What Does A Woman Bring To A Ticket?

CBS News' Kathy Frankovic Says Palin Has Given McCain A Bounce — For Now

(CBS)  This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic.

---

Twenty-four years ago, when Walter Mondale selected Representative Geraldine Ferraro to be his running mate, he was running far behind Ronald Reagan in the polls. His choice was in part a response to demands by women’s groups to put a woman on the Democratic ballot.

Throughout 1984, there were polls asking whether people were more likely to vote Democratic if a woman were on the ticket. In June, the Gallup Poll asked: "If the Democratic presidential nominee selected a woman to be his vice presidential running mate, would this make you more likely or less likely to vote for the Democratic ticket?" Thirty two percent of Democratic voters said it would make them more likely to vote Democratic, 18 percent said it would make them less likely. Independents were evenly divided: 27 percent more likely, 24 percent less likely.

Most other polls also put the impact as a wash - in April of that year, CBS News and The New York Times found 74 percent of all registered voters said it wouldn’t make a difference one way or the other. Those that were affected divided - but more said a woman vice presidential candidate would make them vote against the woman candidate’s party than for it.

Women’s groups trumpeted the positive results and ignored the negatives, especially the fact that many of those who said putting a woman on the ticket would make them more likely to vote Democratic were likely to vote Democratic anyway. The National Women’s Political Caucus polled Democratic convention delegates, and according to Flora Davis in her book Moving the Mountain, they hand-delivered those results to Mondale: 82 percent of convention delegates, they found, would be at least somewhat positive about having a woman on the ticket.

Unfortunately for Mondale, however, there was little hope for the Democratic ticket that year. Ronald Reagan had looked vulnerable in 1983, but by the start of 1984, a CBS News/New York Times Poll showed him 16 points ahead of Mondale among registered voters; and he won the election by 20 points.

This year, those kinds of questions weren’t asked in the months prior to the about the Republican ticket. Polls did find some support for a woman on the Democratic ticket: a Fox News poll in August found 43 percent of registered voters saying Hillary Clinton was the "best" choice for vice president. Other polls suggested she would bring her supporters to the Democratic ticket. The latest CBS News Poll has Obama-Biden winning only 74 percent of Clinton primary voters, although that’s an improvement over the 63 percentage for Barack Obama before the conventions. Among Democratic delegates, Clinton had a huge lead over Biden when delegates were asked to volunteer whom they thought Obama should choose as his running mate.

There are other differences between 1984 and today, some in style and some in substance. Back in 1984, Mondale and Ferraro didn’t touch, not even raising hands together. That has certainly changed. Everybody hugs, nowadays, no matter what the gender of the candidates.

Typically, voters say the vice presidential choices will matter more to them before they are chosen than they say they will afterwards, when the focus of the race shifts back to the tops of the tickets. That has yet to happen this year. Perhaps that’s because the conventions, coming so quickly together, focused attention on the vice presidential choices, and perhaps also it’s because nearly everyone was surprised by John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin.

Last weekend, between the two conventions, Democrats were somewhat more likely than Republicans to say the VP choice would make a difference to them. It appeared that Joe Biden, the safer choice, might be more appealing than Palin in the days immediately after she was named. But now, it’s Palin who is driving more voters. Forty percent of those supporting the McCain-Palin ticket say the vice presidential candidates are having an impact on their vote. Just 24 percent of Obama supporters are saying that.

---

Poll Database
Search recent CBS News campaign polls.

---

To underscore the impact, 65 percent of Obama voters are glad he chose Biden; 85 percent of McCain voters are glad he chose Palin!

Although vice presidential choices can affect voter judgment of the candidates at the top of the ticket, so far this year the impact is limited. Although many voters see Palin as having less experience than Biden, the experience gap at the top of the ticket hasn’t changed. Just 47 percent say Palin has prepared herself enough for the job of vice president, something 70 percent say about Biden. Those percentages could certainly change in the next few weeks, particularly after the vice presidential debate on October 2. But her apparent weakness has yet to affect the perceived strength of the man she is running with. Prior to the two conventions, 68 percent said that McCain had prepared himself well for the job of president; even more, 76 percent, say that now.

