CE Week #5: “Obama’s Support Grows Broader, New Poll Finds”
February 26, 2008
By ROBIN TONER and DALIA SUSSMAN
WASHINGTON — In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to beat Senator John McCain in the general election, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
After 40 Democratic primaries and caucuses, capped by a winning streak in 11 contests over the last two weeks, Mr. Obama has made substantial gains across most major demographic groups in the Democratic Party, including men and women, liberals and moderates, higher and lower income voters, and those with and without college degrees.
But there are signs of vulnerability for Mr. Obama, of Illinois, in this national poll: While he has a strong edge among Democratic voters on his ability to unite and inspire the country, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is still viewed by more Democrats as prepared for the job of president. And while he has made progress among women, he still faces a striking gender gap: Mr. Obama is backed by two-thirds of the Democratic men and 45 percent of the women, who are equally divided in their support between the two candidates. White women remain a Clinton stronghold.
When all voters are asked to look ahead to the general election, Mr. McCain is more likely to be seen as prepared for the presidency, able to handle an international crisis and equipped to serve as commander in chief than either of the Democratic candidates.
Even so, the poll provides a snapshot of Mr. Obama’s strength after this first, frenzied round of primaries and caucuses, which knocked seven of the nine Democratic candidates out of the race. For the first time in a Times/CBS poll, he moved ahead of Mrs. Clinton nationally, with 54 percent of Democratic primary voters saying they wanted to see him nominated, while 38 percent preferred Mrs. Clinton. A USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday showed a similar result, 51 percent for Mr. Obama to 39 percent for Mrs. Clinton.
These national polls are not predictive of the Democratic candidates’ standings in individual states, notably Ohio and Texas, which hold the next primaries, on March 4. Most recent polls there show a neck-and-neck race in Texas and Mrs. Clinton with a lead in Ohio; her campaign advisers say that if she prevails next Tuesday the race will begin anew.
Mark Penn, the chief strategist for the Clinton campaign, said the polls “reflect momentum from Senator Obama’s recent wins,” and “will snap back if we are successful in Ohio and Texas.” He added that other national polls showed a far closer race. Bill Burton, spokesman for the Obama campaign, said, “As we’ve made our case for change across the country, people have responded.”
The Times/CBS poll shows that Mr. Obama’s coalition — originally derided by critics as confined to upper-income reformers, young people and blacks — has broadened significantly. In December, for example, he had the support of 26 percent of the male Democratic primary voters; in the latest poll, that had climbed to 67 percent.
“He’s from Illinois, and I’m from Illinois, and he reminds me of Abraham Lincoln,” said Dylan Jones, 53, a laborer from Oxford, N.C., who was interviewed in a follow-up to the poll. “I can see him out there splitting rails. I don’t have anything against Hillary Clinton, so I guess it’s because he’s new blood.”
Similarly, Mr. Obama’s support among those with household incomes under $50,000 rose to 48 percent from 35 percent since December. His support among moderates rose to 59 percent from 28 percent. In contrast, Mrs. Clinton’s strength among Democratic men dropped to 28 percent from 42 percent in December; her support among voters in households making under $50,000 held stable.
Even among women, Mr. Obama made strides. He had the support of 19 percent of white women in December and 40 percent in the most recent poll. White women, however, remain Mrs. Clinton’s most loyal base of support — 51 percent backed the senator from New York, statistically unchanged from the 48 percent who backed her in December.
“I like them both,” said Ann Powers, 64, a coordinator for special education programs in Fort Dodge, Iowa. “I just think he is too inexperienced and she’s dealt with more in the last 20 years.” The national telephone poll of 1,115 registered voters was conducted Feb. 20-24. It included 427 Democratic primary voters and 327 Republican primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all voters, plus or minus five percentage points for Democratic voters and plus or minus five percentage points for Republican voters.
The poll showed Republicans settling in with their likely nominee. Eight in 10 said they would be satisfied if Mr. McCain won their party’s nomination, although just 3 in 10 said they would be very satisfied. Nearly 9 in 10 said he was prepared for the presidency, and more than 8 in 10 said they had confidence in his ability to deal with an international crisis, while a remarkable 96 percent said he would likely make an effective commander in chief.
But misgivings remain among those who describe themselves as conservative Republicans, with a majority saying his positions on the issues are not conservative enough.
On the Democratic side, primary voters indicated they saw few substantive differences between their candidates on issues like the war in Iraq and health care. Most have confidence in both candidates to handle the economy, the war in Iraq and an international crisis. And large numbers think it is likely that either candidate would make an effective commander in chief.
Mr. Obama’s advantages are more apparent on other measures. Nearly 6 in 10 said he had the best chance of beating Mr. McCain, double the numbers that believed Mrs. Clinton was more electable. He is also viewed by more Democratic voters as someone who can bring about “real change” and is willing to compromise with Republicans “the right amount” to get things done.
Democratic voters are also more likely to say Mr. Obama cares a lot about them, inspires them and can unite the country. Sixty-three percent of Democratic voters said he cared a lot about them, while fewer than half thought Mrs. Clinton did. Nearly seven in 10 said he inspired them about the future of the country; 54 percent said Mrs. Clinton did. Three-quarters said he would be able to unite the country as president; 53 percent said Mrs. Clinton would.
Mrs. Clinton also has her strengths: Her supporters are, in general, more committed; nearly 8 in 10 of Mrs. Clinton’s backers said they strongly favored her, while 6 in 10 of Mr. Obama’s supporters strongly favored him. Only 18 percent of her supporters backed her with reservations; about a third of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they had reservations about their candidate.
Democratic women are also more likely to say that the news media have been harder on Mrs. Clinton than on other candidates: 56 percent felt that way, compared with 39 percent of Democratic men. Both men and women were more likely to think the news media has been harder on Mrs. Clinton than on Mr. Obama.
Not surprisingly, Democratic primary voters had an opinion on the appropriate role of the 795 superdelegates who could determine the party’s nominee. More than half said that these party leaders should vote for the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries and caucuses.
Marjorie Connelly, Megan Thee and Marina Stefan contributed reporting.
Wow. An entire article filled with nothing but statistics. Nothing else. What these numbers show is that there is a gender gap. As we have talked about in class, with Bill Clinton, he was far more popular among the women voters than the men voters. This substantial support from the women helped ensure his victory. The statistics say show that 56 percent of women felt that the media has been harder on Hillary Clinton than other candidates, while only 39 percent of men said the same thing. This shows that the women feel much more sympathetic to her than the men do. This will and already has been proven in the primaries and caucuses. Women have created the Hillary Clinton stronghold that is barely keeping her in this race. As for her funding, she is running out of support. With most of her support coming from big sources which have mostly maxed out their $2,300 they are allowed to donate, she needs to find new supporters, and that is tough to do this late in the game. Obama has played it very smart. He has got way more supporters than Hillary, but most of them have donated small amounts, so he has managed to raise lots of money, because he has so many supporters, and he can go back to them for more money, because they haven’t donated the maximum amount, $2,300. Obama really has nothing to worry about right now, except if he slips up, or his wife slips up and has another unpatriotic moment. Unless that happens, I’m pretty sure that he has the nomination wrapped up.
I don’t know why I keep reading these polling articles when I just keep getting frustrated. Obama’s demographic make-up is skyrocketing. Male support is growing; female support is growing; socioeconomic range appeal is growing. It seems he cannot be stopped. He has the three M’s, people are infatuated by him, and he is having a Kennedy effect as he has been able to unite the nation for change. Change for what? What kind of change is it that people are rallying around? When Obama says “change” it is very versatile as the people can take it as whatever they choose. For some it can mean lower taxes, for others it can mean ending the war, for others it can mean a mending social security system. Change is like a ‘one size fits all’ answer applicable to all citizens as we can all find something in our lives we wish to change. Obama cannot promise change. We’ve learned that Congress holds the means to change more than anyone. My own stances aside, regardless of all the polls and the statistics, I don’t think America will elect an African-American. I think the John McCain will be the next president, assuming he wins the nomination and avoids these recent accusations. McCain will win because he is the old, white male that is American politics. All these statistics are merely irrelevant hype for an event that cannot be predicted.
Wow! After reading this article, I think it is safe to say that the current nomination at stake is probably one of the closest in history. As it looks on the democratic side, Obama has his three M’s right now: money, media, and momentum. He has taken the last 11 states against Hillary and not by little amounts. Obama has been taking these states with enough force or surprise that the super delegates once supports Clinton in her efforts, have moved Obama’s way and looks to keep changing in his favor. As put down right now, the Lone Star State is a dead heat tie, and these are just the media and political guru’s statistics. With my guess, I think the exit polls next Tuesday will lean Obama’s way, especially with him coming up on her with all his current momentum. As said by many, money is the mother’s milk of politics, and Obama has a lot of it right now. Even if Obama blows through the money he has stored up right now, the donations he was receiving earlier this month and all February and January were small. So, he can, and most definitely will return to those donors for just a little bit more, and more later, and more. Obama, even as inexperienced as everybody says he is, is playing his game perfectly, not slipping up once so far, or least not enough to ruin what he’s got going right now. I guess we will have to wait out this next week to see how Clinton lets the wins or potential losses affect her running for President. Only time will tell.
A response to Xander and Callie.
First I’d like to agree that these poll articles become boring and mundane after a while, however, in this particular instance the polls between Obama and Clinton are going to change the course of history so I think it’s good we’re paying attention to them. The gains being made by Obama are almost unprecedented this late in an election from a seemingly small candidate. Obviously people in the past have made come backs in elections but this is insane. As the polls have showed within the article Obama is edging on Clinton’s turf across the board. Her base of white women is still strong but otherwise it’s shrinking and what the article skipped was that those white women are mainly over 50. I’m currently watching “Meet the Press” (today Mary Matalin & James Carvel are on, yay) and it opened with polls of projected votes in Ohio for Clinton and Obama. Obama was leading by a LANDSLIDE in the black and male votes (male votes Clinton used to have) and Clinton was leading in the white women over 50. What the article missed is that Obama is leading in all sexes under 50. The young vote is coming out for Obama and his three “M’s”. Tim Russert was discussing the fact that the projected polls for Ohio were based on the numbers for the last elections but the problem with that is by this date in 2004 John Kerry was the presumptive nominee and no one cared to come out to vote for him since the party nomination as already sewn up: unaccounted for votes could give Obama a huge win in both Ohio and Texas and that is why these silly little polls are so important.
