PDA

View Full Version : Elections Polls pound Palin


oldandslow
08-30-2008, 03:56 PM
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003844485

People can tell when they are being pandered too.

Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women

By E&P STaft

Published: August 30, 2008 1:35 PM ET

NEW YORK The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin yesterday came out today from Rasmussen and Gallup -- and contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women than men.

Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely.

From Rasmussen: Some 38% of men said they were more likely to vote for McCain now, but only 32% of women. By a narrow 41% to 35% margin, men said she was not ready to be president -- but women soundly rejected her, 48% to 25%.

Only 9% of Obama supporters said they might be more likely to vote for McCain.

Overall, voters expressed a favorable impression of her by a 53/26 margin, but there was a severe gender gap on this: Men embraced her at 58% to 23%, while for women it was 48/30.

And by a 29/44 margin, men and women together, they do not believe that she is ready to be President.

As for voters not affiliated with either major party, 37% are more likely to vote for McCain and 28% less likely to do so.

Gallup is now out with its own initial poll. It also shows women with a slightly less favorable view of Palin. An excerpt from USA Today:

There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.

That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week.....

Among all those surveyed, 35% call Obama's speech at Invesco Field at Mile High Stadium Thursday night excellent, 23% good, 15% "just OK," 3% poor and 4% "terrible." Sixteen percent say they didn't see it and 14% have no opinion. That's higher than the ratings for acceptance speeches by President Bush and Democrat John Kerry in 2004, by Bush and Democrat Al Gore in 2000 and by Republican Bob Dole in 1996.

Asked about the Democratic convention's impact, 43% say it makes them more likely to vote for Obama, 29% less likely. Nineteen percent say it won't make a difference.

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 04:02 PM
I've beaten you to this topic by about five minutes, but it does bear repeating.

This is what I suspected: that this grab was simply too obvious to play off as a sufficient grab for women, in particular Hillary supporters.

Excuse the visual, but Obama's choice of Biden by comparison is a dogwhistle call for Hillary supporters. Biden has long been a Hillary advocate and never kicked Hillary in the gut by abandoning her to endorse Obama. He's also polled extremely well with the traditional demographic of Hillary supporters: middle-aged women. He will turn out to have been the far more savvy reach for Hillary supporters than Palin, in part because he wasn't such an obvious pander.

Face it, folks. McCain got absolutely schooled on this one.

oldandslow
08-30-2008, 04:05 PM
Sorry Direckshun...

I missed your thread...

Your analysis here is right on though.

Bowser
08-30-2008, 04:07 PM
I've beaten you to this topic by about five minutes, but it does bear repeating.

This is what I suspected: that this grab was simply too obvious to play off as a sufficient grab for women, in particular Hillary supporters.

Excuse the visual, but Obama's choice of Biden by comparison is a dogwhistle call for Hillary supporters. Biden has long been a Hillary advocate and never kicked Hillary in the gut by abandoning her to endorse Obama. He's also polled extremely well with the traditional demographic of Hillary supporters: middle-aged women. He will turn out to have been the far more savvy reach for Hillary supporters than Palin, in part because he wasn't such an obvious pander.

Face it, folks. McCain got absolutely schooled on this one.

Yes, it seemed like quite the desperate move. I'm sure they were thinking that when Obama didn't take Hillary for veep, that the Palin selection would just turned all the chagrined women to the McCain party. Doesn't appear to be working thus far.

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 04:08 PM
I would pound palin too

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 04:11 PM
The best pandering is always done with a dogwhistle. Something your target can hear without tipping off everybody else that you're calling to them.

It beats the hell out of sounding off with a bugle, which just draws attention to itself and brings all the negative attention with it.

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 04:14 PM
Yes, it seemed like quite the desperate move. I'm sure they were thinking that when Obama didn't take Hillary for veep, that the Palin selection would just turned all the chagrined women to the McCain party. Doesn't appear to be working thus far.
Yeah.

And when you're hoping Hillary supporters flock to your running mate, it helps if you pick somebody who has SOMETHING, ANYTHING in common with her.

Palin, ideologically, is the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton in every way except one.

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 04:26 PM
Yeah.

And when you're hoping Hillary supporters flock to your running mate, it helps if you pick somebody who has SOMETHING, ANYTHING in common with her.

Palin, ideologically, is the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton in every way except one.

the fun pouch

BucEyedPea
08-30-2008, 04:57 PM
38 men for her compared to 32 for her. I don't see the big deal in being pounded/ Those numbers aren't anything to think less of. 30 percentile is not bad. No one gets all the votes.

whoman69
08-30-2008, 05:04 PM
This pick of VP is totally hypocritical of McCain who has been busting on Obama about his experience, and picking someone whose experience doesn't even come close to his. We all know the only reason he did it is to try to pull Hillary voters with the choice of a woman. That's pretty irresponsible to pick someone nowhere near prepared to be President when the main candidate is 72 years old with a long history of skin cancer and other major ailments. Additionally from reading her record, she went to the Alberto Gonzales school of political firings. She's called tough on the budget because she cut the road maintenance budget but passed overall a record budget. She is also seen as against wasteful spending because she opposed the road to nowhere. Its not mentioned that the state kept the federal funding for the project.

wazu
08-30-2008, 05:21 PM
As for voters not affiliated with either major party, 37% are more likely to vote for McCain and 28% less likely to do so.

I know this is being selective, but I found this stat encouraging. I pretty much figure most people who are already affiliated with a party will, in the end, stick with their party and aren't going to budge based on a running mate. But seeing that Palin is doing well with independents is encouraging.

Bottom line is Palin is still an unknown. It will ultimately be on her shoulders to define herself in a positive light. I think these numbers will move quickly one way or another based on how she handles the national spotlight.

Ultra Peanut
08-30-2008, 08:44 PM
B-b-b-but PUMAs? They were supposed to help! WRYYYYYYY

Logical
08-30-2008, 09:15 PM
I know this is being selective, but I found this stat encouraging. I pretty much figure most people who are already affiliated with a party will, in the end, stick with their party and aren't going to budge based on a running mate. But seeing that Palin is doing well with independents is encouraging.

Bottom line is Palin is still an unknown. It will ultimately be on her shoulders to define herself in a positive light. I think these numbers will move quickly one way or another based on how she handles the national spotlight.
I could be wrong but other than a 1/2 hour speech at the RNC and her debate in Oct I doubt she gets much attention.

wazu
08-30-2008, 09:19 PM
I could be wrong but other than a 1/2 hour speech at the RNC and her debate in Oct I doubt she gets much attention.

If that's the case then it's a push. I don't think she'll be leaving the spotlight anytime soon, though.

Direckshun
08-30-2008, 09:32 PM
I could be wrong but other than a 1/2 hour speech at the RNC and her debate in Oct I doubt she gets much attention.
Wronggggggggggggggggggggggg.

Cave Johnson
08-30-2008, 09:49 PM
Despite the Palin pick polling well with unaffiliated voters, it apparently isn't among the more critical undecideds.

But among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was. If the first criterion for any job is whether you're ready for it, this is a pretty major indictment of the first act of McCain's presidential leadership.

One other striking finding. If McCain thought he could present Palin as a moderate, he was wrong. A whopping 69 percent view her as conservative (37 percent as very conservative), and only 13 percent see her as moderate.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/undecideds-dont.html#trackback

Taco John
08-30-2008, 10:02 PM
I could be wrong but other than a 1/2 hour speech at the RNC and her debate in Oct I doubt she gets much attention.



I definitely think that you're wrong about that. They're going to do everything they can to get this woman in front of a camera. She's very "TV friendly," whereas McCain isn't. I suspect we're going to see a lot of Palin this September, until (and unless) she makes a horrible gaffe that makes her look weak. Then, they'll scale back.

Ugly Duck
08-30-2008, 11:07 PM
That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988.

Ouch!

Silock
08-30-2008, 11:10 PM
I think that this poll is very stupid, considering hardly anyone in the US has even seen her speak, or knows who she is.

Once they do, I think they'll change their minds (at least, some of them).

StcChief
08-31-2008, 01:00 AM
there is an old term..... Pound sand

DaneMcCloud
08-31-2008, 01:05 AM
I think that this poll is very stupid, considering hardly anyone in the US has even seen her speak, or knows who she is.

Once they do, I think they'll change their minds (at least, some of them).

They've got less than 8 weeks to influence the American public.

Is that enough time to change someone's mind? After nearly two years of campaigning for all the other principles involved?

Thig Lyfe
08-31-2008, 01:16 AM
B-b-b-but PUMAs? They were supposed to help! WRYYYYYYY

That avatar is ridiculous! ROFL

+1

Silock
08-31-2008, 01:21 AM
They've got less than 8 weeks to influence the American public.

Is that enough time to change someone's mind? After nearly two years of campaigning for all the other principles involved?

Absolutely enough time. It's short enough to highlight her good points without really looking too closely at the weaknesses. Kinda like a guy that pops up on the radar 2 weeks before the NFL draft.

jAZ
08-31-2008, 01:32 AM
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/undecideds-dont.html#trackback
Good summary by Sullivan...

From this first snap-shot (and unsettled) impression, Palin has helped McCain among Republicans, left Democrats unfazed, but moved the undecideds against him quite sharply. I totally understand why.

I can see how that makes perfect sense.

DaneMcCloud
08-31-2008, 01:37 AM
Absolutely enough time. It's short enough to highlight her good points without really looking too closely at the weaknesses. Kinda like a guy that pops up on the radar 2 weeks before the NFL draft.

