New CBS Poll: Voters Do Care About the Veep Pick

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:20:05 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

CBS will release a new poll tonight on voters' views of the importance of the vice-presidential candidate. Here are some of the findings:

30% say the choice is important to their vote. Among undecided voters, 47% say the choice will influence their vote.

The poll also shows a lack of confidence in both candidates on the question of which would make the right decisions on the economy:

Just 12 percent said they were very confident that Obama would and 9 percent said the same about McCain. Forty percent said they were somewhat confident that Obama would make the right decisions and 41 percent said that about McCain

As to making the right decisions about Iraq, it seems Obama's trip to the Mideast didn't help. While there's a lot of dissatisfaction with both candidates, McCain seems to be ahead on this issue: [More...]

[M]ore voters are very confident about McCain’s ability to make the right decisions when it comes to Iraq. Twenty-five percent said so about McCain, compared to 14 percent for Obama. Thirty-eight percent said they were somewhat confident in Obama’s ability to make the right decisions about Iraq, 29 percent said the same about McCain. And 46 percent said they were not confident about Obama on the issue, compared to 43 percent for McCain.

Even if you take both favorables for the candidate, it's McCain 25 + 29 or 54% and Obama 14 + 38 or 52%.

< Hillary Parade Permit Issued for DNC | The Gender Gap In Florida >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

New CBS Poll: Voters Do Care About the Veep Pick | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Voters Do Care About the Veep Pick (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Doc Rock on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:23:12 AM EST

I'd bet this year it is a make or break choice for Obama.

VP Pick (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:28:05 AM EST

It makes no difference in how they will vote.

They "care" in the sense that they are interested and curious but when they actually vote they vote for the top of the ticket.

All this talk about VP pick, who will campaign for whom is just inside baseball pundit talk. It has no influence on how people vote.

Reagan campaigned for Bush Sr in Georgia in 92. Clinton won the state.

People form impressions of candidates and they vote on the basis of that.

the VEEP pick matters... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:46:01 AM EST

because of how it will be reported -- and that will feed into the image that the public has of the candidates. VP picks are reported as reflecting the priorities of the candidates -- and how the candidate sees his election chances.


: The veep pick also reflects on (none / 0) (#23)
by zfran on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:40:16 PM EST

the judgement of the candidate, this being the first major decision for his administration. Also, with the 2 candidates, it seems the veep selection becomes more important this year due to lack of experience on one end, and perhaps a one term president on the other end.

No one can say for sure either way (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:46:19 PM EST

Fact is, there just isn't enough past data to go by, esp. not when there are so many other variables. It's not like each VP pick can run with the candidate against a controla and we get to see the results of each one.

Past races can really only be dispositive of certain conventional wisdoms, not positive proof. Your Georgia example: all this shows is that having a former president campaign for you doesn't guarantee a win. What it does not show is anything about how VP picks influence people. Maybe Georgia went to Clinton because there were 2 Southern Dems on the ticket, maybe it was Perot splitting the Repubs, who knows.

Personally, I think Clinton on the ticket would help Obama on the economy, but may not be enough to overcome other apprehensions people have about Obama. On the other hand, not picking her will definitely have a negative effect; the question is whether the Obama campaign can offer up some sort of offset to make up for it.

Not to mention, there's a first time for everything. After 8 year's of Cheney's eminence grise, perhaps people have figured out that who is vp can really matter.


DEAD ON Miri. Although I think HRC (none / 0) (#4)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST

might be an exception, from everything I hear and read from those opposed to Obama is that even HRC on the ticket would not sway them, so your point is probably correct.


You said (none / 0) (#16)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST

that "people form impressions of candidates and vote on that basis."

The VEEP pick is part of the formulation of the impression of the candidate.

So, the VEEP pick matters. The vote isn't based on the VEEP, but is partly based on the VEEP, especially when we have two IMHO very weak candidates.


