CBS/NYTimes Poll: Obama 13 Points Ahead, Palin Tanking

A new CNN/New York Times poll out tonight finds Obama 13 points ahead of McCain, 54% to 41%. Full poll results are here (pdf):

(Among those saying view has worsened)

His attacks on Obama 32%
Choice of Sarah Palin 14
Debate performance 12
He seems erratic/unsteady 11
Don’t like him 7

Opinions of Palin among these voters have drastically changed for the worse in the last three weeks, while favorable impressions of Joe Biden have improved among the same voters.


28% say the vice presidential choices will have a great deal of influence on their vote. Biden's favorability is up to 50%. Palin's is down to 30%.

Palin's unfavorability has grown considerabiy in the past month. It's now at 41% (from 29%)compared to Biden's 14%.

CNN pundits tonight are suggesting that if McCain loses, Sarah Palin will be viewed as the woman who tried to save John McCain and she will be such a star that she will become the heir apparent to the Republican nomination in 2012.

What an alternate universe they live in. How they ignore the reality that if McCain/Palin loses, it's largely because so many people were driven to the polls to vote for Obama because of how supremely unqualified Palin is for the Vice President's job, is baffling.

Republicans on tv are saying Palin is the bigger draw for the party. Doesn't that show you how terrible a choice McCain was? Even his own party doesn't support him.

It is so about turnout. I almost hope the polls tighten to make sure every Democrat and independent comes out to vote against McCain and Palin.

< Hillary and Obama Together on Nightline Tonight | Civil Liberties Concerns in British War Against Terror >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Negative Campaigning. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by xargaw on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:07:52 PM EST
    John McCain will not be remembered so much for loosing this election. He will be remembered for this vile campaign where he lost his good name. He gave it up very cheaply. Much of John McCain was a media created myth that overlooked a beligerent youth, an impulsive compromised careeer and an adulterous marriage. But that said, his reputation may have been better than the man, but it is now lost just the same.

    So much more has been lost (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:28:51 PM EST
    on all sides, that the name of the loser will be but a blip, and what he said will not be remembered -- not by comparison, believe me, to what has been said to and about many of us.

    The things that will be said in the history books about this year are interesting to contemplate.  One will be the end of a phase (we can hope that's all) of real campaign reform -- public financing.

    Names end up in footnotes.  Ideas are what matter.  A lot of ideas suffered sudden deaths this year.


    To be clear (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:51:15 PM EST
    a form of campaign finance reform has come to an end because a candidate discovered a way to get more actual voters to contribute to his campaign.

    The only true reform would be to ban political TV advertisements.  But that will never happen.


    We haven't had any (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 12:20:26 AM EST
    real campaign reform.  McCain-Feingold was a joke IMO.  Increasing hard money limits and redirecting soft money was a seeming advantage for Republicans.

    Since a Democrat outraised the Republican candidate by a considerable margin, far greater than the Clinton advantage over Dole, we may actually have a climate for real reform.

    Obama's fundraising either junked reform for the forseeable future or brought about a climate for enacting public only financing, perhaps even a Constitutional amendment to that effect.


    Only Bay Buchanan (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:39:40 PM EST
    Would call a repudiation of the McCain-Palin ticket as a reaffimation of her running for Pres in 2012. Niiice!

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by zvs888 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:47:31 PM EST
    If Obama wins and Palin is the candidate in 2012, that's a guaranteed re-election...

    And if not (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 11:24:47 PM EST
    At least Obama will have gotten to choose a bunch of Supreme Court justices.

    If Palin (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 12:30:53 AM EST
    is nominated in 2012 it will be yet more striking evidence of our nation's decline.

    8 years of Dubya (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    is all the evidence any quasi-sentient being could need already.

    It goes (none / 0) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 11:44:31 PM EST
    beyond Bush.

    What's not to like about Palin? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jpete on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:07 PM EST
    O wait, the list is too long.

    It will be v. interesting to see the votes.  With any luck, most of the country will repudiate the choice  of Palin and, with it, the idea that a president just needs to be a good ol' boy/girl.

    Palin in 2012? Not. (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Sandra S on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:28:34 AM EST
    Obama will either be re-elected in 2012 or Hillary or another Democratic woman will be.  Palin is out of the picture and so are Republicans for a long while.  My prediction is that Palin will switch careers and be hired by Fox News to be a political pundit joining the other airbrains on that network.  It will be very hard for her to go back to Alaska to a hum drum life after all the attention, perks and privileges she has enjoyed during this campaign.  If anything, there may be a slight possibility that she may have learned a thing or two by exposing herself to the rest of the country once she left the frozen north.  But that is questionable.  If she became even just a smidge more enlightened, she could probably do some good on this planet if she applied her abiities to a better use than on McCain's hate train express.

    Telling (none / 0) (#10)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 12:29:24 AM EST
    CNN pundits tonight are suggesting that if McCain loses, Sarah Palin will be viewed as the woman who tried to save John McCain and she will be such a star that she will become the heir apparent to the Republican nomination in 2012.

    The complete disconnect of the Washington media is astounding. Combined with Charles Gibson's comment about a middle class income of $200,000, the notion of A village idiot is really a village OF idiots.

    Mitt is eyeing (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by WS on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 08:01:54 AM EST
    2012 too.  Let the bloodbath begin!  

    Oh please. . . (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 09:13:03 AM EST
    she will become the heir apparent to the Republican nomination

    oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please.


    It's in the cards (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sandra S on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 01:20:47 AM EST
    Barack Obama is a man for this time in U.S. history.  His success to date and which will continue through his election come Nov. 4th has been in the cards from the day George Bush took office.  John McCain's part in this whole affair has been to make it clear to the American people how far down the Republican Party has gone, and perhaps even to shake up the Republican Party enough that they will start over without slimeballs like Rove, Davis, Cheney and the other dark hearted  people that have come to predominate Republican idealogy.  It was time for the pendulum to swing the other way, and it came in the nick of time because to continue on the path of the past eight years would have destroyed America.  Interesting times are coming, and I am glad to be alive to witness history and to record the first and coming days of the second American revolution.

    Money will you a lot, tons of it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Yotin on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 06:20:43 AM EST
    Yes, money will buy you lots of both -- positive and negative campaigning.

    Obama's negative campaign ads alone way outnumber McCain's TOTAL campaign ads.

    There goes your finance campaign reform. This is how future elections will be fought -- lots of money. And guess who'll love it -- the media. Notice how much ads Obama has on those media outlets "in the tank"? I'm just not sure which came first, the favor or the reward or so to say, the horse or the carriage.

    On the other hand the political ads (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    from Presidential campaigns are available at a preferential rate.  I don't know about the state of finances and ad buying at the networks, but it could conceivably be that they would rather not have these ads so they could get traditional ads at the higher market rates.

    I'm certainly doubtful that the networks are happy to have been forced by the Obama campaign to sell them 30 minute prime time slots for a documentary/ad a week before the election.  They have had to rearrange schedules and cancel programming to do it.


    forced by the Obama campaign? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Yotin on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 10:08:35 PM EST
    I don't know whether media can be forced to take ads they don't want to -- didn't think so anyway.

    I also don't know whether Obama gets preferential rates since his ads ran shorter than a typical ad season. Maybe, since media is hurting on revenues. And I'm sure they welcome political ads spending sufficiently that pol ads could influence their reporting of the campaign.


    I'm not sure of the exact details, (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeA on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    but apparently there is some legal provision forcing broadcasters to offer advertising at preferential rates to the presidential campaigns, and they are also forced to sell time to them as well. Presumably this doesn't apply to Cable though.

    I had also heard that this only applies to the campaigns themselves, so for instance most of McCain's recent advertising was hybrid (funded jointly by the campaign and the RNC), so they had to pay full market rates and dollar for dollar it would not stretch as far as Obama's ad spending.


    Sarah (none / 0) (#18)
    by smhtriple7 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    I wonder what Sarah Palin thinks about this ? Oh,that's right,she doesn't answer questions,I forgot about that.Even if she did,she probably would have to get back to me on that.