Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen Rev. Wright


Rasmussen Reports

Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Favorable 8%, Unfavorable 58%

"Most voters, 56%, said Wright's comments made them less likely to vote for Obama. That figure includes 44% of Democrats."

 

Comments
John - Spokane, WA:


The fact that Rasmussen did a poll on this absolutely proves that this is an extremely important issue with people across the Nation. Looks to me like the numbers say it all.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:


The fact that Rasmussen did a poll on this absolutely proves that this is an extremely important issue with people across the Nation. Looks to me like the numbers say it all.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Numbers greater than I thought. The Obama campaign will have to make inroads to distance himself further from his previous pastor. It will be interesting to follow the coverage as so far none of the remaining delegate states have shown a dip for Obama.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Andrew,

Have you seen polls on States other than PA & NC upcoming - I have not seen any recent polls in NC since this hit the fan ? New polls would be great to see - The new National polls are definetly showing a trend.

____________________

akclsm:

i dont think the poll reflects the tenor of the election except for the undecided in states like north carolina and indiana. the swing vote ie the votes that could move away from obama might still be the middle aged, middle class black woman and the yuppie vote that swelled to the momentum and now has the full month to reconsider their fervor.

wright and rezko constitute twenty full years of poor judgments, not the kind of thing you want to build a rep on if you run on a 'judgment' platform. my guess, is that obama will now fight tooth and nail to thwart the florida re-vote despite his having had more than fair play at the first go round. (michigan is a nother case entirely and hillary should de-couple the two of them) after all, obama was the only one to break rules and campaign actively in the state by way of cable ads that deluged the state running up to and through the 'un-primary'.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Since when? This news coverage has been going on for 2 weeks pretty hard. Pollster has some updated Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and ARG polls that include that time span.

38% for about two weeks in PA.

about 48% in North Carolina.

____________________

Anonymous:

I'm glad someone else noticed the cable ads Obama was running in Florida.

____________________

I think the Clinton phrase for this is "sucking all the oxygen out of the room." Obama gets the press, and once all the hysteria is squeezed out of it he can take the stage and give his side of the story. It all depends on how he handles it.

Have you noticed how persuasive he can be?

I bet he can turn the whole thing to his advantage, but in the meantime it's "Hillary who?"

____________________

Anonymous:

The news coverage about Wright's comments have only been for a couple of days.

It started on Thursday and then only on ABC. The cable coverage has been heavy, but until the prime time press makes an issue of it, it's not mainstream.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Dream on Tom Tom,

If you think Americans are gonna fall in love all over again with this Liar your sadly mistaken. He came across as the young breath of fresh air and Now everybody sees he's just Old Hat politics spreading polluted air. Same Sh###T - Different package, No Change, No Unity none of that cheerleading crap means anything from him anymore.

BYE BYE BAMA !!

____________________

sandy:

so how come if you know about the ads and i do the nation doesn't? talk about sneaky business...
obama is totally smug about having the media in his hip pocket that he doesn't shudder a wink at the possibility that this slips out.

slip out? OMG? isn't that called NEWS!!! i must be living in a worm hole or something, i though the the fourth estate was supposed to work for transparency not as a king maker. speaking of which, as you might assume, i do not like obama's hypocrisy. i was originally considering the guy.. but there was ONE GAFF HE MADE THAT I WILL NEVER FORGET..

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Yeah because Hillary is really a breath of fresh air. :x These are all moot points :p

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Hey Andrew,

When your hiring for an employee, do hire because the person can bullsh##t ya and make you feel really good with all that warm & fuzzy stuff. OR do you hire somebody that has been on the inside, seen it, lived it, and done it on different levels. Her resume far outshines his and you dont have to like her as a person in order to get the job done. Thats been the problem over the years - we keep voting these smiling faces into important positions when we should be voting based on qualities and knowledge of the job.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Most of the major media outlets have already covered the Ads that reached Florida from Obama.

1st, Both Hillary and Obama had ads run in Florida under MSNBC and CNN NATIONAL ad commercial packages.

2nd, Obama purchased Mobile, Alabama coverage for the Alabama primary that spilled over into the Florida Panhandle (Media coverage outlets don't follow state boundaries).

This is pretty old news.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

Hillary's resume is horrible. She was a laughable lawyer at the Rose Law Firm. A Walmart Executive that made her millions based on the fact that she had tons of Walmart stock that then exploded when her husband made Most Favored Nation Status with China Trade. And then she was First Lady. Where's the experience you talk about?

CNN already has released her foreign policy experience during Kosovo as nothing more than her going to parties. Newsweek released that Obama has about an average amount of experience for the President compared to all the presidents of last century. I don't make any ad-hominem attacks at Hillary but she doesn't have the experience (faux experience I call it), she failed at health care in 1992 why would she get something even bigger than then passed when she failed so badly?

I've seen no results from Hillary Clinton, but at the same time I'd say I've seen no results from Barak Obama either. The difference lies in what they stand for and what their past is. Hillary has failed in her past too many times. I see potential in Obama to be a great president based on the grassroots movement around him. Hillary is no populist. She's the same old can of worms.

____________________

Anonymous:

OUCH! Obama's negatives are going through the roof. 17 point net change in a month!

The number with an unfavorable view of Obama has risen from 44% on Thursday to 50% today. Among White voters, Obama is now viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 54%.

Looked at from a slightly longer perspective, Obama’s overall favorable ratings peaked at 56% on February 21, shortly after he won the Wisconsin Primary. At that point, Clinton began raising questions about Obama as part of the campaign that ultimately enabled her to win the Texas and Ohio Primaries. Since then, Obama’s net favorability ratings have fallen seventeen points (from plus 14 points on February 21 to minus 3 points today).

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

Andrew,

you guys can try to throw all the dirt in the World at The Former First Lady but nothing compares to;

The 20 year embrace of an ANTI-AMERICAN, HATE MONGER, RACIST such as REV WRIGHT who Obama has considered his confident, Idle, Spiritual advisor and an adopted uncle to his family. NO WE WONT "GOD DAM AMERICA" Not in my Country !

____________________

John in Spokane - you gave me a bit of a laugh with this (and I hope you'll appreciate the dark humor):

"When your hiring for an employee, do hire because the person can bullsh##t ya and make you feel really good with all that warm & fuzzy stuff. OR do you hire somebody that has been on the inside, seen it, lived it, and done it on different levels. Her resume far outshines his and you dont have to like her as a person in order to get the job done."

In my experience, the prospective employee who looks impressive and strokes the boss's ego frequently gets hired over the drab and serious pit-pony who does the hard work and has the expertise. At least in the political / non-profit field.

That's one reason Hillary's candidacy strikes a chord. She's the one who does all the grunt work, the research, the heavy lifting, the muscling of other departments to do their share; Obama's the guy who comes in at the end of the process to present the work to the board of directors, the one who gets invited to dinner afterward, the one who eventually gets the promotion because he does such "great work."

What happens next? "Obama" quietly and consistently undermines "Hillary" because he knows she is more capable than he is and could blow his whole game. In a few years, he's the guy everyone loves and she's out the door.

Better for the company? No. Does it happen anyway? You betcha.

____________________

John - Spokane, WA:

YES CICCINA,

AND THE IDEA IS TO NOT LET IT HAPPEN ANYMORE !

____________________

Patrick:

Unfortunately for Obama and his supporters, it seems he is quickly becoming unelectable. And realistic people are starting to realize it. Even before the Rev. Wright crisis, it was starting to become clear that he was not appealing widely enough - not just in #'s of votes in the primaries, but also in approval ratings - to the demographic groups that any Dem needs to win the presidency in this country (i.e. seniors, white women, Reagan Democrats, and Hispananics). You can't win with just blacks, yuppies, youth, and less than half of Independents. Hillary has gotten almost 1,000,000 more registered Dem votes so far; Obama's are largely from Republicans and Independents who will support McCain. And I'm sorry, but ANYONE who believes that Obama didn't know full well that his "spiritual leader" and dear friend of 20 years (the man who "brought him to Jesus") was preaching this hatred is nuts. It's true that Rev. Wright's words aren't Obama's words, but associating so closely with Wright (like Rezko) shows a MAJOR lack of judgment. And when your whole campaign is based on "judgment" and "words", it ruins your credibility. The interesting thing is that the Republicans are now reportedly ("secretly") saying they hope to run against Obama instead of Clinton. Ads of Obama and Rev. Wright running all through Oct. will surely kill any chance Obama ever had in virtually all the swing states. If Obama is the nominee, McCain will win by at least 10 pts.

____________________

WOW!!!!:

Hey there everyone!


BIG speech tomorrow from Obama!!

He is actually going to TAKE THIS RACE CONTROVERSY HEAD ON!


Wow, THIS is what a true leader does. I can't wait, this might be historic in it's magnitude.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/17/obama-set-to-deliver-speech-on-race-wright/


I wish all the networks would carry it and report it like they did 30 seconds from that reverend guy. Hmm, too much to ask though.

____________________

Greg:

HOW EXACTLY? Is she going to win Pennsylvania 90-10? NO. If they re-vote in Florida and Michigan with campaigning, then Obama will certainly increase his output from current (nonbinding) totals. So how exactly are Florida and Michigan going to settle anything in your fantasy scenario?

