About a month back I put up a post saying about how Barack Obama could lose this race. It was roundly regarded by the people of this post, chief among them a Georgetown law student, who called it irrational, impossible, and one that only lunatics would consider.
Two days later, a form of the same argument that I furthered was run on the front page of the Washington Post, a bastion of the supposed “liberal media bias” and a newspaper published in Georgetown’s backyard. (I particularly enjoyed the part where an Obama supporter agreed with me). I didn’t bring it up then, but I mention it now, because I am going to talk about more recent Obama screw-ups and, knowing the inevitable backlash, wanted to provide that maybe I am not so crazy after all.
Hillary Clinton lost the lead in this primary season due to a sense of inevitably. Now these same sins that got Obama the lead threaten to depose him now.
It would be easy to talk about Obama’s preacher, but that is too easy and has been written to death. I am talking about the passport situation brought up by Barack Obama’s campaign. For those of you who haven’t been following this, Obama’s passport information was inappropriately accessed and reviewed by personnel of the company that is supposed to protect it. Now, for those of you who question why the security of federal information is being done by a private company, I agree with you, but that’s not the point. Obama’s campaign made a stink about the passports, and Secretary of State Rice apologized for it. Further investigation showed that inappropriate access occurred with Clinton’s and McCain’s information, so Obama’s campaign couldn’t even claim conspiracy. What probably happened is that some people were tempted, looked at the info because of the three candidates current popularity. No big deal.
Until today. Turns out the CEO of the private company who does security for the passport info is a big supporter and advisor of one of the candidate’s campaigns.
Obama’s.
In yet another misstep, albeit probably minor one in the grand scheme of things, it adds credibility to any argument Clinton might extend that Obama can’t run a campaign. As of right now, it looks like he is heading for a big loss in Pennsylvania, is losing ground in North Carolina, and the remainder of the primaries play to Clinton’s strength, not Obama’s. The popular vote advantage will decrease and so will the number of pledged delegates. Combine that with the fact that as of right now Florida and Michigan will not be seated, and Clinton will be able to justifiably argue that if they were any difference in popular vote or delegates will be negligible.
Before, it was argued that Obama also had the advantage against McCain in the general. As of today, that contention is highly in doubt. Both Hilary and Obama are running a statistical tie against a McCain who is resting and not doing much, but McCain has statistically significant leads against Obama in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, while Clinton has statistical ties.
I was shouted down before, and I am sure I will be shouted down again. But Obama is not assured. Nor is Clinton. But considering a recent story which held that no matter who wins, one out of five of either candidate’s supporters will vote for McCain if their person loses, the longer this goes, the better it is for McCain, no matter who wins.
Two days later, a form of the same argument that I furthered was run on the front page of the Washington Post, a bastion of the supposed “liberal media bias” and a newspaper published in Georgetown’s backyard. (I particularly enjoyed the part where an Obama supporter agreed with me). I didn’t bring it up then, but I mention it now, because I am going to talk about more recent Obama screw-ups and, knowing the inevitable backlash, wanted to provide that maybe I am not so crazy after all.
Hillary Clinton lost the lead in this primary season due to a sense of inevitably. Now these same sins that got Obama the lead threaten to depose him now.
It would be easy to talk about Obama’s preacher, but that is too easy and has been written to death. I am talking about the passport situation brought up by Barack Obama’s campaign. For those of you who haven’t been following this, Obama’s passport information was inappropriately accessed and reviewed by personnel of the company that is supposed to protect it. Now, for those of you who question why the security of federal information is being done by a private company, I agree with you, but that’s not the point. Obama’s campaign made a stink about the passports, and Secretary of State Rice apologized for it. Further investigation showed that inappropriate access occurred with Clinton’s and McCain’s information, so Obama’s campaign couldn’t even claim conspiracy. What probably happened is that some people were tempted, looked at the info because of the three candidates current popularity. No big deal.
Until today. Turns out the CEO of the private company who does security for the passport info is a big supporter and advisor of one of the candidate’s campaigns.
Obama’s.
In yet another misstep, albeit probably minor one in the grand scheme of things, it adds credibility to any argument Clinton might extend that Obama can’t run a campaign. As of right now, it looks like he is heading for a big loss in Pennsylvania, is losing ground in North Carolina, and the remainder of the primaries play to Clinton’s strength, not Obama’s. The popular vote advantage will decrease and so will the number of pledged delegates. Combine that with the fact that as of right now Florida and Michigan will not be seated, and Clinton will be able to justifiably argue that if they were any difference in popular vote or delegates will be negligible.
