The conventional wisdom held that the recent controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright would help drag one Democratic presidential hopeful down, at least a little while helping push the other up. As it turns out, according to a new poll from NBC News/Wall Street Journal, that’s exactly what happened — though the candidate that was supposed to go down went up.
The racially charged debate over Barack Obama’s relationship with his longtime pastor hasn’t much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.
Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a “myth-buster” that showed the pastor controversy is “not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign.”
But both Democrats, and especially New York’s Sen. Clinton, are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown against Sen. McCain of Arizona. Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton’s support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll.
Indeed, the poll results aren’t encouraging for the Clinton camp. While she had a four-point lead over Obama among Dems two weeks ago, she and Obama are now tied at 45%. In hypothetical general-election match-ups, Obama now leads McCain by two (44% to 42%), while McCain leads Clinton by two (46% to 44%). The Wright controversy was supposed to drive white Dems to Clinton in larger numbers, but her margin actually shrank in recent weeks, from 12 points to eight.
But it’s the personal impressions of Clinton that should be of the greatest concern. It appears, based on the data, that the tone of the nominating fight is taking its toll.
The negativity of the Obama-Clinton contest seems to be hurting Sen. Clinton more, the poll shows. A 52% majority of all voters says she doesn’t have the background or values they identify with. By comparison, 39% say that of Sen. Obama, and 32% of Sen. McCain.
Also, fewer voters hold positive views of Sen. Clinton than did so just two weeks ago in the Journal/NBC poll. Among all voters, 48% have negative feelings toward her and 37% positive, a decline from a net positive 45% to 43% rating in early March. While 51% of African-American voters have positive views, that is down 12 points from earlier this month, before the Wright controversy.
More ominous for Sen. Clinton is the net-negative rating she drew for the first time from women, one of the groups where she has drawn most support. In this latest poll, women voters with negative views narrowly outstrip those with positive ones, 44% to 42%. That compares with her positive rating from 51% of women in the earlier March poll.
Both she and Sen. Obama showed five-point declines in positive ratings from white voters. But where she is viewed mostly negatively, by 51% to 34% of whites, Sen. Obama’s gets a net positive rating, by 42% to 37%. Among all voters, he maintained a significant positive-to-negative score of 49% to 32% — similar to Sen. McCain’s 45% to 25%.
This isn’t entirely unexpected. As a rule, when one candidate is perceived as going negative, invariably that candidate’s favorable ratings decline. The trick of it is, that person’s target is supposed to go down, too. Otherwise, there’d never be any point to going negative in the first place.
Except, if the NBC/WSJ numbers are accurate, it appears Clinton’s criticisms of Obama aren’t having the desired effect at all.
What’s more, Chuck Todd noted, “[A]mong Obama voters, Clinton has a net-negative personal rating (35-43) while Clinton voters have a net-positive view of Obama (50-29). Taken together, this appears to be evidence that Obama, initially, should have the easier time uniting the party than Clinton.” I suspect those are numbers that will be of interest to superdelegates.
The poll wasn’t all good news for Obama. In the wake of the Wright controversy, Obama’s numbers among Republicans have fallen off, but he’s making up for it with support from independents.
Post Script: Just as an aside, there’s been talk that the poll intentionally “oversampled African-Americans,” which in turn makes the results less reliable. In this case, that interpretation appears mistaken: “What I think he means is this: In order to get a statistically reliable subset of African-American voters, they over-sampled this category. (Remember, African-Americans account for only about 13% of the US population. So that subset of a regular poll doesn’t really have a large enough sample to ensure a low margin of error.) They then re-weighted these results to come up with topline (everybody put together) numbers that adjusted for that oversampling.”
No Trackbacks To “No apparent ‘Wright effect’ in new NBC/WSJ poll“
Well,Well,Well….Hillary should have known that when you sling shit, you’re standing in shit and it sticks to you….
Mornin Sunshines!
Well…I still say polls schmolls…though this one does sound favorable for my candidate…I just trust polls about as much as I trust anyone that says, “trust me”.
I have a nervousness about the polls as well. However, there seems to be a lot of hatred…no more of a dislike for Hillary in the people I speak to. They just don’t trust her. She will have a difficult time convincing those who dislike her to support her.
Clinton is pursuing a scorched Earth tactic. It will backfire.
Her presidential aspirations will end soon, and if she keeps up this destruction she may end her political career as well.
clinton’s attacks have been backfiring since the laughable plagiarism charge, when WI flushed her down the toilet…
let’s hope we see some leadership and courage from the superdelegates, and they come out in favor of one candidate or another,…..lay your cards on the table……
let’s hope Clinton stops short of releasing any photoshopped images, and formally endorsing McCain
If what I read is true, that HRC is attempting to damage Obama so much that he loses to McCain, just so HRC can run against McCain in 2012 then HRC’s poll numbers will drop a lot more when people find out.
I am voting for Ralph Nader and I suggest everyone do the same. Obama is media darling illusion, Hillary, I have no idea about what she is and Mccain a exact copy of Bush. You have a choice vote for RN and really shake up the established order..
Talkin to a republican friend of mine over a few brews last night, he said he thinks Obama will win if he’s nominated, and he’d vote for him…but if it’s Hillary…he’s goin with McBain…I’m willin to bet alot of republicans are feelin that way.
That really don’t like Hillary.
BigHurt @ 3:
I agree. I’ve tried to tell myself that no matter who wins, I would support. In the last few weeks I have come to dislike Clinton. The way she is running, is killing any chances for dems to win the white house. I have this feeling, that if she can’t win, she will make sure Obama doesn’t win either. She knows that if McCain wins, he will only be a one term president. She seems to think, that it is her turn no matter what. I hope I’m wrong, but it doesn’t feel that way right now.
Filthy Harry @ 7:
Damn…could she be that calculating? She’ll do more than damage Obama, she’ll be damaging her own party…if she pulls that kinda shit…she’ll NEVER get my vote.
Brealistic @ 8:
You’re an idiot.
America is not as dumb as Hillary thought. When she lied about Bosnia and then had the nerve to make a statement against Obama about how she would had left the church just to take the heat off herself, that was it for my wife, then a Hillary supporter. Then Hillary had the nerve to say they asked her this question by surprise and then read her response from a prepared script, I realize that she will do ANYTHING to win. Barrack should assume the nomination and not even deal with her and go after McGrampa. Then she appeared on FOX (the enemy) last night talking the same trash!!!
Why don’t someone ask Hillary, why she stayed with her cheating husband if she is so high and mighty?
Not this time!
Was this poll taken before Hillary’s story about her landing in Bosnia was exposed?
I get so angry when someone says they will vote for McCain if their dem candidate loses. That’s such a selfish thing to do. It’s like throwing a snit fit and pouting. This election is too important to take a chance on McCain winning and giving us four more years just like the last seven and a half. This election isn’t about hurt feelings or disappointment, it’s about all of us, our country and our future.
Brealistic @ 8:
you might want to do a little research on obama, as you’re wrong on him….
in fact, the only MSM and blog illusion I’ve seen is that Obama is a “media darling”….it’s a cliche, a fun term to throw around like you know what you’re talking about, but it’s bogus…
instead of voting for RN, why don’t you just write in UBL, or maybe TGPM…….
but seriously, do a little more reading on Obama….maybe watch a few debates, listen to that entire race speech…..he’s not a media darling, the idea that he is a “media darling” is the only media darling…
All of you Obama haters who surely knew(prayed) that he was finished after what his pastor said…….aahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
I expect Billary to become more negative in the weeks ahead. As their feeling of entitlement is shattered by the reality of Hillary’s imminent rejection for the democratic nomination, the Clinton’s and their sycophants will become more unhinged.
For the Clinton’s to hope that the “superdelegates” would give the nomination to a candidate that came in 2nd in the popular vote, number of delegates, and states won (in essence a minority candidtate), would be much more in the republican tradition.
“To hell with the people, we want power anyway we can get it.”
