Poll: Virginia Voters Prefer Palin to Obama

By
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 at 12:18 pm

Buried inside the new Public Policy Polling survey of Virginia are two questions: How would voters react if President Obama campaigned for a Democratic candidate, and how would they react if former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) campaigned for the Republican?

The answer, in a state that voted 53-46 for Barack Obama in last year’s election? More people would go for Palin’s candidate, although most voters would prefer that neither politician weigh in. By a 35-26 margin, voters say they’d be less likely to support a Republican candidate if Palin campaigned for him. But by a 37-14 margin, voters say they’d be less likely to support the Democrat if Obama campaigned for him.

This comes in a poll that finds dramatically lower Democratic enthusiasm for the 2009 elections, and PPP president Dean Debnam explains that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds is lagging because the voters activated to vote for Obama in 2008 were not paying attention to this race. “Somewhat counter intuitively Barack Obama’s poor numbers are exactly why Creigh Deeds needs the President to campaign for him,” said Debnam.

Picture 52

Picture 53

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | |

Comments

32 Comments

KCinDC
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

The headline is misleading. You can't make that claim from that poll question. Among other things, if someone is absolutely sure they're going to vote (or not going to vote) for Deeds or McDonnell, then Palin or Obama will have no effect on their vote, no matter how much they hate or love Palin or Obama. All those people are lumped together in the ignored “no effect” answer (hmm, actually it's “not sure”, so I don't know how most of those people would react to that badly designed set of answers).

Also, I don't see what supports the claim that “most voters would prefer that neither politician weigh in”. There doesn't seem to be a question about that.


gahanson
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

From the polls I've seen, Republican McDonnell is going to win rather easily. Polls in NJ show that Republican Christie is leading by a wide margin as well. This is a forewarning to the democrats that they have engaged in too much over reach. They took the results of the 2008 race as a mandate to do whatever they wanted, when in fact, it was no such thing.

Palin 2012


strangely_enough
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Insanity now.


elija
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

I very much liked the catchy headline…I instantly wanted to read your article….and I very much appreciate honest reporting…

It was a refreshing read.


IndyVA
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

Well I guess my fellow Virginians know a good point guard that can keep her eye on the basket while dribbling upstream away from the dead fish. This would be embarrassing if the poll numbers were accurate.


gary4205
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

With both Governorships going to the Republicans in the fall, unless ACORN buses a bunch of thugs in, this does NOT look good for the democrat/communist party moving forward.

Not sure Palin would come to Virginia to campaign, although she is in New York right now and could certainly go to NJ and say hi!

Palin can draw 20,000-30,000 people just to hear her read the ingredients on a cereal box, so you better bet that who ever she campaigns for will win!

Ask Saxby Chambliss. He had a run off election after September. Both candidates had an all-star cast come down and campaign for them. Bill Clinton and some rappers for the dem/commie and EVERYONE for Chambliss. The last poll going in had it at a dead heat race.

Palin came in at the last minute, only campaigned one day, and drew more people at each of the four stops she made than ALL of the other “stars” for both sides had drawn in total at all of their appearances!

Chambliss won a 16 point blowout!

This is going to get good.

Speaking of Palin, here's the video Barack Obama and the Alaska Mafia has been working overtime to have banned, to no avail. (And they ain't happy!) This shows who and what is behind all of the attacks on Sarah Palin.

They were going to impeach Richard Nixon for a heck of a lot less!

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.blogspot.com/2…


vivienneajones
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 12:11 am

$arah Palin will never run for office again. Ever. Pretty soon she will be exposed for the fraud she is, and even mouthing-off tours will be off the agenda.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 2:08 am

So how is Sarahcudda supposed to be a “fraud,” viv? I mean, when you compare her against “sealed” and secretive and “What, you want my birth certificate? No way!” Barry Soetoro, the lady is the model of openness and “transparency.”

You got any links to support your “fraud” contention, bubbie?


cliffNZ
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 11:10 am

“Pretty soon she will be exposed for the fraud she is” (viiienneajones)

yeah – pretty soon..I mean it…she will be…I know it…Soon…please..I know we keep saying it and it doesn't happen…but it will…pretty soon…


Tuci78
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 11:16 am

Well, it's getting out in the drive-by media now.

From David Hahn, “Publisher StatePaper.com ” August 5, 2009.

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as “racist,” “birther,” or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being “too liberal” or an “Obama lover” by some of our most prolific critics.

But, here is the issue:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.

The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a “Certificate of Live Birth.” We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.

But, this “Certificate of Live Birth” is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call “Evidence.” One of the core tenets of American law is the “best evidence rule” which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.

The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.

Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the “Best Evidence Rule” and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of “Best Evidence” is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the “best evidence” (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate.

I guess there are some things that not even a journalism school graduate can stomach.


Anteni
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

Knowing something about market research the numbers are meaning less. No base has been presented, which make the numbers dubious. A base is a population size, not a percentage. Second it is not possible to determine who these people are. It is not possible to compare the two tables, nor trust the results obtained.

