Rasmussen: Romney tops Obama, 45/39; Update: Party affiliation ratio in sample added

posted at 12:15 pm on December 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Two polls released today show Barack Obama in serious trouble for re-election.  Rasmussen has polled Obama head-to-head against various Republican candidates most of the year, and in today’s matchup against Mitt Romney, Obama falls behind among likely voters to the widest margin yet:

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.  The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.

It’s Obama’s number that is more significant in these early head-to-head matchups.  Republicans are still vigorously contesting a primary, which means Republicans haven’t united behind a candidate in the way Democrats are already lined up behind Obama.  These head to head matchups will only truly be on an equal basis after the nomination has been wrapped up by someone, whether that’s Romney or another Republican candidate.  An incumbent who can’t break 40% in a poll, especially at this stage of the race, is an incumbent in deep, deep trouble.

The internals of this poll show how.  Obama is losing independents 45/29, while party loyalty on both sides is pretty stable; Romney gets 79/8 among Republicans, while Obama gets 80/11 among Democrats.  Obama carries the under-$20K demographic and the two demographics above $75K, but only within the margin of error, while Romney wins the three middle-class income demos, two by double digits.  But the big eye-opener is Romney’s six-point lead among women [see update II], which would be the kiss of death indeed in a general election for any Democrat, Obama included.

Why does Romney score so well against Obama now?  A new Gallup poll might explain the shift:

Americans perceive Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul as closest to themselves ideologically, and Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama as furthest away.

USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to rate their own ideology — and the ideology of the eight major presidential candidates — on a 5-point scale with 1 being very liberal and 5 being very conservative. Americans’ mean score on this scale is 3.3, meaning the average American is slightly to the right of center ideologically. Huntsman’s score matches that at 3.3, but that mean rating excludes the 45% of Americans who did not have an opinion of Huntsman. Of the better known candidates, Romney’s and Paul’s 3.5 scores are closest to the average American’s ideology.

I’m a little skeptical of a poll that puts Ron Paul in the mainstream of American politics, but that’s what Gallup finds — at least for now, while Paul gets a late vetting in the primaries.  The median ideology rating for Americans is a 3.3 on their scale, and Obama scores a 2.3, which is actually further to the Left than Michele Bachmann is to the Right at 4.0.

Here’s more context in how that benefits Romney:

Overall, 42% of Americans in the Dec. 15-18 poll describe themselves as very conservative or conservative, 19% as very liberal or liberal, and 37% as moderate. Those figures are in line with what Gallup has measured in recent years for ideological self-identification.

It’s safe to say that the conservative 42% of the electorate won’t be casting votes for Barack Obama in his re-election bid, and Romney has a closer affinity to the 37% in the middle than Obama does.  That leaves Obama with the liberal 19% and a reduced draw on the moderates, which split 44/40 in the Rasmussen poll for Obama, not nearly enough for him to prevail.

Update: Andrew Malcolm has more thoughts about the Gallup results.

Update II: I misread the columns in the internals.  Romney trails by six points among women, 40/46, not leads among them.  My apologies.

Update III: Rasmussen informs me that the D/R/I in this sample is 33/34/33, which is very close to the 35/35/29 from the midterms.  If anything, it might oversample independents just a bit, but otherwise looks pretty solid.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

So we’re putting up a moderate (liberal republican) against a liberal democrat and even after McCain AND Bob Dole, it will be different this time around.

Bush 41 was a moderate, and he beat Dukakis. Dole would have beaten Dukakis too, and so would McCain. Bush 41 lost to Clinton because they were BOTH moderates, and after 12 years of GOP control of the WH, America was ready for a change. Dole lost to Clinton because they were BOTH moderates, and the American people were relatively happy with the job Clinton was doing. McCain lost to Obama because Bush’s approval numbers were in the toilet, and after 8 years of GOP rule, America was ready for a change, and they were seduced by Obama’s “historical” campaign.

Now, more than ever, the American people are hungering for a moderate. Would I prefer a conservative? Absolutely. Will a moderate solve all our problems? Probably not, but the gravity of our economic situation may cause them to do more than they’d do under normal circumstances.

But this idea that a moderate Republican can’t win is pure BS.

ardenenoch on December 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

I have yet to see you do anything but whine about Mitt. I have yet to see you provide any alternatives but “I’m voting for Obama”.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Whining? So anyone who is not in love with Romney is a whiner. OK.
I didn’t say I’ll vote for Obama. I said I will not vote for Romney. Why does everyone assume it’s a binary choice, Obama or Romney. There is a 3rd and 4th choice. Don’t vote. For for someone else.

RINOs here are like black voters. They’re taken for granted by the Dems. They vote Dem 95% each and every election. Do you think Dems give a shit about the black view on things? Nope. They don’t have to because they know they will get that 95% no matter what.

I’m tired of playing that game with the GOP. You want my vote? Earn it. I’m not going to blindly vote “R” anymore. If more people did that, the GOP would be forced to change. But if you keep giving them your vote just because, every election the candidates will get worse and worse.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM

do you think name recognition will count in his VP choice?

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM

It could, but I think a conservative record counts for more. I don’t know that much about Owens, but his popularity in a western state would certainly be a help in an area the GOP nominee will need help in.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Romney raised MA corporate taxes by closing so-called loopholes on banks who held real estate. That brought in $100M to $150M a year,

There are other examples of both raising taxes.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 2:56 PM

So now closing loopholes is not a conservative position???

I am all in for Romney closing so called loopholes that allows GE & Google to pay something like zero % taxes

The conservative position is to lower taxes across the board, Not loopholes that allows only big businesses to avoid the high rate

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Now, more than ever, the American people are hungering for a moderate.
ardenenoch on December 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Freshmen Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jim Johnson, Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey might disagree with that statement.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:31 PM

The conservative position is to lower taxes across the board, Not loopholes that allows only big businesses to avoid the high rate

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Except Romney didn’t lower any other taxes. He only increased taxes on banks by closing so-called loopholes. And who do you think paid those extra taxes? The end consumer of course. You can call it whatever you want. At the end of the day banks paid an extra $150M in taxes in MA. To me that is a tax increase.

You sound like liberals who claim that getting rid of the Bush tax cuts isn’t really a tax increase since tax rates are going back to what they were initially.

To me, when I pay more in taxes one year vs the next (for the same income) it’s a tax increase. Whether it’s a new tax, a new fee, a closed loophole is irrelevant. I paid $X last year. I pay a number greater than $X this year. It’s a tax increase. Period.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 PM

And you’re like Kerensky, who ended up plopping from country to country as a nobody.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 3:11 PM

There is the bargaining. You’ll gladly be a Lenin if only you have a Kerensky to criticize.

Now, was I right? You feel much better don’t you?

lol

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:37 PM

I just want this all over with so I can vote for someone already.

Jesse on December 29, 2011 at 3:39 PM

Is angryed advocating inefficient tax code loopholes?

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Romney wont give Republicans any advantage in anything. It’s no wonder he’s an election loser. He has the whole Bain problem, the tax returns, his governorship. I really dont want more crash courses in mormonism either. ugh.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Well there’s that.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Thank you for addressing my question.

I’m glad he is saying the right things. However, this is rhetoric from Mr. Romney and rhetoric is insufficient for me. (Others may differ, but I want more than words.)

What evidence do I have that he will fight for the right things?

This is a crucial difference to me. Wanting to do something about the problem is good. I’m glad Mr. Romney recognizes we have a problem.

What, in his record, can you point to that indicates he will be willing to take his case to the American people and convince them that Medicare and Social Security must be reformed?

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

inefficient tax code loopholes? Harry Reid is that you?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Because if he won’t, we just lost 4 years that could have been used to deal with the problem.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

How do we lose four years? All other candidates are worse prospects to remove Obama. Unless you think Obama will magically be less committed to his agenda because he wins. Do you really think that?

