OOPS! Palin Has Less Support Among Women

[nhboy]

"NEW YORK The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin yesterday came out today from Rasmussen and Gallup -- and contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women than men.

Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely."

"There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.

That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week....."

Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women

 

[Baja28]

Yea, the polls have had sooooooooooo much time to actually analyze this revelation that is burying the dems....

 

[Johnll]

UTICA, New York - Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows.

Zogby International

The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden.

In other words, the race is a dead heat.

 

[BOP]

"NEW YORK The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin yesterday came out today from Rasmussen and Gallup -- and contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women than men.

Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely."

"There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.

That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week....."

Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women

I don't care what Dem women say, the truth is that she's prettier than most of them, and that's what matters to Dem women.

Sorry, did that sound sexist? Wasn't meant to be. The bias is against left-leaning women, who tend to be not as intelligent (or else they wouldn't be lefties), not as attractive as conservative women.

 

[vraiblonde]

Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely."

Wow! A Republican isn't hugely popular with Democrats! I may faint!

"There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.

Yet 6% more say that she IS ready to serve as President if needed. So this is obvious spin and bull####.

I get so sick of leftwing nutties insisting there is no liberal media bias, when it's so obvious and plain.

 

[ImnoMensa]

So Gallup polled the Democrat Dykes and they were ticked off that McCain picked a straight woman to run with him. Whats new.

 

[Penn]

So Gallup polled the Democrat Dykes and they were ticked off that McCain picked a straight woman to run with him. Whats new.

ooohhh! That was just........too much fun to read!

 

[Pandora]

I heard on the news that P.U.M.A., which has a bit over 10,000 members as of August and several millions of hits to their websites, is now on the McCain/Palin ticket. You are just starting to hear of them recently since they are a relatively new group.

People United Means Action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The news referred to them as Party Unity My Ass which is an alas type name for the group but they are registered under the IRS as People United Means Action. I took that referral as a bit of bias reporting.

 

[RadioPatrol]

People United Means Action

Criticism

PUMA has been criticized for their support of Republican John McCain. Officially PUMA does not support any candidate, the common thread being that its members oppose Obama as the DNC candidate.[5] Some Democrats argue that the organization's goals contradict Hillary Clinton's stated views. [35] On CNN's Situation Room, Clinton herself has been quoted as saying, "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama." [36] One Democratic state committeewoman who says she supported Clinton, and whose attitude was "Enough with this PUMA stuff," said "It's not like it's 'Rah rah Obama'. No. But he is our candidate....". She is distributing buttons saying, "Hillary Supports Obama, So Do I!!"[37]
<SNIP>
Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon has accused PUMA of being a front for McCain advocacy, pointing to founder Darragh Murphy's financial support of McCain in February 2000.[41] [42] Murphy admits donating to McCain, stating that the donation was to help defeat George W. Bush in the primary. She says she voted for Al Gore in the general election, although she did not donate to his campaign. She says she was "devastated when Bush stole the election". [43] According to the Huffington Post's Fundrace 2008, Murphy has donated $850 to Clinton's presidential campaign through Q3 2008.[44] Marcotte's accusation omits Murphy's campaign contributions to Clinton. The donations to Clinton have not yet appeared on the official FEC site as of July 29. [45] Bowers rejects the claims of Marcotte and others: "People have been trying to paint this as a Trojan horse, you know, as though I'm a Republican, that this is a Republican strategy... No, that's not it at all. From dog-catcher to president, I've voted Democrat."[46]

 

[Lenny]

Somehow Hillary...

Clinton herself has been quoted as saying, "I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

....had convinced herself that all those supporters out there wanted her to be President. In fact, a large number just didn't want Obama to be President.

 

[forestal]

That's because women want the first woman president to be well qualified for the job, not someone who is going to fall flat on her face and disgrace her gender.

"NEW YORK The first national polls on John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin yesterday came out today from Rasmussen and Gallup -- and contrary to what the GOP probably hoped, she scored less well with women than men.

Here's a finding from Gallup: Among Democratic women -- including those who may be disappointed that Hillary Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination -- 9% say Palin makes them more likely to support McCain, 15% less likely."

"There is wide uncertainty about whether she's qualified to be president. In the poll, taken Friday, 39% say she is ready to serve as president if needed, 33% say she isn't and 29% have no opinion.

That's the lowest vote of confidence in a running mate since the elder George Bush chose then-Indiana senator Dan Quayle to join his ticket in 1988. In comparison, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was seen as qualified by 57%-18% after Democrat Barack Obama chose him as a running mate last week....."

Surprise? First Two National Polls Find Palin Gains LESS Support from Women

 

[Lenny]

Oh, really?

That's because women want the first woman president to be well qualified for the job, not someone who is going to fall flat on her face and disgrace her gender.

Or is it because the Democrat women get all "ewwwwy" about hunting?

 

[bcp]

That's because women want the first woman president to be well qualified for the job, not someone who is going to fall flat on her face and disgrace her gender.

actually, when it comes to talking about family disgrace and thoughts of illegal doings and sexual scandles, what name and word better go together.

disgrace & Clinton
or
disgrace & Palin.


I tend to think that the dems are not really all that concerned with disgrace

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

That's because women want the first woman president to be well qualified for the job, not someone who is going to fall flat on her face and disgrace her gender.

Are you sure it's not because Democarps want the first bi-racial man to run for president to be well qualified to fall flat on his face and disgrace his race?

Hillary is hoping for just that. The whippersnapper forgot his place!

 

[Lenny]

whippersnapper forgot his place!

Whippersnapper's are among the protected minorities. You have committed a hate crime!

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Whippersnapper's are among the protected minorities. You have committed a hate crime!

Oh gosh! Now the gubmint will want to send me to 're-education' camp at some Ivy League University!

 

[Penn]

actually, when it comes to talking about family disgrace and thoughts of illegal doings and sexual scandles, what name and word better go together.

disgrace & Clinton
or
disgrace & Palin.


I tend to think that the dems are not really all that concerned with disgrace

And, you're right. Many people with whom I have talked to, who are liberal and by nature, Clinton fans, will tell you that sex in the White House, ADULTERY - the Oval Office, is entirely acceptable; it''s not your business, it's not mine. Yet, this IS, or WAS the leader of our country! Do you have any clue as to what a role model is?

People look up to the occupants in the White House, as a kind of an ideal symbol, of what any of us can attain, should we wish to try; should they not uphold some decency, some sort of a moral code, that the rest of us can base our own methods - of how we live our lives?

Guess not.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

And, you're right. Many people with whom I have talked to, who are liberal and by nature, Clinton fans, will tell you that sex in the White House, ADULTERY - the Oval Office, is entirely acceptable; it''s not your business, it's not mine. Yet, this IS, or WAS the leader of our country! Do you have any clue as to what a role model is?

People look up to the occupants in the White House, as a kind of an ideal symbol, of what any of us can attain, should we wish to try; should they not uphold some decency, some sort of a moral code, that the rest of us can base our own methods - of how we live our lives?

Guess not.

It's odd, in my opinion, that when a Democrat commits a crime, it's forgiven without any expectation of punishment by fellow Democrats. I can forgive someone for sinning, as we all sin. But there are consequences for behavior, both good and bad.

Cases in point, Clinton, Barney Frank, Cold-Cash Jefferson, Marion Berry. When a Republican errs, he/she is gone. When socially unacceptable behavior (as defined by our laws) is condoned by half of society, it's leading to anarchy.

 

[Penn]

It's odd, in my opinion, that when a Democrat commits a crime, it's forgiven without any expectation of punishment by fellow Democrats. I can forgive someone for sinning, as we all sin. But there are consequences for behavior, both good and bad.

Cases in point, Clinton, Barney Frank, Cold-Cash Jefferson, Marion Berry. When a Republican errs, he/she is gone. When socially unacceptable behavior (as defined by our laws) is condoned by half of society, it's leading to anarchy.

Actually, it has become mainstream, to some extent. There are people who commit adultry, as if it's a sin of no importance. They tell their significant others, that they are going to visit "friends" in another state, or county, and all the while, they have darn well planned, in advance, to "shack up" for sex with another "soulmate". They've lied, they've made excuses, and been deceitful as hell, to their partners in marriage.

Heck, there are friends of theirs, who KNOW it's going on, laugh, or giggle, and turn their faces away from it.

I guess it's alright with them; it doesn't concern them; it does not involve them personally, so who cares?

One has to wonder, how do you feel about yourself, when you look at that image in the mirror, staring back at you, the next morning?

Like, hey you, you know who I'm talking about!

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Actually, it has become mainstream, to some extent. There are people who commit adultry, as if it's a sin of no importance. They tell their significant others, that they are going to visit "friends" in another state, or county, and all the while, they have darn well planned, in advance, to "shack up" for sex with another "soulmate". They've lied, they've made excuses, and been deceitful as hell, to their partners in marriage.

Heck, there are friends of theirs, who KNOW it's going on, laugh, or giggle, and turn their faces away from it.

I guess it's alright with them; it doesn't concern them; it does not involve them personally, so who cares?

One has to wonder, how do you feel about yourself, when you look at that image in the mirror, staring back at you, the next morning?

Like, hey you, you know who I'm talking about!

I agree to a great extent regarding your response. But the mindset is strange to me regarding our elected officials. It's okay to be a Democrat criminal but not a Republican criminal in a Democrat's viewpoint. Republicans don't seem to like criminals from either party. Why the difference in views?