CBS Poll: Women and Palin

In the new CBS News poll, as in other polls, voters now have a more negative view of Gov. Sarah Palin. The poll also finds:

  • 2 out of 3 women who formerly supported Hillary Clinton now support Barack Obama.
  • Among women, Palin's favorability rating has dropped 17 points in three weeks. Her unfavorability rating has increased 15 points.

Details below:

Full poll results are here (pdf).


Opinions of Palin are divided now: 32% view her favorably, but 33% view her unfavorably. The vice presidential nominee enjoyed an eight point net positive rating last week. Biden’s ratings have not changed much in the last week, and are generally positive.

(Among registered voters)
Now 9/25 9/17
Favorable 32% 37% 40%
Unfavorable 33 29 30
Undecided/Don’t know 36 32 30

Women’s views of Palin have changed since the Republican convention. More women now view the Republican vice presidential nominee unfavorably than favorably.

(Among registered voters)
Now 9/25 9/17 9/8
Favorable 30% 34% 36% 47%
Unfavorable 34 33 32 19
Undecided/Don’t know 36 32 32 33
< Biden and Palin Discuss Roe v. Wade | Late Night: The Boss Hits the Road for Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If McCain gets (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:09:28 PM EST
    1/3 of 1/2 of what should have been Obama's votes he will be very happy.

    Do you mean 1/2 of the 1/3 of approx 60%? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:15:40 PM EST
    I think Hillary's voters were about 60% women, but I could be mistaken. That wouldn't be a small number but I would bet that a lot of them will just sit home and not switch to McCain.

    Furthermore (none / 0) (#32)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    The 18 million included many Republicans that that were voting for Hillary (I don't mean in the Rush Limbough way- but in the supportive way). To assume that they would not switch back to their party doesn't make sense to me.



    I can guess as well as anyone... (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:45:42 PM EST
    Palin is a low info pol. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by JThomas on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 01:51:57 AM EST
    Ask Biden about Plessy v Ferguson and he will know what that refers to...Palin did not.
    That's not a gaffe, that is a basic lack of knowledge that is important to upholding the constitution,a part of the job of President.

    Obama has been on Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate for 3 years,nine months so he has had years to absorb world affairs. She has not been involved or even curious it seems about world affairs.

    Jeralyn is totally correct in her analysis.

    A question (none / 0) (#27)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:15:33 AM EST
    In the interview, film of which is below, Biden discusses Roe v. Wade. He infers, or states directly, that the decision says that the first three months are up to the woman. The second three month, the state can step in and limit her rights. The third trimester, she is practically forced to carry the fetus to term.

    He goes on to say this is OK because in this "multi-cultural" and "religious" (!) society, that's the best we can come up with. He is talking about a consensus although he denies it.

    I don't think this is what the court decided. It didn't talk about downgrading women's rights every three months of a pregnancy.

    Someone here might be in a position to tell me I'm incorrect.
    But for the moment, I think that Biden is blowing as much smoke as Palin, only he is familiar with the jargon and she isn't.


    Yes (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EST
    The trimester framework is what Roe v. Wade established, basically saying that as the pregnancy progresses, the state's interest in protecting potential life becomes greater.  Subsequent cases have eroded the rigid trimester framework and expressed the issue as whether restrictions place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose, although abortions are always going to be more restricted in the eighth month than the second.

    Seems one or two of my responses were erased. (none / 0) (#31)
    by callmecassandra on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    So let me try them again from memory. Perhaps I'll inadvertently omit a word or two that brought down the judgement.

    Obama has been on Foreign Relations Committee of the US Senate for 3 years,nine months so he has had years to absorb world affairs. She has not been involved or even 3curious it seems about world affairs.