The selection of Biden hasn’t brought a transfer of his 35 years of Senate experience to perceptions of Obama. Before the conventions, 44 percent described Obama as prepared, and there has been no significant change: 42 percent think so today.

One quality that may be transferable, though, is empathy. Sixty percent say Palin is someone they can relate to (64 percent of women say this). Just 40 percent say this about Biden. Obama has never had a problem on this characteristic: six in ten voters have thought he understands their needs and problems all along. McCain has, and Obama took advantage of that in his acceptance speech, when he accused McCain of "not getting it." Before the Republican Convention, just 44 percent thought McCain understood their needs and problems; that rose to 51 percent afterwards.

The Palin nomination certainly has given McCain a bounce - at least for now.

[kopana]

Does not the constitution have separation of church and state???????????

why has Palin taken the position for teaching Creationism in our schools (public and private). Why is not teaching science enough????If we are to be competitive in the world market system we need science and technology taught not someone''s religious beliefs...If we had a Muslim, Native American, Jew, Hindu or any other faith running for VP why should we not teach their creation stories too in our public schools. Get smart America or lose it.

GO OBAMA, FOR A SMART and JUST AMERICA!!!

[rhs648]

It''''s amazing when a national leader can attest to her faith in God....what you consider whacko is demeaning to 75% of the US population who are christian.....

Posted by cwazywabt

Hi cwazywabt - If you add Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious groups, you have a lot more people lending support to what you said.

[retrovvvisio]

Actions speak better than words:

The moment Palin became Governor, she did the BEST job as a Governor, for the sake of the people. This is what you expect from the politician you elect - to do the best for you. There you have it. As a Governor she was in a position to STOP the madness of building the bridge to nowhere ... Palin also went after corruption, passed laws, she worked for the people of Alaska. That''s the reason why she has 90% positive rating, the best ever!

And you can bet your last dime she will do the same in Washington. McCain - Palin will chose a whole army of the "bestest people" to deliver on policies... And they will reform, they will make real changes, and re-instate what America is about.

God bless them, and God bless America!

[ioweign]

Opinions from Alaska:

Palin shows herself to be a curt, snarly, dangerous woman

A son who went to the killing fields rather than college, why?

A daughter who wasn''t protected from a pregnancy, why?

A mayor who wanted to ban books in America, why?

A flip-flopper on the bridge, and willingness to testify, why?

Threw away an opportunity to create jobs and conserve resources by extending bus service and building a rail line for Wasilla and Eagle River commuters, why?

Ridiculed Obama because he served the poor and needy, why? Her opportunities were the fruit of community organizers, some of whom lost their lives, so why?

This is a curt, snarly and dangerous woman. She had it right when she presented herself as a pit bull wearing lipstick. But maligning the breed was a cheap shot.

-- Shirley A. Schneider

Anchorage

[xliberalcomi]

S

[navvet2]

I hope that once John S. McCain and Sarah Palin are inaugurated on January 20, 2009 that the liberals and left can gracefully accept this and help us move our country forward. At this crucial time for our country, We need real leadership, not empty promises of change for change''s sake. I believe that John McCain and Sarah Palin can and will do this.

[mytoosense]

PALIN''''S RESUME:
1. Runner up in state beauty pageant.
2. Mayor of Wasilla population less than 7,000.
3. Governor of Alaska for 18 months.

PALIN''''S RESUME:
1. Nice skirt which helps get the Greasy Old Pervert (GOP)Vote.
2. Tongue speaking, Backwards Bible Thumper to get the evangelical vote.
3. Estrogen producer to get the misinformed women''s vote.
4. A non-senior citizen to get the youth vote.

