NYT/CBS Poll: 59% Say Palin Unqualified, Hurting John McCain

Among the more notable findings in today's New York Times/CBS News poll is that 59% of voters say Gov. Sarah Palin is not qualified for the job of Vice-President. On October 8, it was 50%.

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said that Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up 9 percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said that the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favored Senator Barack Obama.

As to how his choice of Palin has damaged McCain's image: [More...]

.... voters said that they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people to serve in his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.

The full poll results are here (pdf.)

< NYT/CBS Poll: Obama by 11 | Emanuel as Chief of Staff? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This article. . . (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    is now the headline on the on-line Times front page.  I think this will be a large part of what's remembered about this election.

    Good (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:49:37 PM EST
    destroy her now, before she has a chance at 2016

    Oh, no. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:51:27 PM EST
    Better her than someone who would have a chance.

    THat's what I thought about Shrub. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:54:22 PM EST
    One differenc e (none / 0) (#15)
    by denise k on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    is that Bush had the Bush Machine backing him.  There is no equivalent Palin machine with the corporate insider power/connections that Bush had.

    Yet (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by litigatormom on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:08:31 PM EST
    There are lots of extreme righty fundies who think that McCain's big mistake was in his "rollout" of Palin (kinda like the problem with the Iraq war was just "execution") and will be willing to coalesce around her in four or eight years.

    At least, there are a lot of people who think that now. When she goes back to Alaska, hopefully her Troopergate and Travelgate problems will finish her off.

    Of course, there are some tinfoil hatters who are speculating that Stevens will be re-elected, then resign, permitting Gov. Palin to appoint herself to replace him, allowing her to run in a special election in 90 days.

    I don't subscribe to that, but its making the rounds.


    I almost included "yet" (none / 0) (#23)
    by denise k on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:24:08 PM EST
    in my post, but I think in the end the lack of familial connection makes a big difference between her and Shrub.  

    As to Stevens being reelected and her stepping into his shoes when he resigns -- I don't see that as tinfoil hat at all.  It could happen.  The previous governor appointed his daughter as Senator.  Alaska is a kooky place with a teeny-tiny population where literally everyone knows each other and where they don't think much of people from "Outside" telling them what to do.  


    So...like West Virginia with oil? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 05:37:06 AM EST
    Wonder what AK would be like without the oil?

    but she has no backing (none / 0) (#39)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    ... among the powerbroker set on the GOP side. Those folk on the other side are STRICTLY top down types. None of their very important behind-the-scenes folk are going to step up to sponsor her.

    Look at how Huckabee fizzled. Palin ain't got a tenth of that. She's not ready for prime-time now. Can't do an interview to save her life. There's no reason to believe she'll become sufficiently glib in such setting over the next three years.

    I'll be drop-dead shocked if a real grass-roots/net-roots phenomenon forms to hoist a Sarah Palin 2012 candidacy. Y'all should be likewise.


    That's a dang good point denise. (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:08:57 PM EST
    It should be noted that it's been said that the Bush "neocons" have been trying to get their claws in Mrs. Palin, but I don't think it will come to pass because of the rejection of their philosophy.

    Palin / Quayle 2016! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:55:05 PM EST
    thanks, Larry (none / 0) (#40)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    ... for the coffee spewed on my screen here.

    Exactly my thinking (none / 0) (#10)
    by barryluda on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    But it seems to be working out this way.  The conservative base seems to love Palin, and she's seems to eat up the enthusiasm of the crowds without realizing that she's turning off more than 50% of the country.

    Unfortunately, she probably doesn't have what it takes to survive the hardball tactics of a Republican primary.


    She will have no chance 2016 (none / 0) (#25)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:02:26 PM EST
    I really believe much of her effect is her looks.  Conservative guys and gals think- I can be hot and be a facist- cool.  However in 2016 she will just be a facist, so I don't see her going anyplace.  Unlike the qualified Republican women with a brain that were passed over, she is missing that component that helps get respect as one ages.

    I sort of agree... (none / 0) (#27)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:32:35 PM EST
    but it sounds somewhat sexist.

    I think that politics has somewhat of a 'right here, right now' type of process to it and that in 4 or 8 years, her time would have passed and she will have been tarnished by the process this year which showed her to be unprepared.

    If she attempts to get back into the flow in 4 or 8 years, the first question the press asks is if she is finally ready (not a good start to a campaign). Also, she will have to face a very ramped up Mitt Romney (clearly will be formidable in 4 years).

