Obama and Romney and the latest polls
Today there’s lots of news about the fact that a new Obama poll shows Obama up somewhat.
No surprise, really. Lately the focus has been away from Obama, which almost always raises his standing in the eyes of the public. The economy appears to be better, as well (perhaps it only “appears,” but that matters, too). And most importantly, the focus has been on the Republican candidates’ bitter fights and the charges each has leveled against the other. If this didn’t raise Obama’s polls and lower theirs—especially Romney, whose work with Bain, etc., was previously less well-known—I’d be shocked.
The polls were conducted Wednesday through Saturday, right after the Florida primary and the President’s State of the Union message. Could a contrast between nasty squabbling and presidential gravitas be any greater?
Right from the start of this election season I’ve been thinking that Obama’s chances of re-election are good, and that whomever is nominated on the Republican side will have a tough battle, despite Obama’s weaknesses and the opportunity 2012 presents to beat him. And that would be true, by the way, even if some of my more favored candidates (Paul Ryan, anyone?) had entered the race.
Obama has the advantage not only of his incumbency and the lingering goodwill a lot of people still seem to feel for him, and that any good news in the economy will be attributed to him, but of the fact that he’s a clever campaigner who knows how to fight dirty while seeming to keep himself above the fray.
It’s early yet. Fasten your seat belts, folks, we’re in for the usual bumpy ride.
I thought Romney gave a pretty good victory speech after he won in Nevada… would be interesting to see him debate Obama.
Neoneocon,
If you are referring to the WaPo/ABC poll, Ed Morrisey over at HotAir.com has a critical analysis of this. 1)It seems that said poll will no longer reveal their sampling; 2) their historic sampling has been overly Dem weighted; and 3) they are polling “adults” rather than “registered voters” or “likely voters.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/06/wapoabc-ends-sample-transparency-in-national-polling/
See also Karl Owens’ response:
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2012/02/06/is-the-wapoabc-news-poll-worthless/
Here’s the dillema. The economy will improve the closer to election time as people sense the Won’s reign about to be over. Which democrats will spin as Obama’s magnificence.
SteveH,
I agree completely. The spin machine is in place. The republicans better get their act together to take it down now. The more people are distracted by our infighting, the more the Obama myth will establish itself in their brains.
Can’t see much in Obama’s incumbency that recommends it to the average voter. Nor much good will among any but the diehard faithful. This is not what one would expect from incumbency and good will.
Doubt, worry, and fear result not from the deductive process but the osmotic.
The growing perceptions of Obama that will keep him from winning?
The sense that Obama’s only qualification for the office he holds is he’s the, in VP Biden’s words: “… first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” — that’s past its shelf life.
The sense that here is strange man, a disordered personality, disengaged from his rhetoric, and a man who, left to himself, would be Left, golfing, and partying.
The sense that here is a man whose notion of himself far exceeds his abilities.
This last sense, if correct, may, may, lead Mr. President to decline a chance at a second term so that he might spend more time with his family — thus not submitting himself to a loss but retaining for himself the delusion that he would have won had he wanted to.
Incumbency has its advantages. A huge megaphone for one thing. In Obama’s case a compliant NFM (Non Fox Media). He will be hard to beat because of those advantages. Conservatives cannot believe that anyone thinks he is doiing an acceptable job. But there are such people. I met a few on my recent sojourn on the MS Veendam. Then there are those who live in my neighborhood. Nice, but uninfoprmed people who believe everything they get from the NFM.
Those who wnat to end Obama’s reign (an apt word for his term thus far, IMO) must be prepared to work for, donate to, and vote for his opponent, whoever he may be.
Facts, issues, laws, ethics and history mean nothing to the Democrats now, including for their grass roots, many of whom are our neighbors, friends, and family; they’ve morphed into a dedicated left-wing power cult. It’s right out of a science fiction story, but it’s not.
Where is the improvement in the economy?
Housing values continue to drop here in CA.
The percentage of working americans are at lowest level in a long time.
We shouldn’t look at the unemployment rate. We should look at the employment rate.
Very low
Baklava: we look at the employment rate. The question is, do most voters—especially if the MSM fails to do so?
“Its early yet”. ?! That is my line! You are supposed to say: the only indication which we have at this time is that Romney cannot defeat Obama.
Alas, most dead democrats will vote for Obama
They will, and are, this time. No spin can begin to cover what people see all around them. The stories they’re hearing aren’t third-hand content drawn from some mainstream media spin machine …they’re hearing from their friends, family, and neighbors.
We’re hurting; we’re scared. And we’re not stupid. We know who caused this, and who’s made it worse.
(I’m not going to rehash previous arguments. Obama simply hasn’t the chance of a snowball in hell in the fall. The polls aren’t forecasting, they’re coercively shaping. Get used to it: your guy wins. Barring some entirely unsuspected & unforeseen primary catastrophe, you can start practicing saying President Romney now.)
You know what I would like to see: a rebellion against Obama by the workers who may be affected by ruling against Catholic health care plans. There are probably loads of teachers who choose to work at Catholic schools for lower wages and less generous benefits because they get more job satisfaction and think their schools do more for students. The same is probably true of workers at other Catholic institutions. If these people stood up and screamed at Obama, How dare you? We are adults who have the right to choose our jobs on the basis of our values, not yours. The work I do contributes to the community, and you are trying to tell me my employer should be punished. Maybe free birth control pills are the center of your life, but we find other things more important. Stop your condescending behavior. Stop your power plays.
One almost has to get the sense democrats know they are about to take another shellacking. And what we’re seeing from them till November is an adolescent vindictiveness against the folk who reject them.
Can anyone even begin to predict who Obama will pardon on his way out the door? I think it will be jaw dropping to say the least.
The cool thing about being President is that you have a big bag of tricks you can use. You can end 2 wars simply by yelling “All-ee, All-ee in free!” If you want to be FDR the Second, you can begin another, the most likely candidate being Iran, and everybody will go Hail to the Chief! You can go around the country touting the “Free Lollypops for Everybody” Act and everybody will like you! You can go on national TV anytime you want, furrow your brows and make judicious Ah-Hum noises and everybody will say how moderate and pragmatic you are, not at all like those icky crazy republicans!
All I can say is we icky crazy republicans had better end this suicide bath quickly and unite behind whoever we end up with. No sulking at home this time, promise?
Neo: Off topic but I thought you might have fun with this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spreads-enabled-polite-left
“Science Proves Conservatives Are Stupid!”
The government publishes an 8.2% unemployment rate, ignoring the 1.2 million people who were disappeared from the work force. After all that was “just a census adjustment”.
Did the state unemployment rates move? Do people see their friends and family members going back to work? Or do they see them getting their hours cut?
At some point people discount the published numbers and make their own assessments.
This administration has problems that are much deeper than just the poor economy. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, NH has the lowest unemployment rate of all the swing states and has the lowest approval and highest disapproval percentages as well.
I’m not a catholic, nor particularly religious and I find the recent decision that requires catholic institution to carry insurances that funds contraception, sterilization, and the morning after pill, to be an open assault on the first amendment. It is not as if these services are not available now, it is about who pays for them. Further, no one is required to work for a catholic institution. If someone unhappy with the provided coverage, they can work elsewhere, or purchase a rider policy.
This is an example of the administration’s attitude toward the electorate and many find it deeply troubling. Even a modestly improving economy and lots of cheerleading by the press, is not going to ease the basic concerns of the independent voters who currently suffer buyer’s remorse.
Well, it’s certainly not scientific polling, but here in the greater Seattle area, there sure appear to be a lot less Obama bumper stickers than four years ago. And my neighbors daughter, who wrote the Republican rebuttal piece to the SOTU address for the UW’s campus paper said they couldn’t find a student to write the Democrat side of the story?? And we are not even hurting anywhere near what some parts of the country are experiencing. But gas and food and housing are still very high, and jobs (for young people, esp.) are still scarce and I don’t hear enthusiasm on the streets like in 2008. Small things, but I ponder them.
Off topic, bet here’s a piece on how Romney can rebut the linkage of Romneycare with Obamacare. In essence, he can argue that States can’t fix the problems with healthcare, and that Obamcare makes all those problems worse. Hope Romney campaign takes notice.
Phony [Romney] /Glory remix video. Ouch.
…this is the kind of thing that can have unexpected results, when/if it gives voice to a dissatisfaction that polls cannot reflect. It may be laughably inarticulate to us wonkys …but its exactly the sort of thing that – if it went viral – could actually influence people.
…which isn’t to remotely suggest my personal agreement/disagreement with the content (or lack thereof). But as to a recognition as to this being potentially significant, I confess to a bit of [half-surprising] ambivalence …I did listen to the whole thing, though I usually find hip-hop, or rap (or whatever it’s called) annoying.
…so I’m a bit surprised it doesn’t happen more often (if it does, I’m not surprised I don’t notice though LOL).
The Romney advocates – yourself, Medved, Hugh Hewitt – are already starting the hedge and qualify. Now you are on
N the hook. Well I hope you were correct, but God help us we don’t get another BushI Dole McCain debacle.
It’s serious now.
Romney had better campaign like the life of the nation depends on it because it does.
If he loses all of your criticisms of the alternatives will be so much…nothing.
At least you are not as bad as Medved and Hewitt. They cannot support Romney without tearing down every R candidate or voter who is not Romney.
I am all in for Mitt if he gets it.
Is it too much to ask that he be all in for himself if he gets it? And that his supporters are all in to the max if he gets it?
I don’t think it is.
MikeMc: one thing I’ve noticed over and over, ever since I’ve started to write about Romney, is how very often what I’ve said has been either misrepresented or misunderstood, or both.
