Is it Already Over for Obama?

The emerging consensus appears to be that Senator Hilary Clinton has all but locked up the Democratic presidential nomination. That appears premature when one examines the fundraising numbers where Senator Barack Obama has led for most of the year and now just barely trails Clinton. The fundraising totals would suggest that the race is close. The state-by-state polls, however, tell a different story, one that will depress Obama supporters. After looking at the polls, one can only conclude that barring some enormous collapse by Clinton, the race is already over.

Clinton's surge, no pun intended, coincides with her increase in black support. Her lead in national polls ranges from 27 to 32 points, sizable by any measure. While the state-by-state polls mean more, she is steadily closing in on the nomination. Twenty-nine polls, mostly of likely voters, have been taken in the last month in the first nine primary/caucus states. Not one shows Obama leading and only four have him within single digits and they are all in Iowa where Clinton averages a +5 point lead. Clinton has substantial, landslide-like average leads in each state: +20% in New Hampshire; +13 in South Carolina; +27 in Florida; +27 in Nevada; +19 in Michigan; +25 in California; +22 in Pennsylvania; and +25 in New Jersey.

Obama's team argues that these polls are meaningless and that his support levels is actually undercounted. That may be true, but these polls show that even with an undercount, Obama has a lot of work to do.

Comments

[Boadicea]

Michael, you've been critical of Obama and saying his campaign is over since at least as far back as August. I'm always skeptical of blogs that say "game over" for Obama, expecially when the author is black. Every HIllary supporter I know has been repeating the "game over" talking points ad nauseaum since way back.

And almost unknown black man with Muslim roots and a suspicious sounding name that no one knew, Obama has already accomplished great things. Many like you hope that the inevitability of Hillary rhetoric will stop his successes.

Don't count on it.

[NotMyPrez]

They said the same thing for Howard Dean.... fat lady ain't sung yet.

So if they do pick Hillary, the Republicans will jump for joy- the DNC would as much just offer her up as a lamb for slaughter. Why give them what they want, why not give them something they are completely unprepared for- like Kucinich.

[sharparrow]

Success in the Democratic primary required that Hillary have two strong opponents. Getting Oprah Winfrey to back Obama took all the subtly the Clinton campaign could muster, but it worked perfectly. Of course, John Edwards was always going to run. With the "anti Hillary" vote divided into two strong camps, neither can gain the momentum required to defeat her.

Unfortunately, the reality of this situation has dawned on John Edwards. While Edwards has the "feet on the street" thanks to his endorsement of all things union, he doesn"t have the firepower to defeat Hillary and Obama, and he recognizes that. His subtle entrees to Obama for an Edwards/Obama ticket have fallen on interested ears.

Hillary's campaign has taken three tacks to make a reconciliation of these two opponents improbable, and all three are working.

First, they've gone back to Oprah to remind her that the road to White House does not run through the Vice President"s office. So, we"ve got the Obama people focused on running for Governor of Illinois as his next step instead of the Vice Presidency, which proves both they and he are naïve.

Second, they have spent a lot of time with the Hollywood money. The message is simple: back Obama now and we"ll forgive all, and we mean all, during the General Election. Why, the Lincoln bedroom can be back in operation in no time. This makes an Edwards/Obama ticket for difficult.

Third, they have turned up the heat on the "Hillary should pick Obama" buzz. Just as you need two opponents, Obama needs two people fawning over him. That will freeze him until South Carolina, and by that primary the train will have left the station and Hillary will be in the "nominated" car.

[SeanGardner]

"neither can gain the momentum required to defeat her."

Its far to earlier to start coronating anyone. We have two months to go. And two months is an eternity in politics.

[waiguoren]

Let's face it. For many of us hoping for a real sea change, Obama has been a huge disappointment.

[JimR]

Speak for yourself.

[RaderBarbarian]

Well, I am speaking for MYSELF, and Obama has been a huge disappointment for me, too. I had much hope at one point. Not now.

[LeeFromVA]

There's a lot of time left before Iowa. In situations like this, things not only can change, but usually do.
It's not Hillary's fault, but... She is devicive and polarizing and she also ENERGIZES the GOP. I used to worry that she couldn't win the General Election, now I worry that she can. I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.

[Zhonni]

I am just the opposite. She can win the general but not now.

Not with all the sex drama, Chinese donors who can't be found, LINCOLN BEDROOM FOR RENT ads that the Republicans would unleash.

[Norge]

It was over before it began in actuality.
If it is not quit white, can an American be sure it's American.
At the present time of blownout fears towards others from foreign lands in America, Obama is just a shade off color.

Would Americans vote an Indigenous American Indian in to the Whiteman House.? Of course not. They do not vote in second class citizens.

Also, slavery is still to near the surface of the skin. Regardless of what Opera W. says.

[bringbackimus]

No, its not over for Obama, but it is over for the Clintons, the Clinton wing of the Democratic party, the corporate media elite, and the Clinton cheerleaders in the MSM. The Clintons are slowly but surely destroying the Democratic Party, and the final nail in the coffin will be when H. Clinton is defeated in the national election, after 8 horrific years of Bush and Republicans. Senator Obama's future, meanwhile, remains bright, whether he is or is not the Democratic nominee.

[starrianna]

Senator Obama's future will only remain bright if he smartens up over the next 8 years by watching Hillary.

Maybe he should call her up and ask for mentorship.

[Zhonni]

He has more experience than Hillary so why do you think he needs her advice? He has less Washington experience that's all.

He would have great advisors so he would not have to listen to a Senator from NY.

[JimR]

To quote John Belushi in "Animal House":

"Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

[starrianna]

So you're comparing Obama's campaign to a juvenile fraternity party?

Isn't that awfully Bushian?

[JimR]

That scene didn't take place during a party. If you're going to use a film reference, it's important to get the facts right.

I know you can do better next time!

[iswearington]

need i remind all of you that winning elections in this "new america" has nothing to do with polls...neither population or exit polls...but...with first...sheer abject...brain desintergrating racism and who controls the diebold no paper trail voting machines.you poor democrats.you are facing a lose, lose situation. if clinton wins the nomination...you get more of the same or bush lite. if obama wins the nomination...the republicans can run slobbering thompson or barney the whitehouse dog..or did up ronald reagans foul evil remains prop him up strapped to a chair... and win the presidency...because no negro will ever in this time continuum occupy the whitehouse. it would mean the end of world wide white supremacy.

[genmalia]

I am perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton running her campaign as if she's already won. And y'all can keep saying she's out raised Obama, but he has far out raised her for the primary contest.

I am also fine with the many naysayers" because the race is far from over, and these same naysayer"s have traditionally been wrong in the past. John McCain was the sure winner in 2000 for the GOP nomination, Al Gore would surely have won the presidency, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004, and John Kerry would have won in 04.

In the mean time, I, along with the hundreds of thousands of other Obama supporters will continue our community organizing, phone banking, mailers, etc. The difference about this grassroots and online organizing compared to Howard Dean's is we are translating it to ground movement.

I don't see a single other campaign with as many feet on the ground with as much money to spend on the primaries.

Or did you forget? Obama's is the campaign of HOPE, and the one that wants to put the government back in the hands of its people instead of corporations and lobbyists.

Truly, all Democrats who want to vote for their special issues and somewhat non-viable candidates in the primaries (and I really do like most of the candidates):

****You are the ones that will make Hillary Clinton our nominee****

And if anyone who has honestly researched Obama, read his books, actually looked at his policy plans and statements, I can't honestly believe even more folks wouldn't support him. This empty suit drivel is ignorance, plain and simple. Most are just scared of real change; and they are scared to believe that a politician could actually exist that doesn't pander, and tell you what you want to hear. Obama speaks truth, even if it hurts a little. And he believes in us, as American citizens, that we can set the course for our great country to the fullest of its potential.

Barack Obama 2008!

[Dantheman99]

"Truly, all Democrats who want to vote for their special issues and somewhat non-viable candidates in the primaries (and I really do like most of the candidates) You are the ones that will make Hillary Clinton our nominee."

------------

Utter caca.

So Obama is the "candidate of hope", but you want people who support other candidates not to vote for the one they believe in, but cynically vote for Obama as the stop-Hillary candidate? Precious little hope in that.

The problem with our democracy is that we don't enable people to vote for their first choice. The Dems should use instant runoff voting or some other form of runoff or proportional representation to elect their delegates.

I am glad you are pro-Obama. I am glad when anyone finds a candidate they genuinely feel enthusiasm about. However, that doesn't mean that reasonable people won't read Obama's books and policy platform and still decide they prefer another candidate.