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:41 PM

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

To the contrary. In fact, if you recall the last debate, even Newt congratulated Mitt on helping to bring the deal about. That’s not just talk, it’s action.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM

Option 1: Obama wins, taxes go up, spending increases, SS goes further into the red

Option 2: Romney wins, taxes go up, spending increases, SS goes further into the red

Make sure you all vote for Option 2 because Option 1 will be horrible for the country.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM

But if you keep giving them your vote just because, every election the candidates will get worse and worse.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM

No, if I don’t vote R, we get people like Obama….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Is angryed advocating inefficient tax code loopholes?

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Only in Massachusetts, apparently.

rockmom on December 29, 2011 at 3:46 PM

No, if I don’t vote R, we get people like Obama….

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Bush gave us Obama.

Flapjackmaka on December 29, 2011 at 3:47 PM

Is angryed advocating inefficient tax code loopholes?

andy85719 on December 29, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Not only that, but he wants to pay less for his license plates than it costs the state to make.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:45 PM

More bargaining! Feeling pretty froggy aren’t you?

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM

To me, when I pay more in taxes one year vs the next (for the same income) it’s a tax increase. Whether it’s a new tax, a new fee, a closed loophole is irrelevant. I paid $X last year. I pay a number greater than $X this year. It’s a tax increase. Period.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Again, I don’t care what the closing the loophole means for GE and other big businesses, Yes they pass the cost to the consumer, so what???

It is time to start giving big businesses the same treatment that we give for small businesses, Maybe the result will be that the small business can start competing with the big guys??

Since i own a business, and pay pretty much in taxes, and the only way to be competitive is to make such a small mark up price, It is unfair that the big guys pay a lower tax then me,

If you think this is a liberal talking point so be it, But there is nothing free market about one business getting an advantage over the smaller ones

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 PM

If you think this is a liberal talking point so be it, But there is nothing free market about one business getting an advantage over the smaller ones

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 PM

I agree with you. But that’s not what happened in MA. Banks were the only businesses affected. It wasn’t a case of little bank pay 30% and big bank pays 5% and let’s get the big bank to also pay 30% by closing a loophole only big banks get. It was a case of all banks pay 10% let’s make all banks now pay 20% by closing the loophole for all banks.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Angryed,

Before you eschew stage two altogether, can you provide some more of your scrumptious tears?

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I find it hillarious that the best defense of Romnney available to the Mittbots is

he raised taxes only by closing loopholes and he increased the cost of licence plates

How could anyone question his conservative bona fides with that kind of record?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM

To the contrary. In fact, if you recall the last debate, even Newt congratulated Mitt on helping to bring the deal about. That’s not just talk, it’s action.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 3:44 PM

For the rest of you Romney supporters, this is the kind of thing you need to do to support your candidate.

I’m still not comfortable with Romney and still have concerns, but my position towards him has softened. My perception of the chances he may actually do good have increased. (I’ve always known he might be a good president. I have always thought that to be an outside possibility though.)

Give people reasons to support your candidate, not just “he’ll beat Obama.”

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Oh, and this:

Angryed,

Before you eschew stage two altogether, can you provide some more of your scrumptious tears?

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Not really helpful to your candidate.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

My Mittbot logic, when Obamacare fully kicks in there won’t be any new taxes to pay for it. The revenue will come from higher insurance premiums paid by everyone. What do you know, Obama’s a tax cutter after all.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Not really helpful to your candidate.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

csdeven has always been an asshole pimping for the boy wonder.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:01 PM

So we’re putting up a moderate (liberal republican) against a liberal democrat and even after McCain AND Bob Dole, it will be different this time around.

Bush 41 was a moderate, and he beat Dukakis. Dole would have beaten Dukakis too, and so would McCain. Bush 41 lost to Clinton because they were BOTH moderates, and after 12 years of GOP control of the WH, America was ready for a change. Dole lost to Clinton because they were BOTH moderates, and the American people were relatively happy with the job Clinton was doing. McCain lost to Obama because Bush’s approval numbers were in the toilet, and after 8 years of GOP rule, America was ready for a change, and they were seduced by Obama’s “historical” campaign.

Now, more than ever, the American people are hungering for a moderate. Would I prefer a conservative? Absolutely. Will a moderate solve all our problems? Probably not, but the gravity of our economic situation may cause them to do more than they’d do under normal circumstances.