From viewing that actual report released from PPP the market researcher has come to a totally different conclusion to what this author wants to portray. More specifically the researcher states “Large number of Obama's supports aren't planning to vote this fall and if he can get them energized for Deeds the race for Governor will get a lot close.

The question didn't ask who was more popular.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

Hey, don't blame Mr. Weigel for trying to slice lunchmeat off this chunk of baloney.

The guy's got a living to make, doesn't he?


mantis
Comment posted August 6, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

Tuci, you loveable little Paulbot moron, an opinion column in a web-only college newspaper is the best you can come up with?


The Washington Independent » Poll: Virginia Voters Prefer Palin to … | Obama Snafu
Pingback posted August 9, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

[...] more here:  The Washington Independent » Poll: Virginia Voters Prefer Palin to … Tags: Barry Soetoro, debunks-birther, democratic, hillary, inside-the-new, model, polling, [...]


wiselatino
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 8:50 am

LOL, you probably didn't see, or are totally ignoring the recent Gallop Poll: Political Party Affiliation: 30 States Blue, 4 Red in '09 So Far. Oh, and good luck with that democrat communist rant in 2012, it worked out so well for you right wing clowns in 2008. I'm willing to bet my mortgage that no republican will ever see the inside of the white house again. Here ya go, enjoy, LMAO!

http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Par…


espa
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 10:55 am

Convince me please that this is not another Republican lie. You can't be serious.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 11:04 am

Well, Republicans lie as a matter of course. To what lie are you referring here?


espa
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 11:18 am

Tuci78, it would be a waste of my time trying to explain the Republican lies to you cause they are more than I can count.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 11:22 am

Oh? More than seven?

Pity about that power saw accident, eh?

You were referring earlier to one particular “Republican lie” in the article above. Or somewhere on this Web page. You couldn't elaborate? I collect information on Republican criminality. I've been doing it since Nixon's first term. You wanna break a streak?


espa
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 11:46 am

One of the Republican lie is their constant polling and their insisting that the Presidents popularity if dropping. That is a lie. It is simply a strategy they are using to turn the people away from the President.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 11:53 am

Well, virtually all polls run by political entities (and that includes think tanks of one variety or another) are designed with the desired results in mind, and structured to secure those specific outcomes so that the “findings” can be leveraged to the political advantage of the people paying for the polls.

The Republicans are by no means alone in this. Almost all National Socialist (usta be “Democrat”) Party polls and surveys are crafted to the same deceitful end.

Politicians lie. All of the politicians of the two major wings of the big, bipartisan, permanently incumbent Boot-On-Your-Neck Party (their motto: “If voting could really change anything, we'd make it illegal!”) lie as a matter of course. It's how they get into power, advance themselves, fuck over the productive portion of the economy, get lobbyists to arrange sexual assignations with pretty Boy Scouts, all that kind of thing.

These polls are tactical elements. For strategies, you have to look to the long term conniving – er, conspiracies – I mean, planning – the BOYN Party's Secret Masters of Corruption accomplish.


espa
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

Yes, I agree that there are dishonest politicians on both sides. What I do not like is the absolute lack of common sense and wisdom displayed after they get elected. Why must the tide always turn against the voters? Politicians daily wrestle against each other for power instead of doing what they are elected to do. Republicans especially it seem, are more rude and disrespectful .They seem to enjoy inflicting mental pain and suffering on those who did not vote for them. Where are the adults?


Tuci78
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

In order to get elected, they lie about their intentions. Do not mistake for a “lack of common sense and wisdom” the deliberate, policy-guided, coldly calculated actions of politicians.

The election cycle offers these thieves and parasites the chance to screw the population hard in the first six to twelve months after getting into office, and they take advantage of it in order to get what they want for themselves and their “contributors” before resistance crystallizes.

Look at how Barry Soetoro blitzed this nation – including trying to ram through Obamacare before Congress took off on their August recess. Barry is a Cook County machine politician. He knows that the window for really fucking over the public is narrow, and must be exploited ruthlessly.

It's not that the politicians on either side of the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party are wrestling with each other over either fulfilling their constitutional duties (zero priority) but rather over which special interest groups are going to get fattened and which ones are going to get slaughtered to provide the pork.

In the end, all of us are no more than feedlot animals to these bastards, our objections to their high-handedness nothing more than bleats or oinks or moo-ing they know they can safely ignore.

Among them, don't ask “Where are the adults?” but rather “Where are the honest men?”

Damn few, and mostly in one seat in the House of Representatives, occupied by an OB/GYN guy I know.


espa
Comment posted August 10, 2009 @ 1:46 pm

Your comments make sense and I agree that the word “honest” should have been used inplace of “adult.”.
I guess we are dammned if we vote and still dammned if we don't vote.


Hummm
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:20 am

Good points albeit with some potty mouthfuls of verb-nouns.

Calculated power manuevering… in the first several months of office… is the key motive?

Looks like you are hitting the nails on their heads.

But as long as people like your self keep pounding those nails through those thick heads out there in the joe-public, we are going to break through this massive ideocracy at some point or another.