Maybe if the superdelegates also reject Billary, they will take it to the SCOTUS and have her “selected” for the dem ticket.
Pollstrology.
I think the negative BS is hurting HRC more than the polls can reflect.
Reap what she sows?
I am reading Obama’s first book, “Dreams from my Father”. I highly recommend it to everyone. You’ll find out what makes Obama who he is. It’s very well written and when you read it you feel like you are watching a movie. He’s one amazing guy.
Brealistic @ 8:
Yeah, thanks, but I’m going to vote for someone who has a chance. You keep living in your idealistic fantasy world where your protest vote has an effect. How’s it worked out the last 2 presidential elections?
By the way, against ALL odds, if Ralph Nader won, who would he work with? He’s pissed off everybody in Washington.
Hillary’s pretty much making it easy for me to finally settle on a candidate with her nasty little tactits.
Brealistic @ 8:
Nader again? give me a break. The guy is a loser and has been for years. Talk to anybody in the Green Party who worked for him last time. When things didn’t go his way, he walked away. He never did anything to help make a thrid party in this country. He left the Green Party and nobody heard from him, untill his ego made him get up again to run for president. Only a fool would waste their time on Nader.
Brealistic @ 8:
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!
No, wait, let me catch my breath. OK, I’m better now.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!
What does Nader do when he isn’t running for president? I never hear his name until a presidential election pops up.
slippy hussein toad @ 12:
I agree. Please don’t start that voting for Nader stuff again. Nader is an ego maniac.
diamondmc @ 23:
i have a hunch that, like spitzer, nader is in it for the PYT…(hot young ladies)….i just wish he’d be more honest about it….
Brealistic @ 8:
It went so well the last time people voted for Nader.
Brealistic @ 8:
Nader isn’t even running. He just told your dumb ass that shit so you would send him some cash.
Hillary blew it! She could have taken the high road and defended Obama against the bogus right wing attacks on Obama and his pastor, just as Clinton’s own pastor did.
She would have looked big and impressive, instead she looks small and petty. We already have a small and petty President, We don’t need another.
ohio progressive (typical white person) @ 27:
What women in her right mind, would go out with that fossil?
Filthy Harry @ 7:
She doesn’t have to damage Obama, as that would hurt her cred too. It seems more likely that if she doesn’t get the nod, she’ll play the victim card, claim the system treated her unfairly (i.e., Michigan and Florida and however they get decided, etc) and that the voters really want her the most, and then continue running as an Independent (a la Lieberman).
She wouldn’t win, of course, but she’d split Obama’s support and then he wouldn’t either. Voila - we get four hellish years of McSame and she gets another shot to run against him in 2012, when she’ll get to look like the “maverick.”
Keith @ 30:
You hit the nail right on the head. I think that pissed me off more then anything else she has done up to this point.
Keith @ 30:
It could be worse, we’re not married to her….God Bless You Bill, I’d be eating Cheesburgers, Krispy Kremes and smoking cigars every day too…it’s cheaper than Divorce.
pissed off patricia @ 20:
Thanks,
I read the book too. This guy is amazing. They keeps saying we don’t know much about Obama but do little to find out.
diamondmc @ 31:
There are always those who’s affections can be bought…case in point, any woman who has received Gene Simmons’ “Love”.
pissed off patricia @ 25:
He speeds around in his Corvair with the seatbelts unbuckled.
I hope.
Seems what is lacking here is the DNC showing true leadership.
It starts to beg the question that if the DNC leadership - including the super delegates getting off their collective hands and pledging one way or the other - CAN THEY BE RUSTED TO LEAD THE COUNTRY?
Some might say its premature (let all the states be heard blah, blah, blah), but true leaders are able to see clearly through the fog of imperfect information and put a stake in the ground.
Seems the issue is not Hillary or Obama - its the DNC leadership.
Brealistic @ 8:
Indeed, vote for a candidate who has run numerous times and never come close to winning. Really shake things up, bet on the horse that always loses.
ashton @ 39:
Yes betting on the losing horse allows the JACKASS to win.