But this idea that a moderate Republican can’t win is pure BS.

ardenenoch on December 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Yeah, nice try rewriting history. The republicans “reaching across the aisle” and appeasing democrats is what lost us with Clinton – both times. Yet we’re still being told that’s what the electorate wants and we ended up with Obama this time around. Seems to be getting worse and how many more elections do we have to lose before we learn. I ain’t biting again this time. I think this previous poster put it best and we shouldn’t be blackmailed into swallowing only 1 choice against Obama:

I’m tired of playing that game with the GOP. You want my vote? Earn it. I’m not going to blindly vote “R” anymore. If more people did that, the GOP would be forced to change. But if you keep giving them your vote just because, every election the candidates will get worse and worse.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM

mozalf on December 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM

I agree with you. But that’s not what happened in MA. Banks were the only businesses affected. It wasn’t a case of little bank pay 30% and big bank pays 5% and let’s get the big bank to also pay 30% by closing a loophole only big banks get. It was a case of all banks pay 10% let’s make all banks now pay 20% by closing the loophole for all banks.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Oh, i wasn’t trying to defend Romney on his MA record,

I see a lot on HA where commentators of the true conservative crowd are so proud of these loopholes all over the place, And Limbaugh and Levin are also always pro loopholes, it frustrates me to no end, because loopholes are against everything free markets are

This is the reason why the Democrats are always successful in labeling us the party for the rich, because a lot of conservatives don’t even understand the difference between lowering taxes and closing loopholes

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM

The words mean and median don’t have the same meaning. The following sentence is not supported by the text..

The median ideology rating for Americans is a 3.3 on their scale

burt on December 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM

How could anyone question his conservative bona fides with that kind of record?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM

It is a process of defeating your silly arguments one point at a time. Now that you’re bargaining on that issue, the next ones will be easier for you to accept.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Not really helpful to your candidate.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Angeryed is a troll, nothing more. Troll tears are the sweetest of all.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

It is a process of defeating your silly arguments one point at a time. Now that you’re bargaining on that issue, the next ones will be easier for you to accept.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Romney increased taxes before he didn’t raise fees to close loopholes which didn’t exist. Or something.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Angeryed is a troll, nothing more. Troll tears are the sweetest of all.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Of course I am a troll. To a Mittbot everyone is a troll who doesn’t get down on their knees in front of Willard.

Notice how a Mittbot NEVER defends their boy wonder. Their only method is attack the detractors. No different than Obama’s people.

Romney raised taxes. They never actually come out and say he didn’t raise taxes. They twist themselves up in a knot talking about fees and loopholes and vetoes. Typical of liberals.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM

This is the reason why the Democrats are always successful in labeling us the party for the rich, because a lot of conservatives don’t even understand the difference between lowering taxes and closing loopholes

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 4:06 PM

I’m all for a flat tax with no deductions for anyone. You know the one candidate who isn’t in favor of a flat tax? Romney.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 3:52 PM

That is what crony capitalism is all about. Even worse than the loopholes (as pernicious as they are) that only large businesses can afford to exploit are the barriers to entry. Be it taking lead testing to a ridiculous extreme or banning incandescent bulbs, large companies pay congress critters to write laws that make it impossible for smaller rivals to complete.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Oh wonderful! More tears!!

Thanks!

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:15 PM

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Which is why many small businesses try to deal in cash as much as possible.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:16 PM

I haven’t been here very long but csdeven is scaring me. What the hell is up with the creepy obession with tears? I’m getting a Hannibal Lector vibe from this guy.

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I haven’t been here very long but csdeven is scaring me. What the hell is up with the creepy obession with tears? I’m getting a Hannibal Lector vibe from this guy.

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

He’s always been an azz – h0le . Creepy too.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I understand the difference between taxes and fees. I much prefer fees instead of income taxes as it means the person benefiting from the government program is the one paying for them.

To claim that raising fees in order to pay for things that taxes had been paying for is not “really” a tax increase is a disingenuous argument: it’s a technicality. If you have to pay more for the same level of service of the government, the price of has increased.

Don’t play games with it. Explain why his willingness to increase the cost of government to taxpayers in MA is not indicative of what his actions will be while in office or explain why raising the cost of government would be a good thing.

I’m not a “hater” but I am distrustful of Mr. Romney. Convincing me will take argument and logic, not spite and hate.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

That is what crony capitalism is all about. Even worse than the loopholes (as pernicious as they are) that only large businesses can afford to exploit are the barriers to entry. Be it taking lead testing to a ridiculous extreme or banning incandescent bulbs, large companies pay congress critters to write laws that make it impossible for smaller rivals to complete.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Bigger government always creates a competitive advantage for larger companies. Smaller companies compliance costs are always proportionally higher.

This is where Reagan comes in: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 4:25 PM

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Oh goodie! The paranoid noob tears are in the top ten on the delicious tears list!

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

I got phone polled last week by some organization I never heard of. The first question was-on a scale of one to five, one being the worst and five being the best, how do you feel congressional democrats have been handling the debt crisis? I chose “one.” The computer repeated the question and I repeated my response and the computer asked a third time so I responded with “five.” “Response accepted.” The second question was-on a scale of one to five how do you think the congressional republicans have handled the debt crises. On a hunch, I responded with a five and the computer wouldn’t accept my answer. Think they are getting desperate?

hopeful on December 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

All revenues taken in from the citizens of MA were to pay for the services provided to the citizens of MA. It wasn’t a perfect solution, but it certainly wasn’t a raising of taxes or fees to feed out of control bureaucratic spending that Romney wanted to engage in. He took an out of control government and tried to reign it in with the most conservative solutions he could. That is pretty hard to do in a blue state. I can’t say it worked perfectly, but it was a good try. The dems certainly wanted more than Romney had in mind and they even over rode many of his vetoes.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Oh goodie! The paranoid noob tears are in the top ten on the delicious tears list

I’m not paranoid and I haven’t cried since my father died in 1983. And that is the last time I will ever respond to you.

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

hopeful on December 29, 2011 at 4:26 PM

That poll will come out with a report stating that conservatives are stubborn and unyielding ideologues.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

And that is the last time I will ever respond to you.

BlueStateRepub on December 29, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Oh please, pretty please, more tears please! Yours are delicious!

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Egads, you’re an idiot – please be contructive or STFU. Thanks in advance.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 4:35 PM

I’m all for a flat tax with no deductions for anyone. You know the one candidate who isn’t in favor of a flat tax? Romney.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:13 PM

I am not sure Romney is against a flat tax, He just doesn’t say things that he knows will never happen,

2) How does the flat tax work? how much does the guy who makes 20K a year pay?

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Now, more than ever, the American people are hungering for a moderate. Would I prefer a conservative? Absolutely. Will a moderate solve all our problems? Probably not, but the gravity of our economic situation may cause them to do more than they’d do under normal circumstances.

But this idea that a moderate Republican can’t win is pure BS.

ardenenoch on December 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

excellent analysis!

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Egads, you’re an idiot – please be contructive or STFU. Thanks in advance.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Sorry, your concern troll tears aren’t desirable. Try criticizing someone instead of asking them a question and then whine about being made fun of. Those tears are much better.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:42 PM

I’ve heard people claim that the total tax burden in MA went up under Romney. This falsely implies that Romney raised taxes. In truth, Romney repeatedly proposed tax cuts, which were shot down by the Democratic MA legislature, starting as soon as he began to turn around the economy, prompting the liberal Boston Globe to complain after Romney’s first year in office, “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.” Some communities in MA chose to raise property taxes at the local level which Romney had no control over.

Some critics claim that Romney’s cuts in state spending forced local communities to raise their taxes, but the fact is they were under no obligation to raise taxes. Romney also closed loopholes in existing tax law, allowing the state to collect taxes from those who had been using schemes to reduce income reported on state tax returns (8).

Some critics falsely assert that Romney raised capital gains tax rates. In truth, the tax increase was enacted before Romney was elected governor but took effect during Romney’s term after having been tied up in court for several years(9). Critics are unable to point to any tax increases from Romney, and Romney fought for tax cuts and did get some tax cuts enacted.

