April 4, 2008


Wave of Obama support recedes, but he remains in front (Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee, April 4, 2008, NY Times)

Senator Barack Obama's support among Democrats nationally has softened over the last month, particularly among men and upper-income voters, as voters have taken a slightly less positive view of him than they did after his burst of victories in February, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The survey suggests that Obama, Democrat of Illinois, 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.

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.

He can get some male support when it's him vs. a woman, but in the general he's the female candidate, as indicated by the male flight after exposure of just a couple of his real views. As the GOP fills in the full portrait of his amorality on social issues he'll tank among men, the moral gender.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 4, 2008 10:45 AM

I am stating to see another kind of shift, both in face-to-face conversations with lefties and on the internet.

They are starting to wake up to the fact that they are effed, and that is is too late to back away from the impending wreck. I am reminded of a cartoon I saw once many years go (unfortunately not available to share) of a bleary-eyed, groggy Abraham Lincoln holding an ice-bag to his head and groaning, "I did what? I freed what?"

Seriously now, this "Reverend" Wright business has made a big difference. All the Demorats can say about the Effendi now is, "Vote for Obama--there's a reasonable doubt that he's a race-hater and an enemy of the American people."

That is not the standard for chosing a president, however. Yes, many voters would like to see a change of parties in November. Deluged with anti-Bush "news" about the economy and the so-called "war," they would like to go with a democrat, but they are rightly suspicious of Effendi Obama. More or less apolitical types are telling us that they just don't trust him not to return to his true colors if elected.

Even the lefty enthusiasts are catching on to this now, but it is too late. In other words, a tactical, as opposed to an absolute, surprise has been achieved. In war, tactical surprise takes place when a combatant knows what is happening, but does not have time to respond to it.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 5, 2008 5:50 AM

Lou Gots:

As OJ and some others on this blog have noticed, the fascinating thing is to examine how each party's underlying assumptions have led to this predicament.

Start at the beginning: Republicans usually value experience over words. They would never have been so unwise as to nominate a guy with four years of Senate experience for the presidency, no matter how eloquent he was. Look at those Obama rallies, so reminiscent of the scenes in which crazed teenagers fainted at seeing the Beatles, and try telling me the Republicans would've gotten carried away like that. Through away your reason and nominate a presidential candidate, based on that? No way.

Maybe it's too early to predict, but I'll bet that the Democratic penchant for the new, the hip, and the cutting-edge-don't-think-just-go-with-it Political Messiah of the Month has just doomed their presidential chances for the third straight election.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at April 5, 2008 6:55 AM