PPP VA Poll: Obama Maintains Small Lead

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:18:25 AM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin, Barack Obama (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

PPP's latest Virginia poll (pdf) is out, showing Obama, for the 4th month in a row, continues to have a 2 point lead over John McCain.

One reason: Biden is far more popular there than Gov. Sarah Palin:

Virginia is the only battleground state PPP has polled in where Joe Biden gets better overall reviews than Sarah Palin. Biden has a net 11 point favorability rating with 38% of respondents saying
that his selection made them more likely to vote for Obama while just 27% say his choice made them less likely to choose the Democrat.

Palin has just a two point net favorability,
with 42% saying they are more likely to vote John McCain because of her and 40% saying they are less likely to do so.

40% of those polled say they are less likely to vote for McCain because of Palin. 42% say the opposite. Sarah Palin = Polarizer in Chief.

More...

83% of the voters polled in Virginia were suburban (49%), rural (20%)or small town (15%.) Only 17% were urban.

Gov. Sarah Palin is a terrifying choice to millions of Americans. Fear is a powerful motivator to vote. It will all be in the turnout. Are there more of them or more of us?

Sen. Barack Obama needs to turn up the heat on McCain and Palin in Ohio. As I wrote repeatedly during the primaries, Ohio alone could determine the election. ABC News today has this report on Ohio, where McCain-Palin has been leading. The Obama campaign can continue to ignore Palin, but the rest of us can't afford to.

< McCain's Real Running Mate - George W. Bush | Hillary Refuses to Speak at Joint Rally With Palin >

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.

PPP VA Poll: Obama Maintains Small Lead | 27 comments (27 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

and they were lying. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by cpinva on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:35:44 PM EST

Goodness, let's not replay the 90s with another woman bearing the brunt...this is exactly how the right referred to Hillary, indeed, how Obama referred to hillary...

however, gov. palin, because of her stated ultra-extremist views is, legitimately, a polarizing figure.

don't you believe those polls showing a close race in va, they're hogwash. the western part of the state will vote solidly for mccain/palin, as will the tidewater (all those military). the central part of the state (richmond) will lean towards obama/biden (high AA population), and NVA will go for obama/biden, but barely.

anyone who claims differently doesn't know their butt from a hole in the ground about va politics.

the only reason obama won va, in the primaries, is because of the high (21%) AA population, who are mostly democrat. that won't cut it in nov., because the other 79% is mostly going to vote republican.

remember, this is the home of jerry falwell and pat robertson.

: Yeh sure (none / 0) (#21)
by Nevart on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST

It's also the home of Tim Kaine, Mark Warner, and Doug Wilder.

: Oh ye gods, I forgot that about VA (none / 0) (#22)
by Cream City on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST

but ought to have recalled it, as the one batsh*t crazy neocon member of my family is in Virginia. He goes to church with his good buddy Ken Starr.(!)
Why, oh why, does the Obama strategy call for winning Virginia and the state with batsh*t-crazy others in Colorado Springs? Are they going to turn out about the same as the home of Palin's Assembly of God, Missouri? Oh, my.

No Virginia, No How, No Way (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:32:40 PM EST

cpinva is correct. I lived in VA for years and it will not go blue--not this election. You can cite Mark Warner and Jim Webb until you turn blue but Warner is practically a Republican--and even so his approval rating is only in the 40s--and Webb is a former Republican who won in a squeaker after George Allen's infamous "macaca" meltdown. (Doug Wilder? He left office with Dubya-like approval ratings.

For a long blissful time, Dems held a majority in the state general assembly but Repug redistricting took care of that. So no, long story short, Virginia is not turning blue, not this election. if you visit any parts of VA outside Northern Virginia it's solid red. And Democrats who count on NoVA (the votes that put Webb over the top), forget it. Those voters mostly work in defense-related industries; they trusted Webb because of his impressive military background but I guarantee they won't extend the same benefit to Obama.

VA goes McCain. House it.

