Poll: Obama Holds Five Point Lead, But Loses Ground On Iraq And Terrorism
A new poll just out from Time magazine shows Obama holding a five-point national lead over McCain, but the numbers are far from uniformly good for the Illinois Senator.
The poll finds him besting McCain in the national match-up, 46%-41% (with leaners factored in), which is just within the margin of error of plus or minus three points.
In some good news for Obama, the poll (take note, pundits) suggests that voters would much, much, much rather have a beer with him than with McCain...
Asked which candidate is most likeable, Obama beats McCain 65% to 20%; as for which is the real candidate for change, he leads 61% to 17%. Obama also beats McCain 48% to 35% on who understands voters' concerns best, another key indicator of appeal.
Voters continue to be far more enthusiastic about Obama. And the poll also finds that Obama is holding his own among key groups, tying McCain among men and losing to McCain among white voters by only seven points, far less than George Bush's 17-point victory among whites over John Kerry in 2004.
However, there's also some grim news from Obama: if this poll is to be believed, then Obama's trip abroad didn't do anything to boost voters' confidence in his commander in chief readiness in two key areas -- instead, he's declined in them:
The poll shows that voters have increased their faith in McCain's ability to manage the Iraq war, favoring him over Obama by a margin of 51%-36%, a five point jump since June. And voters boosted their belief that McCain would do a better job in managing the war on terror than they did in June, favoring the Arizona Senator over his colleague from Illinois by a 56%-29% margin, up from 53%-33% in June.
What's ominous about those numbers is that McCain has spent weeks attacking Obama's alleged desire to surrender to terrorists in Iraq and questioning his fitness to be commander in chief.
Separately, the poll also finds that Obama has lost ground on the economy, where he'd held a key advantage, with his lead slipping to four points, 43%-39%.
I guess we can expect some more Surge!!! Surge!!! Surge!!! rhetoric.
August 6, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are the SAME results from last month YET the "writer" taints the results with a negative headline. No matter how much Obama leads by, the media always finds a way to attack Obama.
August 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you actually replying to me, or just trying to get in at the top!
August 6, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
My mistake.....Last month Obama led McCain 47%-43% in the same Time Poll. Obama actually widened his lead YET the writer focus' on the negative.
August 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"HOLDS five point lead" accurately describes a poll result where the gap remains the same as the previous poll. stop whining.
and don't reply to other comments if your post has nothing to do with the comment just because you want your comment to be closer to the top. that kinda shit is just obnoxious.
August 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha! I was kinda right. His newest talking point is an "economic surge".
August 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Roll it:
"The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should" -- John McCain.
August 6, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also:
“I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession,” he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong."
Oops.
August 6, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
These polls provide guideposts for the campaign but they are not anything to take to the bank...either in the affirmative or the negative. People are not really paying attention yet. This cannot be overlooked. They're swaying with the wind. Starting with the conventions and then really with the debates, people will start paying attention. Obama is going to clean McCain's clock in those areas.
The R convention isn't going to impress the way the Dem one will. And McCain has shown that he can't even remember what the question was let alone answer it well. The Dems have the advantage on every issue this cycle and people are going to love what Obama has to say in the debates. Plus they are going to see for themselves exactly how old McCain really is.
I'm not taking anything for granted. I am hosting a fundraiser in a few weeks and plan on helping on the ground but it's hard to see how this doesn't all end up with a big Obama victory in November.
August 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On balance, it seems like these results are still a net positive for Obama. I wrote Time to ask why the headline highlights trouble for Obama, when it would be just as accurate to say, "Trouble signs in McCain's numbers."
August 6, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you expect from Traditional media outlet? Please don't hold your breathe. There is no way Obama is going to best McCain in the question of commander in chief. McCain's status as a soldier is what people are looking at. Beside, the damage done by Hillary Clinton is still in people’s mind.
Bottom line, Obama will win in November.
August 6, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
meh, it's just the start of Aug.
August 6, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, are you being deliberately snarky when you say it's "ominous" that McCain has spent "weeks and weeks" attacking Obama on two issues in order to get a three-to-five percentage point bump on those two issues?
I agree that it's ominous . . . for McCain! I'm going to put this down as a new, snarky way of writing the required "to be sure" graph.
August 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think it's a bit ominous. these numbers suggest the possibility that mccain is winning the argument on iraq. dunno if he has, or will, but it's possible
August 6, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I see your point. But I still think a 3-5% bump seems ominous only in the context of our expectation that -- post Maliki -- Obama ought to be winning the Iraq issue walking away. If we didn't expect Obama to be surging, we wouldn't think a 3-5% bump for McCain in a crosstab was particularly striking.
I think the absence of a post-trip bump is ominous -- not for Obama's chances of election -- but because it forces us to remember that where foreign policy is concerned, the average American voter might as well be a lemur or a tree shrew.
August 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not think McCain is winning the argument. He has just been marginally successful as painting Obama as risky. That riskiness gets translated into the handling of those issues: terrorism/Iraq. Or thats just my theory anyhow since his actual "argument" is really beyond stupid.
August 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you guys obsessed with Iraq? Iraq is not going to be an issue comes November. What Obama need to do in this area to fight McCain to a draw and pound him on the economy. The opinion makers have done a successful job in hiding McCain’s woe from the public.
August 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, McCain is winning the argument on trust. The same people who want out of Iraq now trust McCain to get us out more than they trust Obama to.
August 6, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wha? People -- in general -- may trust McCain more "on Iraq." But I very much doubt that the people who want to get out most passionately are the ones who trust him!
August 6, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just going by questions in the same poll. I assumed it was the same people answering both questions.
August 6, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is a negligible change (basically within the margin of error) ominous for Obama when McCain ought to be able to capitalize on his built-in advantage on military issues?
Honest to God, it seems like the prevailing theme here is "unless Obama is crushing McCain like a grape, things aren't looking good for him."
But dude, have you seen an electoral college map yet, like www.fivethirtyeight.com? Have you seen how many new Democratic voters have been registered? Have you seen how much youth turnout rose just for the freaking primaries?
Polling using traditional voter turnout models and traditional methods (people with cell phones and Caller ID do not get polled) is rapidly losing its usefulness. I thought that was made crystal-clear by the Democratic primaries, where polling was all over the place and rarely matched the end result.
So easy on the doom and gloom--it's just weak.
August 6, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the Bardley/Wilder effect. As seen in exit polling, Barry's numbers are a lot lower. Barry and the don't drill dems will lose and they deserve to. Then we old Dems can rid the Barry Hussein types (here, KOS, ObamaPost), as well as the welfare for all socialists like Barry and take back our Democratic party.
McCain/Clinton 2008.
August 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are not a Democrat.
August 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this moron seriously think Obama is a Communist? Apparently he, like all Republicans, don't seem to have any idea what Communism or Socialism actually mean. I'd say the public school system is to blame, but I went through the same system and I'm not a complete idiot like this guy, so maybe it is a more regional thing...or a district-level failing.
August 6, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Communism = checking tire pressure.
August 6, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is a SOCIALIST! Welfare, social perks, entitlements and taxes for anyone making good money (over $100K) which is 95% of the folks on TPM who happen to be over 40.
I hate Barry and Michelle and all they stand for. I wanted Hillary and now have a McCain bumper sticker partially over my Hill sticker. Barry will lose BIG, he's an empty suit...now if only McCain would shut up for 4 months.
Despite my failure to use spell check, the good nuns and priests taught me. I would never send any of my children to Public schools. They suck.
August 6, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got the "marginal" part right, anyway.
August 6, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Socialist. You mean like corporate handouts/bailouts?
August 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton supports ALL of the policies you call "socialist". And McCain, I'm not sure he knows what day of the week it is unless it is written down on one of those handy little note cards.
August 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haha, and you prove my point for me. Gracias!
Oh yeah, and I love your baseless electoral predictions, I'll be thinking of you when Obama wins ;)
Idiot.
August 6, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Santa Claus has a red suit,
He's a Communist...
Has a beard and long hair,
Must be a pacifist...
What's in the pipe that he's smoking???
When I look back on all the crap I learned in high school,
It's a wonder I can think at all....
