Catholic Dem. PAC Survey: Palin Too Polarizing, Hillary Voters Go to Obama

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 11:56:58 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: The survey data is here.

Received by e-mail from the Catholic Democrats Communnications PAC:

An independent nationwide survey run the week of September 1, 2008, by the Catholic Democrats Communications Political Action Committee shows that nearly all the Catholic voters who voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton will now cast the vote for Sen. Barack Obama. Nearly 500 Catholics responded to the survey.

It is clear that the alleged defection of Clinton voters to McCain is not happening, " said Bill Roth, President of the PAC. "Nearly 95% of the Clinton voters now intend to vote for Sen. Obama. This repudiates the idea that Gov. Palin should somehow appeal to the Clinton voter." [More...]

The second major conclusion of the survey is that the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as VP candidate is a polarizing one. The survey showed that among Catholic surveyed, 74% though she was a "terrible" or "bad" choice. It should be noted the bulk of the respondents were self-identified as Democrats.

From what I can tell, this group is focused on promoting the social issues contained in Faithful Citizenship, by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

The Catholic Democrats PAC is an FEC-registered political action committee dedicated to supporting Democratic politicians and elected officials of all creeds who support the values outlined in the US Bishops' document, Faithful Citizenship. This political action committee is a direct response to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching in Deus Caritas Est...

Update: Here are the group's position on issues, which I just received from them by e-mail in response to an email I sent:

0. We're not aligned withe the bishops.
1. We support the "seamless garment of life" from conception to a natural death.
2. We oppose throwing women and doctors in jail, and criminalization of abortion generally. There are other solutions. See here.
3. We oppose the death penalty
4. We support immigrant rights.
5. We oppose the Federal Government interfering in the practice or definition of marriage as practiced by the Church.
6. We support full, equal rights for the LGBT community, and oppose California Prop. 8.
7. As for prevention vs. prisons for example, we oppose Prop 6 which would divert money from education to pay for more prisons. This is not an appropriate kind of re-distributive justice.

< Quality "Journamalism" | Can Evangelical Voters Win Colorado for McCain? >

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.

Catholic Dem. PAC Survey: Palin Too Polarizing, Hillary Voters Go to Obama | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Conflicts with other polls (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by stefystef on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM EST

like the ABC poll showing more women leaning towards McCain and Palin than Obama.

Where was this poll taken? Was it East Coast Catholics or Midwestern Catholics? As a Roman Catholic, opinions differ throughout the Catholic community.

It is positive news for Obama on the surface, but like all polls (especially such a small sample of 500), the method has to be analyzed.

Also conflicts with the Zogby poll (none / 0) (#4)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM EST

showing McCain pulling ahead by double digits among Catholics (LV, both parties,not strictly Dems).

Guess we will find out which polls are more accurate in 60 days or so.


: Gallup (none / 0) (#28)
by fercryinoutloud on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:30:49 PM EST

shows a 5% an uptick for McCain with Democratic voters and a 12% gain with Independents since the conventions.
Gallup

The methodology seems faulty (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST

"500 responded" sounds like it was a self selected sample group.

And "nearly all" just sounds unbelievable to me unless 10% does not count.

I need to know more.

Big margin of error, worthless poll (none / 0) (#17)
by Prabhata on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:18:18 PM EST

500 is good enough for a county, but a nationwide poll requires around 1000 samples to get an acceptable margin of error.


That's not my point (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:01:32 PM EST

The question is is it a self selected sample.


yesterday's Rasmussen polls used (none / 0) (#23)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:54:08 PM EST

500 voters for swing state polling.


: 500 would be an acceptable sample size, (none / 0) (#26)
by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:02:54 PM EST

especially if we are talking about 500 members of a statistical subcategory like "Catholic Hillary Clinton voters". But the self-selection issue makes this poll unreliable -- almost meaningless imo.

i would take this with the (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:11:31 PM EST

proverbial sack of salt.

that said, putting gov. palin on the GOP ticket had little, if anything, to do with luring disaffected clinton supporters to the republican candidates. it was designed solely to appeal to the right-wing "christian" evangelicals. if it happens to get some votes of "catholics for clinton", that's nice, but not expected or critical.

the more important question is: how many right-wing evangelical, registered voters, are now planning to vote a mccain/palin ticket, who were not planning to vote for the republican candidate before?

: Not solely (none / 0) (#18)
by sj on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:20:44 PM EST

I agree that it was designed to appeal to RW voters.
But it was also designed to draw out the bad habits of O's misogynist campaign and supporters and re-inflict the damage of the primaries. The Clintons had been a little too effective at the convention and the Rs thought that some rapprochement might be taking place. They couldn't have that. They wanted disaffected voters staying home.
Worked like a charm, too.

This is like reading propaganda, (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Anne on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:41:57 PM EST

which means it is pretty much worthless.

