ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama But He's Holding Steady With Modest Lead

Results from the new Washington Post/ABC News poll released last night show Barack Obama continuing to lead John McCain by what has become a fairly consistent advantage of between 3-6 points, although the not so great news is that there was no post-Clinton bounce to speak of among adults (May results are in parentheses.)

CandidateRVsAdults
Obama4948 (51)
McCain4542 (44)

These results do track fairly consistently with RCP's 7-poll average lead of 3.8% for Obama, FiveThirtyEight's 3 point Obama advantage and Pollster's Obama +5.6 trend estimate, all of which were calculated prior to the ABC/WaPo poll.

The fact that Obama does better among adults than registered voters should come as no surprise and reinforces the importance of Democratic voter registration drives this cycle.

All in all, there's plenty to keep the general election narrative in the vicinity of "why isn't Barack Obama doing better?" which is precisely the central theme of the ABC News pdf of the results as well as the Washington Post summary article. Here are a couple of the results that fuel that fire.

In the first Washington Post-ABC News poll since the Democratic nomination contest ended, Obama and McCain are even among political independents, a shift toward the presumptive Republican nominee over the past month. On the issues, independents see McCain as more credible on fighting terrorism and are split evenly on who is the stronger leader and better on the Iraq war.

And...

At this point four years ago, Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry held identical leads over President Bush among all adults and among registered voters.

But there's plenty of good news for Barack Obama in these results too, including that pesky enthusiasm gap:

A majority of voters, 55 percent, said they are enthusiastic about Obama's candidacy, while 42 percent said the same for McCain. Three times as many said they are "very enthusiastic" about Obama as said so about McCain.

And on issues and attributes...

The two candidates are...evenly matched on the question of who is the stronger leader, with 46 percent of the public rating each as top.

On four other attributes tested in the poll, Obama has significant advantages. He leads by 34 points as the candidate who would do more to bring needed change to Washington, by 18 points on empathy, by 15 points on standing up to lobbyists and special interests, and by 13 points on better representing people's "personal values." [...]

...on Iraq, the public is evenly split, with 47 percent saying they trust McCain more and 46 percent having more faith in Obama.

So, to be honest, Democrats would be foolish to see this poll as a cause for concern for Obama. Let WaPo spin this statistic as evidence of a divided Democratic Party:

But Obama still has some work to do to unite the Democratic Party. Almost nine in 10 Republicans now support McCain, while not quite eight in 10 Democrats said they support Obama.

For me, it's a glass half full scenario. Obama and McCain split independents, McCain does more than 10% better among Republicans than Obama does among Democrats AND Obama is still winning. It's a perfect foundation for Obama to run a base general election strategy, to appeal to Democrats (get up toward 90%) and in the process pull independents with him, as opposed to targeting independents with some flawed run to middle strategy that never works. Obama has a natural appeal among independents, so will likely always have that 50% of them. Ahh, wouldn't it be sweet if the post-partisan wins by appealing to the partisans. That would make my year.

But among all the findings from this poll, the result that is perhaps the most satisfying has nothing to do with Barack Obama at all. I offer this, in closing, without comment:

Given economic discontent (and $4 gas) atop the unpopular Iraq war, Bush's job approval rating has dropped to a new low in ABC/Post polls, 29%; 68% now disapprove, the highest in any presidential approval poll dating to Gallup's first in 1938 (surpassing Harry Truman's 67% disapproval and Richard Nixon's 66%.)



Display:


Where's Obama's Ads? (none / 0)

One of the reasons I thought it was so important for HRC to withdraw in early June as she did was that it would permit Obama to begin an aggressive ad campaign tying McCain to Bush.  This advertising would allow Obama to define McCain as an extension of Bush because it would be be virtually uncontested, at least if my understanding that Obama still has vastly more resources then McCain.  So, why hasnt Obama did this.  

IMO, Obama really needs to aggressively use this summer period to define link McCain's campaign as "Bush's third term" while he has a vast funding advantage.  If he does this, his lead will go into the low double digits.


Andy Katz
by Andy Katz on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 07:45:51 AM EST

Re: Where's Obama's Ads? (none / 0)

He appears to be focusing on his state organizations and going state by state in person.
This might be better than and nationwide generic ads.
He gets to dominate local news for a few days and gets his local supporters motivated.

by gil44 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:45:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where's Obama's Ads? (none / 0)

I think one of the pitfalls of going negative is it has a chance of clashing with Obama's core message of hope and change.   Obama needs to figure out how to tie McCain to Bush in a way that doesn't make Obama look a mud slinger.   While negative campaigning seems to work.....it has a side effect of lowering voter turnout.

That is why I think the VP choice is very important.   The VP can afford to go negative since the VP doesn't have the same "good-boy" expectations that has been built up.


by newmexicodem on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama But He's Ho (none / 0)

National polls are pointless in a presidential election. Take a look at the state polling. Obama is up to a 305/232 Electoral College lead according to 538.c0m.


by georgiaka on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:49:59 AM EST

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama But He's Ho (none / 0)

What a dumb comment. National polls are invariably fairly close to predicting the eventual outcome.


by ottovbvs on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:00:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama But He's Ho (none / 0)

Um, yes and no. State polls matter far more than generic national polls. The primary state polls vs. the national polls are a good example of why national polls aren't the be all end all.


by sweet potato pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama But He's Ho (none / 0)

I agree about national polling being just a temp. taker of the national mood. Because of the country's divide, this election is/was always going to turn on who gets their voters to the polls on election day.  To me, this is why the indvidual state polling is important but somewhat ineffective (remember IN?). In addition, the bounce only makes sense when the Democratic nominee is known very far in advance. That was not the case this year.  I think the MSM is using the same tools and same analysis as the last race.  I am no expert, but this does not feel the same.  In 2004 and 2000, we did not have a primary that lasted this long. We did not have two Dem.'s with such even support. This election has been and will be one for the history books....


by smgreene on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:05:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama But He's Ho (none / 0)

State polls are meaningless this early. When you quote an "Electoral College lead" you are reflecting a whole bunch of tiny "leads" which are really not leads at all (what with the margin of error, which everyone always conveniently forgets), and which are typically taken with "all adults" being the universe. Again, not useful for predicting the Fall.


by ColoradoGuy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:39:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce (none / 0)

I'm a Hillary supporter but have had no problem adjusting to the fact that Obama is now the nominee. That said it's hard to disagree with the WAPO line that they show little or no bounce for him and are not earth shattering in the context of the appalling perceptions of the GOP and McCain's weakness as a candidate peddling the policies of a president with a 28% approval rating. Now this sort of comment inevitably provokes a chorus of deadender, troll taunts but it seems perfectly reasonable to me. One number that jumps out is the extent to which Obama lags behind McCain in support from his own party and this has to be a guide to the measure of Hillary support remaining. He has to fix this and the odds are he will. It's early days yet, he needs to start some McCain defining ads and soon, it's not as if he hasn't got the money for godsake, but I'd say if these number are not moving in the next two or three weeks we have a problem. There is of course the no brainer solution and if these numbers are still at this level by early July expect it to become much more likely.


by ottovbvs on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 08:57:11 AM EST

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce (none / 0)

Look as an Obama supporter and a realist I am sure that Obama's support among dems will increase but it will not be 90% but more between 80-85% at max. Why? Racism. There are a good number  of dems that just won't vote for a black candidate no matter what even if they agree with all of his policies.  I still believe that Obama will win despite not having Kerry /Gore level of democrat support.  

Also, these national polls are so that the media can have several things to "talk" about. I'm sure that Hillary would be polling around the same numbers right now nationally as well. It is the state polls that matter since Presidents are decided by electoral votes.


by sweet potato pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce (none / 0)

Yes, but it's more than racism. It's also a good bit of (perceived) elitism, plus the draw McCain has with some national security-oriented moderate to conservative Dems, and some Latinos.


by ColoradoGuy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce (none / 0)

Latinos? Have you seen the lates polls where Obama is winning Latinos by a 30 point margin.


by sweet potato pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce (none / 0)

One number that jumps out is the extent to which Obama lags behind McCain in support from his own party and this has to be a guide to the measure of Hillary support remaining. He has to fix this and the odds are he will.

The Democratic candidate always lags behind the Republican candidate in party loyalty. The difference is not a big deal, though the current extent of it is. However, I think in time 85% or so of Democrats will vote for Obama, which is about the same percentage that voted for Clinton in 1996 and comparable to the 89% who voted for Kerry in 2004.


by kevinwparker on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing to be concerned about now (none / 0)

This doesn't change my view, which is that we've nominated the weaker of our final two candidates, but that we are in good position to win anyway.  


by activatedbybush on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST

Re: Nothing to be concerned about now (none / 0)

Please cite evidence that we have.  Hillary wasn't polling that far ahead of McCain in head to head matchups either so I await your evidence that Hillary would have been a stronger candidate.


by sweet potato pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:46:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is plenty of evidence that we have (none / 0)

There is also evidence that Obama would be stronger.  Conventional pundit wisdom is that Obama has "a higher ceiling and a lower floor" that Clinton would have had.   I believe this.  

