Pick your poll

USA Today: "Poll: Flap over pastor hurts Obama"

New York Times: "In Poll, Obama Survives Furor, but Fall Is the Test"

Who's right? For better or worse, the voters of Indiana and North Carolina will decide that, at least for purposes of the immediate media storyline.

P.S. Mark Ambinder explains the difference between the two polls' wildly divergent national Clinton vs. Obama numbers.

Comments

[copndor]

After reading the NYTIMES poll, I was shocked that they were leading with a headline saying that Wright was not hurting Obama. As far as I can tell, USA Today is right on this one.

[Andrew]

I have to agree with copndor, although I had to chuckle when I saw that nearly the same percentage of people were less likely to vote for McCain because of his association with Dubya as those who were less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Why did you have to chuckle, Andrew? Rev. Wright may be an asshole, but at least he didn't get us into a quagmire in Iraq and drive the U.S. economy and dollar into the ground with "borrow and spend" Republican policies.

[yea]

hillary has "leaked" exit polls showing her expecting a 15 point loss in nc. when hillary loses nc by 5-8 points like the majority of polls predict, i have a feeling hillary will claim momentum.

my question is whether there comes a time in a primary where after ~45 primaries "momentum" is meaningless and actual results (delagates) matters?

[Angrier and Angrier]

I agree with yea. The only external poll that shows anything close to a 15-point lead is Zogby...the same Zogby that called the 2004 election for John Kerry.

Momentum is meaningless at this point. If Obama wins NC, the Super Delegates are really going to have a hell of a time trying to justify giving the nomination to Hillary. I don't think most of these people have the stomach to do that.

Either way, there will be ill feelings within the Democratic Party. But if the Super Delegates were to ignore a majority in the popular vote and a majority in the delegate count to give Hillary the nod, the Democratic Party would be seriously fractured.

[Brendan]

Yea, those aren't "leaked exit polls," they're opinion polls.

[yea]

my bad. exit poll was definitely the wrong term. how could it be an exit poll if the election hasnt happened yet. regardless, i think the rest of my comment still makes sense.

[Brendan]

I agree. Hillary will definitely try to spin it that way. Whether it works is another question. I think the media spin on a single-digit Obama win in NC depends entirely on the result in Indiana. If Obama wins both states, then the "sweep" is the storyline, regardless of his NC margin. If Clinton wins Indiana, then a single-digit Obama win in North Carolina is "closer than expected" and a moral victory for Clinton. (A "moral sweep"?)

"at least he didn't get us into a quagmire in Iraq and . . . " zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Alasdair]

anon @ 1:55:06 - it seems that the US eucational system has failed some of the commenters on this blog - since that apparently do not actually know what the word "quagmire" means, neither in common usage nor in military references ...

A&A would have been just as accurate (and less predictably boring, indeed) had he said at least he didn't get us into an Ice Age in Iraq or at least he didn't get us into a stained blue dress in Iraq ... either of those is as meaningful as his use of the word "quagmire" ...

[Nameless One]

Clearly Alasdair you need to consult a dictionary:

quagmire is an English noun, derived from "quake" + "mire", meaning literally "shaky, miry ground." (See swamp.) It is frequently used metaphorically to describe military campaigns characterized by small hope of victory, poorly-defined objectives and/or no clear exit strategy.

Hmm, poorly defined objectives, no clear exit strategy, yeah I'd have to say that fits.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Alasdair-

Bush has fucked up in Iraq. No ifs, ands or buts. And John McCain plans to continue Bush's failed policies. This may be boring to hear for people like you and anon and Andrew and Joe Mama. But this is a relevant issue to those whose family members are stuck in that quagmire, risking their lives for a failed war that the American public has no interest in continuing and which does nothing to increase our security at home. It is Vietnam, Part II. The war is over except for the collapse of Baghdad.

What gets me is how people like you worry more about Obama's pastor than how the U.S. military will hold up under the current strain. You are more worried about how Obama uses the word "bitter" than you are about our mounting debt and obligation to China, while China is building up its military. You are more worried about Obama not wearing a flag lapel pin than you are about our Veterans with PTSD being turned out on the street by the military with no hope of aid.

In short, you people are pathetic.

[Pathetic]

The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam are the dumbasses who care so much about the troops that they predict failure from day one.

[Alasdair]

Clearly, Nameless One, your familiarity with the difference between a "military campaign" and the clean-up thereafter is lacking ...

The military campaign had specific goals, and those were achieved ... Saddam Hussein and his kids and his political Party are no longer in power ... the military campaign achieved its victories ... the well-defined military objectives were achieved ... and the exit strategy is well on course when compared with Japan, Korea, and Germany ...

