Fox Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds Say Ayers Makes No Difference To Their Vote
These numbers, buried in the internals of a new Fox News poll out today, are the first time a national poll has tried to gauge the impact of Barack Obama's association with William Ayers. And the numbers are pretty bad for McCain:
There has been some discussion of Barack Obama's relationship with the former radical activist William Ayers. Because Ayers is linked to plots to bomb the Pentagon and the U.S. Capitol in the 1970s, and because Ayres recently said he wished he had done more, some people say Obama's association with Ayers calls into question his judgment. Does Obama's connection with Ayers make you less likely to vote for him for president or does it not really make a difference to your vote?Less Likely 32%
No Difference 61%
Strikingly, the numbers are worse for McCain among independents: Only 29% say the Ayers association makes them less likely to vote for Obama, and more than twice as many -- 64% -- say it makes no difference. The data suggests that the vast majority of the respondents saying it makes them less likely to vote for Obama are Republicans, who probably wouldn't have supported him anyway.
Meanwhile, the poll suggests that McCain's attacks could be blowing back on him: A majority -- 51% -- say he's running a negative campaign, as compared to only 21% who say that about Obama.
Our handy TPM Election Central calculator tells us that the number of voters think McCain is running a negative campaign is nearly double that of the number who care about McCain's primary attack line right now. Go figure.
Could it be that voters have something on their minds other than the question of what a former violent radical who's now respected in Chicago was doing when Obama was walking around in shortpants?
Late Update: A quick additional point on this. Obviously this attack isn't really about Ayers; it's about sowing vague doubts about Obama's patriotism and background. Whether that dimension of the attack is working is harder to measure, and may not be perfectly reflected in the answers to direct pollster questions about Ayers. Still, the above numbers are striking.
Wow - and it's Fox, which means it's probably closer to 100%.
The funniest things I've seen in this campaign have been the vid of the Fox guy taking a straw poll in that cafe and everyone raised their hands for Obama and he turns around says, "well, it looks like there's split here..."
And there was another similar Fox instance more recently.
Those have cracked me up.
October 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also look at how the Q is framed. "Let me tell you Obama loves terrorists, would you still vote for him?" YES.
October 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Wonder what the numbers would have been had the question been: "Does Obama's relationship with William Ayers...."
October 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reason no. 1 why I love polls so much.
;)
October 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
First question should have been - have you heard of William Ayers, who is he?
Oh yeah, doesn't he play for the Red Sox?
October 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would be very instructive to me? Put a roomful of Fox regular viewers in front of the video of the talking head taking a straw poll that the viewer can plainly see the hands raised and the Fox talking head turns around and says it's split, as if we didn't see the show of hands. I'd like to ask them if they believed the hands they saw and didn't see raised or the talking head who turned around and told them something that they clearly saw didn't happen.
I'd like to know the extent to which Fox viewers regularly disbelieve their lying eyes in order to make everything fit their world view.
October 10, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or "Does Obama's association with a former member of the weather underground who is now a respected citizen of Chicago..."
October 10, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you know, Chicago is almost as bad as San Francisco, as far as McLame is concerned. And let's not even talk about New York.
The Rethugs are running out of cities to hang out in. Might be a good thing - they might voluntarily limit themselves to the small towns they love so.
October 10, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
what's sad is that I live in chicago, and if you know chicago politics, the least you think about is obama. The machine is not what it use to be, and trust me, its dirty: like todd stroger's son taking over for him, dan lapinski, etc...but what bothers me, and this might be very selfish, is that chicago is asking for the 2016 olympics. Now imagine if mccain wins, how is he gonna sell the 2016 olympics, if according to him chicago is the 7th layer of hell?
October 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll always have...Wasilla.
October 10, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're having the Olympics in Wasilla? They're going to have so many problems keeping the athletes off drugs - is meth a performance enhancing drug?
October 10, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anything goes in Palin-town!!
October 14, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto
October 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, FOX is push polling now, I see. Anything they can do to help, I guess.
October 10, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Voter,
Does knowing that Barack Obama is a militant black terrorist with ties to multiple terrorist groups make you more likely to vote for him, less likely to vote for him, or no difference?
Voter? Did I remember to include that he's a militant black terrorist in that question?
October 10, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They *are* the primary media outlet of the GOP, after all...
October 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, the second one was the Luntz focus group of undecideds after the VP debate. Only a couple people raised their hand when he asked if they had made a decision after the debate and he said, "Well, watch for the changes in the polls."
October 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, the FOX correspondent was referring to a split between those on camera supporting Obama, and the FOX viewers themselves, who are 100% Bush supporters located in a Dunkin Donuts in the Ozarks.
October 10, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need to call this Faux poll what it is, it's clearly a Push Poll.
Fox is scummy, but running Push Poll for McCain's camp? Wow, this actually drops Fox News to a new low.
October 10, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
best bit of that was the whole diner lol after he said it
watching fox when these polls came out they were making out it was bad for obama that his support was slipping because of the attacks interesting bit was they did not show the independent numbers when I was watching
October 10, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why FOX NEWS and the McCain campaign aren't pulling this poll and using it-- oh yeah, they have nothing else to go on.
We want substance, talk about the issues!!!
We want substance, talk about the issues!!!
We want substance, talk about the issues!!!
October 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently it makes 7% of people more likely to vote for Obama, too.
On the upside, it is a decent figure even given the completely incorrect question.
