Obama Leading . . . Good News for McCain!

The LA Times asks "Where did Barack Obama's mojo go?":

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll out Wednesday shows that despite nine solid days of blanket media coverage from overseas with Barack Obama cheered by adoring throngs of Germans and parlez-vousing with the French, making a three-point shot in the Middle East and standing outside No. 10 Downing Street, the freshman Illinois Democratic presidential nominee to be Senator Barack Obama of Illinois stayed static in the polls despite his well-covered long foreign tripsenator is stuck right where he was in the polls before he left.

How bad are things for Obama? Pretty bad: "He still leads Republican Sen. John McCain 51-44. But it's the same 51-44 as last time." Do you think that if Obama wins, then the day after the election all the headlines will be about how he hasn't yet really pulled away from McCain? Shouldn't the whole "our nominee is consistently behind in the polls" thing be worrying Republicans?

Comments

Actually, I think the day after the election, if Obama wins, the media will suddenly realize/care that we have a massive budget deficit, two wars, gas prices through the roof, and an expansion of the executive branch's powers never contemplated by the Founders, and will preemptively declare President-elect Obama's administration a failure unless all those issues can be fixed within 10 months.

Posted by south side | July 31, 2008 10:22 AM

To be fair, overall the polling on this race is really, really boring--I'd be flailing around too if my job was to write about this stuff.

Posted by DTM | July 31, 2008 10:22 AM

The bar moves quickly for Obama. Higher and higher.

Posted by TDE | July 31, 2008 10:28 AM

It's worse than that - Obama was leading by 5 in this poll a month ago. So he's lost his mojo by increasing his lead?

Posted by Gabriel | July 31, 2008 10:29 AM

Southside: yup.

The media will also buy into the inevitable Republican spin that thos Democrats have been "running things since 2006" and have brought us a financial crisis, a budget deficit, and high gas prices.

Posted by David | July 31, 2008 10:30 AM

To be fair, I do see some reasons for worry - McCain is starting to consolidate his base.

His ads are ridiculous, but I think his strategy is quite brilliant, take a look:

http://strategy08.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/why-mccains-ad-strategy-is-brilliant-and-im-serious/

Posted by Dan | July 31, 2008 10:30 AM

What in the hell does making a 3-point shot supposed to do for one's campaign? Does it lock up the point guard vote? What if he missed it? I'm guessing that would have ended his campaign. After all, how can one defeat terrorists if he cannot defeat the box-and-1?

I cannot believe the media are evaluating the merits of leadership of the most powerful country on the planet by their ability to hit a trey.

Posted by Doofus | July 31, 2008 10:34 AM

DTM: Well, I don't feel too sorry for them. They are only flailing around because they are avoiding the obvious story: McCain's campaign sucks, he lies about things he said the day before, and, oh, yeah, the Bush administration has royally effed things up and people are starting to notice and blame the Republicans.

Posted by David | July 31, 2008 10:34 AM

It's a google!

Posted by cha cha cha | July 31, 2008 10:35 AM

For those who weren't around to watch back then, the coverage of Clinton in '92 wasn't dissimilar. When Bill officially clinched the nomination by winning CA's primary in June, all the headlines were about how polls were showing voters were very uncomfortable with him. I said at the time that, when Clinton was elected, the headline would be "Clinton Sweeps to Victory -- But Polls Show Voters Prefer Someone Else".

Oddly enough, GWBUsh's thumping margins of -.5% and +2.4% were never subjected to such qualification.

Posted by demtom | July 31, 2008 10:35 AM

Maybe we can expect this headline:

Obama's Poor Showing - Won by a Landslide, But Republican Party Still Exists

Posted by LFC | July 31, 2008 10:39 AM

Nate Silver has a good rebuttal to the Times article here.

Posted by John B. | July 31, 2008 10:40 AM

southside: 10 months? You give them too much slack. The media will declare an Obama administration a failure if they dont fix all that , "save" Social Security and eliminate the deficit in the first 100 days - they won't give him 10 months.

Posted by OCD | July 31, 2008 10:42 AM

Dan, this is not the time for McCain to be consolidating his base. He should have done that months ago. He may be doing a little better among Republicans but he's losing Independents.

Posted by Jose Padilla | July 31, 2008 10:42 AM

It's good news for McCain because dontcha know, everyone loves an underdog!

Posted by pixie | July 31, 2008 10:45 AM

The media reports are making the unspoken assumption that it's hard to understand why anyone wants to vote for a Republican. I agree, but-- is this really good news for McCain?

Posted by MattF | July 31, 2008 10:47 AM

I seem to remember a certain president, after winning the election by a 51-49 margin, claiming that he had a mandate from the people and an endless supply of political capital. So forgive me when I don't quiver in absolute terror that Obama is *only* leading by a seven-point margin.

Posted by Sami | July 31, 2008 10:51 AM

senator is stuck right where he was in the polls before he left.

Good lord, how terrible to be stuck with a 5-6 point lead week after week.

Remember, this is the guy who shares a name with Saddam, which the douchebags at Fox n Friends will gladly remind you of every 3 minutes. And yet he's leading our "Navy War Hero" every step of the way.

Hey media bozos: the only reason he's not leading by more is that you talk him down every chance you get. If we actually had some real liberals in the media, he probably would have that 10+ point lead that they all seem to think he "should" have.

Posted by Bob Loblaw | July 31, 2008 10:52 AM

While McCain may have been mistaken on the details of Obama's bailout on visiting the troops, the bailout, in an of itself, still maintains the basic narrative ...

Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do?
Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the later part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.

Posted by Neo | July 31, 2008 11:02 AM

BREAKING!!!! Celtics still only up 4 games to 2 over Lakers.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 31, 2008 11:03 AM

Don't they realize Obama is about to release sex tapes that secure his "Mandingo" status permanently? All that will be left for McCain to launch a reality show called "Celebrity Swingers" and get Paris Hilton to agree to do a threesome with him and Cindy while the camera's roll. She'll do anything for exposure. Get Pfizer (Viagra) to sponsor it on YouTube, and watch that Obama lead dwindle as fast as McCain's spent prick.

That's what the media are secretly begging for. If they can't paint Obama as the big, brave buck they are lost. Harvard Law professor? Fuck that noize. What about the irreverant rapper?

Posted by MrBlifil | July 31, 2008 11:07 AM

There is a sentiment with many reporters that an uncompetitive election is an unfair election, and it's their job to "balance" things out. It's affirmative action for Republicans.

It's part of the reason why most reporters and editors stay away from making judgments, like "Candidate X is less truthful than Candidate Y" unless the evidence is so overwhelming that they can't help but point it out. To use the language of shaded truth, like "McCain's economic policies is estimated to be much more expensive than Obama's" would be "taking sides" or showing a liberal bias, regardless of the significant evidence to back the claim up.

Let's be "balanced": both their plans are not fully funded. Both of them are negative. Both of then...you get the picture. It's a structural problem with the media that no one has figured our yet how to solve.

Posted by Jason | July 31, 2008 11:08 AM

A new CNN/Opinion Research poll out Wednesday shows that despite nine solid days of blanket media coverage from overseas ...

3/4 of which is negative, yes.

I'm sorry, was there a question?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 31, 2008 11:12 AM

Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative?

Yes, I suppose it is worth pointing out that most politicians are, in fact, concerned about maintaining their image (or, as cast here, 'advancing a personal narrative', which seems like a way of saying the exact thing, but perhaps with more message discipline).

To that end, any accomplishment can easily be seen as "advancing [a] personal narrative," except perhaps obvious attempts to pad personal wealth, such as dumping your first wife to marry an heiress, or participating in one of the most well known financial scandals of a given decade. Those sorts of things actually might hurt a Democrat's personal narrative, but don't seem to be a big consideration for Angry John.

Posted by Brad L | July 31, 2008 11:14 AM

Do you think that if Obama wins, then the day after the election all the headlines will be about how he hasn't yet really pulled away from McCain?

Yes. He could win by 10 points, and the pundits will demand WHY NOT 15??!! Can he even govern with a mere 10 point victory? (This is where it pays to remember Karl Rove's words, something to the effect of "Mandate/shmandate, winning is winning.")

As an independent who quite liked McCain in 2000 and last fall, back before he switched position on all the issues I liked him for (opposition to torture, moderate on immigration, opposed Bush tax cuts, opposed Bush war handling), I have to agree with Jose--whatever he's doing with a base that hasn't warmed to him over 8 months, he's undoing with independents.

Posted by Deborah | July 31, 2008 11:15 AM

Do you think that if Obama wins, then the day after the election all the headlines will be about how he hasn't yet really pulled away from McCain?

Yes. He could win by 10 points, and the pundits will demand WHY NOT 15??!! Can he even govern with a mere 10 point victory? (This is where it pays to remember Karl Rove's words, something to the effect of "Mandate/shmandate, winning is winning.")

As an independent who quite liked McCain in 2000 and last fall, back before he switched position on all the issues I liked him for (opposition to torture, moderate on immigration, opposed Bush tax cuts, opposed Bush war handling), I have to agree with Jose--whatever he's doing with a base that hasn't warmed to him over 8 months, he's undoing with independents.

Posted by Deborah | July 31, 2008 11:15 AM

Headlines morning after will read:

Obama 70%, McCain 28%: Supreme Court Rules McCain President.

Posted by Vicki | July 31, 2008 11:15 AM

and by the way, what about a man in his 70s evoking the name and image of britney spears isn't 100% weird and/or creepy?

Posted by cha cha cha | July 31, 2008 11:21 AM

And good news for Hillary!

Posted by Loneoak | July 31, 2008 11:29 AM

south side said:

"Actually, I think the day after the election, if Obama wins, the media will suddenly realize/care that we have a massive budget deficit, two wars, gas prices through the roof, and an expansion of the executive branch's powers never contemplated by the Founders, and will preemptively declare President-elect Obama's administration a failure unless all those issues can be fixed within 10 months."

How can south side give Obama 10 month when all govt. milestones must be in Friedmans? That way there will be a big media circus when the new administration fails to fix everything in one Friedman (10 months rounded down to the nearest Friedman).

Posted by jake | July 31, 2008 11:32 AM

Pundits to Obama: Please stop making the race look a Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals game.

Posted by ThatGuy | July 31, 2008 11:32 AM

Two polls now - one from Gallup/USA Today, and one from Newsweek - have changed their demographic assumptions considerably in a way that favors McCain, and then reported the results as evidence of a change in the opinion of the public.

That is pretty obvious evidence that the press is trying to make the race look closer than it really is.

Posted by joe from Lowell | July 31, 2008 11:53 AM

Commenters are right to pick on the outsized expectations of the media, but let's face it, American aren't patient people or understanding people. Americans don't want big government, but when things go bad they want the government to fix things, like - yesterday. Stepping into that maelstrom is a herculean task for anyone.

His best bet, during his first 100 days, is to create a series of commissions to investigate how to fix Medicare, Social Security, etc... Next, slowly implement their suggestions. Also, put a couple of Republicans on the commission to neutralize their yipping. Then, pray for the best.

Posted by Black Political Analysis | July 31, 2008 12:01 PM

Commenters are right to pick on the outsized expectations of the media, but let's face it, American aren't patient people or understanding people. Americans don't want big government, but when things go bad they want the government to fix things, like - yesterday. Stepping into that maelstrom is a herculean task for anyone.

His best bet, during his first 100 days, is to create a series of commissions to investigate how to fix Medicare, Social Security, etc... Next, slowly implement their suggestions. Also, put a couple of Republicans on the commission to neutralize their yipping. Then, pray for the best.

Posted by Black Political Analysis | July 31, 2008 12:05 PM

Commenters are right to pick on the outsized expectations of the media, but let's face it, American aren't patient people or understanding people. Americans don't want big government, but when things go bad they want the government to fix things, like - yesterday. Stepping into that maelstrom is a herculean task for anyone.

His best bet, during his first 100 days, is to create a series of commissions to investigate how to fix Medicare, Social Security, etc... Next, slowly implement their suggestions. Also, put a couple of Republicans on the commission to neutralize their yipping. Then, pray for the best.

Posted by Black Political Analysis | July 31, 2008 12:07 PM

Triple black?

Posted by White Political Analyst | July 31, 2008 12:47 PM

This isn't much different from the questioning during the primaries ("Why can't Obama 'seal the deal' with the voters?") when Obama was ahead of Sen. Clinton by every rational metric. McCain had sewn up the Republican nomination, but was seeing substantial percentages of Republican primary voters still voting for his opponents (mostly Huckabee and Ron Paul), but the press didn't seem to find that worth mentioning.

If Obama wins, the media pundits will focus on the portion of the electorate he didn't win: "Can Obama really govern if he lost the votes of Over-65 Lithuanian-American men?"

Posted by R from PDX | July 31, 2008 1:13 PM

The day after the election, the media will be contemplating reasons wht Electoral College members will start considering voting for somebody other than President-elect Obama!

:-(

Posted by Jim | July 31, 2008 1:35 PM

It would be Bad News for Obama if the polls showed him leading McCain 100% to 0%, because that would mean he had no chance of increasing his lead.

Posted by cowalker | July 31, 2008 1:45 PM

Well, you gotta understand that the better progressives do in elections, the more the corporate media will have to write about things that they don't like and don't understand, like solutions to difficult problems that people have.

Posted by clb72 | July 31, 2008 2:24 PM

Do you think that if Obama wins, then the day after the election all the headlines will be about how he hasn't yet really pulled away from McCain?

Of course. After all, he still hasn't sealed the deal with Democrats as far as some Clinton supporters are concerned.

Posted by Jinchi | July 31, 2008 3:02 PM

No, no, you have it all wrong.

This is really good news for Rudy Giuliani.

Posted by Sinfonian | July 31, 2008 3:21 PM

You still don't get it, Matt, and I suppose you never will.

All these posts add up to whining now. You just can't deal with the blatant fact that the Powers That Be intend McCain to be President.

Because you can't afford to BELIEVE in the "Powers That Be" - because then you'd have to admit you have absolutely no influence on anything in this world, and that this country is being run by people who eat people like you for breakfast, then go to the IHOP for a real meal.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 31, 2008 8:06 PM

Posted by south side: "Actually, I think the day after the election, if Obama wins, the media will suddenly realize/care that we have a massive budget deficit, two wars, gas prices through the roof, and an expansion of the executive branch's powers never contemplated by the Founders, and will preemptively declare President-elect Obama's administration a failure unless all those issues can be fixed within 10 months."

And Faux News, at least, will start running a banner at the bottom of the screen, showing how many days it's been since Bin Laden killed 3,000 Americans, and hasn't been caught. Barrack will, of course, be credited with 8 years of GWB's neglect.

Posted by BArry | August 3, 2008 6:53 PM