August 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. I'd say he's either a satirist or a Dixiecrat. I'd lean toward the former, but will defer to others here longer with more knowledge of the context.
August 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's a talented troll who likes to fart in the echo chamber. The echo chamber is getting pretty sophiticated, though. No one went for the Hillary Clinton bait. I'm impressed.
August 6, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who said he was talented?
August 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awww, looky....a widdle twoll!
August 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would think that the group Obama has to convince that he is better on foreign policy are media pundits. They repeat ad nauseum that it's his weakness. They never explore that he's MUCH more conversant on foreign policy issues than John McSurge. Recall that the big take away from the Maliki endorsement was "Why won't Obama admit the Surge worked?"
How the Obama Campaign goes about disabuse the media of this presumption will be the key to him reversing those numbers. So far, the traditional media seems to still have their heads up their collective arses.
August 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the correlation is a bit worrying, but the causality isn't clear.
Who knows? If it hadn't been for that trip, BigO's CinC numbers might be worse.
August 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the whole, I think it's fair to say that Obama's trip hasn't helped him much yet in the polls.
It was a *stunning* week for anyone who was actually paying attention to foreign policy. McCain and Bush actually ended up following Obama's lead.
So far, most voters don't seem to be paying attention to foreign policy.
I don't think we should regret the trip, though. In combination with McCain's Paris Hilton ad, the trip has done something to position Obama as the candidate of "substance." Obama also racked up a lot of points that week with people like David Broder and Joe Klein. Maybe that will end up helping him. Maybe it will help him in the debates.
August 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
While the Obama overseas trip may not have helped directly in the polls, it takes away a theme that the corporate media wanted to hang him with: "is Obama ready to be commander-in-chief on the world stage?"
Notice how you aren't hearing that specific charge being echoed in the corporate media anymore.
The McDouche campaign is trying to work in "is he ready to lead," but their message is being sidetracked by their ridiculous Paris/Britney celebrity assertions.
August 6, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two things:
1) It is a single poll, you can't make all of these claims definitively based on a single poll.
2) If these results are accurate, it is obviously because the media is filtering out all of the facts, both on foreign policy and energy policy, so that while Obama is clearly winning both of these, the voters aren't getting the real picture because the media is carrying McCain's water for him, between covering up his non-stop gaffes and flip-flops, and pushing his talking points in attacking Obama.
August 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've said it for awhile now, Obama needs to pick a running mate with National Security credentials. However with attacking McCain for being part of the problem for 26 years, he very well cant choose Biden. Maybe he really should give Wesley Clark a real look. Too bad Clark challenged McCain's credibility to attach being a POW to commanding troops and the Dems - wait for it - threw him under the bus.
Even if there was a hit to take, they should have taken it to allow Clark to continue being a surrogate who could push the "Obama was right" message.
August 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you been saying that, Jonce? Gee I missed all those boring posts. . .
August 6, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Have you been saying that, Jonce? Gee I missed all those boring posts. . ."
Thats funny, because when it comes to both boring and intellectually dishonest posts - your sorry ass has the market cornered. Simpleton.
August 6, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Veep, schmeep.
Not being snarky here; I'm just convinced McSame is toast. BigO's veep pick won't affect that one way or the other.
That opinion (delusion?) gives me the luxury of rooting (and advocating) for a veep based on who I think would be a good President if it came to that. Who would be better for our country? I mean, what a concept, right?
(Oh, and who would be a good presidential candidate in 2016 gets some secondary consideration.)
That said, Wes Clark is on my list. And Chris Dodd. Russ Feingold, too. Edwards, maybe, if the paternity dust-up turns out to be without merit.
Bill Richardson? I had a higher impression of him until he stepped into the prez race. Some of the things he said really made me cringe.
Joe Biden? Two words: Clarence Thomas.
Hillary, Kaine, Webb, Bayh, Nunn, Hagel? Bzzzt! Next!
Guess I'm just indulging my self-indulgence.
August 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jzap:
Have to agree with you, Wes Clark most qualified by a mile. And he really gets under the skin of Traitor Joe Lieberman and Grumpy McSame. Does anyone give this poll credence? Obama still way ahead...
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new poll finds Barack Obama is leading John McCain nationally by 6 percentage points thanks to big leads he is enjoying among women, minorities and younger voters.
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll shows that Obama is leading his Republican rival 47 percent to 41 percent. McCain has a 10-point lead among whites and is tied with the Democrat among men, but Obama is leading by 13 points among women and has huge leads with minorities and the young.
August 6, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully disagree. Obama is fine on foreign policy and if he makes a selection based on addressing a perceived weakness, it only heightens the weakness.
Frankly, I think things will change when they hit foreign policy in the debates. McCain is not as strong on foreign policy as the media is leading people to believe.
August 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, he is doing awesome on foreign policy, the media love affair with McCain is the only thing holding Obama's numbers back. If a REAL discussion of foreign policy could get through the media filter it would be a no-brainer, same with energy policy and everything else. The facts are in our favor, everything is in our favor, the media is just balancing it out for McCain for one of two reasons (or maybe both):
A) They want to keep is a close ratrace so they can get better ratings for their shitty pundit shows, and/or
B) They simply want McCain to win, because they are corporate controlled, just like Johnny.
August 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only one debate will focus on foreign policy and it will be moderated by McCain's buddy and is the last debate of the bunch.
It could highlight his weakness, or it could be seen as shoring it up. People will vote security over economy.
August 6, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
...in 2004, absolutely. But, 2008? I'm not so sure. The economy sucks, hard!
August 6, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jonze, I actually backed Clark when he tried for the nomination in 2004. His problem is he comes from the Clinton camp, where they believe being CIC is about experience. Therefore, he makes the argument that McCain hasn't had more experience relevant to CIC than Obama. However, Obama beat Clinton on the CIC issue, because the electorate decided character is more important than experience. Same reason McCain now beat Obama on that issue. Clark would bring nothing to the table to make Obama appear more trustworthy.
August 6, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are your thoughts on VP, Publicola Hussein? I'd be interested in your thoughts.....
August 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
er, what's your pick, that is...
August 6, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before this National Enquirer bs, I was a big fan of John Edwards. He and Barack have good personal chemistry, Edwards doesn't overshadowing Obama and he can play a mean bulldog.
At this point, I'm leaving it up to the Obama Campaign to make a selection that they are comfortable with, notwithstanding the second-guessing and concern-trolling (and that's just in the media) that will likely ensue. If I was pushed, I'd go with Kathleen Sebelius, but I'm not voting for Obama based on his VP selection.
August 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, can we get an edit function for Christmas?
August 6, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I like Sebelius quite a bit as well.
August 6, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear this off shore drilling nonsense is killing us on the economy question. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people. Good news is Gas prices have been falling, so this issue should fade a bit.
August 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess these headlines will only stop if Obama (a) wins in November or (b) has a lead in every possible demographic and on every possible issue. Or will they even stop then?
August 6, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, then we'll move on to "How can Obama govern effectively if he lost elderly, white, female retired grocery clerks from Yakima by 2%?"
August 6, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain might also be getting a bump from his "Obama will raise taxes" meme. A typical low-info voter doesn't ask for any explanation, so concepts like Capital Gains Tax or Windfall Profits Tax don't register. Their reaction is, "Uh gee, I don't want the government taking any more of MY money."
August 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
msm just like the numbers where mccain is beating obama so they can talk about why obama can't close the deal...............
August 6, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also favoring McCain doesn't mean Obama has closed that gap in your mind. I mean depending on how the poll question is posed "Who do you trust more..." you could still trust McCain more, but your opinion of Obama on the issue has risen. Say out of Ten it was a three before and McCain was a seven, McCain could remain a seven, but Obama could have bumped up to a five.
If it was worded "From 1-10, (one being the lowest and 10 being the highest) rate your comfort level with McCain and National Security" and "From 1-10 rate your comfort level with Obama on National Security" I think a lot more could have been read.
August 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what about Obama's ability to manage the Iraq war? Hasn't Time heard the war is over and we won it, statues down? It's the occupation we can't win. That seems obvious. The pollsters ask the wrong question.
And isn't it up to the fricking generals on the ground to decide and manage and build fences to divide Sunni and Shia? That's what Bush Jr. keeps saying, that it's Petraeus's call.
August 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fences equal ghettos. That's a no no. War continues to be too important to leave to generals.
August 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the article, McCain is getting the support of 20% of voters who disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Most pollsters believe that McCain will need closer to 30% of "Bush disapprovers" to beat Obama in November.
Afters months of Bush lite, McSame, Bush III, 20% of Bush disapprovers are still willing to vote for McCain.
All McCain has to do is 'win over' another 10% of disapprovers.
Will more McBush analogies keep McCain from this threshold? Or has the Bush=McCain thing run its course.
August 6, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iraq amasses $79 billion in oil profits while U.S. pays for rebuilding.
The soaring price of oil will leave the Iraqi government with a cumulative budget surplus of as much as $79 billion by year's end, according to an analysis by the U.S. Government Accountability Office released Tuesday.
The unspent windfall, which covers surpluses from oil sales from 2005 through 2008, appears likely to put an uncomfortable new focus on the approximately $48 billion in U.S. taxpayer money devoted to rebuilding Iraq since the American-led invasion.
http://www.startribune.com/world/26319969.html?elr=KArksD:aDyaEP:kD:aUnc5PDiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Why? Why are we still over there? Clearly, the Iraqi government is ready to take over control. In about $79 billion ways.
August 6, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
vamonticello is clearly riding on your coattails.... hint: reply to yourself, works wonders for me. :)
August 6, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
for Supa. What the hell? Sometimes you have to manually click the reply to, sometimes the system does it for you. Makes no sense.
I too would like an edit and reply system for Christmas!
August 6, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely this puts the newly forged Obama-Maliki partnership in a very bad light. Why does BigO hate America?
Seriously (well, almost), howz 'bout we borrow a bit more from the Iraquis and less from the Chinese? Can't Petraeus twist their arms to buy some long-term Treasury Bonds? After all, they are tax-free!
August 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the voters want somebody to "manage" the Iraq war. They want somebody who's going to end it.
August 6, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head. The pollster are just asking the wrong question
August 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, if you follow these polls everyday they will make you crazy! He's up, he's down, he's up, he's down. It's like a Bugs Bunny boxing match!
August 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You shouldn't talk about your children that way. But I do appreciate your concern for protecting the other students from them!
August 6, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Musoscribe - 1
Troll - Nothing
August 6, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg,
You need to do a little brushing up on polls and margin of error.
Your comment:
The poll finds him besting McCain in the national match-up, 46%-41% (with leaners factored in), which is just within the margin of error of plus or minus three points.
Is wrong. An Obama 5 point lead in a poll with a MOE of 3 points means that there is a 96% probability that Obama is genuinely ahead (i.e., that his lead in the poll isn't just due to sampling error). Technically, it can be Obama 43 (46-3)/Mccain 44 (41 + 3), but the odds are very very low.
In fact a 1 point lead in a 3 MOE poll is stil considered to be a 63% probability that the one with the lead is really in the lead.
Check http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004536.php from 2004 election which has great info on this. He has a great table on how to get the percentages.
August 6, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Touche
August 6, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The posing of the questions is very important. Even if the public thinks McCain would do a better job at managing the war (who the fuck knows why), they may prefer Obama so far as handling the Iraq situation, i.e. they trust Obama as the strategist and McCain as the tactician.
Otherwise, it simply boggles the mind how anyone could think McCain were the better choice.
Either way, Obama must start really hammering on the strategy vs. tactics distinction. How McCain is waiting for the generals to give him orders whereas Obama understands that the President's role is to order the generals.
August 6, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, So how many of you are going to vote for Obama?
August 6, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has pulled the wool over our eyes. Some of us can see this, but millions can't. he'll bring more of the same you can believe in. Unfortunately, we have in this lousy system only 2 choices and they both suck. Here, in Sweden we have at least 6 political parties. Of course that's a bit much for America, that calls its two party system, of which, both are in the pockets of corporate America, Democratic.
Average Americans really don't have any say in the so-called process. They are inmates of a corporate gulag. Just take a look at the "heath care" system, if you don't believe me.
August 7, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink