SubscribeObama: Odds Of Winning Always Been Low
From France’s AFP:
Worsening polls reveal Obama’s pastor problem
by Jitendra Joshi
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Democrat Barack Obama suffered in the polls Thursday after a much-acclaimed speech on race that, pundits said, had failed to defuse voters’ anger over rage-filled sermons by his former pastor.
Waging an acrimonious battle against Hillary Clinton for the Democrats’ White House nomination, Obama confessed to being bruised by the controversy surrounding his longtime Chicago preacher, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
“In some ways this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that, you know, the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates,” the Illinois senator told CNN in an interview that aired late Wednesday…
Obama, the first African-American with a viable shot at the presidency, used his landmark address on race and politics to try to blunt the Wright controversy but also to elevate the debate to a higher plane…
A clutch of polls released since Tuesday pointed to an erosion of Obama’s support, with white working-class voters and independents especially alienated…
The latest Gallup daily tracking poll found Clinton pulling into a seven-point lead nationally over Obama, 49 percent to 42 percent. It was Clinton’s first statistically significant lead over Obama in more than a month.
“The initial indications are that the speech has not halted Clinton’s gaining momentum, as she led by a similar margin in Tuesday night’s polling as compared to Monday night’s polling,” Gallup said…
The poll also found Republican nominee-elect John McCain benefiting from the Democratic brawling. The Arizona senator had an edge of 47 percent to 43 percent over Obama, and a lead of 48 percent to 45 over Clinton.
Another survey by Rasmussen gave Obama a favorable rating of 48 percent among voters. Just before the Wright videos emerged last week, Obama’s rating was 52 percent.
CBS News poll numbers showed Obama still just ahead of Clinton among Democratic primary voters — 46 percent to 43. But a month ago, his margin was far wider at 54 percent to 38.
“If the sort of figures we’ve been seeing in the past 48 hours persist, they will certainly play into the superdelegates’ calculation,” said Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former White House advisor…
One suspects the Democrat superdelegates (aka party bosses) will not have the temerity to take the nomination away from Mr. Obama because of his 20 year relationship with a racist black pastor and an Afrocentric church.
That simply will not to play in Peoria Detroit.
In some ways this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that, you know, the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates.
What an abrupt change of turn. Talk about lowering expectations.
Of course this is only because the voters are racists, and not due to the fact that Mr. Obama is completely unqualified for the office nor that he has repeatedly shown a remarkable lack of good judgment.
No, Mr. Obama is a victim after all.
But gosh what an amazing speech.
(Maybe it sounded better in French.)
Related Articles:
- Wright Knew He Would Be Trouble For Obama
- Laff Riot: GOP Sees A Wright Way To Victory
- Obama: Wright Not Racist, But Grandma Is
- Obama Defends Rev Wright's Damnable Lies
- S&L Reprise: A Jeremiah Wright 'Jeremiad'
- How The NYT Whitewashed Obama's Pastor
- Media Finally Notices Obama's Radical Pastor
- It Looks Like Obama Won Texas After All
- Hillary: "Campaign Is Just Hitting Its Stride"
- Hillary Crows: "I'm Just Getting Warmed Up"
- Obama Is 0.6% Less Partisan Than Hillary
- The New York Times Writes Hillary's Obituary
- Clinton, Obama Campaigns Spend $1M A Day
- Shocker: Obama Got No Votes In Harlem?
- For Hillary Primary Losses Never Happened
13 Responses to “Obama: Odds Of Winning Always Been Low”
Leave a Reply
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“In some ways this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that, you know, the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates.”
It’s official, Obama has pulled out the race card. By “conventional”, one assumes he means “white”.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
What do you think about Barry throwing his own crucificion by suspending his campaign. “For tha good (pause) of tha pahty! For tha good (pause) of America. And, for the healing between AHHHLLLL people (pause) OFTHAWORLD!”.
“Thank you Houston. I love you. Peace Out!”
Think about it. Solves a lot of issues, don’ It!
March 20th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
mmm…
Hard to imagine anyone has taken these polls seriously.
Any Candidate could flop like Dukakis did long ago…
Wasn’t Hillary supposed to lose in NH?
Apparently, a number of Republicans voted for McCain purely on the basis that he could defeat Hillary.
They admitted to ignoring much of John McCain’s concerning Liberal political embrace, even as it resembles the unethical Ms. Rodham a great deal, for fear of losing to Mrs. Clinton.
If the polls really had relevance, then we would have Hillary vs. Rudy for the POTUS in 2008.
Ironically, a number of Conservatives grew weak kneed in the run up to the 2004 Race, believing Kerry was going to win, with the poll numbers available prior to the Election.
Even McCain’s poll numbers, when he was running early in the GOP Primary were awful, mostly because of his poor Debate performances, his history of undermining the Conservative Interest (including the current President), his dishonest assertion he was the ‘true Conservative’, and his aged bitter Beltway Insider offering…
But that was before he ran so far to the LEFT in NH, peddling Global Warming garbage, debasing Rumsfeld repeatedly, declaring his opposition to waterboarding, to gain the Liberal and Independent support, etc…
The irony of it all, the NY Times, the Globe, etc., who endorsed McCain, and the Liberals who voted for him, knew exactly what they were doing.
In the case a Democrat Candidate doesn’t win the POTUS, they knew they would have already defeated the Conservative Offering in the GOP Primary, and have a nice Liberal in the guise of a RINO named John McCain.
They win no matter what…
Sort of like what happened with Bloomberg in NY, and the Terminator in California.
But it is highly doubtful, the association of an ugly pastor will determine the General Election.
And this recent focus may just have worn out the issue, long before it might have an impact.
The MSM is going to be helping Obama again soon…
It might be even worse if Hillary manages to get on the ticket.
Usually one doesn’t have an idea of the potential General Election Outcome, until after the Conventions, a few Debates, etc…
March 20th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
“I pledge allegiance to the democrat party,
and to the weakness for which it stands,
one party, with no mean old Christian God,
now clearly divisible by race, sex and stupidity
with non-offensive liberty and the nanny-state for all.”
March 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Can you say President Hillary Clinton!
It looks like Rush’s “Operation Chaos” has backfired! Remember when Hillary said, “Be careful what you wish for, Rush”.
She would be history now if Rush hadn’t urged his troops to vote for her to keep the primaries alive.
Even with all his flaws I would rather have Obama. No way McCain is going to win.
OneAmericanCitzen.com
March 20th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
How is Obama better than Clinton? She is arguably more conservative than he is. What benefits does he bring that overcome that negative?
March 20th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
HNVA hits the nail on the head. McCain won’t be any too different from either of the demonicrats if elected. We’ll have to boost our representation in congress to stop all their agendas.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
ESTHIER,
It seems popular to believe the fake ‘centrist’ presentation of Hillary and Bill.
But they are as Liberal as Obama, (and in some ways like John McCain).
For example, Hillary Rodham has called for another Nationalization of Health Care in the USA, with Mandated Care for all.
You won’t have a choice, but bizarrely, Obama has a less liberal offering, that he was often criticized by Ms. Clinton, as not doing enough.
To which Sen. Obama would reply, “one can’t force Americans…”
It isn’t that his plan, isn’t Liberal or Socialist, like the Global Warming Cap Taxes that McCain has offered with Joe Lieberman, but Obama’s provided Health Care Reform isn’t as extreme LEFT as Hillary’s.
Hillary has stated now, as President, she will immediately WITHDRAW from Iraq, in a more severe Liberal Extreme placation than Sen. Obama.
Although Obama has been very anti-Iraqi Operation Freedom, he has always ‘qualified - conditioned’ his potential actions on his determination of what should be done if he becomes President.
Hillary is now, (if her constant circling, flopping, jumping, rolling is to be believed), for an instant RUN AWAY plan. While she blames GW BUSH for fooling her into voting for the Military Operation, at the same time she claims her vote to ‘authorize force’ was merely a diplomatic measure.
Obama, while saying Iraq was a mistake, remains somewhat more measured than Hillary Clinton when asked about what he is going to do about Iraq as President. His position is wrong, but he claims to ultimately have a wait and see approach with the status in Iraq, to determine future action, leaving Military options open.
John Derbyshire embarrassed himself terribly once - being frustrated with the Bush Administration, claiming Hillary would be tough with the USA’s Enemy, because she is so ruthless with her own political opposition (he wasn’t being sarcastic).
He seemingly forgot that the Clinton Administration followed a Carter Appeasement policy, empowering Arafat, North Korea, etc…
Also missing the reality, that the Clinton Administration failed to address the alarming threats of Radical Muslim Militancy for 8 long years, actually weakening the Defenses of the USA, even after the first attack on the WTC.
In fact, only a week after Mr. Derbyshire offered this misguided conception about Hillary’s so-called hawkish nature in Foreign Policy, Ms. Rodham demanded the Bush Administration re-appease the nutty dictatorship in NK!
