The latest Gallup National Democratic Tracking Poll shows a 9 point drop by Senator Barack Obama in about a week. Will the pundits and media analyze why?
Here are the specifics: In the three-day ongoing Gallup Poll of 1,252 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters, from Thursday-Saturday April 17-19, Senator Obama leads by 47% to 45%. Because that 2-point edge is within the 3% margin of error, it means Hillary Clinton is now in a statistical head heat with Barack Obama.
This represents a dramatic drop by Senator Obama among Democrats and independent leaners of about 9% in less than a week - a drop that Gallup says began just before the recent ABC debate, and that continued and has leveled off as of Saturday.
It's also worth noting that as of Friday night, April 18, the tracking poll showed Senator Clinton with a 1% lead over Senator Obama, 46% to 45% over three days of calling between April 16-18).
When Obama took a lead of +11% in this same tracking poll as recently as a little over a week ago and maintained it, most print journalists in the mainstream media covering the campaign and certainly every cable TV evening news and pundit show made a big deal and headlined this lead as establishing the Senator Obama had just about wrapped up the nomination. This was not coincidentally accompanied by the Obama campaign spreading that message all over, and stirring its surrogates to call upon Senator Clinton to give it up, even before the Pennsylvania primary.
So now my question and challenge is to the national media covering the campaign, and especially to the cable TV shows - from the Sit Room on CNN to the Persistently and Unashamedly Pro-Obama MSNBC nightly cable TV hosts to the New York Times and other national political reporters: Will you headline the current apparent decline of Barack Obama's national Democratic Party strength and the Hillary Clinton surge within the last week alone - or not?
Sure I am a partisan of Senator Clinton and I can be accused of using the word "decline" and "surge" motivated to help her make the case to super delegates that she is the stronger candidate against John McCain. But forget about my admitted bias (I call it conviction) that Senator Clinton is the far stronger Democratic candidate against Senator McCain.
I ask the pro-Obama cable TV talk show hosts - the most admittedly biased of all, Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball" - will you at least have objective and neutral analysts to analyze what has happened to Barack Obama's standing among Democrats in the last two weeks - and what has happened to Senator Clinton's? A 9-point drop in such a short period of time by Senator Obama - or, from Senator Clinton's perspective, an 11-point gain - in a tracking poll is, by any standard of the polling profession, extremely and unusually large.
It could be an aberration. Senator Obama's slight improvement from Friday night's 3-day results to Saturday night's (from minus 1% to Senator Clinton to +2%) shows that Friday night's calls resulted in his winning that night's calling by a good margin. We will have to wait a few more days to see if Senator Obama resumes his prior substantial lead or whether things have just leveled off between the two. (Other news organizations, for example, such as Newsweek, still have Senator Obama in a substantial double digit lead among Democrats). But the Gallup tracking poll seems to be the most current with the largest total calls and the smallest margin of error.
And if the latter is the case, this is exactly the reason why Senator Clinton should not allow herself to be pushed out of the race prematurely - and why super delegates should not feel pushed into an artificial deadline to "decide" their vote.
And rather than pushing Senator Clinton out of the race too soon, the grassroots of the party need to be allowed to express its wishes as to who it wants to be the nominee - and superdelegates, whether committed or un-committed, need to keep their eyes on the big prize - winning back the White House. And to do so, they need to watch the results of the remaining primaries, the popular vote totals, the delegate vote totals - and - especially - on the national and state-by-state poll results before making a final decision.
("Tracking" polls are generally regarded as the most reliable of polling techniques to describe trends between two candidates, since the technique is to call about the same random sample of voters every night, adding the last three nights and dropping the prior fourth night. In the highly respected Gallup tracking poll, Gallup is calling 1,000 voters each night, out of which about 400 identify themselves as Democrats or independent-leaning Democratic voters, giving a three day relatively high total of 1,200 Democratic voters (and thus, the small =/- variance of 3%.)
Clinton Consistently Doing Better Than Obama Against McCain vs. Obama in Battleground States
Take a look at the state-by-state results comparing how Senator Clinton is doing against Senator McCain vs. Senator Obama and the results are even scarier. In the national polls, with all the fearsome talk by the Obama campaign about Senator Clinton's "high negatives" and being a "polarizer" the latest Gallup tracking poll, again as of Saturday night, April 19, shows Senator Clinton to be running dead even with Senator McCain - actually plus 1% or 46%-45% - as is Senator Obama (who is dead even at 45%-45%). Gallup points out that the trend has been slightly going against Obama, who had led McCain a week ago by a statistically insignificant +3%.