People who support Kucinich or Gravel or any of the non-top three candidates, or Edwards for that matter are not the one's responsible for Hillary becoming the nominee. People who genuinely support them as their preferred choice must be empowered to vote for them first. Perhaps these candidates are the candidate of hope for the people who support them? Perhaps even Hillary is the candidate of hope for some of her supporters however surprisingly.

The one's you should try to recruit are Hillary supporters who are just voting for her because she seems like a winner, but don't believe in her with the passion in which you believe in Obama.

Of the Democrats, Gravel and Kucinich are the ones that give me hope, and Dodd gives me hope he will run and displace Reid as worthless majority "leader".

Keep working for the candidate you support, but Obama doesn't have a monopoly on hope and no one should have to vote for anyone first who they don't support first.

[SeanGardner]

"Obama doesn't have a monopoly on hope"

And he also doesn't have a monopoly on working with preachers who have homophobic belief. In fact, Paul Jenkins, a HUFFPO blogger, wrote this blogpost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-jenkins/obama-and-mcclurkin-don_b_69556.html) which pointed this out:

"In this game, all candidates have been associated with homophobes. For instance, Hillary Clinton recently trumpeted her friendship with Harold Mayberry, of the First African Methodist Church in Oakland; her press release on the meeting/endorsement left out the fact that Mayberry believes homosexuality to be comparable to thievery."

When I say this I was like, why issn't Ofari Hutchinson even mentioning Hillary's association with Mayberry and other ministers from South Carolina who have said unflattering things about gays? Hmmm? Its as if Obama had "a monopoly" on being associated with ministers who've made unsavory comments against gays. And now we know that's untrue because of the developments that have come out regarding how Hillary's friend Mayberry equates "homosexuality with thievery".

So you're right Dantheman99, no candidate has a monopoly on anything: Obama doesn't have a monopoly on hope, just as Hillary doesn't have a monopoly on the women's vote, and just as Edwards doesn't have a monopoly on an understanding of working poor and working class issues.

This is going to be an interesting race.

[SeanGardner]

"Gravel and Kucinich are the ones that give me hope"

Me too. Lots of it. I love Kucinich, and Gravel has started to warm up to.

But let's deal with reality:

...even hardcore progressives know, Kucinish and Gravel (both whom I like) don't stand a snowballs chance in hell of even being nominated, let alone winning one single primary or caucus.

[SeanGardner]

"In the mean time, I, along with the hundreds of thousands of other Obama supporters will continue our community organizing, phone banking, mailers, etc. The difference about this grassroots and online organizing compared to Howard Dean's is we are translating it to ground movement."

Great post. This is what many are overlooking. Obama has the best ground game of any of the candidates, and gets more traffic on his website that any other candidate. Make no mistake, Obama is plugged into the disaffected and "unpolled" voter like no other politician this year, and has translated it into a solid ground game.

Thanks for your post genmalia.

[SeanGardner]

As always Mr. Fauntroy, I appeaciate your posts. Unlike some of the featured bloggers on HUFFPO, you don't come across as an ideologially inflexible and partisan individual. And after this week's emotionally draining, unnecessary controversies over both Hillary and Barack's connection to gay-bashing ministers, yours is a blogpost I am glad to see.

You tend to hit it out of the park, but I will disagree with you on this post.

This race is far from over. Seriously. FAR FROM OVER. Yes, it is true that Hillary has leads in the states you listed. Its true. Congrats Hillary.

And, it is true she also has a lead in some IOWA polls right now. But the lead in IOWA is VERY thin and unimpressive. Though I am a serious and passionate Obama fan, I know that anyone of the three candidates (Obama, Edwards and Clinton) can pull it out. All three can. I say this because most of 2007, the race in IOWA has stayed close as Hillary's lead in NATIONAL POLLS and other states have grown. And trust me, Hillary's lead in those other states (like Hew Hampshire and South Carolina) will start to deflate quickly if she loses IOWA. That is a fact.

Regardless of what someone writes, people will post on this and other threads for their candidates infinitum and ad nauseum. I am no different in this respect. I believe Obama can pull this out Mr. Fauntroy because of the expansiveness of his ground organization in the early voiting states, and because of the diverse make-up of both his donor base and his campaign staff (the most diverse campaign staff of any campaign this year with respect to race and ethnicity).

