This "poll" is at worst a "push poll" (attempting to start or validate rumors by imbedding them in a "scientific survey question) and at best a poll attempted by someone not too well informed about the facts.
"Most (56%) were also not able to correctly answer that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground." Obama did not "start his political career" in the Ayers home. Ayers was one of about a dozen people who held coffees in their homes to raise money for Obama's campaign.
"Nearly three quarters (72%) of Obama voters did not correctly identify Biden as the candidate who had to quit a previous campaign for President because he was found to have plagiarized a speech," This, too, embeds an inaccuracy in the "question." I'm not sure Biden "had to quit" any previous campaign; if he did "have to quit," it was no doubt because -- as it almost always is with candidates -- he couldn't afford the $$ to keep going. The "plagiarism" allegation did contribute to the failure of his campaign, but it did not force him out of that race. More importantly, Biden was never "found to have plagiarized a speech." He did quote one source without acknowledging the source, but it was just a few words, not even close to being the whole "speech." The media blew the whole thing way out of proportion.
"... nearly half (47%) did not know that Biden was the one who predicted Obama would be tested by a generated international crisis during his first six months as President." Well, Biden didn't say McCain would NOT be so tested, did he? And how much attention did the media pay to John McCain's buddy Joe Liberman's own statement that the next President - whoever won - would be tested by an international crisis? How many McCain supporters would have known that?
" ... the 12-question, multiple-choice survey also included a question asking which political party controlled both houses of Congress leading up to the election -- 57% of Obama voters were unable to correctly answer that Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate." "... leading up to the election?" During what time frame? The Democrats had the majority in the Senate only since January, 2007, while the Republicans did for 5-6 years before that. And in an important sense the Democrats still don't "control" the Senate, since Senate Republicans have filibustered an unprecedent # of bills, including those that had bipartisan majority support; when filibuster use is so rampant, the "majority" party can't "control" the Senate when they're only in the majority by 1 member.
An unbiased political survey would have worded things in a less loaded fashion and probably avoided throwing around terms like "scandal" as well. There's a difference between a verbal gaffe, an unsubstantiated allegation, or the simple use of legal politial hardball, on the one hand, and "scandal" on the other. There was never any real "scandal" brought to life about Obama, no matter how hard the Karl Rovian Republicans tried to find or make one. (Similarly, some of the "scandals" surrounding the Palin family seem to have been manufactured or at least grossly distorted.)
And has it occurred to anyone that maybe one reason a lot of Obama supporters aren't up on the latest "scandal" charges against the Democrats is that they get their news from sources like the NY Times, C-Span, and perhaps NPR, etc., instead of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and his ilk?