Monday, July 20, 2009
Polls are only polls, but...
...you have to wonder if you are doing it right if you're tied with the Mormon plutocrat.
MORE: "That puts Obama 10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at this point in their tenures."
22 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jul 20, 11:23:00 PM:
Believe me, no one will vote for Romney. He is disingenuous, a phoney and, if you all remember, touted his "universal Healthcare" plan for the state of Mass. What a complete and utter failure. I am a liberal democrat but I am totally against the government run healthcare that Obama is recommending. I think our healthcare system is horrible but I think this will make it worse. But please, find someone else to vote for. People just don't like him. Rasmussen is a right leaning poll, what do you expect?
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 12:37:00 AM:
I would think that Palin would be the front runner. Yet, who could be stupid enough to vote for Obama a second time? We are not a year into his presidency yet and it seems like two terms.
By 
JPMcT, at
Tue Jul 21, 12:44:00 AM:
At least Romney had an actual job at some point in his life.
He needs to do something about his hair. He reminds me of Max Headroom.
The Mass. Healthcare plan will come back to haunt him...and will cancel out the anger over Obama's assumption of the similar health care "solution".
True...we need a good man. It's a good sign that Romney is running head to head with Obama...probably more of a sign the the Macy's Cosmetic Girl we have for president is running out of perfume samples to spritz around on everybody.
By Anthony, at
Tue Jul 21, 01:15:00 AM:
Note that Governor Palin is only a few points behind without really trying. If she does start actively campaigning in the "lower 48" -whether for her causes, herself, or both- I wouldn't be surprised to see those numbers climb, especially if she's a genuine factor in a Center-Right revival in 2010.
By MainStreet, at
Tue Jul 21, 02:54:00 AM:
Right now, it is too early to say who will be in the race. Jim DeMint seems to be warming up in the bullpen as, I believe, are many others. Obama can be beat.
Whoever it is, we should check their birth certificate first.
By Gary Rosen, at
Tue Jul 21, 03:09:00 AM:
vicki:
"Rasmussen is a right leaning poll, what do you expect?"
The Astroturfers are out in full force today, calling Rasmussen "right-wing" and "Hannityesque" or some such gibberish. Never the mind the fact that RR called the election right on the money.
Anthony: "Note that Governor Palin is only a few points behind without really trying."
Not to mention a nearly year-long campaign of personal destruction waged against her. Of course she can't be taken seriously now because she quit her job early, unlike President Obama who quit his job early. The biggest difference between them seems to be that she actually accomplished some things in her two years as governor of Alaska.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 05:37:00 AM:
Vicki ... your posts make me wonder who has more tin foil wrapped on them, you or Chambers.
Palin and Romney are both head and shoulders over the assclown we have and Biden, who is a huge embarassment and mockery of what passes for a Senate anymore. Romney ran a state and successful business. Palin ran a state and is the everyman, who is also hot, and apparently also likes to screw. Those are all plusses for me. And, she shoots things and eats them. All-American.
We will find the right candidate. If the GOP wises up, they could run a candidate that says (a) "if you want to kill children, go ahead, we'll leave it up to the states", and (b) "if you want to see men in wedding dresses and pink toutous, that's a state's issue also", but (c) we're going low taxes, but where EVERYONE pays something, and (d) strong on defense and national, including border, security, and a right to own guns and shoot scum who theaten us ... they'll win big.
With yesterday's affirmation that we're 24T in the hole backing all the failed policies of decades of redistribution, and the financial plans of Obama, which are thin disguises to funnel trillions thru his and his cabinet's cronies, most of us realize we're in dire trouble. This man has self destructed in just months. He's toast, can't speak without a teleprompter, and can't stand tall and speak to Americans because he isn't one. He's a joke. Get past his pretty face and popularity and just read what he's saying. You'll see a different guy.
Lastly, if American Jews get wise, they'll realize what a dangerous guy they've voted for.
The sh*t is hitting the fan, and we're not just going to spend our way out of this. We're in real trouble, and on the verge of collapse. This isn't the change people voted for, or hopeful.
We got our colored president and taste of how our lives will change with socialism. Now let's get back to business. Sure the GOP forgot where they came from also, but in the end, they have a better plan. Keep more of your own fruits, and let the rest of the population get with the program, or simply have less.
By TigerHawk, at
Tue Jul 21, 07:16:00 AM:
Chambers, for sure. Believe me, I know.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 09:06:00 AM:
Link,
Timing is everything. Many expect our economy to make a weak recovery into 2010, when Obama's sugar rush hits. But Obama may be broken by then over Healthcare, Energy and a jobless recovery -- the key is whether Dems break ranks on him. I expect unemployment to stay high because Obama spooked the private sector. If he had done nothing, we'd be much better off. The scary thing about Obama is the damage he'll cause in the out years.
Government spending is too high, but no one wants theirs cut. That's what we have to face up to. It's that simple.
I expect we'll want to be rid of Obama in 2012. Clinton learned to govern like a moderate Republican on things that mattered and so had a middle four years that were successful. I don't see Obama making that move.
Romney is not a natural politician, Palin is. But I expect Romney's competency to win out. Palin excites many in the party, but she needs years of makeover to go wide. If we could only combine Palin's heart with Romney's brain. I'm skeptical that we'll turn to an unknown, but these things almost always turn out surprising,
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 09:57:00 AM:
Why do people say Rasmussen is "right leaning"? Nate Silver, a very smart lefty (he would say center-lefty, but he's kidding himself), ranks national pollsters fairly regularly according to poll versus actual results and Rasmussen is his third best polling company. Scott Rasmussen himself may be a FOX regular, and his company may do work for Republicans, but that doesn't or shouldn't convince anyone his results are skewed ideologically.
Having made that picky point, I wonder if Vicki isn't on target with her point that Romney will have trouble attracting votes. There are plenty of Republicans who think he's a phony, are ill at ease with his religion, wonder what the hell he was thinking with RomneyCare, and are uncomfortable voting for a Boston ivy leaguer. Does he speak French?
Anyway, the GOP needs to figure out how to become a legitimate middle class party, an alternative to the stomach-turning craziness that the Democrats have become. Ideally, I'd like to see a candidate with more personality, with a middle class background and who has a fiscally responsible background without being an ideologue that scares away voters. Romney is popular with some people I know because of his business background, but (other than Lincoln) can anyone name a successful business person who also made a good President? Even a good candidate?
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 10:04:00 AM:
I don't know him well, and may be missing some obvious negatives -- but I've been impressed with John Boehner.
Link, over
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 21, 12:30:00 PM:
"Having made that picky point, I wonder if Vicki isn't on target with her point that Romney will have trouble attracting votes."
He tied with Obama. Therefore, in this hypothetical general election match-up, he receives votes.
If you can't understand why, then your understanding is flawed. *shrugs*
I submit that Romney was labeled 'the Economics Guy' during the primary campaign last time; the economy is in the shitter; therefore, an Economics Guy sounds pretty good as President doesn't he? Most people don't know anything more about him.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 01:35:00 PM:
See Df, this illustrates a really basic misunderstanding: you want to believe present day poll success somehow will lead to future votes. It doesn't and there is a long way to go in the war.
Seizing upon the least little bit of good news and calling it progress is understandable and I'm all for progress in the fight against the Obama tyranny. While this first poll result is progress, maybe, Romney hasn't succeeded because he's making a case for himself or his policies. This poll is all about Obama and the economy. Obviously, Romney is just the substitute for "other" at this early stage.
Ignoring Vicki's point about Romney's potential weaknesses in a real election, out of your enthusiasm for the moment, might not in the end be a good way to go.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 21, 01:59:00 PM:
"you want to believe present day poll success somehow will lead to future votes."
