able to deal with the nation’s main problems, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. […]

Maintaining a separate identity will be a key to McCain’s chances of winning the White House in November. Overall, Democrats hold a 21-percentage-point advantage over Republicans as the party better equipped to handle the nation’s problems.

As for the biggest surprise in the poll, I had assumed Dems were anxious to see the nomination fight end. Apparently, despite Obama’s double-digit lead among Dems, the party’s rank and file are not exactly anxious to see Clinton drop out.

[T]here is no groundswell of public pressure for Clinton to quit the race, despite trailing in pledged delegates, the popular vote and now superdelegates. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said she should stay in the race.

One reason is that few Democrats seem concerned that the protracted nomination battle will hurt the party’s chances in November. Only 27 percent said they thought it had done the party long-term damage. Most said the drawn-out contest has had no impact on the party’s prospects (56 percent) or that it has been helpful (15 percent).

And most Democrats said they are confident that the party would rally around Obama should he become the nominee, although fewer than half said they are very confident.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll found a similar response, with only 35% of Dems saying Clinton should withdraw. That’s up 12 points since last week, but it’s still only a third (55% of Dems are happy to have both Obama and Clinton keep campaigning).

And as long as we’re going through national polls, the latest Gallup Daily Tracking poll shows Obama expanding his lead over Clinton to seven points (50% to 43%), the largest the margin has been in a few weeks. But more importantly, Obama also has taken a four-point lead over McCain, the largest lead Obama has enjoyed since Gallup began asking the question in March.

80% of the American public feels the country is going in the wrong direction. A moldering, confused old man is nothing but the personification of that wrong direction.

  • “Few are talking about” McCain’s age (well, except the McCain camp itself playing the “age card” over an utterly innocuous comment), and I think that’s appropriate. It may be a legitimate electoral issue for voters, but it is not a legitimate campaign issue. Let’s get some “disciplined messaging” from the Democrats on this! It looks really bad to attack an old person for being old.

  • Hi, SaintZak! Glad I’m not the only disaffected Salonian. (I took a different name here, though.)

  • I’m sure that Hillary will now drop out, since most if not all of the things she said made her the best choice have been reversed.

    (cough)

  • Remember, not only is he 72, but as a POW he has higher mortality than the general population. The malnutrition, torture and general bad conditions they were exposed to while being held had a really bad effect on them.

  • I suspect that one reason so few Dems think Hillary should drop out is that when you watch the race covered in the press, you see these bar graphs or total delegate numbers that give the impression that the race is really, really close. If you really think Hillary has a chance of picking up 25 of 28 delegates in WV, for example, or a vast majority of the remaining superdelegates, it seems only fair for her to stay in. I think it shows there are a lot of low-information people out there, but that’s largely due to the media.

  • PJ, I’m sure there are a few of us over here now. It’s gotten a little strange over there.

  • Let’s not kid ourselves… this isn’t going to be easy.
    But Benen is right. The numbers fairly glow.
    It’s almost as if, Barack was born under a lucky star.

    Still… I find this irksome: “McCain has a 21-point lead in combating terrorism.”

    Need to get to work on that. Got to kick that hard.
    Fact: We are spending $4000 dollars a second creating more terrorists than we are killing. Amp that idea up. Tie it to the official numbers coming out of white papers. Tie it to innocents being killed. Tie it to the need to go after the real terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan mountains.

    The moldering, confused old man is getting another free pass here.
    He must be gonged on this issue. That 21-point lead combating terrorism wants eroding. Badly.

    Prediction: If Barack can cut the 21% to 11% by November… we’ve got landslide possibilities.

  • Let’s just remember that back in 1960, Lyndon Johnson was so much more the “experienced” candidate that it would have taken a willfully-blind and deaf person to deny the fact, when his record was compared with that of John F. Kennedy. And who was it who ran as President and who ran as Vice President that year??? Overall, looking at the two presidencies, Kennedy obviously understood executive leadership better than Johnson did. Johnson was always a man of the Legislative Branch. Had JFK not been assassinated and Johnson remained as Senate Majority Leader, the possibilities of what they could have done after defeating Goldwater in 1964 boggle the mind to consider – especially given that Kennedy would have had the leadership ability to cut Vietnam loose before getting completely wrapped up in the tarbaby like LBJ did (which proves my point about executive leadership).

    So when Obama beats Hillary on the question of leadership over experience, there’s nothing really new with that.

  • I agree with PJ; let’s lay off the age thing a bit. If there’s an argument to be made that the effects of age on McCain’s health or mental state adversely affect his ability to perform the duties of the president, then make it, but so far I’ve seen no evidence of that. Picking on him just for being over 70 is not, I think, going to play very well with undecided voters (or even with voters, such as myself, who are going to vote for Obama but not because McCain happens to be a certain age).

  • Actually, I’m more in Jimmy Carter’s camp on this issue than Obama’s.

    Unfortunately, due in part to our electoral college (which we should dump), all presidential candidates have no choice but to take hard-line positions on the Israeli-Palestinian issue (as opposed to a more balanced position).

    In fact, both Israel and Palestine have blood on their hands in this dispute, and we’ll never get it resolved as long as we (i.e. the American electorate) insist on letting the politicos bully any of us who see the benefit of talking with persons who were democratically-elected by insisting that we support “terrorists” (as per their limited definition).