Hummm
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:30 am

My landlord is a Communist. I mean, he did read Marx in the sixties and he does attend the various types of group events that other people who think and believe like him attend. There is no Communist Party. And, he did not vote for Barrack Obama. He voted for one of the unnamed unkown people whom I cannot even recall. Most of the Communist thinkers do not vote for Democrats or Republicans.

But I can tell you this: my landlord listens to the radio and tells me the radio is full of O'baahmaah jokes about the other O'sheople who voted for him.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:32 am

I have since been admonished by Aaron Wiener, intrepid Assistant Editor of The Washington Independent, who sent me an email chiding me for being too free with “pungent language” in response to the Obamaphiles. I informed him that I would happily resume the gloves customary in such anally-retentive Web sites as the “conservative” TownHall.com (where automatic censoring software prevents many useful and appropriate Anglo-Saxonisms from getting posted).

Fortunately, that kind of censoring software doesn't “read” Yiddish or Italian or German, so I can get pretty damned filthy pretty easily if I want to.

Here? For the sake of Mr. Wiener's tender sensibilities, I will circumlocute.

I'm glad that you read as valid my interpretation of the usual-and-customary “honeymoon period” exploited by most Presidents to leverage their post-inaugural stock of good will before their opponents – the mass of the populace in general, who are their victims – get the chance to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it” (the 12th of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals).

I'm just as interested, however, in critique on how I can do a better job, and would appreciate same. Thanks.


Hummm
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:33 am

It is difficult to count all the lies of the Democrats too. But there are at least a few hundred I can recall from my volunteer time trying to get Hillary into the White House. Watching all Obaahmaah lie every day was sickening. So, sickening, I changed my party from Democrat to Republican just to vote for Palin.


Hummm
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 7:45 am

Republicans don't so much lie as they exaggerate, underscoring the worst of the worst scenarios. For instance, it is a fact that McCain was speaking up about the Economic Issues while Hillary and Barry were still battling. No one listened to him because he has a meek and mild tone and the Democrats made fun of his age.

Democrats on the other hand, exaggerate, underscoring their own genius. They act as if they know everything about everything when in fact they are just reading bullet points from the debriefing given by their aids. They are like idiotic puppets.

Telling a lie, means that a person is intelligent enough to know the difference between the truth and a lie. I have been concluding that most politicians are not as smart as they would lead us to believe. I can now see that after seeing that a few of them are smart and it shows. I did see Hillary Clinton speak and she is smart. She knows what she is speaking about and she can answer questions. She faultered on some of the earlier debates because she was too polite. Women were taught to be patient and polite in her day. So, she is polite.

In fact, anyone who watched all of the debates knows that Barry is a Slime Ball Faced Pimp. He is just a Smooth Car Salesman. He can maintain his Tone of Voice like any Good Salesman. Whereas, McCain is a like a soft-hearted strict grandpa. You know he means what he says but since he was wounded as a POW, he just does not have the manpower to bend you over his knee and spank you.

Between Hillary and Sarah, Hillary is more savvy. She has been there and done that. Sarah was thrown into the pool of sharks. Since she is a natural athlete, she is swimming with them but she is not cold blooded like them.


Tuci78
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 8:05 am

Any sort of knowing deviation from factual reality has got to be considered a lie, whether its exaggeration to overplay or misstatement to underplay the situation as one can best read it.

I do not tend to believe that politicians are dumb enough to fail completely of understanding the things they say, the policies they advocate, or the situations in which they find themselves. Like television news anchors, they're more charismatic than intelligent – by no means the sharpest tools in the shed – but I think their moral “flexibility,” their willingness to inflict great evils on the off chance that they can thereby attain to some sort of “greater good”…

(( and it's always their vision of the good, not yours or mine or any other private citizen's ))

…that leads them into damnation.

Most of them do sincerely believe – at some time or another – that what they're doing is for the benefit of us “little people.” The one thing the won't do is realize – and respect the fact – that us “little people” have the ability to live our lives without their unwelcome expressions of altruistic concern always forced upon us as close to gunpoint as makes no never-mind.

Remember that line from Thoreau?

If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.

C.S. Lewis had a good one, too.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really care how ostensibly intelligent a statist chief executive might seem. I'm an advocate of “caretaker” government – the sort of federal government wholly committed to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and who “will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

Doesn't really take much activity or intelligence to do that, though of course it doesn't hurt if that energy and those smarts are invested totally in addressing “The Malevolent Jobholder” with the full intention to “bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

Does Hillary so qualify? You know her better than I, obviously, but I really don't think so.


espa
Comment posted August 17, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

Hmmmm, you simply left the Democrats for another party after Hillary's lost because you could not handle the change of color.
I don't blame you for following your heart. Ta-ta and Good Luck!


carljr
Comment posted August 29, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Your article lead is misleading. According to PPP's on press release, the likely margin of error and other error inducing factors are too great to put much stock in what you reported. In the future, remember that a proper report on poll must include a margin of error disclaimer. Not to do so is dishonest. The poll sample was less than 600, it was done by phone so there's no way to measure the influence of “hang-ups” which means no cellphones, and the margin of error was 4.1%. This stuff's important.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.