Before, it was argued that Obama also had the advantage against McCain in the general. As of today, that contention is highly in doubt. Both Hilary and Obama are running a statistical tie against a McCain who is resting and not doing much, but McCain has statistically significant leads against Obama in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, while Clinton has statistical ties.
I was shouted down before, and I am sure I will be shouted down again. But Obama is not assured. Nor is Clinton. But considering a recent story which held that no matter who wins, one out of five of either candidate’s supporters will vote for McCain if their person loses, the longer this goes, the better it is for McCain, no matter who wins.
This is, honestly, the worst piece of political analysis I have ever read. It's difficult to fathom how wrong it is. I'm not going to argue, I'm not going to rail against it, I'm just going to sit back and let things unfold. I have absolute and total confidence that the remainder of the campaign will prove this post wrong, except for the part about how the longer this goes on, the more it helps McCain. We have both made our opinions clear, and time will tell.
NOTE: The ONE caveat that I will put on the comment I just made is that if Obama commits some major gaffe in the future, things could change. But nothing up to this point in the campaign indicates anything except that Obama has all but a lock on the nomination.
"But considering a recent story which held that no matter who wins, one out of five of either candidate’s supporters will vote for McCain if their person loses, the longer this goes, the better it is for McCain, no matter who wins."
Unless my scenario occurs and both of them are on the ticket. Let's watch it unfold. I cannot picture the superdelegates (who have to know the above fact) allowing petty differences to lose the election.
It's 1960 all over again.
Tom
You're right, Brian. The only quibble I have is that it's a stretch to even call it "political analysis." It's hard to imagine how anyone, much less someone claiming special political insight, could make the claim that a candidate who raised far more money than any other candidate, Democratic or Republican, who won more states, has more delegates, and has more popular votes, who hasn't had the staff turmoil of the Clinton and McCain campaigns, doesn't know how to run a political campaign. There are a lot of criticisms that could be and have been leveled at Obama. I don't know if he's going to get the nomination; he may not. But to say that he doesn't know how to run a political campaign is just plain stupid. Who is this guy, anyway?
By the way, just to make clear to everybody what my position was regarding Prescott's post a month ago (interesting how there's no link to it, btw), at that time I was not arguing that the position that "Barack Obama could lose this race" was "irrational, impossible, and one that only lunatics would consider." I was arguing that the specific argument Prescott was making (and, yes, the argument laid out in the Washington Post article) was illogical.
Brian -
Ok, you are right about this being the worst piece of political analysis you have ever read. In comparison to the Tiger Beat, Backstreet Boy groupie, pure infatuation puff pieces that have been infesting this blog like so many rats on a ship, this is horribly bad. For me to even suggest the possibility that Obama could lose (which is by the way, all I did) was stupid.
I didn't make my opinion clear. In fact, I was pretty explicit about not making my opinion clear when I said that neither Clinton nor Obama was assured. I use terms like "threaten" and "possibly." Those generally mean a lack of certainty by the person using them. Pssssttt...by the way, I don't have an opinion on what is going to happen, which is why I keep following this primary even though I will probably vote for neither. I said nothing about likely hood outside of Obama is not 100%, you schmuck. I didn't take a position, only explored a possible outcome and the means to get there, a position, which by the way, others who are much better at this than we are at least conceed the possibility of, if not the likelyhood. Again, see the article I referenced in the post.
If you could attempt to retain some of those basic reading skills that you picked up in Kindergarten, and read what I say, not what you think I said, that would just be great.
I anxiously await your next piece on "Obama: can his tears cure cancer" and "Obama solves world hunger while juggling chainsaws." I am sure that it will bring the same sort of impartialitiy that I have come to expect from your posts, recently.
Ralph -
Hi, I have to ask you the same thing to you. Did you see anywhere in the piece where I said Obama doesn't know how to run a campaign? I actually wrote "missteps." I am pretty sure everyone makes mistakes, once and a while, and thats all I meant to convey. Personally, I think Obama has run a good campaign so far, but he has made some mistakes, some of which I have highlighted. And Obama has had staff turnover by people who made inappropriate comments about Clinton, notably one of his chief foreign policy advisors. I didn't mention it, because it wasn't that important.
For the love of god, read what I say, not what you think I could be thinking.
Prescott,
I, um, wasn't attributing to you the opinion that Clinton is going to win. I was attributing the opinion you stated in your post and just re-stated in your comment, which is that "Obama is not assured." My opinion is that Obama IS assured, with the sole caveat I laid out in my second comment to this post.
