Posted on 12/08/2010 3:06:19 PM PST by FTJM
Democrats and Republicans each solidly supported their candidates, but Democrats accounted for about four in 10 voters with Republicans representing just over a quarter of the vote. The rest were independents, who voted slightly in favor of Coons.
However, the voter anger that propelled O'Donnell to victory in the Republican primary wasn't far below the surface.
More than half of voters said they had a negative impression of the federal government, and they favored O'Donnell. But more than a third said they were strongly opposed to her tea party movement, and they heavily favored Coons.
The article contradicts itself, as shown in bold.
Only reason I voted for McCain was the off-chance that Sarah would get to replace him at some point. McCain without Sarah is like a 1970 Dodge Dart with the slant 6 instead of the 440.
McCain would have croaked from shock, had he won. He tried that hard to lose.
No, it doesn't "contradict itself". It's just poorly written. Here's the exit poll upon which USA Today based its story. The poll itself is unequivocal. Coons won Independent voters 48-45. Democrats accounted for 44% of the vote, Republicans 30% and Independents 27%.
Coons won self-described moderates 66-30. He even picked up 17% of the Conservative vote.
Now, where's that poll you were going to post?
Like I said: Smart! NOT.
I have little sympathy for anyone who couldn’t get up the gumption to vote against Barack Obama, regardless.
Same here, I love Sarah but half this country LOATHES her for some irrational insane reason.
I do not want to spend our 4 years reading 55 PDS articles every day about her.
I know a lot of people will say that the libs will develop a derangement syndrome over anybody we elect but with Sarah they are all over themselves about her.
Frigging mentalcases....
I think she would be perfect managing on the sidelines.
This has been my thinking, too.
If a person looks at Sarah and says she is not qualified, I would ask them to show me who is. Name me someone, anyone, who is - and why. Tell me what that other person stands for [consistantly]. As far as I know, Palin is the only political figure who unflinchingly states where she stands on any issue. And, she is solid and tested. Look at her record. Her principles, values, and belief in the wisdom of this country’s founding documents are just as solid. She is the only political figure whom I have the confidence in to right this ship.
Exactly.
Bingo
Totally
You got that right.
It's not what some poster thinks about Palin's qualification - either what you or I think, more specifically - it's what the collective American electorate thinks. Right now, the overwhelming majority of voters do not believe she's qualified. That is her political reality.
On election day 2008, a clear majority of voters did believe McCain to be qualified for the Oval Office (I think more than 70% thought he was qualified, I'd have to look it up to be sure) even though he lost. In fact, some polls actually had more people thinking McCain was qualified than thought Obama was qualified. BUT, most exit polls (all the ones that I saw) indicated that roughly 63% of the electorate didn't think she was even qualified for the vice presidency.
Getting back to McCain, people can think a candidate is still qualified, but won't vote for them nonetheless. But, it's unlikely that any measurable amount of people who believe a candidate to be unqualified will still vote for them. That's just simple political science, and it's why pollsters ask the "is candidate x qualified" question. Unless a majority of voters think someone is qualified, their chances of winning are negligible.
Can Palin turn it around in two years? I guess is anything is possible. I just don't know what achievement Palin is going to point to between the end of the 2008 campaign and the 2012 election that is going to sway a large swath of America, especially considering the saturation she's generated. There have been other national campaign losers who turned it around in subsequent elections. Nixon comes to mind immediately. But, it took Nixon 8-years to right the ship, and he did it in a day and age that didn't NEARLY have the media ubiquity today does. Nixon had the opportunity - even as a former sitting VP and failed Presidential-nominee - to reintroduce himself to the country. Palin's not going to have that chance, the media won't let her.
She has written two books, made countless tweets and Facebook postings, has appeared on Oprah and on FNC regularly, and is hosting her own reality travel show, but almost the EXACT same percentage of the electorate doesn't believe she's qualified to be President. That's not a winning formula.
Well said.
It doesn’t contradict itself as OldDeckhand pointed out. She lost with moderates, independents, and only got 36% of the female vote. If thinks that is a corollary for Palin’s chances, she’s doomed.
There’s been sort of a baffling mythology regarding the Delaware exit polls that’s built up...
That O’Donnell won independents, I believe, comes from a Fox broadcast where the News Bimbette accidentally reversed those numbers when she read results verbally.
This is the most comprehensive DE Exit poll I’ve seen:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#val=DES01p2
Also shows that Castle would have easily defeated Coons.
I've been forced to reach the disturbing conclusion that a significant number of posters are mentally incapable of making the distinction in what you've posted above.
That is, the level of abstract analysis where you assess what OTHER people think is beyond them.
A lot of women don’t like good looking woman pols. They see competition for their men. Or they are like my wife who doesn’t think women should be in the government making decisions for the nation. She says they are mostly mothers first, even if they have not had children and, as women, look first for security, then for security for everyone else. They want everyone to be nice and eat their broccoli. Or they are Nancy Pelosi. I point out Maggie Thatcher and wife says exceptions are too rare to count on. I still think Mrs. Palin will win the ladies over.
Good post. There gets a point in marketing where the quality of the product is not as important as the public’s perception of the quality of your product.
Your statistics may prove that your internet service company provides the fastest and most reliable service. But if the public doesn’t know it, or your brand name has been too badly damaged, the product won’t sell.
Palin was considered a lightweight in 2008 on foreign policy, economic policy, etc. The criticism was unfair, and often untrue.
But has she helped or hurt that perception in the last two years? Has she done things to elevate herself to the world stage? Or pursued a celebrity lifestyle?
She has a LOOOONG way to go to repair her image with independents and swing voters.
Well the other issue is people having trouble recognizing there’s an objective reality out there that may or may not have anything to do with how you’d LIKE the world to be.
Thus every poll where people like the results are great, and every poll where they don’t, it was rigged by Rove/Romney/The Bilderburgers/The Minions of Cthulhu.
I really think it boils down to blind worship of emotions,feelings, “going with your gut” and whatnot in culture and schooling; logic and impartial abstract reasoning is seen as this almost inhuman, Spock/Vulcan oddity.
People also can’t fathom that there’s any other way of thinking other than developing an opinion first, and then trying to cobble together “facts” to support that opinion; as opposed to examining the evidence, and THEN forming a conclusion.
Delaware is not a fair predictor of any Republican's chances nationwide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.