home

Time Magazine Poll: Obama Has 17% Lead Among Women

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Time Magazine released a poll today. It has Obama ahead of McCain, 50% to 43%. And Gov. Sarah Palin is not bringing women to McCain's side. Obama leads among women by 17%:

Among the poll's most dramatic findings: McCain is losing female voters faster than Sarah Palin attracted them after the Republican National Convention. Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a 1-point margin, 48%-47%.

< Supreme Court to Hear Seven New Criminal Cases | Nurses Organization Releases "Heartbeat Away" Ad Against McCain/Palin >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Time Magazine Poll: Obama Has 17% Lead Among Women | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Implies women were holding out. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    Why would that be, I wonder?

    Do you mean, why is it implied (none / 0) (#5)
    by echinopsia on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    or why were they holding out?

    Parent
    Why were they holding out? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Fabian on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:43:41 PM EST
    The economy probably did the trick.  Those on the bottom of the economic ladder are always more sensitive to downturns.  There are more women down there than men.  More single women head of families as well.

    Sexism is alive and well in America.

    Parent

    Yep, circumstances may win it (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    this time, but the Dems had better not bask in it.  This campaign showed that it has work to do to keep a lot of voters, women and men, who saw that a lot of the Dems' promises and platform are "just words."

    Parent
    New CNN Polls just out: (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:22:27 PM EST
    Florida Obama 51 - 47 McCain
    Minnesota Obama 54 - 43 McCain
    Missouri Obama 48 -  48 McCain
    Nevada Obama 51 - 47 McCain
    Virginia Obama 53- 44 McCain

    All polls conducted Sept 28-30
    Margin of error 3.

    Why can't the election be tomorrow?

    um wow. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Faust on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:23:40 PM EST


    Parent
    It is in some states (none / 0) (#4)
    by rdandrea on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    Early voting is upon us.

    Parent
    If Obama actually takes Missouri (none / 0) (#6)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:41:40 PM EST
    the Civil War -- which began there in a way, even before Lincoln began his run -- finally may be over.

    That would be nice.  But I still don't bet on it.

    Parent

    But Missouri (none / 0) (#11)
    by Steve M on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:50:57 PM EST
    will still be at war with Kansas.

    Parent
    There you go. You know (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    that's where Missourians started the Civil War.  Well, actually, Congress did in one of its more stupid "compromises," read "copouts."

    If Missouri is still at war with Kansas, then I count on it even less.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:22:51 PM EST
    Well, actually, Congress did in one of its more stupid "compromises,"

    Bi-partisan.

    Parent

    Is that why we're still asking (none / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    what's wrong with Kansas?

    Parent
    Me, I'm more worried about (none / 0) (#19)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    what the heck is wrong with Missourians, who still trumpet Jesse James as a folk hero.  Even liberals there whom I know don't want to admit to this day that he was a criminal mass murderer of Kansans.

    So they think they're liberals.  But I don't.  I think they're Missouri liberals, which means a whole different species sometimes.

    Parent

    I think if the election were held today (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    that's more or less how it would turn out.

    Alas, we have a few weeks to go.

    Parent

    I read the polls wrong (none / 0) (#9)
    by WS on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    When I saw McCain's name after every state I thought he was in the lead!  Good thing I did a double take and the "why can't the election be held tomorrow" line made me reread the polls.  

    Parent
    Me too (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    Formatting is paramount!

    Parent
    "Palinpalooza" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Brillo on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:54:09 PM EST
    Remember folks- criticizing Gov. Palin will be seen as sexist and trigger a massive backlash amongst Hillary's female supporters, who will stampede away from the Democratic party and right into the waiting arms of Palin/McCain.

    Let Palin be Palin! (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 03:57:49 PM EST
    Preferably on national TV.  In prime time.

    Parent
    That is (none / 0) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    the best strategy for Thursday night.

    Parent
    Marvelous snark (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:36:40 PM EST
    -- sad as it is that some here will take it seriously.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#22)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    Chuck Todd was on MSNBC saying he didnt think Palin had held whatever voters she intitially brought along.

    Kind of obvious but..

    Parent

    The thing is, Palin was pitched as having (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    been picked to appeal to the women voters who were displeased because HRC was not on the Dem ticket.  The implication was that women would vote their gender, rather than using their brains.  An insult, and a bit of tokenism by the Repugs.

    The bigger problem with that whole approach - which might have worked with a competent, experienced woman with experience and a track record similar to HRC (Say, Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe or Jodi Rell, to name 4) - was that Palin is not someone like that.  Rather, Palin is the woman other women hate.  Thus, the continuous downtrend for Palin among women voters.

    Palin is perceived by a lot (not all) women as being the one who gets ahead on her looks and flirting with men, gets someone else to do her homework for her and still gets the good grades, and smiles and flutters her eyelashes when cornered.

    Just take a look at Cindy McCain when she, Palin and John are all in the same image. John's gawking (discreetly) at Palin's bod, Palin's smirking, and Cindy's stewing.

    Letting Palin be Palin will be the best thing - b/c women all over the country will see what she is, and hate her more.

    The only thing which might make it better would be if Gwen Ifill were replaced with a man.  Palin being Palin would mean flirting to get by, even more disastrous.

    anybody know what (none / 0) (#23)
    by sancho on Wed Oct 01, 2008 at 09:06:10 PM EST
    kerry's lead among women was?

    Time Magazine Poll: Obama Has 17% Lead Among Women | 23 comments (23 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment