Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Obama Won: Gallup/USA Today Poll;
52% Say Obama best to Fix Problems, vs. 35% for McCain

In addition to those two snap polls done just after the debate on Friday by CNN and by CBS, there is now further evidence that Obama won the first debate handily.

A Gallup/ USA Today poll of 701 viewers of the debate done on Saturday found that 46% of viewers said Barack Obama did better; 34% said McCain did. Obviously, there is still a big group of viewers who saw it as a tie or could not decide.

But it is not so important who they thought was the better debater. The big news in this poll is about economic competence, on which over half of viewers gave the nod to Obama while only a little over a third did to McCain

Obama picked up 16 points on the question of how favorably the public views him, whereas for McCain it was a wash. And in this poll viewers were overwhelmingly more enthusiastic about Obama as a steward of the US economy than about McCain

Other scores:

Which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve America's problems?

Obama 52%
McCain 35%


Obama made great strides in public acceptance according to this poll. Although a little over half of viewers said their view of him did not change, 30% said they became more favorable toward Obama after seeing the debate. He lost ground with only 14%

The poll did not advance McCain's campaign. 56% said it did not change their view of him, and 21% said it gave them a more unfavorable view of him, while he improved with another 21%. Since McCain was already behind in the polls going into the debate, this result is very bad for him.

While McCain was dead in the water on favorability, he actually lost ground on perceived economic competence. %37 percent said they had less confidence in his ability to fix the economy after saying the debate, while only 24% said they had more. These figures were almost the reverse in Obama's case, which is to say, he gained 8 points on this issue while McCain lost 15.

On national security issues it was a tie, which is, again, very bad news for McCain! Not so long ago the Republicans were attempting to portray Sarah Palin as having more executive and foreign policy experience than Obama! It was their hope that McCain would come across as a wise elder statesman and Obama as uninformed and naive. Instead, Americans see Obama as McCain's peer on foreign policy issues!

The poll has a plus or minus margin of error of 4%. That means that the overwhelming margin of victory for Obama on competence in problem-solving and ability to deal with the economy, and the massive loss of confidence in McCain on the economy, are very solid findings.

It seems to me likely that the stunt McCain pulled, of trying to cancel the debates, raised questions in the public's mind about his competence. His pick of Palin as running mate (about which he unwisely boasted in the debate) might have shored up the Republican base a little, but that is now only 33% of the electorate, and she will hurt him with everyone else. That 52-35 spread on competence in my view is the big takeaway from this poll.

Gallup is a fine polling agency and I am sure it did its best to weight the respondents by age, income and region. The USA Today article did not provide that information. But the likelihood is that they in fact over-represented the Republicans, because youth and African-Americans are harder to poll, with many of them first-time registrants, and they may well come out for Obama this year, voting in unprecedented numbers because they now finally feel they have a stake in the system, with this candidate.

These results should not make Democrats sanguine. Kerry won his debates with W., but W. went on to destroy Iraq further and then bring down the whole American economy around our ears.

We could still be at war with Iran next year this time, with Captain McCain lobbying nukes at Isfahan from his sub in the Persian Gulf, with all the unpleasant backlash that would entail.

7 Comments:

At 12:53 PM, Blogger Charles Cameron (hipbone) said...

Dr Cole:

"Captain McCain lobbying nukes at Isfahan from his sub in the Persian Gulf" is obviously a worrisome scenario -- but how, and how fast, do you think we might get from here to there? In Herman Kahn style terms, roughly how many steps on a ladder of escalation would you see between a McCain inaugural and use of a first nuclear weapon?

In my own experience, a vivid scenario of this kind may catch our imaginations in ways that don't necessarily account for intervening steps and obstacles, and a cool elaboration of the steps and stages of such scenarios often proves as helpful as the scenarios themselves.

 
At 1:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, Professor Cole! "[U]npleasant backlash" from a President McCain nuking Iran? Is that the new code phrase for World War III with nuclear exchanges?
We cannot have a President McCain. We just cannot have that happen.

 
At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this from Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch sums it up:
"Between the two of them, the candidates affirmed, often in identical terms, almost every lunatic policy position that has doomed George Bush’s presidency and made America an object of derision and loathing among the nations.

It should have been a no-brainer for Obama simply to chain his opponent to all the disasters of the Bush years, about which the American people have reached a firm and hostile verdict. Obama should be setting forth a new agenda. Instead we got Bush/Cheneyspeak from the Democrat about taking out Osama, repeating all the disasters of Iraq in Afghanistan and invading Pakistan"

Sadly, whoever wins this beauty contest will make little difference

 
At 5:19 PM, Blogger James-Speaks said...

I hereby retract my statement that Obama was too polite to McCain's below the belt criticisms. If he made gains and lost few supporters, then his tempered response obviously worked.

Driving around today, I noticed all the nice little suburban houses with McCain/Palin signs. Then I noticed all the very, very nice upscale houses with Obama/Biden signs.

 
At 6:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to wonder about polls, given that so many young and minorities have only cell phones if any phones at all...how can the pollsters reach them since almost all cell phones are unlisted?

 
At 8:35 PM, Blogger Beth in VA said...

Unfortunately, I think Kerry won all the debates in 2004, and it didn't seem to matter. But then again, it wouldn't be good if Obama really blew the debates, either.

 
At 6:12 PM, Blogger BadTux said...

McCain's campaign had painted Obama as this scary black radical Louis Farrakhan type figure. Obama was polite (if firm sometimes), well-groomed, articulate, seemed intelligent, didn't seem "scary", so his favorability rating went *way* up. That's the problem with painting your opponent as a mix of Louis Farrakhan and Josef Stalin combined, when your opponent comes out and seems a quite reasonable sort rather than a raving lunatic then you look like an idiot and your opponent gets a win.

The biggest problem with the debate is that it didn't change people's minds, and the people who needed to watch it -- the people who haven't the foggiest clue who they're going to vote for because they haven't put the slightest bit of time or thought into the decision -- didn't watch the debate. I mean, c'mon. It was a Friday night. They were out partying, or watching the baseball game, or otherwise doing anything than watching a couple of stuffy politicians go at each other. Sad to say, America gets the politics it wants -- and deserves.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home