That's pretty much the entire rationale behind taking political candidate polls; predicting the will of the electorate on election day. And they're broadly accurate, until circumstances change.
"Obviously, Romney is just the substitute for "other" at this early stage."
Were that true, then his numbers would be identical to other prospective candidates.
There's no basic misunderstanding here. I specified 'hypothetical general election matchup' on purpose, clearly separated from the primaries.
But those very same people 'who are ill at ease with his religion' will look at the ballot on election day as 'Obama v. Other,' as well. Many people don't cast votes for a candidate. They cast votes *against* the other candidate. Plenty of Republicans did exactly that last November.
The whole point of these numbers is that Obama is tanking especially early and especially hard. That's he tanking isn't news; all presidents' approval ratings drop over time.
And with a solid enough disapproval, it really doesn't matter to people if the opposition candidate is a Mormon or speaks French. I would happily vote for a Frog-loving yankee heretic (tongue firmly in cheek) if it meant reversing the socialization of my country.
Though I would like a better candidate than the plastic businessman. Or the hockey mom. I pin my hopes on a certain 4-star general for whom Moveon.org has a special hatred...
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 02:02:00 PM:
Romney not a "natural" politician? His father was governor of Mass when he was a kid, he was raised with politics all his life. His problem is that he is arrogant enough to think that he seems "real" to people when the veneer of his tremendous affluence seeps through to everything he does. I don't buy that he is "folks". I am not interested in someone who is "folks". If i wanted that I would vote for Joe the plumber. gag. I want someone who is smarter, better more informed than me.Is better capable of making the big decisions than "folks". The single reason that Sarah Palin does not succeed is that she is false. I am a democrat but I like Michael Bloomberg. He is smart, wealthy and doesn't mind people knowing it. Elite is not a dirty word, people.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 02:03:00 PM:
Sorry, Romney's dad was governor of Michigan. My bad.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 03:09:00 PM:
That's pretty much the entire rationale behind taking political candidate polls; predicting the will of the electorate on election day. And they're broadly accurate, until circumstances change.
A poll expresses a snapshot in time, in this case right now. Any resemblance to a hypothetical election result three years in the future is purely coincidental. No votes are being cast at this stage, and Obama's relative standing vis a vis hypothetical opponents really doesn't much matter right now-- what matters is that many of his policies have become unpopular and now his personal polling trend is catching up.
But let's not assume from that starting point of discussing Obama's present-day polling problems that Vicki is wrong in her assessment of Romney. She might well be right. He has to figure out how to win over open minded voters who, like Vicki, are skeptical about him, about his policies, about his background and/or whatever. Obama may be tanking, and the GOP might benefit from his coming unpopularity (I hope) but that won't necessarily translate into support for Romney.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 03:19:00 PM:
Romney doesn't appeal to regular folks. He reminds them of the kind of guy that fires you - credit Huckabee for that. He bought his way into the 2008 campaign, then gave up when he wasn't seeing sufficient ROI.
Massachusetts is a breeding ground for smug know-it-all wannabe Presidents. Witness Dukasis and Kerry. Romney is the Republican version.
Romney only wins in a full-blown financial crisis.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 03:20:00 PM:
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 04:42:00 PM:
Remember, Romney only moved to Mass. to run for governor, to get his ticket punched to run for President. Too calculating for me.
By , at
Tue Jul 21, 08:53:00 PM:
Link again,
Romney "didn't move to Mass" to run. He's lived there almost all his life since college -- he was only away from 1999 to 2002 because he was called in to save the Salt Lake Olympics.
The boy has mad turnaround skills. But when he ran for Senator, Ted Kennedy only had to tie stories about Mitt's business career around Mitt's ankles to drown him in the Back Bay. ...glub...glub... glub Romney had a weak opponent when he ran for Governor.
By , at
Wed Jul 22, 03:05:00 PM:
The progressive (Socialist) talking points are out today.
