Illinois voters say they would be negatively influenced if a candidate was endorsed by Barack Obama. And if his support isn't an asset in his home state it's hard to imagine where it is.
40% of voters in the state say they'd be less likely to support an Obama endorsed candidate to only 26% who say it would be an asset. The reality at this point is that Obama turns Republican voters off to a much greater extent than he excites Democrats. That's reflected in the fact that 83% of Republicans say an Obama endorsement would be a negative with them while only 49% of Democrats say it would be a positive. Independents also respond negatively by a 38/19 margin.
The numbers on an Obama endorsement are perhaps more relevant with undecided voters. Among those who have not yet made up their minds in the Senate race 21% say an Obama endorsement would resonate positively with them while 33% say it would be a turnoff.
An Obama endorsement does at least go across better with Illinois voters than a Sarah Palin one does. That's not the case in Pennsylvania. There 28% of voters say they'd be more inclined to vote for someone supported by Palin while only 20% say the same about Obama. Likewise 49% say an Obama endorsement would hurt a candidate's cause with them to 46% who say the same about Palin.
Obviously these numbers are skewed somewhat by the fact that many 2008 Obama voters are not in the likely voter pool and the argument in favor of having him come campaign for you is that you might be able to draw more of those folks out. But his visits didn't seem to have that impact in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia. It's becoming increasingly clear that Obama is not much of an asset for Democratic candidates on the campaign trail and that for most of them it would be better if he just stayed away.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
What ever happened to Obama's claim,
"You've got me" He's pathetic.
I blame Bush. Or something. :-D
And it's certainly not going to get any better for Obama and the Democrats; not between now and November nor in 2012. At this point, even a significant improvement in the economy and unemployment is not going to save Obama and his party. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if, by November, Obama's approval ratings were in the high 30's and continuing to fall. He has so angered and alienated so very many people, by both his actions and words that, he has, for all practical purposes become a 'lame duck' President. Any politician, aligning themselves with this man - now or in the future, will almost assuredly be gone. Tsk, tsk, tsk!
he has, for all practical purposes become a 'lame duck' President.
at this point in his presidency, his ratings are still higher than Clinton's, Carter's and... yes, even St. Reagan's.
Frankly this article surprises me. It seems everyone in Illinois is crooked , on the take or a democrate. They all seem to love Alfred E Nuemans Protege'.
America, I am really sorry but we are trying to break the Second City Image by producing first class idiots.
Even if you changed the sample so it was closer to 2008, Palin would likely still be leading as her endorsement is considered more valuable by McCain voters than Obama's endorsement is by Obama voters and her endorsement is even more positive to Obama voters than Obama's endorsement is to McCain voters. And she's of course beating him among the "voted for someone else" category.
really? why 38/19 margin? why not write its as 2/1 (19 goes into 38 two times) or 66% versuses 33%? Why would you use 38/19 when every where else you posted a percentage?
Cleek,
I would agree with you that, comparatively speaking, Obama's approvals are no worse than some of our other past presidents - at this same point in their Presidency. But, my "lame duck" assessment of Obama and his political future were not at all based solely upon his approval numbers alone. I could readily provide you with an awful lot of credible data, as well as the many sources to which it came from. But frankly I'm not prepared, at this moment, to spend the time necessary to do so. However, I do believe that if you were to honestly and objectively read and analyze what I have, you too would inevitably come up with the very same conclusion that I did. That is that Obama, will indeed, be a one term President - without a doubt.
not in the voter pool? Why, because they're in jail or recently committed a felony?
"really? why 38/19 margin? why not write its as 2/1 (19 goes into 38 two times) or 66% versuses 33%? Why would you use 38/19 when every where else you posted a percentage?"
Did you bother reading the crosstabs? Those are the actual percentages, which is what we always report, but without using the "%" mark. Seriously, I wonder if some of our commenters have passed 2nd grade.
This is a joke right? You mean to tell me that, according to your polling, a sample that voted 47/46 (FOR MCCAIN in Illinois) in 2008, doesn't respond positively by a candidate being endorsed by the President?
Really?
I don't even know where to begin here. I mean, the entire poll is pointless given the fact that the actual 2008 results were 62/37 Obama (+25). It doesn't matter that this is a likely voter screen. I mean, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the electorate has shifted by 26 points.
My bad. I was looking at PA (46/47 McCain).
IL 2008 vote was actually 52/41.
My point still stands. Those results, even for likely voters, are very much unlikely in both states.
It stands to reason that given the continued stagnation of the economy and Obama's disconnect with voters (taking like 25 vacations this year) that his endorsement would be akin to a poison dart. I am interested in seeing how the percentages progress as the election draws closer.
Post a Comment