October 10, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
i actually don't think this is amazing news for dems. if, say, 40 percent of the people in the poll had already made up their minds pre-Ayers (b/c of racism or politics or party) then they might very well answer "no effect." just as i would say keating five has little effect on the fact that i'm voting for obama. that 32 number still bothers me.
October 10, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point, Putney, is that this is not in any sense a real poll.
As several people have pointed out, the question and the preamble to it are both skewed to get a negative reaction -- and it still didn't work.
A real question would have been: "Which candidate does McCain's attack on Obama over Ayers make you more likely to vote?"
I'd be curious to see those results.
October 10, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The purpose of the Ayres nonsense, however, was to drive up the number of people less likely to vote for Obama, and drive it up dramatically. The strategy doesn't appear to have worked in this respect (or in any other).
Which, of course, doesn't mean they're going to abandon it. What else could they put in its place?
October 10, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and more than two-thirds -- 64% -- say it makes no difference"
Umm, 64% is not more than two-thirds.
October 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My inner avatar has access to the real math. We have convinced the press that it is whatever we say it is. Especially if their publication or network paid for it.
October 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
Maybe after 7+ years of eating the crap sandwhich dished out by the Republicans and W., American voters might actually be tired of these "shenanigans".
October 10, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But when all you've got is a glass one third full, you play it to the max. Double down and all that.
October 10, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't trust these numbers at all. If they don't say 50-50, bias is at play.
October 10, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
HAH! The numbers in the Hotline/Diageo poll are almost identical. 54% say McCain's running a negative campain; 20% say Obama.
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please do not let me cheat on my final exam off the 46-49% who do not say he is running a negative campaign. I need to ace this test and I stayed up late posting with Natasha.
October 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, McCain, what else ya got?
October 10, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
it is like the Earl Weaver quote that George will brought up. Weaver, the former manager of the Baltimore Orioles used to say it to umpires:"Are you going to get any better or is this it?"
I think this is it for McCain; in more ways than one.
Here is the link to the Will column:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/08/AR2008100802926.html
October 10, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I pimped (as opposed to inked) that column yesterday, I didn't quote it. I would not, sir, have done it as you have. I would not have left out the damned dead sheep.
October 10, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
October 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having ennervated my nattering nabobs of negativism I prepare to unleash Sister Sarah, Martyr of All Gotcha, for the final assault of Wrighteousness. And did we mention he is black?
October 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The leading question asked is overbearingly funny and painful.
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which makes the result an even more delicious comeuppance.
October 10, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh.
I know it puts a big smile on my face.
October 10, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
the thought of John McCain as Earl Weaver is priceless
October 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And pretty insulting to Earl Weaver.
October 10, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
That 32 number should be considered pretty damn low given the extremely leading, push-poll quality question posed by Fox News.
If you click through the link, you'll see that their next question is about Charles Keating. They offer no details regarding the Keating Five scandal (as opposed to their Ayers rundown), and they make sure to say that McCain was "cleared of any wrongdoing," or something like that.
Fair and Balanced!
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate that 51 percent think McCain is running a negative campaign. But who are the other 49 percent? You'd think there's not enough pot, x box and Seinfeld reruns to distract people from what's going on.
http://pufferfish.typepad.com/
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sam Wang sez forget about the Presidential race.
37798. jexster - 10/10/2008 8:31:47 PM
OOOPS
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
samwang buy that guy a drink
October 10, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
and here's the OOOPS..
http://election.princeton.edu/2008/10/10/the-collapsing-distribution/#more-1737
OOOPS
October 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric and Greg?
Contrast what y'all say with Halperin's take:
Wonder if all that water carrying he does for McCain is bothering his back at this point.
October 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it might have been a nice idea to actually include what he said, wouldn't it?
October 10, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen! I started there and then read this. Had to go back and see how I could have completely missed the point of the story. Heh, it's not me, after all.
October 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man! As someone who works in survey research, I can tell you that roo_P is entirely right to call this a "completely incorrect question". This is just about a push poll question -
(a) The respondent is hit over the head with "relationship with Ayers", "association with Ayers", "connection with Ayers"
(b) "Some say" it calls into question his judgment, but no word on any "some" who might say it is a trivial non-issue
(c) Only "less likely" and "no difference" are provided as choices. If "less likely", "more likely", and "no difference" were provided, it would have anchored "no difference" as the neutral point and more people would have selected it.
What horrible survey research :-(
October 10, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've touched on the modus operandi with Fox News in (b). They're always saying "some are saying," "some are claiming," "some accuse," without citing any source.
October 10, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call that the Judy Miller method of journalism, in honor of the crap she kept writing leading up to the war.
October 10, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Aspens all turn at the same time; they are all joined at the roots.
[rolls eyes]
October 10, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come back. Come back to your home. It's time.
Excuse me, I have to hurl.
October 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theodulf, you missed this zinger:
d) "Ayres recently said he wished he had done more."
Um, I believe he said that in an interview more than SEVEN YEARS AGO.
October 10, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, 7 years is recent in McCain years -- a mere blink of an eye for JohnnyBoy.
October 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I often wish I'd done more seven years ago, but I forgot more of "what." And back then I forgot how much of "what" I already had when I wished for more.
October 10, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
With poll results like this, can we expect a major directional shift in the McCain campaign? If so, what could it possibly be?
October 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply |