Skip to comments.The Obama factor: Virginia edition
Posted on 10/27/2009 11:48:53 AM PDT by freespirited
Virginia Democrats hope President Obama's campaign stop today in Norfolk will boost Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds' standing, but most in a new Washington Post poll say the president will not affect their vote.
Seven in 10 say Obama is not a factor in their choice. And among those who say they'll take him into account, 14% say their vote will be to express support for Obama, 15% to indicate opposition.
The ongoing debate in Washington over health care also splits the electorate. A narrow majority (53%) opposes the legislation being developed - while 43% favor it. Virginians are more evenly split on the necessity of reform: 48% say it's needed to control costs and expand coverage while about the same figure (49%) say it will do more harm than good.
Obama maintains majority approval in this poll, with 54 percent of likely voters and 57 percent of registered voters giving him the thumbs up on handling his job. ...
For Northern Virginians and those in the southeastern corner of the state, Obama is a bit more of a positive influence than a negative one (16 percent say their vote in part will be to support him vs. 10 percent opposition in NoVa, 18 to 13 percent in the southeast), while more in the rest of the state see the gubernatorial campaign as a chance to express opposition to Obama (22 percent to voice opposition vs. 11 percent support in the west and 18 to 12 percent in the Richmond area).
Among whites, those who say their vote is a reflection on Obama's time in office tilt decidedly negative (18 percent opposition, 8 percent support), while among blacks, nearly four in 10 say they'll vote to show their support for Obama (37 percent) and just 2 percent to express opposition.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Poll analysis ping.
Since when is 10% a "narrow majority" on anything?
Which means the TOTUS-reader is, also.
In Marxixst "journalist" argot 10% equals a "narrow majority" when it opposes statism. On the other hand that same 10% would be read as "a clear and convincing mandate" if it supported statism...
Well the maccaca wapo has reported on obama’s wanderings. And they’ve deigned to write analysis and state an opinion. Too bad they failed to mention what portion of the state is voting against Deeds to teach the wapo a lesson in carpetbagging reporting. Screw you wapo.
I said to my wife the other night...”If not for Macaca, George Allen might be President right now.”
Big is narrow in Obama Kool Aid land..
The same paper said that the 7% win in the Presidential Election was a landslide and mandate. It all has to with the new math, 7% is far greater than 10% or so the Washington Post Says.
Obammie’s stop my shave a couple more points off Deed’s vote. The state is rife with anti-Obalmy sentiment.
Its a narrow majority because its 53%, which is only 3% above the bare majority, which is narrow. The key word is majority. For example, if it was 49% against, 39% for, that’s not a majority, even though its 10% more opposed to for.
Of course 10@ is a landslide.
Look for something like 15% come election day. Deeds is dead in the water and listing. He only looses voters from here on out. Bammy is a fool to campaign for him. But then bammy is a fool.
Love that metaphor. I say that on election day he'll upend, sink, and break in half like the Titanic.
Point taken. (Majority vs. plurality)
Macaca was a bunch of caca.
Right on. that and the washington post, or was it the times...cant remember.
If they hadn’t used macaca, they would have found something else. Even if they had to say that something sounded like a slur. They were looking for trouble and when you do that you always find it.
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.