pageok
pageok
pageok
Obama's Unfavorable Ratings Rising, but still better than Clinton's.--

In the last week, there appears to be a move in Rasmussen national tracking polls in favorable/unfavorable ratings of Barack Obama. In a week, he has gone from about a 52% favorable / 45% unfavorable rating last week to a 47% favorable / 51% unfavorable rating on April 16, i.e., from a 7% plurality to a 4% deficit. McCain's ratings have not changed much (on April 16, he has a 55% favorable and 42% unfavorable rating).

It is too soon to tell whether this movement is lasting, but if it is, Obama's recent problems may affect the general election more than the Democratic primaries, where his overall numbers do not seem to have deteriorated at all in most polls.

BTW, both McCain and Obama have better favorable / unfavorable ratings than Clinton.

Fearless:
Proof that going negative works.

The idea that people want a different sort of politics is a lie. We like negative.
4.17.2008 2:07am
Hoosier:
This too is CHANGE.
4.17.2008 2:32am
Libertarian1 (mail):
Predictions:
a) These numbers too will fluctuate
b) Pro Obama acolytes will attack the messenger
c) he will still get the nomination- if he loses it will be proof Americans are racist
4.17.2008 2:57am
Cornellian (mail):
Just shows Hilary's plan to see McCain elected is right on track.
4.17.2008 3:49am
Jiminy (mail):
I liked McCain when he was the maverick and didn't like him after the Bush campaign team embarassed him then turned to accept him after it didn't matter anymore. That hug btw the two of them is an ugly thing to see.

I think the Circular Firing Squad is almost finished destroying the electability of the two Dem candidates, to the point where we'll elect McCain who is close enough to Bush as to not see a difference.

There is one benefit to all of this, however. As we saw with Bush's first term, the Republican exec with Repub Congress meant that spending ran amok, even among the self-professed "conservatives". And when Clinton faced off against his Repub Congress, we had blessed gridlock that helped our budget. If we end up with McCain in the Dem Congress, we might benefit as far as the budget goes. Except for that elephant in the budget room, the IRAQ(afghanistan) war.
4.17.2008 9:24am
Why?:
Three Obama attack pieces in a row? Funny, I could have sworn I was reading the Volokh Conspiracy, not Michelle Malkin.
4.17.2008 10:11am
rarango (mail):
Zarkov said it best on a previous thread: It is quite obvious that both candidates have trouble with the truth.
4.17.2008 10:47am
PLR:
This place is getting to be like the current affairs forum of my local newspaper: all Obama, all of the time.

Can't understand why lawyers are perceived by other lawyers to be so dangerous.
4.17.2008 11:12am
Joe Kowalski (mail):
<blockquote>
Can't understand why lawyers are perceived by other lawyers to be so dangerous.
</blockquote>
I was going to say something about the only thing a conservative law professor can't stand more about a liberal law professor, is a liberal law prof in politics....
4.17.2008 12:31pm
Roger Schlafly (www):
Hillary Clinton's unfavorables are higher because more people know her better.
4.17.2008 1:09pm
Bart (mail):
Pollster Frank Luntz assembled another one of his Dem focus groups for last night's Philadelphia debate between Obama and Clinton, then held a Q&A with the group after the debate.

The group was pretty evenly and firmly divided between Obama and Clinton, Clinton might have picked up a single vote out of this this group of a couple dozen with her constant hammering of Obama. Generally, the participants seemed to be pretty unhappy with both candidates.

However, when Luntz asked those who would consider voting for McCain if their candidate lost the nomination to raise their hands, shockingly over a third raised their hands. When asked why, the members were far more positive about McCain's leadership and honesty when compared to the Dems. One even thought that McCain was a liberal!

I have never seen anything like this before. You can see the video clip here.
4.17.2008 1:21pm
anonthu:
How is this post an "attack piece"?
4.17.2008 1:45pm
astrangerwithcandy (mail):
bc it takes their lord's name in vain.
4.17.2008 2:24pm
The Unbeliever:
"This place is getting to be like the current affairs forum of my local newspaper: all Obama, all of the time."

Well, that's what he gets for being the presumptive nominee. Presidential campaigns always invite horribly detailed scrutiny, and for Obama's supporters to keep complaining about it is just plain silly.
4.17.2008 2:53pm
KeithK (mail):
That's not too shocking Bart. One of McCain's strengths is his character. While the Democrats attack each other he's standing on the sidelines and looks even better by comparison.

As for the liberal bit, the media has emphasized his disagreements with GWB over the years. This could easily mislead someone who isn't a a political junkie into thinking that he is a liberal Republican.

All of this is subject to change in the fall.
4.17.2008 2:53pm
Bart (mail):
KeithK (mail):

That's not too shocking Bart. One of McCain's strengths is his character. While the Democrats attack each other he's standing on the sidelines and looks even better by comparison.

The Dems have had long primary seasons before, albeit not quite this long. However, Dem voters usually stay on the reservation and support the eventual nominee. The last time I recall this kind of movement away from the Dem party in disgust with their choices is after the Carter v. Kennedy fight when the conservative Dems went en masse to Reagan. Even in that case, the shift occurred just before the election and not during the nomination campaign.
4.17.2008 3:23pm
Jiminy (mail):
I will say that the RSS feed for this site is:

Obama
Obama
Obama.

But I don't think this piece is an attack piece, either. It is making very valid points and I think I end up in the same boat as Jim does here. I liked Obama because I thought he stayed away from the black community nutcases like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Farrakhan - but it looks like he was not all that far away from that damaged mindset after all - even if it was just for the votes or identity.
4.17.2008 3:29pm
Derrick (mail):
But staying away from white nutcases like Farwell and Hagee is alright because their not black, so they've got that going for them.
4.17.2008 4:44pm
Gaius Marius:
The following comprise Barack Hussein Obama's Ten Commandments:

I. Thou shalt have no other gods before Barack Hussein Obama.

II. Thou shalt not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below except for Barack Hussein Obama. Thou shalt not bow down to them or worship them; for I, Barack Hussein Obama, am a jealous God.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of Barack Hussein Obama in vain.

IV. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor to pay your taxes to Washington DC and your state government, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to Barack Hussein Obama on which thou shalt campaign for his election.

V. Honor Barack Hussein Obama so that you may live long upon the land that you think you own but you really do not pursuant to Kelo v. New London.

VI. Thou shalt not kill any Jihadists who even now are plotting to attack America.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery with any other political organization or societies other than those led by neo-communist liberals like Barack Hussein Obama, Markos Moulitsas (a/k/a DailyKos), Reverend Jeremiah Wright, George Soros, and other rejects from the Comintern.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal because only your federal government and state government are entitled to steal your money via ridiculous taxes so that neo-communist liberals in Congress can transfer whatever they steal from you to their cronies.

IX. Thou shalt not give false testimony against your neighbor unless you are a card carrying member of the Democrat Party like President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, or Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

X. Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor because it is already coveted by the neo-communists in the Democrat Party who are always scheming new ways to pilfer personal property belonging to individual Americans.
4.17.2008 4:57pm
Blue (mail):
Derrick, I wish you and the other Obama supporters would learn, eventually, that Hagee is not a talisman that drives away the Wright problem for Obama.
4.17.2008 5:22pm
autolykos:
Blue - They're just taking their cues from the messiah himself.

When somebody points out that you've developed a personal friendship with an unrepetent domestic terrorist who conspired to kill active US servicemen and women, you point out that you've also been friends with conservatives who hold strong anti-abortion views.

After all, the fact that we all have some type of association (however tangential) with people who are less than perfect necessarily excuses intimate associations with left-wing radicals, right?

*Hat tip: WSJ's Best of the Day.
4.17.2008 6:08pm
Bandon:
Clinton proved in the debate last night why her unfavorable ratings are higher than the other candidates. Like her husband, she will do and say virtually anything that she thinks will help get her the nomination. I hope that the voters will punish her for her negative campaign tactics by voting for Obama, but I worry that her negativity will instead be rewarded. Just because she smiles and doesn't use profanity when she attacks an opponent doesn't make her a nice person.

Despite what some posters here seem to think, Obama and Clinton are not equal in the number and quality of their "lies." Neither is perfect, but Obama has run a much higher minded campaign and has a markedly "cleaner" past than Clinton. It's really not even a close contest. Clinton wins the "dirty laundry" competition in a landslide.

What is particularly disturbing about the constant Clinton attacks on Obama is the help that these tactics give to McCain. McCain is now benefiting from some of the same "delusions of character" that helped the younger Bush get elected twice. Voters seemed to like Bush's "aw shucks" act and misperceived his stubborn stupidity as conviction.

McCain's temper and frequent "senior moments" on the campaign trail have generated relatively few long-term problems for his candidacy. The Straight Talk Express has degenerated into the "loose talk" or "flip-flop" express, but no one seems to be too critical of the changes in McCain's positions or his stubborness about the war and his lack of interest in the economy. Even voters who don't know what he stands for seem willing to consider voting for him because he's a war hero and they have this vague sense that he's been around long enough to maybe be a safe choice for the White House. The perceptions that he's honest and that he thinks for himself are appealing to people, even if the perceptions aren't quite as true as McCain would like you to believe. I'm afraid that many voters are only seeing what they want to see in McCain -- just as they did with Bush -- and that would be an incredibly big mistake!
4.18.2008 1:15am