    I think that there are some who find her visual appearance to be attractive/seductive but to limit that as the sum and total of her appeal simply isn't fair.


    I think it is 100% fair (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 09:05:37 AM EST
    This is not sexist.  Sexist was McCain passing by the qualified women that did not fit this sexual fantasy that he wanted to put out there.  In the two interviews that weren't scripted and or not with friendly press (not mean press- but press just doing their job), she couldn't answer basic questions and with other bits of information sounded just plain stupid.  

    I personally view her pick in the same way I view the Clarence Thomas pick- take someone that looks the part, has the same ideology (which doesn't mean qualified) and use that look to get someone in place THEY can control.


    Heh. If by "destroy" you mean letting (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:52:44 PM EST
    her speak more about policy, yeah have at it!

    We can also look (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:54:11 PM EST
    forward, in the coming years, for a Conservative Palin cult that will erect a legend out of whole cloth about how she was demonized.

    Maybe Palined will replace Borked.


    Let's not forget how she was destroyed (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by litigatormom on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:09:38 PM EST
    by sexism. Because its sexist to expect female candidates for national office to be familiar with the fundamentals of domestic and international policy.

    To be fair. . . (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:14:01 PM EST
    to those so-called liberals here who have been crying "sexism" whenever it's pointed out what a doofus Palin is, I did notice that dKos has been running a series of posts called "Palin, Interrupted" -- a play on the memoir of several years ago "Girl, Interrupted".  

    I agree completely Larry. Palin has and (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    will face more sexism. But as you point out, we should call out the "victimologists" whether it's the Palinities or Bob Herbert (remember the celebrity ad phallic symbol flap?)

    do you snark? (none / 0) (#41)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 11:35:30 AM EST
    or do you mean what you write. seriously, this close to the election, i just cannot tell anymore.

    the rejection of the palin candidacy is not about sexism. only a mind as warped as Ann Coulter's could suggest otherwise.



    Oh the Palin cult is already here. (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:00:03 PM EST
    That last quote (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cal1942 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    voters said that they had much more confidence in Mr. Obama to pick qualified people to serve in his administration than they did in Mr. McCain.

    Gets to the heart of the matter.

    McCain would stock federal agencies with the same type people as the Bush administration, not excluding many current appointees.

    These people hang around and if their party keeps getting elected they get promoted. Remember how Cheney got his start.

    Though the public may not give thought to Presidential appointments to various agencies, they got it right via the selection of Palin.

    Something like ... you don't know how right you are.

    Here's an idea (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:40:10 PM EST
    Let's push a meme that may not directly help combat a hypothetical Palin in 2012, but would directly help battle conservative ideas for the next four years: voters aren't rejecting the GOP ticket because Palin is unqualified; they are rejecting the conservative ideas that the GOP represents. Doesn't that meme make a lot more sense if we want to advance progressive ideals for the next four years? Isn't that a more useful interpretation (if the goal is progressive policies) and isn't that what we should be pushing?

    of course palin took herself down (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by pluege on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:42:38 PM EST
    with her ignorance, buffoonery, and corrupt ways, but at least the messengers shining the light on palin were two women: Katie Couric and Tiny Fey. Also, many thanks to the reporters who didn't let the mccain deception campaign suppress the true chicanery of palin's Alaskan record.

    Newsflash - 100% of Obama voters (3.50 / 2) (#31)
    by rilkefan on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:32:12 PM EST
    think the other guys stink.  Next up - moon still round.

    News flash! (3.50 / 2) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 01:14:04 AM EST
    59% of those polled say they prefer chocolate ice cream because they don't like vanilla.

    Palinites Unite! (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:47:41 PM EST

    I think that there is (none / 0) (#11)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:56:32 PM EST
    a kind of self-evident character to this but I'm not sure that it matters on a blog that supports Obama.

    Of course what interests all of us will be the carnage that starts to unleash itself Tuesday/Wednesday after the election results are obvious and the 'Fundies' and the 'Intellectual Conservatives' begin their battle for control over the Republican party itself which looks like it will be a massive civil war.

    Clearly there are some who see it essential to damage Mrs. Palin so as not to have to deal with her in 4 more years but I think the things that worked to her favor, not really having much in political battles until now will not be the reality in another 4 years and that between now and then, she will get battered in Alaska making her a far less attractive candidate in 2012.

    After all, this topic is really about the analysis of 2008 and what will the Republicans do in 2012.

    Who could have predicted (none / 0) (#12)
    by denise k on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 07:57:09 PM EST
    that a 72 year old melanoma survivor would need to choose a more-than-usually-qualified vice presidential candidate to remove any doubts about his ticket?  It was a terribly short-sighted decision made without remotely enough deliberation.  It is truly no wonder that even Republicans have come to doubt McCain because of it.    

    The best that can be said of her is that she brought money from the Dobsonites and worker bees on the ground.  I doubt they balance out the damage she did to his chances.  His dilemma all along has been his perceived need to move to the right during the GENERAL.  Never a good strategy, but choosing her was a ham-handed and damaging way to do that.      

    classic stupidity (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:03:37 PM EST
    He had the nomination wrapped up in March. He had all the time in the world to get her ready for the campaign but instead opted for this unvetted 'stealth' concept that left him with a running mate with no understanding of world events/affairs and who was exposed badly by an interview by Nicole Wallace's buddy...the hard hitting interview of Katie Couric.

    She isn't, wasn't and may never be ready but she would have benefitted from a few months of preparation.


    they would also have benefitted (none / 0) (#16)
    by denise k on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:06:54 PM EST
    by knowing her strengths and weaknesses.  It would have helped in their "rollout" of her if they had known what she was good at and situations she should avoid.

    He spent all that time (none / 0) (#20)
    by litigatormom on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 08:11:16 PM EST
    fantasizing that he would be able to make Joe Lieberman his running mate. And he kept pushing for Lieberman until the week before the convention. Why he didn't realize that the wingnuts would never let him have Lieberman, I don't know.

    And now the long (none / 0) (#33)
    by JThomas on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 02:27:33 AM EST
    knives are out for Palin. Tonite on NPR one of the 4 secretary of states supporting McCain whose name that McCain could actually remember,Larry Eagleberger, came right out and said she was not ready to be president. He added that he prays she never would be in that position.
    Wow. This from a guy publically backing McCain.
    She is officially a national security risk according to a GOP SoS.
    Not sure you can pick a worse v-p nominee.

    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#38)
    by ChrisO on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 10:01:49 AM EST
    are you sure he was praying she doesn't become President because it would mean McCain has died?

    Well, lets (none / 0) (#43)
    by JThomas on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    put it this way..if in one comment you say she is clearly not ready to be president and then in the next you say you hope she is never in that position...does it matter whether he meant he was concerned for McCain well-being or the well being of America?

    He made it clear that she could put america at risk if she finds her way into the oval office.


    My prediction: (none / 0) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 09:25:46 PM EST
    Sarah Palin will run off with Joe the Plumber and they will live happily ever after as hosts of  the "Sarah and Joe" show on Fox News.  

    well, (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:32:04 PM EST
    if you look due north of toledo, towards detroit, with a strong pair of binoculars, you can almost see canada. that would make "joe" about as qualified on foreign policy as gov. palin.

    Sarah Palin will run off with Joe the Plumber and they will live happily ever after as hosts of  the "Sarah and Joe" show on Fox News.  

    I annoint thee (none / 0) (#29)
    by WS on Thu Oct 30, 2008 at 10:24:40 PM EST
    Jeralyn the Palin Smasher!

    "Nearly a third" (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    let's put an end to the speculation that the choice of Palin did not have an outcome on the election and that the financial situation was the push over the fence and Palin the decision to let McCain fall off the fence completely.

    I hope she stays around, it would be terrific to see the fight in the conservative party as she and Romney and Jindal fight it out.  Let's see if Palinpalooza can withstand the attacks from her own party.  If she can do that and win her primary, it would be wonderful to see her and Obama debate in 4 years.

    you thought we had record numbers for debates this year, that would  be a ratings dream.  I am sure that does not go unnoticed to our fine money making msm friends....

    Ironically, the one woman (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChrisO on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    who seems to have benefitted from the Palin nomination is Katie Couric. She is now being talked about for a (somewhat) hard hitting interview, rather than as a failed anchor.

    Palin hurting McCain? (none / 0) (#42)
    by wystler on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    I'd offer that the wound was clearly self-inflicted. No better time to haul out the "hoisted ... petard" phrase.

    How specifically is she (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    that much less qualified than Dubya was?

    Sorry, but after the results of the last two elections, the judgement of alot of that vaunted 99% means almost exactly squat to me.

    Im guessing half of them think she's unqualified because of what Paul the Apostle said about a woman's place etc

    We're still stuck with the HUGE problem of tens-of-millions who'll probobly never seriously question the underlying paradigm the Right operates out of.