USA Today/Gallup Poll: Obama Damaged by Wright Flap

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll published today shows that “Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama‘s standing has been significantly damaged by the controversy over his former pastor,” and the issue raises “questions for some voters about the Illinois senator’s values, credibility and electability.”

The erosion of support among Democrats and independents raises the stakes in Tuesday’s Indiana and North Carolina primaries, which represent a chance for Obama to reassert his claim to a Democratic nomination that seems nearly in his grasp. A defeat in Indiana and a close finish in North Carolina, where he’s favored, could fuel unease about his ability to win in November. Such results also could help propel Hillary Rodham Clinton’s uphill campaign all the way to the Democratic convention in August.

Although we’ve been seeing similar findings in other polls over the past few days, as polls go, one poll does often contradicts another:

The poll showed Hillary Clinton leading Obama 51 percent to 44 percent nationally among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independent voters, in contrast to a CBS News/New York Times survey released on Sunday that had Obama leading Clinton by 12 points.

Tomorrow voters head to the voting booths in North Carolina and Indiana. It is likely that the Wright controversy also “could be a hurdle if Obama wins the nomination and then tries to draw support from independent and GOP voters in November.”

It will be a continuing problem,” predicts Joe Trippi, a strategist for John Edwards’ presidential bid who isn’t affiliated with one of the current campaigns. “This won’t be the last time it’s raised.”

I don’t think it matters how many times Obama tries to change the subject on this one. The right wing has found their issue that they will hammer all the way through November.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to USA Today/Gallup Poll: Obama Damaged by Wright Flap

  1. Gilbert Martinez says:

    Of course we all know Demcrats are not averse to nominating sure losers. Keep in mind this is despite the fact that nearly 8 or 9 in 10 stories on Obama are positive.

  2. Janis says:

    It’s a cancer that has infected a lot of liberal causes since 1980 — they really are in love with losing. It reminds me of a quote from Naomi Wolf’s book “Fire With Fire” where she talks about what was wrong with the dysfunctional women’s center she worked with for a while.

    She remarked in the book that when they won (as they rarely did) a legal battle, they got together and moped about how it didn’t matter, and when they lost one, they had big get-togethers with kleenexes and pizzas and crying. The comparison she used was that, if they had been a culture, an anthropologist would have said they had an excess of grieving rituals and no celebratory ones. All of liberalism is no different, and it’s repugnant. It’s selfish and wasteful.

    That wasn’t the case with the New Deal. What the fuck happened? Liberalism has literally fallen in love with losing — find the worst possible candidate, the one that will give you the best crying jag you’ve ever had on election night, better even than last time, and nominate him. Then, order the pizzas and preemptively send out the invites for your friends to come over and mope.

    They like losing. It makes them pure.

    Well, the latte side likes losing, because it’s just an emotional whinefest to them. To the lunchbuckets, it’s economic catastrophe and they aren’t as crazy about picking the born loser.

    Just based on the past history of the Dems picking the Sad Sack who couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag, the guy with ideological boogers hanging off his nose and the personality of lukewarm vanilla ice cream, I can predict it’ll be Obama. Even in Clinton wins brilliantly in IN and either takes NC or shaves it paper-thin. Just because Democrats are fatally attracted to complete losers. “We HAVE to pick him,” the superdels are telling themselves, “he doesn’t stand a chance.”

  3. Janis says:

    Found an interesting article somewhere on the blogosphere (text browser, can’t find again easily) that talks about “electability” and what it means.

    The Reagan/Bush I comparison is one that had occurred to me early on, before the Ghost of McGovern stuck his ugly head in. Two-term economic and military disaster of a president who handed things off to his sidekick just fine because of a vicious press and a bunch of too-good-to-fight Dems for wghom it was more important to lose with ideological purity than to win with the tiniest blot on your cheek.

    And much as I like this article, that’s the major thing that angered the shit out of me about Dukakis that year. It wasn’t useless personality nonsense that offended me. It was the fact that he never once fought back against it.

    And that the Dems, knowing what was to come, refused to engage. They knew what was happening, and they made the active choice not to fight back.

    Now, they know what is to come, and they are going out of their way to choose someone who can be brought down with nonsense because they think it better to refuse to play the game and remain ideological pure and lose than to actually fight for the people they claim to represent — unions, old people, gay people, women, etc.

    And the only reason black people aren’t included in there is because, since the hated populist this time is a woman, they had to find a black politician to bash her with or else they would have overplayed their hand as not-at-all-liberals. But they are content to have Obama lose, even know he’s going to — so their supposed commitment to the black community is also nonexistent.

  4. jan, nc says:

    Nevermind Wright. More info on another good friend for Obama.

  5. Geez, when did AIDS hit? Well whenever, it took me about a year to figure out where it came from, and I was not an amateur. My undergrad is in biology, and I’ve worked in the field in the past.

    There was tons of evidence at the time that it was set loose by our government as a weapon against gays and that drug users (read “blacks”) ended up just being collateral damage. In all of the study I’ve done since then I’ve never seen a persuasive argument against this theory.

  6. Janis says:

    I doubt it was set loose as a weapon against gays deliberately; like most sexually transmitted diseases, it can run rampant in populations that don’t use barrier methods. That’s about it — and gay men could avoid them. Hell, ANYONE in their right mind would avoid birth control if they thought they didn’t need it. Condoms suck.

    It probably impinged on several populations; it’s just that the gay male population was the first one where it could really spread like wildfire. I make no moral judgments at all; this is simply a virus and it will infect any human with which it comes in contact. (And with any contagious disease, it will also spread preferentially in poorer populations.)

    However, once the thing started spreading there, you can bet your ass the gov’t figured as long as it’s killing the right people, might as well let it keep going. They didn’t make the weapon, but they didn’t exactly rush to pitch in when it became clear that it was taking out the untermenschen. 😛

  7. Janis says:

    That was supposed to be a puke smiley, and not that damned perky tongue-sticky-out one. Raugh.