    1. Obama took a field trip. This does not count as foreign policy experience. Truth of the common sense variety.

    2. Obama needed Biden to shore up his lack for foreign policy experience. Fact.

    3. Obama has 200-300 advisers to "educate" him on foreign policy. Fact.

    4. Obama has done nothing of note on the FRC. As far as I know - Fact. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Therefore, Obama would be just as much of a risk as leader of the free world as Palin would be. However, Palin isn't running for President. And since none of you are afraid of Obama's inexperience re: f.p. (and neither am I, btw), then you shouldn't fear Palin on the same basis. The only problem you should have with Palin is her ideology, her politics.

    As for Biden, the vice presidential candidate, his ignorance on presidential history indicates a basic lack of knowledge, yes? And this isn't Biden's first gaffe or sign of ignorance.

    And finally, "low info" is conscending and divisive. It seems that Democrats earned the "elite" label this year.

    J.'s analysis and fears about Palin have been irrational for the most part.


    Not all empty vases can be filled..... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by SomewhatChunky on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 04:00:20 AM EST
    Palin and Obama are alike in that neither has significant experience.

    But Obama's smart.  He's been running for Prez for a long time and has learned a great deal about a great many things.   I'll be the first to admit that learned knowledge is not the same as that acquired by experience, but it is something.  I've never heard anyone try to make the case that Obama is not smart.  Because he is.  It's that intellectual capacity which has allowed him to become knowledgeable about so many things so quickly.  And that's why so many Americans can overlook his pretty weak resume for the job.

    Is Palin smart?  It was painful to watch that Couric interview.  To be fair, it's hard to pick up in a few weeks what Obama's had a few years to absorb.  But I see little evidence that Palin's smart enough to learn what she needs to learn, even given far more time.  That's scary.  But Obama was not the candidate he is now when he started either.  Looking good in high pressure interviews is an acquired skill and Palin's a raw rookie.  Maybe she'll learn quickly.  She'd better - it doesn't get much bigger than a lengthy nationally televised debate.   I think one way or another, we'll all be able to form our own opinion of her ability to learn and grow after tomorrow's debate.

    She gets one big shot --  she'll never have another chance to change those opinions before the election.

    I wonder about those one in three. . . (none / 0) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:45:55 PM EST
    Clinton-supporting women who (at least when the pollster calls) are not supporting Obama.  Were they, in fact, Republicans or Republican-leaning independents who were accessible only to Clinton?  Are they natural Democratic voters who simply would not vote for Obama under any circumstances?  Or are they voters pissed of by the primary but still accessible to Obama had he been more gracious after the primary season.  If the latter, are they lost know or could they still be convinced?

    I bet they were Independents (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    who are now undecideds.  But I don't think that the two-thirds number is much of a change for months now.  So McCain/Palin may be losing a lot of Republican women that they had.  

    What's important is where they are now, where they vote, not where they were as voters many months ago.


    Btw, I was polled again yesterday (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:55:21 PM EST
    as I am about every other week lately.  The poll was absolutely terrible, in a way that left me unable to answer many of the questions within the limited choice of answers allowed.  Not unusual.

    So I tend to discount polling results every time I'm polled and realize how poorly designed so many are -- yet the results are extrapolated and stated with such certainty.    


    Ever be the victim of a push poll? (none / 0) (#9)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:56:30 PM EST
    Those are fun.  Not.  

    My spouse thinks that 's what this one (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:32:15 PM EST
    was -- with adjectives like "greedy" attached to certain candidates, with which I was to agree or not.  But most of the poll, and it was a long one, was not "push."  So it was a mushy mess of a poll design (and I have studied and done poll design).

    I think it is the latter, LinNYC (none / 0) (#29)
    by Finis Terrae on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:39:09 AM EST
    and yes, I believe some of them could still be convinced.

    Only slightly over a third don't like her? (none / 0) (#7)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:53:32 PM EST
    I am shocked.  With half the country being democrats, I would have thought it would be closer to 50%.  

    If McCain gets even 10% of Hillary's supporters, he'll win.  But I don't think he will.  Democrats will come home.  

    It's Democrats who stay home (none / 0) (#17)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:33:05 PM EST
    that would be the problem.  That is, if they have homes by then.:-)

    "Like" (none / 0) (#18)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:41:21 PM EST
    doesn't necessarily mean they'd vote for her.

    I have to wonder, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#8)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 10:55:19 PM EST
    Why do you hate Palin so much?  I'm rather indifferent to her, as I am to most VP's.  You seem to have such a strong feeling against her.  I can't help but wonder why the visceral reaction to her.  

    It's a critical part of the media ... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:08:55 PM EST
    ...narrative about the GOP that the leftie blogs have made their own. It's more professional TP than anything else personal.  Also I suspect it's some kind of calculated payback for the mistreatment of Clinton. Can't beat em? Join em.

    I don't hate her (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:11:09 PM EST
    It's not personal. I've explained many, many times why I oppose her candidacy. It's based on her record, her lack of record, her position on issues, her lack of relevant national experience, her lack of qualifications for high national office, her lack of preparedness to lead the country in the event McCain were even temporarily incapacitated, and I'm offended by John McCain putting his self-interest in winning the election ahead of what's good for the country.

    Every person I speak to uses words like  "terrified" and "horrified" to describe the prospect of her being so close to the Presidency.

    Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the leader of the free world?

    It was a rash, Hail Mary pick and it jeopardizes all of us.


    Strictly speaking... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:18:23 PM EST
    ...she is a fairly accomplished person, so i'd dissagree with you there. I'm actually worried that she doesn't have a real interest in national issues. Intellectual incuriousity just like Bush.

    Many of the governors that have run in the primaries in 2008 have proven to be complete tools on national issues.   Richardson for one.  Rdige wa a complete dope as well.


    I'm surprised that she scares you (none / 0) (#15)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:27:39 PM EST
    and so many others so much.  I just don't think she'll ever be in the White House and if she is I am sure that she will have many competent advisors.  Most Presidents don't know much when they are elected. It's just too big a job, and too big a world, to know everything.  
    Palin seems reasonably bright, I'm sure she could learn the job, just like so many others have.  

    Most, (none / 0) (#19)
    by callmecassandra on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:43:05 PM EST
    if not all, the criticisms you have for Gov. Palin can be cited against Obama. For instance, a field trip around the world does not count as foreign policy cred any more than shaking hands and chatting up foreign potentates. And if you need any more evidence that even Obama acknowledges that he lacks adequate foreign policy cred, look no further than his number #2 and his 200-300 advisers.

    Your fear has little to do with Gov. Palin's "inexperience" else you'd be afraid of Sen. Obama.  

    So that reason is out...

    I wonder if you're concerned about that high number of undecideds.


    to me she just seems like a female (none / 0) (#21)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    (and we all know how stupid the people who voted for him look now, please dont' be offended, just accept that you made a terribly stupid decision, we all do it)

    but with more Rovesque want to disregard the means and only focus on the ends...

    the fact that fascist-extremists like Hagee, Falwell and Robertson like her also puts up huge red flags for me (b/c they also liked Bush, and we see how well that turned out)


    A few questions... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by callmecassandra on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 02:26:48 AM EST
    Are you aware that Obama panders to the "religious right"? Have you noticed how quick he is to compromise liberal ideals for the evangelical vote? Why does this not frighten you?

    What has Gov. Palin done (actions taken) in her political career that could possibly suggest that she is "Bush The Second"? Didn't Gov. Palin bring a surplus to Alaska? Hm...what happened to our money under GWB? Or how about Palin signing a bill that gave benefits to same-sex partners working for the state? Didn't GWB push to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage?

    You believe Gov. Palin is "Bush the Second" because you were told to believe it. And the whole point is to make her unattractive to independents and undecideds.

    Of course, she and GWB agree on a few items or have the same opinions on certain matters. But this does not make one a clone of the other. Else you may as well say Obama is clone of GWB since they agree on a few items and share similar opinions on certain matters.