    I suggest that voters read Carter’s book, among others, and make up their own minds.

  • OT to MaryL: Not to highjack the conversation here, but Salon has become a lot of fairly shameless troll bait, with very little troll control. Generally, I liked the liberal conversational rules, but there are no tools at all for keeping the comments civil. There are a lot of right-wing moles very successfully driving wedges between moderates and progressives – and the way the articles are written only adds to the problem. A lot of shallow, tabloid-style commentary. Still a lot of great stuff too, but I frequent Carpetbagger and TPM a lot more these days.

  • Another disaffected Salonian here, canceled my premium membership this month.

    I still go back to read Greenwald now and then.

    One of the reasons I like Steve so much is he’s almost as thorough as Greenwald without the annoying bitterness.

  • while we’re on the subject of mccain’s age, a humorous approch to the issue can be found here: thingsyoungerthanmccain.com.

  • I don’t doubt that at least some of this is skewed by those who don’t want to admit to racism or misogyny, but I emphasize this (again) because it continues to look like an issue that few are talking about, but which may make a difference.

    Looks like you left out – Ageism:

    …”any attitude, action, or institutional structure, which subordinates a person or group because of age or any assignment of roles in society purely on the basis of age”. As an ism, ageism reflects a prejudice in society against older adults. The victims of bigotry and prejudice are generally referred to as minorities. This is not because they are necessarily fewer in number, but because they are deprived of the rights and privileges of the majority.

    Does or will the Democratic Party supporters admit to ageism? Especially when it comes to McCain? Probably not, since it has become clear that they plan on trying to use his age against him…so to speak.

  • I don’t understand why it’s wrong to discriminate a presidential candidate because he has a condition that makes him more prone to DEATH, DEBILITATION and MENTAL DISEASE.

  • This is not because they are necessarily fewer in number, but because they are deprived of the rights and privileges of the majority.

    Oh Karmi, care to explain to us what rights and privileges older politicians are deprived of? There have been more Presidents who were “old” (compared to the relative life expectancies of their time) than “young.” The US Senate is disproportionately very old. And those poor old guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld have sure had a tough time getting jobs with any power or influence – not to mention John Paul Stevens, Nino Scalia, etc. And what about media moguls like Rupert, industrialists like Jack Welch, traders like Kerkorian or Buffet?

    Sorry to break this to you, but the old have a disproportionate share of power in this country. Yes, age discrimination absolutely exists and happens far too often on an individual basis in jobs below the radar screen, but there is no evidence of institutional agism in the main circles of power in America where a little white hair (and, of course, white skin and a penis) are often a prerequisite for entry.

  • Mark Pencil @ 20

    The Democrats are using McCain’s age in order to stop him from being President, and that is ageism “on an individual basis” for the job he seeks. You add that he has “white hair”, and has “of course, white skin and a penis” which “are often a prerequisite for entry.” That sounds like racism against McCain.

    Personally, McCain lost my support yesterday, with his move even further to the Left, that is his new ‘Global Warming’ move (perhaps he has never heard of the Ice Ages). Earlier this year, I had went against my gut, and moved to the Left to support him.

    Let Obama have it, and he’ll accelerate America’s fall, which will open the door for real change, IMHO.

  • You add that he has “white hair”, and has “of course, white skin and a penis” which “are often a prerequisite for entry.” That sounds like racism against McCain.

    Also sounds like misogyny… 😉

  • Just like McCain’s 100 years comment, his age (or, more specifically, his conduct and its apparent connection to his age) makes wingers crazy because they know it’s a huge vulnerability.

    It’s interesting that goopers fret that Dems will “use McCain’s age against him” when no one, and certainly not our nominee, Obama, has said a word about it. We don’t have to–voters are going there on their own. Concerns about how McCain, who is not a particularly healthy or hearty 71, can physically and mentally withstand the pressures of the presidency are bolstered every time he has what he himself calls “senior moments” on the campaign trail.

    I can’t recall now which poll discovered that seniors are the group that most strongly believes McCain is too old for the presidency–anyone remember that and have the link?

  • no no Karmi, you have it backwards. i was pointing out that the old white guys who already control everything are racist and misogynist.

    besides, being the hardcore conservative who is too far right for McCain, you surely know that your handbook says -isms are of no concern, that we all have the associational right to discriminate anyway we please, and according to the Chicago School (Coase’s Theorem) discrimination doesn’t really exist because it would be economically irrational and solve itself. so presumably you don’t really care about the ageism you allegedly protest.

  • Why, oh why, does McCain have a 20 point advantage in combating terrorism, after everything that him and his party have done over the last 7 years?

  • i was pointing out that the old white guys who already control everything are racist and misogynist.

    ummm…wonder what the PC folks would say about that sentence? Well, since most of the PC folks are Democrats, I suspect that they would miss or ignore it because it was just about “old white guys”…

    I’ve learned a lot about race, gender, and age in the Democrat primaries, i.e. how Democrats focus so much on such. They use it like a ‘Tool’ or ‘Weapon’, apparently to maintain power. Previously, I had actually been dumb enough to think that Americans were just Americans…so to speak.

  • You keep using this phrase “so to speak.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

    • Comments are closed.