Admittedly, it will be hard to demonstrate that you were wrong, because if Obama wins you can just say, "Well, I never predicted he would lose." So...good for you in protecting yourself against that eventuality. You're still totally wrong.
After reading all of Brian's Obama posts, I have no idea how he could possibly think that this post is the worst piece of political analysis he's ever read (assuming he read the piles of crap he's been posting over the previous weeks).
Screw that Brian. I don't have any desire at all to equivocate. Obama is not assured.
A meteor could hit him, Brian. A city that he's in could be nuked by an unknown enemy. There could be photos of him in bed with a seventeen-year-old boy. To say that the chances of a person not being nominated are nil is insane.
He's not Jesus, or even Ben Kenobi. Nothing is certain in this world. Besides, if 20% of the Democratic voters are going to go elsewhere if he wins, Obama will have assured a McCain victory. You told me a while back that you simply hated John. You like him enough to be right about Obama's victory?
Tom
This post has been removed by the author.
Add "a meteor hitting him" and "being in a city that is nuked" to my caveat, along with any other unexpected, out-of-nowhere event that could eliminate him. Again, my argument is that nothing up to this point in the campaign indicates that he can lose (which includes consideration of foreseeable outcomes in Pennsylvania, NC, Indiana, and all the rest of the future primaries).
"In comparison to the Tiger Beat, Backstreet Boy groupie, pure infatuation puff pieces that have been infesting this blog like so many rats on a ship, this is horribly bad."
Awesome, Prescott.
Am I getting this right?
Prescott: It's possible for Obama to lose, here are a couple reasons why.
Brian: Prescott, I don't think it's even remotely fathomable that he can lose, and your argument is the worst I have ever read in my entire life because you are questioning his overwhelming superiority.
Laughable.
Obviously Obama, even with the momentum recently swinging toward Clinton, is still the front-runner. But for Brian to suggest in his mindless, slavish, drooling obsession with Obama that he is approximately a 100% certainty at this point is disquieting. Clinton is a marginal number of delegates behind given that they both have over 1000 and she has the momentum and she can prove that she can win the big states. This thing is going to be a bloodbath - she's not going to just give in to someone that she considers to be the kiddie at the table. I think this game is about 60/40 favoring Obama.
Again Brian, you are seriously disturbing me - calm down.
Some people are understandably misunderstanding my argument and thinking that I'm being more stubborn about this than I am, so hopefully I can clarify.
(1) There are reasonable arguments to make that Hillary has a greater chance than I am saying she has. I disagree with those arguments, and think she has very little chance, but recognize room for reasonable dispute.
(2) The arguments Prescott lays out in this post contain several misleading and false statements (e.g., "the remainder of the primaries play to Clinton’s strength, not Obama’s"), and THAT is why it is the worst analysis I've ever read.
(3) While Prescott's post does leave him plenty of wiggle room, it does come off as an argument that there is no clear favorite. This is silly, and it at least must be acknowledged that Obama is favored to win. I could be misreading what Prescott is saying here, since he never clearly states whether one candidate is favored or not, but his post does gives off a certain impression, and if that impression is accurate, it's silly.
Ok--assuming you're right, Brian, how does the Democratic Party handle the 20% of the voters that will either not vote or go GOP (or Green) if their candidate is not on the ballot?
Tom
Good analysis, but the typical white person remark also hurts him; its funny that Mr Change and I'm not gonna get into dirty politics oBama, releases a photo yesterday of Bill Clinton shaking hands w/ Rev Wright 10 yrs ago...what a joke..is that change??? LMAO
NO VOTE FOR BENEDICT OBAMA!!
Tom,
I think that's an inflated number on both sides. Right now many people are strongly committed to their support for either Clinton or Obama, and it's difficult for many to, on the one hand, rail against one of them being nominated, while on the other hand, embrace the idea of ultimately campaigning for that person. I suspect that number will go down significantly once this thing is concluded (either way). It won't be totally eliminated, which is an unfortunate problem, but not an insurmountable one.
By the way, none of my certainty about Obama getting the nomination carries over to him winning in the general. If I had to comment on the general, I'd guess that Obama will win, but it would be only a guess and nothing more.
Oh, I am sorry. I thought people on this blog read newspapers and watched TV. I didn't know I had to explicitly state that there was a front runner in a race that is being covered ad nauseum. Does your Obama ego need to be stroked that much that you constantly have to be reminded he is the frontrunner? Seriously, I thought it went without saying.
OK, fine. Lets try math and some assumptions.
Per RCP, Hillary is down in the popular vote 813,945 votes. There is high turnout in Pennsylvania, because of the importance, and 2 million of a possible 12,000,000+ show up to vote. Reasonable. Hillary wins by 15%, which is a reasonable figure based on current polling, where she is as high as 21%. Hillary picks up 300,000 votes. North Carolina comes up, and I'll say that 1.3 million voters show up out of a population of 8 million. Off the momenutm of Pennsylvania, Hillary picks up little, but keeps it close. Obama wins by 2%, and he picks up 26,000 voters.
But Indiana is that day too, and assuming a high turnout of 1 million, which is the high end again but based on Democratic estimates. Hilary wins by 5%, and she nets 24,000 for the day, bringing the lead closer to 490,000.
Then come West Virginia and Kentucky. Hillary, according to recent polling has a 30 point lead in WV. I'll say Hillary only wins by 15. If there is a high turnout, which I think there will be, 450,000 show up, (again based on the high end of democratic projections). Thats another 67,500 votes picked up, closing the barrier to 422,500. That leaves Kentucky, Oregon, and some others on the board. For argument sake, lets say it breaks even, approximately, and Hillary is down 400,000 votes. The total margin of popular vote victory would probably be less than 1% of votes cast.
But Hillary wouldn't necessarily have to catch up, because Florida and Michigan are the unknowns. Those states should be right in her wheelhouse, and who knows how many votes she could pick up there. By refusing to do a recount and if Hillary gets close enough, there is an argument that Hillary might have the popular vote, and Obama the pledged delegates. Either way, there is a distinct possibility that the popular vote is going to be within 1% with two of the largest states uncounted...state that would generally look like Hillary country.
There were 1.5 million florida voters that came out for a poll they knew didn't mean anything, and 330,000 Michigan voters for a poll that had only one candidate. Considering the timing of the redo, if one were had, and the votes obtained by dems in the 2004 presidential election and the fact that Michigan, I think is an open primary, you could have 2 million voters in Florida and another 2 million in michigan (in the 2004 election, Kerry got 3.5 million votes in Florida and 2.4 million in michigan). Hillary wins both of those states by 5% (which wouldn't be a blowout), she picks up 275,000 votes. I think that is a conservative estimate of what she could get in a primary. So Obama is up 125,000 votes, so the lead is neglible, and so are the pledged delegates. Then it comes down to momentum, and all of those other arguments Clinton would make.
Again, Brian, I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS WILL HAPPEN. But I think it is POSSIBLE. NOT EVEN SAYING IT IS LIKELY. JUST POSSIBLE. (Also that 813k figure I used is a high estimate and includes unfinalized number from IA, ME, NV and WA. The number that Realclear is using is 110k votes lower. So you be the judge).
Great analysis Prescott, some of the best I've seen on this blog. Brian doesn't like numbers, so don't expect him to respond with anything fierce.
So you make some slightly Clinton-favorable assumptions, conclude your analysis by saying Obama still ends up with a lead in votes and pledged delegates, and use that analysis to conclude, essentially, that Clinton, rather than having no chance at all, has SOME chance, however slim.
...okay. I guess my failure was in assuming you were making an interesting argument. But if this is just an argument between me saying, "She has practically no chance," and you saying, "She has a slight chance," then I have very little interest in it.
Billy, it's not great analysis just because it's long and has numbers in it. Get a grip.
This post I just read from Ezra Klein isn't exactly on point, but it's close and it accurately sums up my thoughts on the race:
"I don't think you need to reach for far-out explanations to explain the continuation and ferocity of the Clinton Campaign. Rather, you just need an old political maxim: All campaigns look winnable to the people inside them. Just ask Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich. Ask Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson, Elizabeth Dole, and Dan Quayle. And Clinton's star power, and her lead in Pennsylvania, and the videos of Wright, and all the other disparate data points that exist in an election this large mean there's more than enough information for her to construct a plausible internal narrative explaining how she wins this thing. And for a candidate who's come so far and gotten so close, admitting defeat requires a pretty enormous psychological shift.
Now, I think she's wrong. I think Obama's lead in pledged delegates and his lead in the popular vote effectively end her chances. I think that his implosion is unlikely, and if it happens, the delegates will be focused on placating his voters (particularly African-Americans), not fulfilling Clinton's hopes. And that might even lead them towards a third choice. But be that as it may, it's not hard to understand why Clinton thinks she can, and should, keep this fight going. The mystery is why the party's elders, and a critical mass of superdelegates, haven't stepped in to stop it. My hunch is that they're waiting till the end of the primaries, or at least past the next few big ones, but they're the rational players here who need to accurately assess the political landscape. The Clinton campaign is just acting, well, like a campaign. You don't need to think up a nefarious or complex explanation for their behavior."
It is similarly not hard for people who are intensely opposed to Obama, like Prescott, to think she should keep this fight going. But her chances are still effectively over.
I spotted Obama 100k votes to begin with, so any "slightly favorable" advantage I gave Clinton was probably overturned.
Also, you said Obama is a lock absent armageddon. So you admitting that Hillary has any chance at all is a step towards where I started out. So no matter how "unintersting" my argument was, you pretty much conceded my central point, whereas before you were strongly against it. Well played.
And also, I don't know if what I laid out was incredibly far removed from possibility, so I wouldn't say "slim." Less than 50% certainly. But probably more than 1%. But I am not a statistician and I don't play that game. However, if I did, I would say that intrade said Clinton had a 20% chance of winning, which is not as "slim" as you make it out to be.
I wonder if Obama would be where he is if the Rev. Wright's statements came out earlier in the primary. Count the Michigan and Florida. Obama said he didn't have his name on the ballot but he went out and told everyone who supports him to mark uncommitted. Florida, we all know he had his name and asked people to vote for him. He will lose both states if they were to hold the primaries again just like Pennsylvania. Obama's base only works on Democratic primaries where the population of blacks matters. On our nationwide general election, black votes do not carry the same weight. McCain is going to walk away giving this country a four more years of Republican White House. If you are a democrat and care about our country, dump Obama and hope Hillary becomes our nominee.
Brian -
Quit putting words in my mouth. You are not adept at it. I am not intensely opposed to Barack Obama. I respect the man, and I think he has many admirable qualities. I might appear to "intensely oppose" him as I do not genuflect and generally go ga ga everytime he opens his mouth, like most people do on this blog. I will not vote for him in this election cause I don't believe in his policies and how he wants to achieve his goals. I will oppose him, but probably not "intensely" so.
Prescott,
I think she has significantly less than a 20% chance, so we're not in agreement. I'd say, if you exclude from consideration the whole "hit by a meteor, found in bed with an underage boy" stuff that could kill Obama's campaign, his chances are about 98% in favor of winning. It seems like you just indicated that you think they're around 80%. If you take my acknowledgment of a 2% chance as a concession, then okay, but that'd be a little weird.
And who are you kidding saying you're not intensely opposed to him? Almost 100% of what you have contributed to this blog in recent weeks has been talking about how Obama isn't as great as everybody's saying he is. Perhaps I should say you are intensely opposed to Obama's supporters rather than Obama the man, but it's pretty clear that something about the level of support for him gets under your skin.
I don't have anything against Obama's supporters, in general. I have a problem with the Obama supporters on this blog. I think you have all gone crazy. Its one thing to support a guy, but the amount of adoration you give the man is absurd to me. I don't think he is as great as YOU say he is. Almost every post that has gone up on this blog has been pro obama. There has been no dissenting voice. I am filling a need on this blog, because 100% of the country doesn't adore the man the way you all do. Someone has to play con on this blog, or we might as well stamp a Obama 2008 icon on the page, and sorry, I don't want that to happen.
If this is going to be a marketplace of ideas, there has to be more than one.
So I will continue to point out what I think are weaknesses and flaws in his campaign to provide context if for no other reason. While granted, recently, there have been more anti-obama posts, they are still a minority. So I will continue to make these posts.
I didn't read all the comments, so if this has been said, apologies for the redundancy.
I don't think Obama's campaign overreached, they essentially just asked for an investigation, which is appropriate. Some obama supporters were fanatically claiming conspiracy, but I don't think his campaign really was.
This is a fluid race. PA is still a ways off. The story will have 3 or 4 more game changing moments. Overall, the main stream media is making a horse race where there is none. The proportional representation system ensures that she cannot catch him in pledged delegates, absent photos showing up w/ Obama and Rev Wright tagteaming underage boys, or some other similar game breaker, Obama should have this wrapped up. I wouldn't rule out the Clinton's manufacturing a game breaker for Obama. But even with that said, obama probably has an 80% chance of entering the nomination w/ a leading by at least 70% of his current lead in both popular vote and pledged dels. Florida and Mich wouldn't fill the gap, and supers will fall in line.
You're right about one thing, Hillary staying in w/ scorched earth is great for McCain. She is gambling that she can make him unelectable enough that she can prove he's unelectable beyond any reasonable doubt to superdels, so she can steal it. What if she renders him unelectable, but not so obviously so that supers are willing to thwart the will of the people? That's the most likely scenario. Death to the party so she can have a 20% chance of winning. Even if she pulls that off, after the theft, I cant imagine blacks, young people, smart people are going to want to vote for her, and she'd probably only have a 35% chance of winning the nomination. Imagine how high her negatives will be if she steals this
I'm pretty sure there's about as many Democrats who will defect to McCain if their guy/girl loses as there were Democrats who moved to Canada after Bush won in '04. Democrats are drama queens.
It's hard to take seriously any polls that indicate the upcoming general election results this early in the game (and lest you write me off as an Obama supporter, I'll remind you that on the front page of his website there's 'Obama Will Beat McCain'), because it's a whole different ballgame once the Democrats can turn away from one another. The GOP barely has fusion, and it won't take much for the Demo nominee to force McCain to take a stand on an issue that'll split the south and west. Point is, McCain can control the narrative until the Democrats are absolutely decided. That the early numbers for a general election matchup are so close when no one is expending much effort attacking McCain says something about what kind of election this will be. McCain is Bernard Epton - a challenge, perhaps, but the real battle is between Jane & Harold.
The problem for Hillary isn't that Obama's voters will support McCain, it is that they wont bother coming otu to vote. The first time voters he energizes, and the african americans would be most seriously pissed if she steals this.
There is some risk that independents he can pull would go w/ McCain otherwise.
Democrats aren't the least bit concerned that recent head-to-head polls show McCain beating Hillary and Barack by eight and six percent? And the Obamamaniacs aren't concerned about the negative effect of Barack's speech on race that I mentioned here?
McCain's head to head numbers are only going to improve as this trench warfare primary continues.
I'm a little concerned b/c the general schedule is so much shorter. The dem nominee will be determined late august (and i wouldnt be shocked if there was uncertainty due to a lawsuit filed by the clintons) and the nominee will have september and october to make their case.
Tying McCain to dubya will be effective, and the increasing signs of his senility will also end up w/ over 60% of people saying he's too old.
Two months is a reasonably long time, but it's startling when that is compared with the 4 months between now and having a nominee.
The race speech has both hurt and helped. It's reminded people of his merit and undercut a lot of blue collar folks who might have been starting to believe he was getting a free pass b/c he is black. Cable news has been pretty unreasonable about this.
The story is going to change many more times between now and even PA
Kofi,
I agree with some of what Augur said, except I think there is little chance this will go until August, and think there will probably be at least four months and as many as six months of general election campaigning where there is a clear Democratic nominee. It's difficult to imagine the final primary in early June happening and then the superdelegates just sitting on their hands until the convention in August. They'll get together and make some kind of decision after the final primaries are over at the latest, and maybe even sooner if Obama builds up some momentum and Hillary starts looking increasingly desperate and big party figures start trying to push her out of the race for the good of the party.
Once there is a clear Dem nominee, I'm reasonably confident McCain's numbers will go back down. Whether they will go down enough for the Democrat to win the election is unclear and depends on a lot of unknowns, but I'd guess that they will.
The negative public reaction to the race speech also appears to have been only temporary. I suspect the speech will ultimately be a net positive for him, and in any case it won't sink him.
Ultimately, you asked if I'm worried about the general. And, yes, I am. I'm not at all certain how the general will turn out. Am I staying up at night worrying about it? Not really. It's a long way away and there's no cause for panic, and as I've said, if I had to guess, I'd guess Obama wins the general. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
Brian- your Klein post is seems to be irrelevant and counterproductive. It starts with a statement, "All campaigns look winnable to the people inside them," implying that Prescott is unreasonably supporting a candidate as a result of an echo chamber mentality. I think that particular quote more accurately describes your absolute defense of Obama. Prescott is not a member of the Hillary campaign and did not specify loyalty to any candidate in this post. He just said she's got a shot at it.
Obama fans love him, which is the main reason his campaign has so much energy. But what Obama supporters consistently overlook is the fact that those who aren't with him are against him, or are at least apathetic.
If this thing makes it to the convention and is decided in smoke-filled rooms by career politicians, Hillary has an advantage, regardless of the "change" and anti-corruption rhetoric that the Obama campaign is so famous for spewing.
Also, I agree with Joe that general election polls are not dependable right now. It's way too early with too many mistakes yet to be made.