[marlenemn]

Here is what the Rev. Kalnins has taught her and what she repeats.

She says terrorism against Jews is part of God''''s plan because they refuse to accept Jesus as their savior; that the Palestinians killing Jews is part of God%u2019s plan.

She asks her congregation to "pray for the oil pipeline."

She says Alaska has a special place in God''''s plan to save it during the "End Times."

She used State fund to transport kids during church outing;

She says the war in Iraq is part of "God''''s plan."

She says gaye people can be converted and become straight;

She has said when the spirit moves her, she %u201Cspeaks in tongues.%u201D

She believes in %u201Cfaith healing.%u201D

She tried to ban book in her local library.

These are just a few of her extreme statements.

Is she a nut-job, or what?

You can find all this for yourself, just Google: Palin''''s Church - Ed Kalnins- and don%u2019t fail to see Brickner & Jews for Jesus.

Posted by Faizal3 at 12:54 AM : Sep 12, 2008


Worth repeating. She is a total wacko

[abbe91]

"If Obama had picked Hillary for VP, do you think he''''d have made her cover her face?
Posted by luvusa at 10:02 AM : Sep 12, 2008"

"And yet at some point both plaintiff and witness decide that a principle is
at stake, that despite everything that has happened, those words put on paper
over two hundred years ago must mean something after all."

Barack Obama - Dreams of my father.

"Just a ********* piece of paper"

GW Bush.

[hungry1968]

Idiot lefty drone. Obama is weak on defense and would leave us open to another 9/11 attack, JUST LIKE CLINTON.

Posted by luvusa at 10:11 AM : Sep 12, 2008





Is that why we were attacked on Bush''s watch, with the republicans in EVERY major armed forces seat in the congress and senate, and controlling the Pentagon, even though the intelligence was POURING in for at least eight months prior to the invasion?

Spare me your "wishful thinking". History is proving your statements are idiocy and speculation.

[hungry1968]

He would have if there was aa 9/11 attack under his watch.

Posted by luvusa at 10:10 AM : Sep 12, 2008





You''re full of *****!

He didn''t invade Iraq, because he had NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

Neither did Bush - that''s why he had to fabricate the reason to invade.

[hungry1968]

No, just a typical muslim.

Posted by luvusa at 10:06 AM : Sep 12, 2008




Tell it to Bush and McCain.

They''re the ones that want to keep us mired in the terrorist ridden mideast, until our country is ruined.

Not Obama.

[hungry1968]

What a crock of BS! Democraps had been screeching about Saddam''''s WMD''''s for YEARS!

They were either LYING, or they KNEW ABOUT THE LIES IF THEY ''''WERE'''' ANY LIES!

Give yourself a break, again stop the propaganda!

Posted by RowdyHeckNo at 10:05 AM : Sep 12, 2008





If true, then why didn''t Clinton invade, or at least propose an invasion while he was still in office?

Or, why didn''t the democrats in the Senate or Congress push Clinton to make a case for war?

Jeez Louise, how sad that you have ZERO common sense, and believe NOTHING but republican lies and BS.

[hungry1968]

If Obama had picked Hillary for VP, do you think he''''d have made her cover her face?

Posted by luvusa at 10:02 AM : Sep 12, 2008





Why do you think that?

Is he a muslim supporting, republican?

[rowdyheckno]

Yes, the democrats DID vote for the war.

Had they have known, at the time, that they were being lied to, they WOULD NOT have voted for the war authorization - and DOZENS of them have said so, from BOTH sides of the aisle.

Don''''t use Bush''''s lies that led us into an unwinnable war, to support your argument.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by hungry1968 at 09:57 AM : Sep 12, 2008

What a crock of BS! Democraps had been screeching about Saddam''s WMD''s for YEARS!

They were either LYING, or they KNEW ABOUT THE LIES IF THEY ''WERE'' ANY LIES!