What is going on in Iraq now is comparable to the current civil situation in way too many US cities ... how many civilians were murdered in Chicago alone in the past 2 weeks ? I think you may well find that less US troops died in Iraq during that period ...

Does that make Chicago a "quagmire" from which the US must withdraw ? (Yeah, I know, asking such a question on *this* blog is tantamount to chumming ... (grin))

You seem to be of that group which blames Bush and only Bush for the "quagmire" you perceive Iraq to be ... and yet, as far as my understanding of the Laws and Constitution of this land, since February 2007, Congress could have cut off funds for what you characterise as "Bush's quagmire" at any time, simply by getting a majority of the votes in each House of Congress ... and the President can do nothing to stop that ... only the electorate at the subsequent election can stop 'em doing it again ...

All the Democrats in control of BOTH Houses have to do is go on record as having cast such votes ... if it's such a "quagmire" in Iraq, what is stopping those highly-principled Congressional Democrats from doing so ?

Could it be that there are enough of the Democrats in Congress who realise that it was the Democrats in Congress that *created* America's first Vietnam quagmire, when they cut off funds for the troops there ? Could it be that they realise that, while they can call it "another Vietnam" (when it isn't), if they acted the way they want *Bush* to do, *they* would have to accept responsibility for turning what has been a successful military campaign into yet another Democrat-created defeat ?

Which brings us back to - Why does Bush get all the blame when he doesn't even have the last say in the matter ?

[David K.]

Congratulations Alasdair you have acheieved a new level of utter idiocy:

What is going on in Iraq now is comparable to the current civil situation in way too many US cities ... how many civilians were murdered in Chicago alone in the past 2 weeks ? I think you may well find that less US troops died in Iraq during that period ...

Given that the populatino of Chicago is 20 times the number of US troops in Iraq are you surprised? If the same amount of troops were dying in Iraq as people were killed in Chicago that would be horrific. What a stupid and pointless statement to make.

And yes Congress could in theory cut off funding for the war, and it would be a disaster for them to do so, because it WOULD leave our troops unsupported. Bush's decisions and leadership are what got us into this mess. To blame the Democratic congress for the actions of the administration is the height of your blind partisan idiocy. You will pick at anything in the world to blame other than the obvious cause that is right in front of your nose. Bush and his policies have FAILED in Iraq, and it is STILL a military campaign. If it weren't why exactly are our troops still there, still fighting? You have outdone yourself this time Alasdair and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't have one shred of perspective or any grasp whatsoever on objective reality. You live in a right wing fantasy world and your delusions go beyond mere disagreement and difference on point of view but into actual, CLINICAL inability to distinguish fantasy from reality.

[Alasdair]

A&A - actually, I am more concerned about getting someone in the White House who can appoint a C. Everett Koop rather than a Donna Shalala ...

I want someone whose policies encourage R&D rather than someone who believes in "windfall profits" taxes on an industry whose percentage profit margin isn't anywhere near the top of the scale ...

I want someone who is going to be seen as drawing clear boundaries as much as possible, not some Jimmy Carter redux ...

I want someone who at least leaves open the door of possibility to have everyone and anyone excel, not someone who believes in quotas and dumbing *everyone* down to the same level ...

And last but by no means least, I want someone smart enough to realise that he or she isn't running against George W Bush in November ...

So far - that leaves us with Senator McCain ...

With that said - I will believe you *actually* care about the troops in Iraq when you put some effort into helping them to *succeed* there ... as long as you subscribe to the atrociously-ill-informed camp that "Iraq is another Vietnam", you are gleefully dooming US troops to more casualties ...

[Alasdair]

David K - "Given that the populatino of Chicago is 20 times the number of US troops in Iraq are you surprised? "

Actually, David, yes, I *am* surprised since Chicago is a mostly civilian city in a country which is not under direct attack during the past couple of weeks ... those murdered civilians should have been able to rely upon the peaceful nature of normal civilian life ... since deaths in such numbers are why you seem to believe Iraq to be a quagmire, how come Chicago *isn't* a quagmire ? If Bush and his policies have failed in Iraq by your metric, then the Chicago City Administration has "failed" in Chicago ...

Iraq isn't a military campaign any more ... it is a civilian campaign where US military is helping bring Iraqi government, police, and military up to speed to where they can contain the equivalent of the thugs and assassins and fanatics in Chicago ... US troops aren't fighting Iraqi troops (mostly - there may be some former Iraqi troops there, but Iraq stopped being a military campaign a long time ago), certainly not uniformed Iraqi troops ...

I don't blame the Democratic Congress for the actions of the Bush Administration - I blame the Democratic Congress for doing *NOTHING* to help the situation ... I see lots of Democrats whining that Bush is doing it wrong - and yet I don't see Democrats proposing specific concrete realistic alternatives ...