    As for Falwell et al., they are threats to your pockets. Roe v. Wade has not been overturned. Still no school prayer and creationism/intelligent design isn't taught.  Gay marriage has not been constitutionally banned.  The only gains these hypocrites have made has been financial.

    but with more Rovesque want to disregard the means and only focus on the ends...

    I really mean no offense but this is ridiculous. You've just profiled every politician on the hill. And I don't think you wanna do that "guilt by association" thing.


    Foreign Policy (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:20:04 AM EST
    Is not created by a fied trip - true.  But I think it is hard to ignore the fact that Palin didn't even have a passport until recently and Obama is much more worldly and well traveled.  Now, I don't think this gives him "foreign policy credentials" necessarily, but it does help give a broader perspective on global issues, like climate change for example.  It also can help with diplomacy since you are more likely to have an understanding of different cultures.

    Tell me... (none / 0) (#35)
    by callmecassandra on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:20:41 PM EST
    what does Obama, Biden or McCain know that can't be taught to Palin? And why is it necessary for Palin to be "wordly" now when she's running as VP and McCain has the f.p. cred?

    Better cross your fingers and hope Palin screws up tonight. Political junkies care about that f.p. business.


    Nothing (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:36:46 PM EST
    But in order to be taught, you have to want to learn.  And I think she is old enough to have made the decision that she just doesn't care.

    I didn't say it was "necessary" for Palin to be worldly.  But I do consider it a plus.  I do consider having a broad world view to be something that can shape you as a person for the better.  I think someone who is running for president, or yes, even vice president, should have a sense of the world outside of the U.S.  And no, you don't get that from sitting at home in your 2.5 family house and watching Fox news.

    I don't expect the "average american voter" to care, but I do care - and it is something I consider.  I also don't think it matters if Palin screws up or not, McCain already lost the election.  Personally, I'd rather not see her bite the dust, it's painful to watch.


    And you know how exactly (none / 0) (#38)
    by callmecassandra on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:56:22 PM EST
    ...that she doesn't want to learn? Especially now since she's a VP candidate. I imagine she wants to learn.

    No one expects her to be as good as Biden. But Obama doesn't have much experience on this item either and yet he's at the top of the ticket and is "permitted" to rely on his VP's experience. So...does Palin get to rely on the President's (McCain) experience?

    There's a double-standard being applied here. I appreciate that you don't believe you aren't applying one, but in truth, you and most others here, are doing this.

    I wonder how things would be different if Palin was running at the top of the ticket and took a field trip as credit towards foreign policy credentials. And then she picks a VP with the f.p. cred she lacks and hires hundreds of advisers to tell her what to do in a national security crisis. If you aren't concerned about Obama, there's no credible reason you would be afraid of Palin especially since she sits at #2.

    You're right about the average voter. We don't care. In fact, we care so little that we don't mind our gov't illegally invading countries, torturing Arabs or funding an ally's brutal, inhumane occupation. We don't mind that our foreign policy breeds hatred and resentment from other nations whether the policy is under a Democratic or Republican administration.

    And as for McCain's loss, I tend to agree that it'll happen. Because the Republican brand is in the toilet. Because Obama's investors are in too deep. Because the "patrons" decide the outcome. Doesn't have anything to do with Obama's ideas as he doesn't have much in the way of ideas. In this, he's like McCain with a different letter behind his name.

    Palin didn't embarrass herself or her party tonight. It's not a game changer, of course.


    If interested in something outside the usual, (none / 0) (#25)
    by andrys on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:11:01 AM EST
    The NY Times has an article on her, Oct 1, re her focus as Governor (natural resources) and what she did (or didn't) do as governor  with respect to other issues, such as education, help for special needs, and of course the usual.

    Also, the L.A. Times did a story, on Sept. 28, re Palin's treading "carefully between fundamentalist beliefs and public policy."