Primaries/Caucuses -

Obama - 30
Clinton - 14

I see her winning 2 more states, max.
Good luck arguing that you should be the nominee when your opponent doubled up your win total.

Not to mention beat you in Pledged delegates, and the popular vote, and has the edge in purple states, and does better against the republican nominee than you. Yup, good luck with that Hillary!

At this point we know that:

1) Obama will end the contest with the most pledged delegates,

2) Obama will likely end the contest with the popular vote tally,

3) Obama will end the contest with the most money and greatest fundraising potential,

4) Obama will end the contest with the most states,

5) Obama will end the contest with the best poll numbers against McCain, and

6) Obama will end the contest with the most primary state victories and caucus state victories.


So what's left for Team Clinton? She has to convince a majority of the super delegates to cast their vote for her, so how does she get those supers to ignore all of the above Obama advantages in order to cast their ballot for the candidate who is losing?

Apparently, it's a two-pronged strategy.

The first is what we've been seeing this week -- tear down a candidate who has inspired and given hope to millions by appealing to white resentment and turning him into the "black candidate". It's ugly and revolting, but the Clinton campaign is banking on it scaring people away from Obama. And by "people", I mean "super delegates".

Remember, Clinton can't win based on the math. The rules -- the "process" -- are her enemy. The only way she can win is by having the super delegates ignore all of Obama's clear advantages -- a coup by super delegate. And the way that coup is by tearing Obama down and discrediting the process that gave Obama those advantages.

But here's the rub -- the "process that gave Obama those advantages" includes latte drinkers, and black people, and young people, and red state Democrats, and small state Democrats, and blue states that voted for Obama.

So it's a sort of Catch-22 -- she needs the super delegates to abandon the winner for her loser campaign, but the way she's trying to win them over is by insulting their very states and constituencies.

Clinton is in a bad place. She is behind in every metric that matters, and has been relegated to trashing our likely nominee and entire Democratic Party constituencies and states in order to make the case that she's somehow "more electable" despite all evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately for her, the super delegates aren't all cloistered in New York or in DC.

They represent the United States of America. And outside of Clinton's Blue bastions, her insults aren't winning any new converts.

____________________

Greg:

You are delusional if you think the superdelegates will over-rule the pledged delegate total. That has to be one of THE most stupid things I have ever read on this board.

HMMM, why have an election in the first place then?!!? Why not have all the superdelegates go into a room and decide the nomineee???

Let's see, I wonder what would happen if the superdelegates went into a room and over-ruled the pledged delegate lead that Obama has? You think ANY AAs or students would cross-over from Obama to vote for Hillary in the general election? NO and NO! It would be a certain landslide for McCain, dummy.

**********************************
Contests to date -

Obama - 30
Clinton - 14
**********************************

I really don't care if Clinton wins Florida, Michigan AND Pennsylvania. She pretty much has to win EVERY contest from here on out by 70-30 margins - which just ain't gonna happen.

And your "argument" about "big states" is phenomenonally absurd. It doesn't matter that Clinton won NY or CA - those will never go Republican - ever. If your retarded gay uncle was the nominee, they would STILL go blue. So, STFU about that, ok? You sound like an effing retard. You might as well say, "Well, Hillary looks better in a pink sweater!" That makes more sense than the "she can win the big states" nonsense.

Obama can turn many red states blue. Just look at the primary/caucus numbers. Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Georgia, North and South Carolina are now in play.

In addition, his coattails are unreal. Check what he did for Foster, adding a House seat in a heavy Republican district (Hastert's old spot) - by putting out ads supporting him. Congressional Democrats see that and will go to him - slowly but surely - as they want to win their elections as well.


Hillary should just concede now for the good of the party. She is ruining her legacy and that of her supporters like that moron Ferraro.

____________________

Anonymous:

Given that 44% of Democrats correlates pretty closely to Clinton's base of support, my contrarian take on these results are that the news has not actually significantly hurt Obama.

Wait a couple of weeks, and most people will be back wherever they were before the media decided to flog this meme.

And note the phrasing of the question: The news makes some people "less likely" to vote for Obama. That's a pretty watered-down statement. They should have also asked whether it would prevent them from voting for Obama, or make them switch their vote from him.

____________________

Anonymous:

There you are BOBO, Now you're Me !!! How thoughtful.

BYE BYE BAMA & BOBO

John-Spokane

____________________

Bob Evanor:

McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee's comments offensive.

Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church" ? "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

____________________

Andrew S. in California:

That's actually a really good point Bob. It seems that if there was ever a religious question brought before a McCain vs. Obama scenario that they would be a moot point.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR