Clinton attacks have affected Obama's standing among Democrats

A somewhat gloomy report in the New York Times shows support for Barack Obama falling off.

The survey suggests that Mr. Obama, the Illinois Democrat, may have been at something of a peak in February, propelled by a string of primary and caucus victories over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, and that perceptions of him are settling down.

Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month in which he has come under withering attack from Mrs. Clinton and has had to respond to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago.

The attacks seem to have worked.  But a look at the numbers shows they haven't made a dramatic difference.  Considering the attacks coming from the Clinton campaign, he might even be seen to have done pretty well, particularly when one looks at the spectacular financial support he continues to receive from individual online supporters.  The New York Times report concedes:

Still, the events of the last month do not appear to have fundamentally altered the Democratic race or provided what Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has been looking for: evidence of a collapse in Mr. Obama’s standing or an overwhelming preference voiced for Mrs. Clinton by Democratic voters in polls, developments that could be used to persuade uncommitted superdelegates to sign on with her.

The poll showed that Mr. Obama now leads Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, by 47 percent to 42 percent; his lead was 50 percent to 38 percent in late February, when Mr. McCain still faced opposition from Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. The latest poll shows Mrs. Clinton leading Mr. McCain by 48 percent to 43 percent in a similar match-up.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now effectively tied among Democratic voters, with 46 percent saying they want the party to nominate Mr. Obama, compared with 43 percent for Mrs. Clinton. In late February, 54 percent of Democrats said they wanted Mr. Obama to win the nomination, compared with 38 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Obama, who might be tempted to go on the attack now, seems to be playing his hand cautiously in Pennsylvania -- relying on a gain in votes rather than a win, according to Politico.

The Washington Post sees Obama's strength somewhat differently.   Noting the latest fund raising totals, Jim Kuhnhenn writes:

Obama's money also provides a separate story line focused on his powerful network of donors. With neither candidate able to win the nomination on the basis of delegates selected by state primaries and caucuses, the burden falls on party officials and elected officials _ the so-called superdelegates _ who are weighing a variety of factors in making their selection.

"His ability to raise more money than Hillary Clinton is part of the handicapping that is going on by superdelegates," said Steve Murphy, a Democratic consultant who worked on Bill Richardson's presidential campaign but who is now unaligned.

Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic strategist who worked on John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, noted that while 1.3 million donors is only a fraction of the total number of people who have voted in the presidential contests so far, "it still represents a ground force unlike anything we've ever seen."

"It's hard to argue that he's not a representing a "new kind of politics" with 1.3 million donors," she added.

The only way this could work against Obama is if the money were seen to be wasted -- if the campaign were to spend a huge amount without appreciable gains. It wouldn't surprise this blogger if the Democratic party were becoming a little edgy about Obama's fund-raising and organizing capabilities.  He might wind up making the party's machinery look disorganized and ineffectual while looking, himself, pretty darn independent and self-supporting as a candidate.

Comments

[Jim]

I dismiss polls out of hand. All of them. As the late but great Dr. Winston O'Boogie once sang, "Ain't no guru can see through your eyes".

Obama will be the democratic nominee. He will smash McCain in November, and the GOP congressional candidates will fall like rain from on high. I'm looking forward to that first Tuesday.

So relax. I'm rarely wrong in my presidential predictions (heh). Except in 2004 and 2000- and need I point out the extenuating circumstances in play both those years? And although I lost a $50 dollar bet on the 1984 election, I made it on election night, 1980, when I drunkenly, obnoxiously told everyone with whom I came into contact, "The American people will never re-elect that idiot". Someone took that bet, and I knew with absolute certainty that I was doomed the minute Walter Mondale intoned during his acceptance speech in San Francisco, "I will raise your taxes". Carter's margin of victory was closer than I had anticipated (he should have rolled Ford)- but win he did. That was my first vote, too. God bless George McGovern, and forgive his endorsement of Clinton- she did work for him in Texas, after all, during that bitter year of the forlorn hope. (And wherever you are, "Kiss my ass, Tom Eagleton"). Bobby Kennedy would have won in '68. Hubert Humphrey nearly did. Mercifully, I was just a kid that year, and didn't fully grasp what the election of Richard Nixon portended. My older sister did, though. She doesn't remember, but I distinctly recall her saying around that time, "He'll be impeached".

Of course, I also thought the 49ers would win at least 10 games last year. Go Niners...

[PW]

LOL! I, on the other hand, am always wrong. Well, if not wrong, then unlucky. Seems to me the moment I get enthusiastic about a candidate (always a high-IQ progressive), the poor soak retreats into obscurity or wins but turns out to be a lollipop for a Monica, any corporation, or all of the above.

That plus I don't trust the Democratic party as far as I can throw it so I reserve my throwing arm for my dog's tennis ball and its plastic "Chuckit." I left the party a few years ago. I finally faced what had been obvious for years: since LBJ the DNC has been a right-leaning machine crunching up the best candidates and leaving us with the leftovers. Proof: how Lieberman's apostasy was handled by Senate leadership.

Go Cubbies.

[Jay McDonough]

from swimming freestyle:

"The stated Clinton campaign strategy, despite her second place position in each metric (states won, pledged delegates, money raised and popular vote), is to convince superdelegates she is the best choice for the Democratic Party nominee. It's a measure of Clinton power and prestige that some actually bought into that line of crap.

The, presumably disappointing, March fundraising numbers are just more signs the Clinton campaign is now limping towards the end of their race."

http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com