VP as scrying stone (none / 0) (#21)
by huzzlewhat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM EST

I agree with this. I always look carefully at the VP pick, because while the candidate can promise anything during the campaign, the VP nomination is the only solid clue we get as to the kind of people that the candidate will surround him- or herself with. One of the things that I loved about Britain's parliamentary system was that voters didn't have to pick one person, and then trust that that person would make appointments they'd like; they had the whole shadow cabinet ready and waiting.

I think it tells me a lot about the candidate, and how he'll govern. I mean, Clinton's pick of Gore reassured me greatly about Bill -- that he wasn't bound and determined to always be the smartest person in the room, and that he'd pick smart people. Bush Sr.'s pick of Quayle told me the exact opposite. At the same time, picking someone who is too senior in experience, etc., is a bad sign, too. The choice of Cheney foretold the whole of the Bush presidency in a nutshell.

And the less said about Gore picking Lieberman, the better. The pick signaled clearly that he was playing it safe for the sake of a win. I would love to see who the Gore of today would pick.


: Excellent points (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST

All candidates spin themselves as best they can on the campaign trail.
The reason why a lot of folks do go with the much-mocked 'who you'd like to have a beer with' method of decisionmaking is it's hard to know how anyone will handle the POTUS seat. But you probably have a pretty good idea about the people you like to share a beer with (or a latte, or chablis, or vegan pizza etc). And if a candidate seems to match up with that beer-person, then making the leap to thinking they actually do share qualities you'd trust in your beer-pals is really not anymore illogical or ridiculous than most bases for voting
And I'd argue it's much, much more valid a basis than imagining your candidate is a secret ultra liberal who will break out after the election, solve every problem and create utopia on earth.

I'd tell you all what I think, but (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Anne on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST

I'm waiting for someone to do a poll so I know for sure.

An important part of the aritcle is this (5.00 / 4) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:48:35 AM EST

On the issues front, the poll shows that few voters are very confident that either candidate will make the right decisions on the economy. Just 12 percent said they were very confident that Obama would and 9 percent said the same about McCain. Forty percent said they were somewhat confident that Obama would make the right decisions and 41 percent said that about McCain. Forty-five percent said they were not confident about Obama and the economy compared to 47 percent who said that about McCain. Forty-three percent describe the state of the economy as very bad, up from 35 percent a month ago.

Americans' assessments of the economy remain grim. Now 83% of Americans think the condition of the economy is at least somewhat bad. And the number who describes the economy as very bad has increased to 43% from 35% last month.

The Clinton brand on the economy is one of the most important strengths Democrats have had. And Obama has decided to avoid it. Remarkably stupid.

: Re: (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by az on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:54:01 AM EST

I want to stay on the topic at hand but I just had to point out that you seem to have a point on Clinton , I am not really a fan of her being on the ticket , but the new PPP poll out of florida seem to back you up.
Obama has been spending a ton there and the poll shows a flip Mccain is up by 3 and the pollster says its linked to older white female voters ( according to him probable Clinton supporters ) supporting Mccain in unusual numbers.

: Obama defeated Clinton. (none / 0) (#49)
by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:57:18 PM EST

I think your drumbeat of Obama "embracing the Clinton brand" is odd. This is a Change election, and Obama would be undermining his core message by doing what you suggest. Now .... if the Clintons would like to get out there and be surrogates for the Obama campaign, and pound McCain on the economy, that would be most helpful. I think they will when the time is right.

And, apparently that whirlwind tour for (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST

photo ops did not help obama one whit. I guess he found out the electorate isn't as dense as he had hoped.

The economic numbers... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST

the economic numbers are scary, because this should be an issue in which the Dem candidate have a clear advantage... and Obama's anemic numbers should be considered an omen/sign of where the electorate is in terms of their perception of Obama.

And what those numbers say is that voters have no confidence in Obama's judgement --- and that efforts to substitute his lack of a record with his "judgement" argument are going nowhere.

Think of it this way... less than 1/3 of the people who now intend to vote for Obama fully trust his judgement on economic issues. All McCain has to do is distance himself from Bush's economic policies, and come up with a few of "his own ideas" to put the other 2/3 of Obama's support in play in a year when the economy is the biggest issue.