    Without thinking, I agreed to dinner tonight with classmates from 50 years ago (high school) who live on the other coast, so I won't get to see the debate live.  I'll record it but I really prefer to watch it live.  I'm sure heads will be spinning.

      Ifill is expected to make some kind of statement at the start of the debate about the announcement that Random House is releasing her coming book, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," on Inauguration Day.  NY Times story on reactions to this came out today.

      Others have pointed out that she likely would sell at least 100,000 copies if Obama is the one inaugurated and would get about $3 per copy, for about $300,000.  So, the unusual feature here is that she has an economic stake and should have brought that up.  She has a reputation for fairness (though a video of her after Palin's convention speech showed her openly dismayed) and would try, but one would wonder about unconscious actions.  No question but that she'll moderate it.  Olbermann said only "the lunatic fringe" had a problem with this.


    McCain scares me more (none / 0) (#26)
    by Coral on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 05:51:59 AM EST
    His ideas are wrong-headed and his temperament is erratic and dangerously volatile.

    South Florida author... (none / 0) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:06:44 PM EST
    and Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen has some fun with Sarah...

    If Palin were a male candidate . . .

    The vice presidential debate is set for next Thursday, and millions of voters will be watching to see if moderator Gwen Ifill of PBS behaves herself.

    Most journalists are still getting accustomed to the Sarah Rules, as established and enforced by John McCain's campaign team. The most important is Sarah Rule No. 1: Don't treat Gov. Palin like a male candidate, or you'll be accused of character assassination.

    Maybe this is why McCain has kept Palin sequestered from the press -- not because he's terrified she'll pull a Dan Quayle and say something goofy (as she did to Katie Couric), but because he gallantly wants to protect her from all the chauvinist meanies who would ask impertinent questions.

    Likewise, the same right-wing gasbags who've trashed Hillary Clinton for 16 years have morphed into sensitive souls when it comes to their own hockey-mom candidate. Each unsettling news revelation about Palin is automatically decried as a sexist smear.

    Read the rest HERE

    This should be a Somerby article. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 11:15:17 PM EST
    It's the Broderatti (and soon to be Neo-Broderatti like JM Marshall) who are pushing the personal critique of Palin.  It's a given that the right wing gas bags will always attack a Democrat like Clinton. It's the power mad Joe Kleins and Andy Sullivans you have to keep an eye on. When they start backing anyone you have to be aware of their motivations.

    Although there are plenty of flaws in her intellect by the looks of it. SO fair's fair, she's failing to be articulate and well versed in general knowledge.


    Palin loses me because (none / 0) (#30)
    by obiden08 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 07:51:00 AM EST
    1. She really comes across as uninformed. You can use a lot of words to describe Obama, but uninformed is not one of them.  

    2. Her outlook is too simplistic. Our world and its problems are more complex than "good" vs. "evil."  I appreciate Obama's nuance.

    3. I hate it when she attacks Obama or Biden, given her own knowledge level.  She's like the dumb kid in class trying to poke fun at the answer of one of the geeks.  It makes her look even more clueless.

    A lot of folks comment that her gaffes are spotlighted but Biden's aren't.  This happens for the same reason that people consider a McCain gaffe on foreign policy a mistake in speaking while with Obama it would be considered a knowledge issue.  

    People don't really think Biden lacks knowledge so when he makes a gaffe it's not about him being stupid but about him saying stupid things.  Unfortunately, Palin has showed that she lacks knowledge so when she makes a gaffe it confirms our opinion that she really is stupid.


    Ifill and Imus (none / 0) (#34)
    by bison on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 12:09:14 PM EST
    Gwen Ifill's role  as moderator is not a problem in the VP debates.  She knows what it means to be victimized and to be treated unfairly.- Ask Don Imus!  Is McCain still appearing on the Don Imus show?  What has Don Imus said about Palin?