Give yourself a break, again stop the propaganda!

[hungry1968]

You dont even have sense enough to realize that the democraps had been screeching about WMD''''s in Iraq for years! The democraps voted for the war, they funded the war, Joe Biden thought it would certainly lead us to peace!!!!

Until they decided to use it as a tool in an election year!

Like I said, grow up!

Posted by RowdyHeckNo at 09:32 AM : Sep 12, 2008





Yes, the democrats DID vote for the war.

Had they have known, at the time, that they were being lied to, they WOULD NOT have voted for the war authorization - and DOZENS of them have said so, from BOTH sides of the aisle.

Don''t use Bush''s lies that led us into an unwinnable war, to support your argument.

[hungry1968]

You tunnel vision only allows you to see what you want to see. Look at what these idiots are doing all over the world! They''''re killing EVERWHERE!

Posted by RowdyHeckNo at 09:41 AM : Sep 12, 2008






Yes ******* - some terrorists WERE receiving their training in Iraq. The terrorists that were blowing themselves up in Israel -- NOT the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11.

Israel''s terrorist problems have NOTHING to do with 9/11 or the US.

And the ONLY people that they are killing worldwide, are the people that keep sticking their noses in their business.

When was the last time Chile was struck by Islamic terrorists?

Belgium?

Norway?

Sweden?

Now look at the countries that were involved in Iraq, or supported Israel:

The US, England, Spain.....

Keep believing the lies Rowdy. Keep insisting - like McCain, Bush, and Lieberman - that we stay mired in Islamic countries, supporting them, buying their oil, and giving them weapons so that those weapons can end up in the hand of terrorists.

At least we know who really supports the Islamic radicals.

[rowdyheckno]

Posted by hungry1968 at 09:36 AM : Sep 12, 2008

The trouble is, Saddam had been training terrorists for years, his own commanders testified to it.
And again, you can''t tell me Osama planned and executed this by himself.

To answer my own question, yes, it would''ve made me happy if the morning after 911, they had dropped a big load on the whole Middle East! We wouldn''t be having to have this debate now. And we wouldn''t ever have to worry about radical Islam killing people all over the world again!

You tunnel vision only allows you to see what you want to see. Look at what these idiots are doing all over the world! They''re killing EVERWHERE!

[hungry1968]

Yeah they were! You can''''t tell me Osama did this by himself. Saddam was training terrorists right under everybody''''s nose. He''''d been trying to get his hand on nukes for years! And used WMD''''s on his own people!

Good riddance. And it was brilliant to pull the terrorists out of the mountains of Afghanistan and fight them in the open deserts of Iraq where we could get at them! It probably saved thousands of our troops lives. They were and still are being picked off like turkeys in a shoot in Afghanistan!

Someday you''''ll grow up, Hungry! Instead of listening to propaganda!

Posted by RowdyHeckNo at 09:29 AM : Sep 12, 2008





Yeah - another "brilliant" move, right?

Removing the ONLY person that kept the terrorists OUT of Iraq, so that we could turn Iaq into a safe haven FOR terrorists, while our war there created EVEN MORE terrorists.

Meanwhile, the people that actually attacked us are allowed to go free, with only drones chasing them over the mountainous regions of two MORE countries that are taking BILLIONS in foreign aid to fight the terrorists, while actually doing NOTHING to capture them.

And McCain, just like Bush, ignores Afghanistan and acts like if we do nothing, the country will sort itself out, and the terrorists will somehow magically disappear.



Yeah, real friggin'' brilliant.

[rowdyheckno]

Posted by hungry1968 at 09:25 AM : Sep 12, 2008

You dont even have sense enough to realize that the democraps had been screeching about WMD''s in Iraq for years! The democraps voted for the war, they funded the war, Joe Biden thought it would certainly lead us to peace!!!!

Until they decided to use it as a tool in an election year!

Like I said, grow up!