So what is my theory as to why Senator Obama has dropped so significantly in the last week or two and Senator Clinton has risen? To repeat my caveat: polls are snapshots of a moving picture, and these latest Gallup tracking results could be aberrational. And I could be wrong about my assessment of the reasons for Senator Obama's apparent collapse in the last two weeks if it is a collapse at all.
But here is my current operating theory: I am not sure, but I believe the same uneasiness that I have increasingly felt over these last several weeks about Senator Obama as our party's candidate against Senator McCain has been the case among other Democrats across the nation.
The issues for me are a mix of things, some specific, some intangible: for example, the continuing uneasiness over murky answers by Senator Obama as to why he remained silent for so long in the face of Rev. Wright's hateful sermons; The fact it took Senator Obama so long to understand - if he does even today - why he offended so many rural and cultural conservative voters when he said they were "bitter" over the economy, and thus, the "clinged" to guns and religion and anti-immigration sentiments as a result, rather than holding these views independent of frustration over the economy; And most recently, the Obama campaign's over-reaction and criticism of the ABC moderators' tough questions of Senator Obama in the recent debate, and Senator Obama's (to me at least) apparently flippant and, yes I must use the word, arrogant reaction in referring to it in the days after (at one point he actually accusing Senator Clinton of "twisting the knife") - these and other negative impressions have caused me greater concern about Senator Obama's electability in a contest against Senator McCain.
And, it is just possible, I am not alone, and there are so many other Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents out there feeling the same way as I for many of the same reasons that it might explain Senator Obama's dramatic drop of over 10% in a tracking poll in a little more than a week.
Meanwhile, Senator Clinton remains dignified, virtually unflappable, focused on economic issues and health care, and showing continuing signs of strength in the Democratic Party's core base ever since FDR - blue collar voters, workers, senior citizens, middle class working women. She has come across as human, vulnerable, likeable, and as always, commanding and mature on the issues. Of course, as I readily admit, I am biased: I think she is the best candidate and I think she would make a great president. So feel free to discount those positive impressions.
The Pennsylvania Primary
I don't know whether Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will win Pennsylvania and by what margin. I really don't. I only know that Senator Obama has been outspending Senator Clinton by as much as 2:1 or by some accounts 3:1 or more on TV ads and radio ads.
I don't buy the Obama-campaign-created bar, bought by most of the media and pro-Obama punditry, that Senator Clinton has to win Pennsylvania by double digits. Such a bar doesn't reflect the overpowering reality of being outspent on TV and radio (and much more, presumably, in direct mail and GOTV) by this margin - especially by round-the-clock unanswered negative attack TV and radio ads that the Obama campaign is running, many of them personal attacks on Senator Clinton's character.
In short: I hope Senator Clinton wins, period, by any margin, and will be happy if she does and disappointed if she doesn't. But the big news in Pennsylvania, even if Senator Clinton wins by a single-digit margin, will be in the exit polls demographic data. That is what everyone - especially super delegates who care about winning back the White House - should focus on.
If Senator Obama loses Pennsylvania by whatever margin and, most important, if his demographic base is still the same as before - virtually all African Americans, upper income liberal activist professionals, and college students - then the issue of electability should be even more of concern for Democrats.
So now we shall see: Will CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the ABC, NBC, and CBS network political correspondents headline the dramatic new Gallup tracking poll showing Senator Obama's dramatic drop? At least to the same extent as they headlined the +9% Obama advantage a little more than a week ago? And, more importantly, will they ask themselves, and their guests, why Senator Obama has apparently gone through such a dramatic political decline (that is, assuming it is not aberrational)? And go out to the grass roots and do some hard reporting to figure this question out, rather than interviewing each other?
And if Senator Obama loses Pennsylvania, will they focus on getting an answer to the question: How can Senator Obama win in the more conservative general electorate if he hasn't been able to win in the more liberal electorate of any major large industrial state in the nation - from Massachusetts to New Jersey to Ohio to California (and, perhaps after Tuesday night, to Pennsylvania)? Why has he lost, despite outspending Senator Clinton to such a degree on TV? Why has he lost these states that Democrats must win to win the presidency?
I may not have the answer right. But now it's time for all the national political media in print and on broadcast and cable TV to start to press for answers - and not be too intimidated by criticism from the pro-Obama blogosphere to ask the tough questions.