Response:
While this article was mainly a big list of nothing but statistics, I think that these are what the American people need to look at. Once McCain, gets past all the accusations, I am sure he will be the Republican candidate. But on the Democratic side, it is too close to call. Obama’s money, media, and momentum, his 3 M’s, are indeed working well for him at this time, but Clinton’s support base is certainly strong. While I don’t think that she will win the nomination, I do think that it will be ridiculously close. And then comes the election itself. I am going to have to disagree with Callie, because I think that McCain will not win the Presidency, least of all by a long shot. Yes, he is “the old, white male,” but I am not so sure he “is American politics.” Half of his own party does not support him even when he is the only one left for them to support, and the democrats have a strong following, no matter which person gets the candidacy. Of course it is ridiculous to assume anything yet, but once the candidates have been decided, it will be a close race and photo finish.
~Liz
In response to Zander, what does money have to do with anything? The article did talk about how each candidate was raising more support, but money really doesn’t have anything to do with it. I can see how having a loyal constituency can get you more money but that wasn’t what the articles substance was about. You could have touched more on the differences between Barack and Hilary’s constituents. For example, you could have expanded more on the fact that Barack has snatched up every democratic constituent group and the only one left for Hilary is the women’s vote, but Barack is steadily gaining on that group too.
Anyways, enough bashing on Zander. I felt an interesting point that was brought up in the article was the match up between the two candidates. Barack has a commanding lead of the majority of democratic constituents ranging from incomes lower than $50,000 to moderates to white males. I feel, like Zander, that Barack basically has the nomination sealed up. The second point of the article I found interesting was how the authors compared the two democratic candidates to John McCain and his experience. I think all the country is in agreement that McCain, out of all the candidates, will make the best commander and chief. Also, against the democratic candidates, McCain’s age plays to his advantage. He has the ability to play the “experience card” because he has been a Senator a lot longer than Barack or Hilary, and he is higher up the seniority ladder than either candidate. The only thing that comes close is Hilary’s white house experience, but I think that being a prisoner of war in Vietnam, kind of trumps that.
In response to Zander:
Though I agree with you in reference to this article being stuffed full of statistics, I don’t agree with you on the fact that it is full of “nothing else”. To me, even though the statistics do get really mundane, as Emily said, they are also presenting a baffling change within the past month in reference to Obama supporters. Again, as Emily stated, these polls are going to change history; they may even be included in history books one day. Whoever wins is going to have quite a history of election behind them. All these statistics tell me that change of heart is something that can happen quite suddenly, and just the littlest thing can do that.
Behind the statistics is a plethora of information…just depends on how you look at it, it seems.
Reply to Emily….
Reply to Emily….
First of all, I honestly don’t think that you thought the polls were all that important and were totally just saying that so that you could have a connection to tie your “Meet the Press” and Tim Russert name dropping in. Going on the assumption that you did however mean that you thought the millionth poll article we read about the Democratic debate is somehow important even though they are no more than educated guesses, its funny how they all turned out to be wrong, isn’t it? They are just polls, they mean nothing. I honestly believe that they are a complete joke and waste of time. So what if they are true? Cool, I’m really glad that the campaigns spent how much money polling to find out they might lose before they actually lost. And if they are wrong? Wow, another utter waste of money and resources that could have been used to actually promote their campaign. Just a thought, but how about actually worrying about what they believe, their platforms, and how they intend on implementing said policies. Rather then, say worrying about, what percentage of Caucasian men under 40 could turn out for them or about how many struggling socioeconomic black females will turn out… So Emily, without having to exaggerate, I completely disagree with your statement that these polls are more or less important than the other 100 polls we’ve read about in the course of 20 weeks.
My Comments are in response to Callie’s response to Emily. So I am going to defend Emily (since no one has really responded to any of my articles). I think that her connection and post was very responsive to what the article was saying. If we weren’t given these statistics I don’t think that we would have found out where each candidate stood on the issues. Although the article was a little dull, there isn’t really any possible way you could have made statistics any more exciting. Emily is right, this election is so crucial and these statistics couldn’t have come out at any better time. Hillary’s only constituency base is women over 50. Barack is taking over. The polls may seem pointless to the common non-political people when in fact they are everything. Everything in the campaign and in candidate’s world revolves around polls without them they wouldn’t know what the majority of the public wants and if they are to be of the people for the people, they must know about the people and the only way to do that is by polling. They feel that taking polls is the only way that they can prepare. Polls are what a campaign is run off of and if candidates don’t use them to their advantage, there are no way candidates can have any idea as to what their constituents or America really thinks about them or the issues. If the political world didn’t have polls the candidates would have to go off what they alone believe and not what the majority believes. There is no way that they could be so informed otherwise because elections are so unpredictable, polls are they only way they stay somewhat sane and can at least give the appearance of giving the constituency what they want..