I’m starting to hedge? Then you haven’t read what I’ve said here quite consistently, or you’ve forgotten, or you’re purposely misstating it. I don’t know which it is, but it’s a curious and disturbing phenomenon.
I have never said anything other than that this will be a long hard fight, and that Obama has an excellent chance to win. I have always stated that. The only point I’ve ever made about Romney and his vaunted “electability” is that it is possible he could beat Obama and that of the current crop of Republican candidates (declared, not imagined or desired) he has the best chance of doing so. In fact, I have repeatedly cautioned against thinking his (or any other Republican’s) election is at all inevitable.
I have not hedged or changed that opinion.
Not that there’s anything wrong with changing an opinion; I’ve done it before on things, including politics (thus, this blog) based on new information. And of course the information could change; some other candidate could pull ahead of Romney vs Obama, although I’d only see that as a change if it stayed that way consistently. And by the way, Romney’s being ahead in polls isn’t the only reason I favor him; he is also the candidate I prefer to the others in the race now. I have also very consistently said he is not a candidate I would have chosen initially to be the nominee. But my preferred candidates did not enter the race.
As an example of what I’ve written previously, see this and this. Here’s an excerpt from the latter comment, which I wrote on January 13 (almost a month ago):
Please pay attention and stop setting up strawmen.
You, Medved, and Hewitt – to name three – have been harder and more unfair to Palin, Cain, Perry, and Gingrich than to Obama. No doubt Santorum will be next.
It’s a certain defect of character that many Rs have – obviously! If I said what sort of defect you’d get mad, so I want.
But that defect gave us Bush I, Dole, and McCain – and with it horrible, horrible damage to this nation.
You tell me, then, why we nominate such people on a regular basis.
Romney had better not be another one. Medved is a perfect example. He talked up McCain like he was fit for Mt. Rushmore, and combined that with puerile ridicule of the rest of the field. McCain was a disaster’s disaster, but there is no remorse or even awareness of that enormous blunder. He is not all over Romney – which is fine – but again with the non-stop sophomoric ridicule and hyper-criticism of the others.
Now I see you have yet another essay on Gingrich. How many is that now? How many did you do on Perry and Cain? And Palin?
And here we have Obama going full Nazi on us in front of our eyes. He is doing to Catholics what Hitler did to Lutherans.
And today Romney took another hit. With him, it’s all policy hits. The very thing you’d think merit rational critique. With the others it’s mostly personality. That’s exactly backwards. it should be principle over personality every single time.
Bush I, Dole, McCain……Romney?
Mike Mc: okay, now you have officially jumped the shark. I have no idea what blog you’ve been reading, but it certainly isn’t this one.
I have been a Palin-defender from the very start, and a rather prolific and vociferous one at that. Start reading under the category “Palin” on the right sidebar. She was never my choice as a presidential candidate in 2012; I thought her unfavorables were and are high. Other than that, I have defended her on this blog. Here is my most recent post about her, and it contains a summary of my opinions over time.
Perry? I liked him originally. If you do a search for his name on this blog, you’ll find that I have many posts defending him (the n-word-rock scandal, and in particular his stance in the global warming debate, which drew from me this PJ article as well). I only very briefly mentioned his gaffes during the debates (and mostly in a very light way); I’m really not into riding people for gaffes. The worst thing I ever said about him was that he joined in (although to a lesser extent than Gingrich) on the “attack from the left” approach towards Bain, which I thought was a bad idea.
As for Cain, do some research on that, too, and you’ll find that throughout the series of incidents where he was accused of various types of sexual wrongdoing, I consistently and repeatedly questioned the veracity and proof of his accusers, in post after post. I admitted that I didn’t know whether they were true or not, and that I felt that at that point Cain’s campaign was in disarray, but I was outraged at the fact that his accusers’ charges were published without the MSM questioning some of the obvious flaws in what they were saying.
It’s very very odd that you would accuse me of being hard on them and unfair to them when in fact I have been the consistent and repeated defender of all of them, and have spent many a long post saying how unfair others have been to them.
And you cannot possibly have read this blog for any amount of time and think I’ve been harder on them then on Obama, on whom I’ve been very hard. Just as a single example, this is what I wrote early on in his presidency, in July of 2009:
That should suffice.
I’m getting really tired of your strawman attacks. You need to stop making things up and start looking things up.
Mike Mc,
You are really unfair to Neo. The reason people come here is because she keeps her head on when others are running about in panic. Yes, we all have visceral responses to candidates, but Neo helps us to control them and subject them to rational analysis. With regard to Palin, Perry, and Cain, my own misgivings were and are related to their understanding of foreign affairs. They simply didn’t do enough homework to satisfy me.
I still admire Palin enormously for breaking the stranglehold of the Pellosi feminists on women’s issues. Perry didn’t make the jump from Texas to the big wide world, and Cain didn’t even seem to know he should work at it. As to Gingrich, I mentioned before, he seems to have his own Obama-like team of rivals within his own head. I can’t be sure what will pop out at any given time.