So many seem to have fallen for the old Clinton (centrist) Con…
Even after Bill lied repeatedly while running for President about the end of ‘Big Government’ - promising NOT to raise taxation, then gave the USA a massive tax increase and his Wife the keys to Nationalize Health Care.
The Clintons are unethical, dishonest, creepy, corrupt, and as Liberal as they come.
Perhaps the only positive the Obama Nomination has to offer, is that the Liberal Democrats might finally get a Candidate that presents their beliefs in a more straight forward manner.
But then again, this Liberal facade seems contagious, as John McCain is not really a Conservative, or a Centrist either.
The RINO is really another Liberal Senator, pretending to be something he is not.
That is why it is all so regretful.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
HNAV
“The RINO is really another Liberal Senator, pretending to be something he is not. That is why it is all so regretful.”
That is the let down for me at this time. I should be dancing in the face of the dems civil war but even their loss doesn’t help the nation enough. I actually believe that if McCain would commit to a 180 degree turn on illegal immigration, he would be the next president. But I guess he still knows better than us.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
HNAV; ……”because she is so ruthless with her own political opposition ……”
Mostly because her own political opposition doesn’t shoot first, or shoot back. Both of the democrat candidates are unpalatable to half the population. Six months ago, no one would have given the GOP a snowball’s chance in hell of winning in November. Now it seems highly possible if not likely, given the most current turn of events. It is up to us to keep the heat on because the MSM will certainly rally behind one or the other democrat. The headline on this thread suggests Obama has a strategy. He and Hillary have both claimed to be victims of the other. If he can prevail against her, the same strategy will work against McCain. A caller on Bill O’reilly this week said the only way the democrats can win is if there is a victim somewhere. I think they’ve hit on a plan so we cannot let them get away with it.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Why Obama is better than Clinton,
let me count the ways,
1. Cinton is in China’s pocket. Say good by to Tiawan and hello to new China super power thanks to Clinton, Bernie Schwarz and Doral Corporation.
2. Clinton with her labrinth of committees and action groups has a greater capacity to get her socialist agenda enacted than Obama.
3. Bill Clinton will become the most powerful man ever in the history of the world. He will have the total resources and powers of the Presidency at his disposal, but none of the restrictions, protocols or limits placed on the Office.
4. Bill knows how to use and abuse (”stroke of the pen, law of the land”) the Office better than any person on the planet.
…
There are hundreds more but I only have so much time. For my assessment of Obama/.Wright see my site. http://www.oneamericancitizen.com
Furthermore, Obama after Wright will not win in the general election. Rush could not have known Wright was coming. At the time Obama looked like the more formidible candidate. Rush is claiming he gave Hillary over a 100,000 Republican votes in Texas. At the end of the day, if Hillary becomes the POTUS, Rush is going to have take a big chunk of responsibility. Its going to be a damn bitter pill to swallow.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
JohnMG: “He and Hillary have both claimed to be victims of the other. If he can prevail against her, the same strategy will work against McCain. A caller on Bill O’reilly this week said the only way the democrats can win is if there is a victim somewhere. I think they’ve hit on a plan so we cannot let them get away with it.”
Excellent point.
McCain will keep it clean so we’ll all have to pick up the slack. I’m looking forward to it. :)
March 24th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Please, don’t assume I’m falling for any lines about Hillary or that I support her in any way shape or form. I do not believe she is a centrist or a moderate.
However, Obama is THE most liberal Senator period, and that’s just including the times he did more than vote “present”. Naturally, no matter how liberal Hillary is, she’s still further to the Right than The Most Liberal Senator.
Obama wants troops out of Iraq as soon as he can get them out. He talks about being cautious, but he also thinks that instead of fighting in Iraq we should be fighting al-Qaeda, either oblivious to or lying about the fact that al-Qaeda is currently in Iraq.
The man wants to have a heart-to-heart with the worst this world has to offer, from Iran’s President to North Korea’s dictator.
AND his approval rating nationwide is much higher than Hillary’s, making the battle against him (especially considering every attack against him is labeled “racist”) an unnecessary headache. You see how much crap the Clintons (including Bill) have taken over fighting Obama, clearly it will be much worse for McCain.
Even after Wright Obama has a much higher approval rating than Hillary. On the other hand, Hillary’s disapproval rating if the highest of any other candidate in the race.
I’m sorry guys, but this seems like a no-brainer to me. Campaigning against Clinton would be so much of a better experience than campaigning against Obama.