In the end, it is my opinion, based on a number of factors -- Clinton's coalition in the primaries, her more thorough vetting, her greater mastery of policy matters, her name recognition, Obama's age and his problematic associations -- that she would have been the stronger candidate.  The fact that she polled a few points better than Obama vs. McCain on a consistent basis of of lesser importance to my opinion (polls can easily change).


by activatedbybush on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is plenty of evidence that we have (none / 0)

Wow where to begin:

1) She is not fully vetted

  1. Her name recognition could be a serious negative
  2. She has questionable associations
  3. Obama is doing quite well among Hispanic voters and Blue collar voters according to the polls. Remember those were the folks that he wasn't supposed to be able to win over.

One can only assume that your opinion isn't based on anything but a dislike for Obama.


by sweet potato pie on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your conclusion is ridiculous, but really (none / 0)

irrelevant.  I won't try to debate this anymore other than to say that I like Obama - I just don't think that he will be as strong a candidate as Hillary Clinton would have been.

Arguing about this is irrelevant because Barack Obama is the nominee - the selection process is over.   At this point, the only thing that matters is whether he wins or not.   As I said above, I believe that he can win - in this environment he should win.   And I hope that he does win.


by activatedbybush on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:42:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New Ohio Poll (none / 0)

Barack Obama kicks off the general election with a 50-39 lead over John McCain in Ohio, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling.

It's a significant change from PPP's most recent previous Ohio survey, conducted in March, which found Obama trailing McCain 49-41 during the heart of the Jeremiah Wright controversy.

PPP poll link

Yes we can...
by hankg on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM EST

Re: New Ohio Poll (none / 0)

Who's "we" in "Yes we can"?

I'm serious ... who's "we"? That slogan made perfect sense for the organization that first used it, the United Farm Workers, because they truly were in an "us against the world" situation. Barack is trying to represent the entire United States. By saying "yes WE can," you are rhetorically dividing Barack supporters, and more accurately believers, from the rest of the country. Don't think that isn't noticed. It's a small but telling contributor to the elitism and condescension that many perceive in the Obama camp.

And I voted for him.


by ColoradoGuy on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Ohio Poll (none / 0)

Oh please. Give it a rest.

He is referring to ALL Americans collectively as in: yes we can solve the problems facing our country. How anyone could parse that to have some negative divisive connotation is beyond me.

Next I expect you'll explain how "hope" is really and elitist and divisive secret code word.


by hankg on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:59:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Ohio Poll (none / 0)

This might be the most ridiculous post today.  Can you please point me to a single campaign that hasn't used "we can do it," or "yes we can," or "we're going to win," or some similar variant?  By that rubric, every single campaign, ever, has been elitist and condescending.


by rfahey22 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:06:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What happened to that big bump (none / 0)

he was supposed to get for finally being able to slay the Hillary dragon? We've been told over and over that his problems with voters are all her fault, either that or half of the Democratic party are racists. His past relationships with questionable charachters are no problem at all, because he has denounced and rejected and disowned all of them, even though none of them was the Jim/Bob/Joe/Bill that he knew for 20 years.


by georgiapeach on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:04:38 PM EST

Re: What happened to that big bump (none / 0)

It must be the voices in your head telling you that because none of that came from Obama's campaign.

Obama is doing fine and is in a good position to move forward with significant leads over McCain among Hispanics and women and doing about as well as Kerry and Gore among white voters.

Read all the doom and gloom you want into the Obama campaign. I have been hearing predictions of his campaign's imminent implosion for months. Those predictions were wrong then and they are wrong now.


by hankg on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe this reflects something (none / 0)

Maybe this reflects something of the character of Clinton supporters, in an open primary.

IMHO the GOP may have been at work trying to get Clinton ahead, so that they could face off against her in the GE

So, when the Primary is over, the GOP support retreats to neutral. Most of the GOP is neutral
right now.  They're not excited about McCain but
they're not ready to vote for the D-party.


by Trey Rentz on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:35:16 PM EST

Re: ABC News/WaPo: No Bounce For Obama (none / 0)

The problem the Obama campaign has had and continues to have is that Clinton's supporters tend more to the center of the left-right political spectrum, and will naturally have more likelihood to consider McCain as an alternative to Obama.  Many voters appear to approve of McCain enough such that he passes the critical `rebuff Bush' and `could represent me' gut-test measures.

What really should be the concern of the Obama campaign, if my intuition is correct, is that these polling numbers may still be somewhat artificially inflated, by the hope among Clinton's supporters that he may choose her as a running-mate, thereby allowing them to return to the fold.

Additionally, it seems to me that the Obama campaign's polling numbers tend to find their maximum early (can anyone substantiate or refute this?) as his supporters are often more passionate from the onset; but, perhaps there still remains a segment of uninvolved voters that have not yet considered these candidates.

Any thoughts?


by Liame on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.