My comments to the quoted text are in brackets, and emphasis added:

An independent [how independent is a poll commissioned by a Democratic PAC?] nationwide survey run the week of September 1, 2008, by the Catholic Democrats Communications Political Action Committee shows that nearly all the Catholic voters [who responded to the survey and] who voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton will now cast the vote for Sen. Barack Obama. Nearly 500 Catholics responded to the survey [how many surveys were sent out?].
It is clear that the alleged defection of Clinton voters to McCain is not happening, " said Bill Roth, President of the PAC. "Nearly 95% of the Clinton voters [who responded to the survey] now intend to vote for Sen. Obama. This repudiates the idea that Gov. Palin should somehow appeal to the Clinton voter." [which is exactly the result they were looking for]
The second major conclusion of the survey is that the choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as VP candidate is a polarizing one. The survey showed that among Catholic surveyed [who responded to the survey], 74% though she was a "terrible" or "bad" choice. It should be noted the bulk of the respondents were self-identified as Democrats.

I hate polls and articles that purport to "prove" something by deliberately misleading the reader, as this one clearly did; I cannot even begin to imagine how much time you are taking from your busy life to hunt down articles like this, but this one is so transparently bad it does not serve Obama's cause, and it does not serve you well.

Too Polarizing? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by myiq2xu on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:50:49 PM EST

Isn't that what they said about Hillary?

: Big difference (none / 0) (#27)
by Rashomon66 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST

Yes, but surely you can tell the difference between Clinton and Palin?
It's unbelievable to me that so many here think that McCain is really the independent maverick he says he is. His political ads are working on some Democrats. Very upsetting.

: Well, (none / 0) (#29)
by 0 politico on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST

reports tonight are that defections are coming from somewhere. They include Catholics and women.

Anecdotal (none / 0) (#3)
by JAB on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM EST

I come from a large Midwestern Roman Catholic family, who all supported Hillary Clinton. My dad is now voting for McCain, and my mothers and sisters and I will probably leave the top of the ticket blank.

Leaving the top of the ticket blank (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST

makes sense to me only if:

A. You are genuinely indifferent as to the merits of the major candidates, or

B. You think all of the major candidates are so noxious that you just can't bring yourself to vote for any of them.

Obama's and McCain's positions are so different that I can't imagine there are many voters who fall into case A. I'll assume you fall into case B.

I'll be up-front: I am going to happily vote for Obama. Having said that, I'm not going to try to persuade you of his merits as a candidate.

If you're really in case B, why not vote for a minor candidate? At least that way your vote would be counted, and might somehow register as a protest.

For myself, I can imagine extreme cases where I might find myself in case B: say, an election where the two leading candidates were both Nazis. But in almost any close election, I would choose to cast a meaningful vote.

If, for example, the election were a close 2-man race between McCain and Bob Barr, I would hold my nose and vote for McCain. I would understand the appeal of casting a protest vote in such a case, but to me, however bad the prospect of a McCain presidency might be, the idea of a Barr presidency would be significantly worse.

I guess what I'm trying to encourage you to do is, vote for McCain.

Or Obama.

Whoever you think is less bad.


I hate to say it... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Check077 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:25:49 PM EST

I really do not really know what Obama's perspective on the issues are: He always leaves me somewhat baffled after listening to "uh-and-ohs" while he's speaking. I agree with Hillary: State it and state it emphatically. The only thing I believe about Obama is his change mantra--changing the white house from red to blue. In even that, I can only half agree, because I do take up the post-partisan rhetoric.


: Are you asking what are Obama's policy positions? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:50:28 PM EST

You need to know I don't speak for Obama -- I'm not in any sense part of the campaign. But you can find them here.

After what happened (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Emma on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST

to me on May 31, with the RBC, there's no way in hell I'm leaving the top of the ticket blank. Who knows what will be filled in after the fact?

It's either find somebody at the top to vote for, or don't vote at all.

Yes. I'm paranoid. But they stole my vote on national T.V., while I sat there and watched and after I told them I'd be watching. If that can happen, I think I have a right to be paranoid.


commenters who are not supporting the (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST

Dem. ticket are limited to four comments a day expressing that. Just letting you know.


: which "democratic" (none / 0) (#30)
by cpinva on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:31:21 PM EST

ticket would that be jeralyn, the one that most people wanted, and was a clear winner, or the one forced down our throats by the DNC?
just wanted some clarification on that.

I think a little more evidence will be (none / 0) (#5)
by PssttCmere08 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:08:38 PM EST

required and this should be taken with a grain of salt, imo

Too Polarizing (none / 0) (#6)
by ruffian on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:09:24 PM EST

Words not to be believed, in my experience.

Will this move Catholic voters? (none / 0) (#7)
by Pianobuff on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:10:40 PM EST

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi is going to meet with San Francisco's archbishop to discuss her status as a communicant.

It's a PAC poll (none / 0) (#9)
by haner on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST

You should trust it like a used car salesman, or John Edwards.

: Or Sarah "support the bridge to nowhere" (5.00 / 4) (#11)
by IndiDemGirl on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:40:38 PM EST

Palin

As a Catholic Democrat, (none / 0) (#12)
by honora on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST

it sure doesn't sound like my Catholic family.

: Well, it sounds like mine!! (none / 0) (#15)
by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST

All RC; All Obama NOW.