: Obama appears to be using the same (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:06:00 PM EST

tactic he did in the debates. Wait for McCain to speak out on the economy and energy policy, then move that direction. Doesn't really inspire confidence.

Can Obama feel our pain? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:58:47 AM EST

He should speak now or forever hold his Senate seat.

But another poll says many people (none / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST

are sick of hearing about Obama. What to do--stay in the Senate. Good solution.


uh, riiight (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM EST

the Pew Poll (none / 0) (#24)
by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:45:45 PM EST

released today:

"Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says.

With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain."


That's a pretty amazing number (none / 0) (#27)
by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:01:08 PM EST

It looks like McCain's ad on Obama's overexposure as a celebrity -- along with Paris and Brittney -- has hit a nerve in most people.


Obama's brand has been branded. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:09:48 PM EST

I don't see anything good coming of his decision to accept the nomination at a stadium.


: I don't think that they (none / 0) (#31)
by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:11:59 PM EST

understand the concept of media overexposure in the Obama campaign. Think of the effect of all those ads he's going to be buying in coming months.
I've got to believe this has got to be a record for the earliest the public has declared that they're already fed up with hearing about a candidate.

If they're tired of hearing about him (none / 0) (#30)
by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM EST

now, how are they going to feel after the convention? By election day? After 4 years in office?


being tired of him now (none / 0) (#35)
by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:27:35 PM EST

strongly indicates they'll be more reluctant -- or downright unwilling -- to vote for him in November.

And this is before the inevitable GOP attacks on his lack of experience, his associations, etc and so on. Much easier to paint him with a negative brush if the Public is already tuning him out and sick of him.


Media overexposure can kill (none / 0) (#37)
by frankly0 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST

careers for would-be entertainment stars -- I've got to believe the same dynamic would work for politicians.

If you're always in everybody's face, you no longer seem exclusive or special or interesting.

And I think you're right that people aren't going to pay attention to what you have to say.

Obama should worry that if he doesn't control his exposure and image better he may soon be fit only for a seat on Hollywood Squares.


Wonder how many media reps will be in Hawaii (none / 0) (#39)
by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST

while Obama's on his vacation. If they show him sunning and surfing and lolling around on the beach for a week, especially so soon after he left the country for a European tour, how will that sit with the public? Won't that reinfoce this celebrity meme?


exactly (none / 0) (#40)
by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST

which is why I strongly suspect this vacation was at Obama's insistence and against the wishes of his campaign.

Images of him splashing in the surf during his vacation in the Caribbean in May were taken in a much different media climate than what we have now.

But post-Celebrity ad, post-Obama falling in the polls, post-48% are tired of seeing him, images of him vacationing in Hawaii are going to go over like a really BIG lead balloon with most voters. Especially those who have had to cancel their ONE vacation due to sky high gas prices and the need to save for fear of losing their jobs.

Add McCain loudly insisting Congress return from their break to face this energy crisis to the mix and it's all downhill from there for Barack.


But didn't Obama actually want (none / 0) (#42)
by Grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST

the celebrity status originally? I recall reading somewhere that he was actually busing crowds of young people to events in the beginning so he could make it look like he was attracting a huge amount of support.


: Live by the sword, die by the sword. (none / 0) (#44)
by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:33:38 PM EST

: I suspect that's correct (none / 0) (#46)
by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM EST

The single greatest flaw in his run for the White House has always been that this is about Him and not Us. He appears to be running to make history and not actually tackle any of the problems Americans face. It's All About Barack and the work he'll need to do if he's elected is just kind of secondary.
In fact, the first term of a Barack Presidency will be nothing but a constant run for re-election while the Nation's problems fester.
And McCain has brilliantly turned Obama's one strength and the thing he seems to need more than air (large crowds chanting his name) into the biggest thorn in his side. McCain knows the Obama who meets with small groups of people pales in comparison to the Obama of the Large Crowd. And McCain knows that Obama is very uncomfortable in small groups preferring instead the adulation of people from afar.
So, back him into a corner where large crowds are an albatross around his neck, force him into small groups and watch the discomfort grow, picked up on by his friends in the media and those inevitable chatty, disappointed Voters who were expecting Obama the Hype and got Obama the Inexperienced Man and aren't afraid to share these views when faced with a camera and a microphone.
Hit Obama's Achille's Heel and the rest of it just slides easily downhill.

Media darling status (none / 0) (#32)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:21:20 PM EST

has a downside....


The economy is my major issue. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST

That's why I wanted Clinton so badly. I felt, between she and Bill, they would figure out a way to navigate what is going to be a horrible economy in the next few years. (Bill would have been an excellent "silent advisor." He fixed the economy when he was in office.)

McCain is calling for abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (he wrote an editorial about it). The Democrats are trying to protect Fannie & Freddie with a taxpayer bailout. Both choices are bad but they are the only two choices available. McCain's choice means we get hit hard and fast, but we'd be able to start the road to recovery faster. The Democrats plan means we drag out the misery longer. The eventual outcome under both plans probably will be the same.

So, what does the VP have to do with any of this? I can't see Obama giving up much control on this issue. I can see McCain picking someone strong in economics and finance and letting that person concentrate on that.

What do you consider strong? (none / 0) (#43)
by CST on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST

In most cases with a republican it will be someone who advocates less government regulation and trickle-down economics.

They might have a "background" in economics but that doesn't mean it's the right background.


Romney would be strong. (none / 0) (#51)
by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:13:11 AM EST

: The truth about Mitt Romney (none / 0) (#54)
by CST on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST

He tried with all his power to not have gay marriage in MA.
As for his record on universal health care, he tried with all his might to scale it back, and never had to deal with funding it since it came into effect after he left. Some of the things he tried to cut (veto was over-ridden):
-dental and eyeglass benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program
-health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid
Finally, he cut funding for the state to balance the budget without raising taxes, but the towns were so strapped for cash they just raised property taxes to pay for that stuff. Like education and roads. He tried to bring back the death penalty, vetoed a bill expanding access to emergency contraception, vetoed stem-cell funding, and a host of other social programs.
Meanwhile, the murder rate stayed the same while the arrest rate dropped by almost 50% due to lack of funding.
Mitt Romney would be terrible. Ask anyone from MA what they think of him and you will get the same response.

Yes... YES... (none / 0) (#53)
by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:01:51 AM EST

that... THAT is the issue. People hide their heads in the sand when they hear the word ECONOMICS. Ooh noo Economics. It's very sad and silly, I know. They remember their Economics 101 classes from college and think that that was what Economics was all about. So they turn to literature or painting or whatever (I have nothing against either by the way).

But I am very afraid of who McCain might choose. If -- which is very likely by the way -- he chooses a neo-con we are back at Bush world. But Obama's econ team is already Chicago School. It is. Check it out. Either way you go, you are in Friedman land. I'm sorry. That's what my own research has found. Convince me I'm wrong. I'd like to believe it.


I wonder if the polls ask for (none / 0) (#3)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST

individual vp prospects as well. I've seen polling for example that says HRC hurts among independents. I've also seen polling that says she helps among independents. I don't know what to make of polls anymore. As for Iraq, it's been said repeatedly that Americans are conflicted. They clearly don't want the war, but they're terrified of the aftermath of the pullout. Despite what ODSers believe or what the candidates say day to day, obviously most Americans believe BHO and JSM have two different agendas. And the Dems' position is seen as a bigger risk.

I don't think (none / 0) (#13)
by magisterludi on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:57:42 AM EST

it's the dem position that people think is risky. All indications I see point to dems on a majority of issues.

It's Obama's positions that people may consider more risky, and that's his campaign's fault for playing it so safe on the issues.

I'm disgusted with bumper sticker slogans the GOP always throws out to the rubes who vote them into office, but Obama needs to lock himself in a room with his advisors and get a concise message and pound it home 24/7.

And he should pick Hillary as veep and announce it at the convention on stage with her at his side.


Although Ras has some numbers today (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:48:54 PM EST

showing (I think) that the generic Dem advantage is shrinking. I feel like it was quite high back in Fev-Mar, now it's only 10 pts.

The tarnish on the Dem. Congress is also having an effect, I think.


It's reaching a point (none / 0) (#18)
by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:08:10 PM EST

Point being that if Hillary has her parade through Denver, comes to the Convention and gets a huge response (especially if her nomination vote happens), and she ISN'T the VP... Obama may as well pack up and go back to Illinois at that point.

Why should I waste money contributing to him? Seriously. As someone said, we'll be nominating a dead pony for the GOP to kick for two months.


I agree with the second half of your post. (none / 0) (#19)
by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST

But I hate to break it to you but Obama's position of a 16 month-ish timetable IS supported by most of the Dems.


: I don't disagree with. (none / 0) (#22)
by magisterludi on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:31:29 PM EST

By Obama being riskier, I meant whether or not people believe he will "stay the course" and put rhetoric to action.

RE (none / 0) (#9)
by az on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:50:50 AM EST

Obama would be ahead by only a hair in that poll.

Those numbers seem to favor Mccain

Land Line and Cell Phone (none / 0) (#33)
by KeysDan on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM EST

owners may be affecting polling data. Most polling, it seems, utilizes land lines. Many potential Obama supporters have only cell phones, which may account for an under-reporting of the Democratic candidate's strength.

: Polling outfits (none / 0) (#45)
by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:05:23 PM EST

now calling cell phone users, I understand.

p lukasiak (none / 0) (#34)
by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:27:21 PM EST

"because of how it will be reported -- and that will feed into the image that the public has of the candidates."

I disagree. Remember 1988? Bush Sr picked Quayle and the coverage was very negative.

Bush Sr went on to win a landslide.

Iraq (none / 0) (#36)
by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:32:02 PM EST

"As for Iraq, it's been said repeatedly that Americans are conflicted. They clearly don't want the war, but they're terrified of the aftermath of the pullout."

Remember 1972?

Most voters were against the Vietnam war and yet they voted for Nixon because they had more confidence in him to bring it to an honorable end.

Yes voters are against the Iraq war and want it to end. But they also want an honorable end to it. They don't want to see US humiliation. Which is why they trust McCain more.

VP pick (none / 0) (#38)
by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:37:51 PM EST

"The VEEP pick is part of the formulation of the impression of the candidate."

How do you explain Quayle?

His pick received very negative coverage.

Quayle was seen as a disastrous pick.

It did not effect how people perceived the two candidates. Bush Sr was seen as strong, Dukakis as week.

Bentsen won the debate with Quayle. Made no difference.

As I said before people vote for the top of the ticket.

: That was then. Today is post-Cheney! (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by zfran on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:18:45 PM EST

Different most powerful veep. How do you change that.

There's a veep guy with a Rhodes scholar (none / 0) (#48)
by wurman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:01:50 PM EST

degree in Philosopy, Politics, & Economics from Oxford Univ. (some may've heard of the place) who is also a retired army general and is often credited with winning a major war in Europe without a single combat fatality.

It's a 2fer: sound economic advice & a cogent plan to extricate from Iraq in one easy choice by Sen. Obama.

Unfortunately, Gen. Clark is under the bus. He called baloney on a blowhard TV satrap, which jeopardized the media darling status--and made a minor flap on the cable programs.

Please. McCain ADMITTED that he has no (none / 0) (#50)
by beachmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:59:03 PM EST

expertise on the economy, nor much interest in it. His #1 economic advisor called Americans a bunch of whiners. McCain is weak on the economy.

This is rather a no-brainer, (none / 0) (#52)
by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:34:04 AM EST

isn't it? A poll is necessary? They think a poll is necessary. Isn't it even a little bit annoying when you have to think about the fact that there are sentient beings who even wonder about that IN THIS ELECTION?!