And let's not forget that Obama has the youth vote on lock in IOWA and nationally, and, as you already know, he has been endorsed by a boat load of popular current and former politicians in IOWA, so a victory is clearly not out of the question.

[SeanGardner]

People respect Obama because has a knack for telling voters what they don't want to hear, and people respect that.

A recent artcle in THE USATODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-07-09-obama-usat_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip) revealed the following about Obama's brand of "hard truth" politics:

"¢Asked about AIDS at a minority issues forum June 28 at Howard University, Obama said homosexuality still carries "a stigma" in black communities. "It has been an aspect of sometimes a homophobia, that we don't address this issue as clearly as it needs to be," he said.

"¢At a National Education Association meeting last week in Philadelphia, Obama reiterated his support for merit pay for teachers. The teachers union says merit pay forces teachers to compete rather than cooperate and doesn't solve the underlying problem of low pay.

The article is right. Obama offers hard truth to both the religious right, and to the progressive left. How can you be the President of the United States, offering a big tent of supporters, if you are not willing to be honet in ways that may upset some people?

Recently, a TV commentator I like said this:

"With respect to the constituencies I represent, I have three choices in life: (1) I can lie, which is immoral. (2) I can say nothing, which is cowardly. And, (3) I can speak my mind, which will upset people."

Smart, savvy voters don't want liars and fabricators; they don't want cowards and spineless wannabes; they want solid contenders to speak directly to their issues (www.barackobama.com/issues and www.senate.obama.gov), and even if they don't agree with you, they respect the fact that you were honest.

At the moment, Obama has more donors, more money to spend on next year's primaries than any candidate, and is in good shape to pull off a win in IOWA.

As I said above, this race is FAR from over.

Go Barack!

[prettypony]

WHOEVER the Dem candidate is we all have to rally around them like there's no tomorrow. WE CANNOT AFFORD A PRESIDENT GUILIANNI!!!!!!!!

[RuthieM]

Who asked you if it was already over for Obama? For any fair-minded columnist how in the world would you write this article unless you are the opponent's lacky? It isn't over for Obama or anyone. Last I checked the primaries are 2 months away. For anyone nationwide not to connect with the name Clinton they would have to have been in a coma. That is why the race is closer in Iowa because Iowans have met Obama and others. I asked my brother in Brooklyn NY 4 months ago about Obama, and he had never heard of him. I then told my other brother in Florida about Obama, and he too had never heard of him, didn't know about the rallies in Florida. Yet, when I mention Clinton it's oh yeah, of course. Not that they like her but they know her. That's what we're seeing in the polling, the Clinton name. If you columnists continue with these articles "Is It Already Over For Obama?" then your mission will be accomplished, because the bloggers, as they do, will run away with it and when it gets to that last blogger it will no longer be a question, it will be a statement. I have never seen an article like this for Romney or McCain or Thompson who's national poll numbers have been in the toilet at 9 and 11% since they declared their candidacy. I have never seen an article like this about John Edwards who's been steady THIRD place to Hillary. Yet, you report on John and Elizabeth as though they were leading in the polls. Something is amiss. If you writers think Obama is finished why don't you just stop reporting on him. You would save your brain(?)power, time, save your fingers pounding the computer and write about maybe your Aunt Becky baking an upsidedown cake, and save Obama supporters from having to comment on these icky articles. As the fat lady said, IT AIN'T OVER UNTIL THE FAT LADY STOPS SINGING (or something like that), and...I still hear her....OBAMA '08!

[nypoet22]

Hutchinson, a Clinton backer, started the series of posts on Huffpo about this McClurkin guy. Objectively, the political views of the musicians at an event should not be an issue, but it shows great discipline and insight that he was able to drive a wedge between Obama and the queer community. Maybe Obama will bounce back from this and maybe he won't, but his people really have to step up their game. Anyone who thinks there weren't a few Clinton tentacles dragging this into the foreground is kidding themselves.

[emerywood]

The influence of the polls on voters is real. They are little different from the tout sheets at the race tracks. Racing fans often follow the tips and make certain horses favorites, especially those fans who are undecided about which horse is going to win. At the track, no matter who is the favorite, there is still a horse race to be run. But, in politics, if the polls can influence your thinking as to who is the winner, that is it ! The one with the most votes ( tickets ) wins !

[JimR]

"The influence of the polls on voters is real."

Is that so?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/polls/main589167.shtml