Polarizer in Chief? (4.00 / 3) (#9)
by nell on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST

Goodness, let's not replay the 90s with another woman bearing the brunt...this is exactly how the right referred to Hillary, indeed, how Obama referred to Hillary...

Plenty of things wrong with Palin, but I guess I just feel uncomfortable applying the same terms that were applied to Hillary. It makes me wonder if a woman on the national stage could ever be seen as something other than polarizing...

I'm not sure (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Howard Zinn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:09:48 PM EST

the polarizing factor has much to do with gender. From what I've seen, it has to do with Palin's rather extreme views: religious fundamentalism, gun rights (even semi-automatics), and firm no abortion stance (even w/rape and incest).

When she was new and no one knew anything about her, she had a broad appeal. Now that her views are coming to light, some will love her for them and some will hate her. It's because her views are extreme instead of moderate that she's a polarizing figure, IMO.

I do agree that many people's distaste for Clinton is based on sexism, because most of what I've heard isn't logical at all. In fact, the same qualities that people dislike about Clinton are the very qualities that make people effective leaders.


: Id say that... (3.50 / 2) (#14)
by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:26:45 PM EST

Youre very right about palin: Its her extreme views that make her polarizing. As far as Hillary goes, the right have always always hated the Clintons after they, hilariously I might add, threw an eight year wrench into the little neocon dream world they live in. So as they ramped up the hate, her supporters ramped up the love, which created the perception of Hillary we have now.
By the way, dont fool yourself into thinking the right is all hunky-dory with Hillary now. They just use her (and yes it is just as vile as it sounds) against Democrat unity. If she had been at the top of the ticket the lies they'd throw at her would make what theyve said about Obama look like Spanish Inquisition pillow torture.

adjectives for women (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by christinep on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:36:14 PM EST

Other adjectives often applied to the "other"--whether woman, alien, or mere opposition in a tough race--include "frightening," "terrifying,
"scary," "dangerous," "fearful," etc. You get the drift. The only problem is that those words only hold punch for a limited period of time. As for myself: I take particular offense--or, in the language of the day, the word would be "I am outraged" or "I am appalled"--at our side trying so strenuously to emulate the fearmongering tactics of the right lately. (Actually, I've moved to sardonic chuckling.) Can't we fight using direct, crisp, punchy language AND without the cheezy fear words added to our favorite target?


Good to see it is okay to use rethuglican (4.00 / 0) (#16)
by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST

tactics, when we are the one's using them...the mantle polarizer has been passed on from Hillary.


: Rethuglican... (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by Thanin on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST

I never agree with you, but thats kind of hilarious.

Polarizer in Chief? (3.50 / 2) (#23)
by pcaryn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:42:57 PM EST

I am a woman who lives in Alaska and I am very concerned for women in this country and their view of Sarah Palin.

Why isn't the media talking about Sarah Palin's record? It's surreal. When she was the Mayor of the City of Wasilla, she was charging Rape Victims for the Rape Kit examinations.

Look it up!

It seems like the media is only showing the public what the public wants to know about Sarah Palin - not the ugly truth, which is not nearly as pretty as her face.

I am sickened every time she talks about women's rights - and how great of an example she is for women everywhere.

The McCain campaign won't allow her to be interviewed until the media will show her some "deference"?

Women have fought to hard to be treated like little girls who need to be protected. If Sarah Palin is going to stand up and say she is equal to a man - then she needs to be treated equal to a man - not with "deference".

If Biden had been asked about the Bush Doctrine - it wouldn't have been a big deal because he's knowledgeable enough to answer the question!

If we're going to stand up for women in this country - let's stand up for all women - not just he beauty queens.


: Not just beauty queens (none / 0) (#24)
by christinep on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:50:43 PM EST

I agree, pcaryn. Lets hear what both Biden and Palin have to say during their debate...and beyond. Lets not talk about Biden's or Palin's looks or physical bearing; lets not use the Bush language of terrorism and fear. I suspect, as you suggest, that there are a number of issues/positions to hear about and discuss and debate.

it has nothing to do with gender (none / 0) (#13)
by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:24:29 PM EST

this post has nothing to do with gender. Take it elsewhere, please.


I just heard Biden on the stump (3.00 / 1) (#2)
by ruffian on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:44:54 AM EST

today. He is really doing great work out there. I am not surprised he is making a difference. He is a very good communicator on the economy in plain English - lays it all out in terms of Bush deregulation policies over the last 8 years.

yes (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:15:54 PM EST

Gallup has Obama up by 2 nationally..

Woo hoo, McCain is still dropping.

VA is winnable (3.00 / 1) (#6)
by andgarden on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:19:16 PM EST

and this poll ought to concern McCain.

The comeback kid (2.00 / 1) (#8)
by pcpablo on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST

Gallup's jump was 3 points from yesterdsy, and doesn't reflect grandpa's financial bumbling!

Biden (2.00 / 1) (#25)
by s5 on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:27:02 PM EST

He's turning out to be a good pick, even though he looked like a dud at the beginning. Kinda the opposite of Palin.

wow (none / 0) (#1)
by Howard Zinn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:29:56 AM EST

maybe some of that rationality will eventuatlly trickle down to my home state of NC. It would certainly be a first! There are so many fundamentalist/evangelicals in NC that are giddy about Palin, though.

Interesting. If NoVa is reacting (none / 0) (#3)
by Exeter on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 11:48:22 AM EST

that way to Palin you get bet a similar reaction is taking place in battleground suburbs accross the country.

Plus (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Exeter on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM EST

their maybe a strong bradley effect in Nova


: The Bradley Effect no longer exists (3.50 / 2) (#17)
by jtaylorr on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 01:53:40 PM EST

Every single recent study on the Bradly Effect has shown it fizzled out in the late 90's and has not been present in any polling since before 2003.
If anything, the primaries showed us a sort of "Reverse" Bradley Effect, where black voters are reluctant to say they support Obama because they are afraid it will be assumed they are voting based on race alone.
Anyways, a Survey USA Virginia poll came out yesterday and had Obama ahead by 4. SUSA is a robopollser.

It would appear (none / 0) (#10)
by flyerhawk on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST

that the Convention is DOA.

There were a lot of people worried after the convention. Polls were dropping. Palin was looking unstoppable.

Some of us saw this as short term and viewed Palin as a gift, rather than a curse, for Obama.

Sure enough Palin's popularity is disappearing as people learn more about her. That's why BTD was right on when he said that the Democrats should ignore her. She was going to implode no matter what. By engaging her, the Democrats risked getting caught with shrapnel.

It seems to me (2.00 / 1) (#18)
by Steve M on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 02:00:26 PM EST

that your usage of the acronym DOA is at least 2/3 inaccurate in this context.


: I know (none / 0) (#28)
by flyerhawk on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:56:49 PM EST

I couldn't think of a better term and I was in a rush. :)

I agree (none / 0) (#11)
by Nevart on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 12:52:07 PM EST

I posted a lot last week, urging all the Nervous Nellies to calm down, that Palin's meteoric rise could not last, that the McCain bounce would fade. And got a lot of grief for it from the usual suspects. Ah, sweet vindication!

Which doesn't mean we're out of the woods or anything. The old cliche I noted last week -- that a week is a lifetime in politics -- still holds. I am buoyed by the fact that Iowa is still rock-solid for Obama, and NM and Colo leaning his way or too close to call. I am a little worried by Ohio -- that "Appalachian vote" may be too hard to get -- but encouraged that Obama is even or better in Virginia. I am frankly surprised to see West Virginia is definitely doable for Obama, albeit it won't be easy.

All in all, the fact remains that McCain has to run the table on the Bush states that are still available while Obama has more options to get to 270.


To clarify: (none / 0) (#27)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:37:24 PM EST

In the GE, I mean. Anything can happen at the state level, as we've seen.