Wow.

Well, I'd never equate the NFL Draft to the POTUS but if that's truly what it's come down to, Mike Judge might as well legally change his name to Nostradamus.

Idiocracy, here we come.

Silock
08-31-2008, 02:06 AM
Wow.

Well, I'd never equate the NFL Draft to the POTUS but if that's truly what it's come down to, Mike Judge might as well legally change his name to Nostradamus.

Idiocracy, here we come.

Meh, it's the mentality more than anything. Focus on a good candidate for too long, and they start to look tarnished. You can apply that to pretty much any good thing or trait within any person.

RINGLEADER
08-31-2008, 02:59 AM
I thought it was a bad pick because it undercut McCain's strongest political argument, but the more Dems keep saying she isn't qualified the lower the bar she needs to clear to prove she is.

And nevermind the fact that Obama has virtually no foreign policy experience either...

J Diddy
08-31-2008, 03:01 AM
I thought it was a bad pick because it undercut McCain's strongest political argument, but the more Dems keep saying she isn't qualified the lower the bar she needs to clear to prove she is.

And nevermind the fact that Obama has virtually no foreign policy experience either...


to me it totally eliminates BO's no experience angle

RINGLEADER
08-31-2008, 03:04 AM
Also, the Rasmussen poll was of Dem women (where any gain should be viewed as a plus) and neither poll showed the demographics of the responses. Depending on what type of women (married/single, moms/single) are responding it could be very good news for McCain. Still needs to get over the experience question but if she survives the debate with Biden and they start to build upon her resume and they could flip the "ready to be president" question in weeks. All Bush had to do in 2000 was correctly pronounce the names of a few foreign leaders and everyone was fine with him -- largely because the Dems spent so much time portraying him as a dundering simpleton that when he was able to answer coherently he seemed like a genius.

DaneMcCloud
08-31-2008, 03:05 AM
I thought it was a bad pick because it undercut McCain's strongest political argument, but the more Dems keep saying she isn't qualified the lower the bar she needs to clear to prove she is.

And nevermind the fact that Obama has virtually no foreign policy experience either...

The bottom line is that the pick raises more questions than it answers.

And that's a major problem.

RINGLEADER
08-31-2008, 03:05 AM
to me it totally eliminates BO's no experience angle

Which is why I think the issue has always been judgment anyway. But I hear you.

wazu
08-31-2008, 01:08 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. Thatís up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate."

alnorth
08-31-2008, 01:42 PM
The "bad polls" in the OP were amongst Democrat women. They do not like a Republican woman nominee? I'm shocked... SHOCKED that this is the case!

Amongst independants, its polling the other way, which is the only group that really matters. If they somehow attracted democrat votes to any significant degree, that would have ended the election.

Zogby had a new poll out yesterday (McCain/Palin 47%, Obama/Biden 45%) which suggests that the nomination basically cancelled out the Democrat convention.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews1547.html



Overall, 52% said the selection of Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee helps the Republican ticket, compared to 29% who said it hurt. Another 10% said it made no difference, while 10% were unsure. Among independent voters, 52% said it helps, while 26% said it would hurt. Among women, 48% said it would help, while 29% said it would hurt the GOP ticket. Among Republicans, the choice was a big hit - as 87% said it would help, and just 3% said it would hurt.

alnorth
08-31-2008, 01:50 PM
to me it totally eliminates BO's no experience angle

The commercials airing in Iowa are still harping non-stop about Obama's inexperience. The arguement would presumably be that the GOP has their ticket in the correct order, and Palin is only running for VP.

The reply would obviously be something about McCain's age, but no one else is going to really bring that up in a debate. If Obama wants to go there he risks a stark contrast in experience, which is probably why he immediately shut down the unauthorized statement put out by his campaign on Palin's experience.

beer bacon
08-31-2008, 01:51 PM
Please stop using Zogby Interactive (completely on-line polling) as evidence of anything. Zogby Interactive is one of the only polling outfits that you won't find used in polling averages by groups like Real Clear Politics. Their methods aren't acceptable, on-line polling, not by phone, and their results are consistently among the most inaccurate of ANY polling firm. For example, their last polls for Arkansas and Arizona both show Obama WINNING.

banyon
08-31-2008, 01:53 PM
The commercials airing in Iowa are still harping non-stop about Obama's inexperience. The arguement would presumably be that the GOP has their ticket in the correct order, and Palin is only running for VP.

The reply would obviously be something about McCain's age, but no one else is going to really bring that up in a debate. If Obama wants to go there he risks a stark contrast in experience, which is probably why he immediately shut down the unauthorized statement put out by his campaign on Palin's experience.

That's ok, the republicans have shown us the playbook. You just have the surrogates make the reply and insinuations about McCain's age, right? Just like how all of the "Muslim" stuff got out there.

beer bacon
08-31-2008, 01:55 PM
The commercials airing in Iowa are still harping non-stop about Obama's inexperience. The arguement would presumably be that the GOP has their ticket in the correct order, and Palin is only running for VP.

The reply would obviously be something about McCain's age, but no one else is going to really bring that up in a debate. If Obama wants to go there he risks a stark contrast in experience, which is probably why he immediately shut down the unauthorized statement put out by his campaign on Palin's experience.

The reply is that McCain doesn't believe his own experience argument. You don't put someone that you don't think is qualified to be President one step away from the Presidency. McCain either doesn't believe his own claims on the importance of experience, or he actual governance had nothing to do with this VP pick, just campaigning and stealing a few headlines.

The first and most important quality for a VP is readiness to be President. You don't spend months and millions of dollars claiming experience is the most important quality for the President, and then countermand that claim by picking a VP with less political experience then your opponent. It is just plain stupid.

alnorth
08-31-2008, 02:03 PM
The first and most important quality for a VP is readiness to be President.

Thats the sort of thing everyone says but no one believes. From the colonial times, to the 1950's when one of the democratic nominees actually didnt care at all and let the convention delegates pick, to today, it has never been about experience.

The VP's primary consideration for nomination is purely political, either to shore up a weakness or to pick up a state. It has never been about qualifications, except to the extent that they dont embarass themselves in speeches and the debate, like Quayle. That could very well happen with Palin as well, which would make this pick pretty poor, but if she holds her own, it could work out just fine.

beer bacon
08-31-2008, 02:07 PM
Thats the sort of thing everyone says but no one believes. From the colonial times, to the 1950's when one of the democratic nominees actually didnt care at all and let the convention delegates pick, to today, it has never been about experience.

The VP's primary consideration for nomination is purely political, either to shore up a weakness or to pick up a state. It has never been about qualifications, except to the extent that they dont embarass themselves in speeches and the debate, like Quayle. That could very well happen with Palin as well, which would make this pick pretty poor, but if she holds her own, it could work out just fine.

If McCain is elected, he will be the oldest President ever to be elected. Again, not picking someone for VP that he believes is ready to be President shows a horrible lack of judgment.

alnorth
08-31-2008, 02:12 PM
If McCain is elected, he will be the oldest President ever to be elected. Again, not picking someone for VP that he believes is ready to be President shows a horrible lack of judgment.

I simply disagree. McCain is in pretty good shape with longevity in his family. His primary consideration should be to win the election, not to assume that he will probably die.

If McCain believes he will die in office, I mean REALLY believes that, then the responsible thing should have been to not run at all.

beer bacon
08-31-2008, 02:22 PM
I simply disagree. McCain is in pretty good shape with longevity in his family. His primary consideration should be to win the election, not to assume that he will probably die.

If McCain believes he will die in office, I mean REALLY believes that, then the responsible thing should have been to not run at all.

I hope McCain makes this argument as well.

banyon
08-31-2008, 02:24 PM
Being a Senator, McCain gets great health care coverage as well, that could help if he has difficulty, even if it is socialized medicine.

beer bacon
08-31-2008, 02:26 PM
I hope McCain's next big speech (first big speech?) include a five minute explanation on how VPs don't actually need to be ready for the Presidency, and that they are only useful as a political football.

***SPRAYER
08-31-2008, 02:27 PM
The reply is that McCain doesn't believe his own experience argument. You don't put someone that you don't think is qualified to be President one step away from the Presidency.

So what are you going to do about it? Not vote for him?

:o)

alnorth
08-31-2008, 02:30 PM
OK, now that I've made a few posts about why this isnt an "LOL OMG insta-fail" type of pick that could actually work out just fine. That Sarah Palin could be a fine addition to the McCain campaign, etc, now I'll voice my biggest worries and why this could possibly be a bad pick.

Even if you throw out Zogby, the crucial independant voters are responding very favorably, but this is just the honeymoon period. Eventually, the voters are going to pay close attention (during the brief times when McCain and Obama arent hogging the spotlight) to see just how she carries herself.

Palin's speaking style is radically different from a conventional national candidate. She has this quaint folksy, and very informal style which plays well in front of an allied crowd and the local city council, but I have no friggen clue how it will play in Peoria. There's got to be a reason why virtually every other national candidate adopts a more formal speaking style.

Palin can either continue as she is and we'll have a little experiment to see if this style works, or she will completely change to sound more like a conventional candidate when things get a lot more serious. However, this is obviously what she is comfortable with, if she moved to a more formal style with soaring rhetoric, she may get nervous out of her comfort zone, make mistakes, or just sound rediculous, so we've got potential problems either way.

If she doesnt pull a Quayle she could add as much of a boost as any VP could ever potentially add, but I believe the risk of ruin is substantial.