Can the Democratic Party not find anyone who can help Iraq to better run its post-Gulf-War-II efforts ?

If the Democrats have done so, I would dearly like to see the evidence, the articles, the legislation, the URLs to where I can find out what they have done ... investigating Baseball Steroid Use just doesn't cut it ... (Republicans didn't do McCarthyism very well the first time round - Democrats are even less pretty doing so this time round) ... refusing to allow votes on Spending Bills doesn't cut it ...

We see lots of BDS, David - why no equivalent indignation about Chicago (or any other US city with more than single-digit murder rates) ?

Or was "populatino" a Freudian slip ? And those "populatino" deaths, in your mind and in the minds of the Democratic-controlled Congress, really aren't important ?

Such an assertion is just as reasonable as *your* less-than-coherent atttacks on me, David ...

[Andrew]

Alasdair, I don't know why you bother continuing to argue the point with A&A and others. Clearly we should immediately withdraw from Iraq and watch the Middle East implode as Iran and al Qaeda duke it out for control of Iraq. Just like with the millions who died in Cambodia and Vietnam after we left Indochina in 1975, nothing could make more sense for America's geopolitical interests than leaving the Sunni and Shiite Arabs to slaughter themselves. Heck, maybe the Persians and even the Kurds and Turks can get involved, wouldn't that be an accomplishment!

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Alasdair-

You are such a great military theorist. However, you miss the definition of victory successful commanders use and unsuccessful commanders don't. You only achieve military victory when you destroy your enemy's ability and will to fight. That happened in WWII in Germany and Japan. It did not happen in Iraq.

The war we are in now is Rummy's war - capture the flag. It doesn't work. It never works. Like Hitler learned when he invaded France, Napoleon learned when he invaded Russia and the British learned during the Revolutionary War - you don't win wars by capturing cities. You win wars by destroying the enemy.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

Andrew-

It would be an accomplishment - Bush's accomplishment. Bush started a war he can't finish.

As for the implosion theory, it is not in the interest of Syria, Iran and Turkey to have Iraq implode. Iran, Syria and Turkey do not want to be swept up by a humanitarian crisis that would bring millions of refugees across their borders. The minute the U.S. pulls out, Syria and Iran are going to be forced to act more responsibly. Right now they are playing populists in the Middle East because there is no downside to them for doing so. That will end once it becomes a situation where Iraq will be their problem, not ours.

[Andrew]

I agree, Mad Max, counting on the good will and rational decisions of your Islamo-fascist enemies absolutely constitutes sound foreign policy decision-making. Syria and Iran certainly have a strong track record of caring about the humanitarian needs of their fellow Middle Easterners and acting in the best interests of their welfare (see: Kuwaitis, Palestinians, Iraqis, Kurds, and of course... Syrians and Iranians!).

[Angrier and Angrier]

Andrew-

I used to think you were intelligent, but the more I read from you, the more I realize you are a blind ideologue.

The regimes in Syria and Iran are weak. The only thing that has helped them in recent years is their opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq. If the U.S. were to leave, and refugees were to flood into Iran and Syria, the regimes in Damascus and Tehran would be in serious danger of tumbling. They would have no choice but to secure their borders. It would also be in their OWN SELF-INTEREST to tamp down the threat of civil war in Iraq if the U.S. wasn't there to prevent it.

On another note, why is it neo-cons like you seem to think the Iran or Al Qaeda would be more successful than the U.S. military at controlling the situation in Iraq? The U.S. has the greatest military in the world. Al Qaeda is living in a cave on the Afghan border and the Iraq Navy consists of speed boats. Additionally, the Iraqis don't want to be occupied - by the U.S., by Al Qaeda, by Syria or by Iran.

You really need to take your Right Wing blinders off and see the world for what it is; not for what you fear it to be.

If you think the governments in Syria and Iran will fall if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq because of a refugee crisis, then you know as much about the Middle East as Bush.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I didn't say they would fall. I said they would be in danger of falling. They would need to harness their resources to maintain control within their own countries. They would have little time or energy to worry about funding a proxy war in Iraq. In fact, it would be in their best interest if Iraq was stable.

[Andrew]

A&A, you are so Pollyanna-ishly ignorant of the Middle East, it's beyond laughable. Why haven't Cuba and North Korea fallen since the Cold War ended? Why is Myanmar still a military dictatorship after four decades? Iran and Syria have been in their present totalitarian forms for decades, and nothing we do short of military intervention is going to change those regimes' grip on power.

Seriously, your optimism is even further off base than Neville Chamberlin's belief that Hitler would chill out once the Allies conceded the Sudetenland.

[Joe Mama]

I didn't say they would fall. I said they would be in danger of falling.

Kind of like how Bush didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat, he said it was a growing threat that should be stopped before it became imminent ;-)