Want the truth about Romney and the lies that people spread about him, go to whyromney.com…

SauerKraut537 on December 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Oh, great. So the only man in America who can beat Obama is a guy who, when governor of Taxachusetts, was consistently stymied by the state legislature. I’m sure things will be different if he’s President and having to work with the Democrats in Congress. /sarc

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Obama vs. Romney 2012 would be….

Velvet Hammer Progressive vs. Velvet Glove Progressive

ObamaCare vs. RomneyCare

Gigantic growing Fed Gov vs. Growing Federal Government

TSA strip searches for Granny vs. Agents just feeling up Grandmas thigh.

Cap and Trade with GE the big winner vs. Cap and Trade with Wall Street funds being the winner.

What is the difference exactly?

PappyD61 on December 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Way too early for this polling analysis. None of these weak GOP candidates have a chance against Obama. Huntsman maybe but he has no chance becoming the nominee.

Uppereastside on December 29 at 11 at 2:01 PM

Yes, Huntsman. Huntsman can outgrow his negatives. Romney can’t, and is a spin of the dice.

Rethink Huntsman.

anotherJoe on December 29, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Bush 41 was a moderate, and he beat Dukakis. Dole would have beaten Dukakis too, and so would McCain.

Bush ran as a conservative and was elected on the promise of being the third term of Ronald Reagan. When the electorate saw that he was not what he claimed, they tossed him out on his butt. In particular, his raising of taxes in a very ‘moderate-like’ compromise was key to his losing.

Now, more than ever, the American people are hungering for a moderate. Would I prefer a conservative? Absolutely. Will a moderate solve all our problems? Probably not, but the gravity of our economic situation may cause them to do more than they’d do under normal circumstances.

But this idea that a moderate Republican can’t win is pure BS.

ardenenoch on December 29, 2011 at 3:23 PM

It amazes me how we can repeat history time and time and time again and learn nothing from it. Absolutely nothing. Virtually all of the Republican party’s successes of the last 30 years come from running strong conservatives. Virtually all of the losses come from running moderates.

How anyone can look at the 2010 midterm election results and say that America is hungering for a moderate is beyond me…

Shump on December 29, 2011 at 4:49 PM

NO MITT

NO MITT

NO MITT

No more BUSH pastel colored Progressive wussy GOP nominees ever again.

BOLD Reagan Conservative Colors only!

PappyD61 on December 29, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Romney raised taxes. They never actually come out and say he didn’t raise taxes. They twist themselves up in a knot talking about fees and loopholes and vetoes. Typical of liberals.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM</blockquote

he didn't raise taxes, period. just because your brain is not programmed (or you haven't trained it) to perceive nuances and differences, doesn't mean they aren't there, staring at you (say between taxes and fees, or romneycare vs obamacare, etc)…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Romney raised taxes. They never actually come out and say he didn’t raise taxes. They twist themselves up in a knot talking about fees and loopholes and vetoes. Typical of liberals.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM</blockquote

he didn't raise taxes, period. just because your brain is not programmed (or you haven't trained it) to perceive nuances and differences, doesn't mean they aren't there, staring at you (say between taxes and fees, or romneycare vs obamacare, etc)…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM

Romney helped the Massachusetts legislature extract more money from the private sector to feed the Massachusetts government. That’s a mark against Romney regardless of whether the money was “taxes” or “fees” or anything else.

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Egads, you’re an idiot – please be contructive or STFU. Thanks in advance.

Midas on December 29, 2011 at 4:35 PM

That cretin you’re addressing is the resident howler monkey. Its only function is to shriek and gibber with laughter and hurl its bodily wastes at the supporters of candidates other than Romney. “Constructive” isn’t in its vocabulary.

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Sorry, your concern troll tears aren’t desirable. Try criticizing someone instead of asking them a question and then whine about being made fun of. Those tears are much better.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 4:42 PM

WTF dude your obsession with tears is beyond creepy.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Bush ran as a conservative and was elected on the promise of being the third term of Ronald Reagan. When the electorate saw that he was not what he claimed, they tossed him out on his butt. In particular, his raising of taxes in a very ‘moderate-like’ compromise was key to his losing.
Shump on December 29, 2011 at 4:49 PM

your analysis doesn’t carry any water.. you’re basically saying that people didn’t re-elect Bush 41 coz it turned out he was too ‘moderate’ (your words)….and then the electorate went on and elected um, another moderate, not for one, but for two terms…that’s proof that people don’t like moderate presidents? :-)….bit hilarious, really…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM

he didn’t raise taxes, period. just because your brain is not programmed (or you haven’t trained it) to perceive nuances and differences, doesn’t mean they aren’t there, staring at you (say between taxes and fees, or romneycare vs obamacare, etc)…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 4:52 PM

You can twist yourself into a pretzel pointing out nuances between fees and taxes. Fact is, in Romney’s 1st budget, he extracted $550M more out of the private sector and into the govt’s coffers. That was $550M that the people of MA didn’t have to spend as they saw fit. That was $550M more money that state had to spend as it saw fit.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:04 PM

You have all covered many of the issues that concern most Conservatives. But for me there is only one absolute imperative. BHO has to go before he can permanently destroy our last line of defense, the Supreme Court.

I honestly think that Obama, his Socialist appointees, his Executive Orders, his end-runs around Congress, etc have come so fast and furious (pun intended) that we are thrown into a state of shock, unable to focus on the sheer audacity of one issue before we’re hit between the eyes with another disaster. If this man is allowed another 4 years, our country will never recover.

I will vote for a corpse before I allow that man another term. I would have preferred a stronger Republican field, but there is no ideal candidate. Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio aren’t ready yet.

Please, we have to defeat Berry.

Nana on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I am not sure Romney is against a flat tax, He just doesn’t say things that he knows will never happen,

2) How does the flat tax work? how much does the guy who makes 20K a year pay?

OrthodoxJew on December 29, 2011 at 4:38 PM

1. Fair enough. But he could still say he’d support it if a flat tax bill came to his desk. He says he’s for a 25% corporate tax rate. I don’t see that ever happening either.

2. Is this a trick question?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:08 PM

You have all covered many of the issues that concern most Conservatives. But for me there is only one absolute imperative. BHO has to go before he can permanently destroy our last line of defense, the Supreme Court.

Nana on December 29, 2011 at 5:06 PM

Why do you assume Romney would appoint better judges than Obama?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

And who do you support, you have yet to offer any positive alternatives…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Thank for the kind words and especially for a receptive mind. I wasn’t enthusiastic about Mitt initially. I wanted Mitch Daniels to run, but sadly he didn’t.

When Perry entered I narrowed my preferences to he and Romney. Several helpful posters here provided me some great info and insights. What won me over was a thorough reading of Mitt’s plan for job creation and economic recovery.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 5:13 PM

I understand the difference between taxes and fees. I much prefer fees instead of income taxes as it means the person benefiting from the government program is the one paying for them.

makattak on December 29, 2011 at 4:22 PM

And that is a fair point. But the fees that Romney raised were things like car registration, marriage licences, college tuition, business licence fees. He didn’t raise 1 or 2 fees that only a small portion of the population paid. He raised fees that 99.99% of the population pays in one way or another.

As you say, it’s disingenuous for the Romney people to say he didn’t raise taxes by $550M. Technically, no he didn’t raise “taxes”. At the end of the day, the people of MA paid $550M more to the govt as a result of Romney’s actions. It had the exact same effect as if he had raised the sales tax or income tax by $550M.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

As you say, it’s disingenuous for the Romney people to say he didn’t raise taxes by $550M. Technically, no he didn’t raise “taxes”. At the end of the day, the people of MA paid $550M more to the govt as a result of Romney’s actions. It had the exact same effect as if he had raised the sales tax or income tax by $550M.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Yeah yeah yeah, Mitt BAD! We know…

Now, who do you support again???

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:18 PM

And who do you support, you have yet to offer any positive alternatives…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

I didn’t realize there’s a quota for positive posts here.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM

I didn’t realize there’s a quota for positive posts here.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:20 PM

If you are too cowardly to admit who you actually support…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:22 PM

The first votes haven’t been cast and I’m already sick of this. Just give me anyone with an R by their name and I’ll take that over an O. Can’t get worse than this.

COgirl on December 29, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Romney helped the Massachusetts legislature extract more money from the private sector to feed the Massachusetts government. That’s a mark against Romney regardless of whether the money was “taxes” or “fees” or anything else.

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 4:55 PM

nonsesne….if you refer to his alleged raising of corporate taxes, it’s been debunked, he closed tax loopholes, and I don’t want to get into that anymore, it’s been discussed time and again. And btw, the guy who was was the commissioner of revenue for MA when Romney was governor, gave an interview recently and he basically said that MA was able to raise more than $100 million by closing a particular loophole for banks where they could effectively take their income from real estate and pay no taxes on it. Basically many banks were abusing the tax code with this loophole, by calling themselves real estate compnay and getting that special tax break (more precisely a special provision for real estate enterprises that owned a lot of real estate and it provided lower tax rates in certain circumstances.) This was costing the state a lot of lost tax revenue. So he close that loophole. if this is what you call ‘raising corporate tax’, what can I say, I’m all for it :-), why let financial or other entities get away with gaming the system…

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Romney is center-right, exactly where most Americans are. He lowered capital gains taxes in MA, he lowered income taxes, he balanced the budget. He’s against illegal immigration. He’s pledged to repeal Obamacare. He’s pro-life and pro-second amendment. His personal life is above reproach and his wife is a sweetheart. He;s also our most electable candidate, polling well in the Rust Belt swing states (MI, WI, OH, PA) which Obama needs if he hopes to win. Nobody else has his strengths as a candidate. I hope he wins IA and NH and sews this up early–to get on with our main purpose–defeating Obama.

writeblock on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Yeah yeah yeah, Mitt BAD! We know…

Now, who do you support again???

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:18 PM

So you’re OK with $550M in new taxes fees. MA’s budget is $30B. The federal budget is 3T, so that would be the equivalent of $55B of new taxes fees imposed by President Romney.

You’re cool with that?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

You’re cool with that?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

It’s not about me, who do YOU support?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM

And who do you support, you have yet to offer any positive alternatives…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:12 PM

Right. After Mittbots spend the past 3 years here doing nothing but sniping at or trashing this or that conservative.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:25 PM

You’re cool with that?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

It’s not about me, who do YOU support?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Who says he has to support anyone? Maybe he’ll just lie low like Mittbots over the past several years and just throw stinkbombs. Like it?

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Romney is center-right, exactly where most Americans are. He he lowered income taxes,writeblock on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Can you provide the exact income tax he lowered including the rate before Romney and the rate after Romney?

As to the balanced budget, he did that with $550M of new fees.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM

So you two are just here to trash Mitt and not offer any real alternatives. That’s fine. It’s good to know who the trolls are.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Romney is center-right, exactly where most Americans are.

writeblock on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

We were assured the same thing in 1992, 1996 and 2008.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Romney is center-right, exactly where most Americans are. he lowered income taxes,
writeblock on December 29, 2011 at 5:23 PM

MA INCOME TAX RATE BY YEAR

2002: 5.3%
2003: 5.3%
2004: 5.3%
2005: 5.3%
2006: 5.3%

Your claim is an outright lie. He did not lower income tax rates by a cent while governor.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:31 PM

We were assured the same thing in 1992, 1996 and 2008.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:30 PM

And it worked in 1980, 1984, 1986, 2000, 2004

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:31 PM

So you two are just here to trash Mitt and not offer any real alternatives. That’s fine. It’s good to know who the trolls are.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Newt is conservative all right… just ask his first two wives.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Hypocrite.

Go make me a sandwich.

portlandon on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

So you two are just here to trash Mitt and not offer any real alternatives. That’s fine. It’s good to know who the trolls are.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 201

No I’m here to point out the outright lies such as “Romney lowered income tax rates” spewed by Mittbots like writeblock

Or is calling out lies now considered trolling as well?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Go make me a sandwich.

portlandon on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

As long as it’s a crap sandwich I’ll be happy to hand you your due.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

We were assured the same thing in 1992, 1996 and 2008.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:30 PM

And it worked in 1980, 1984, 1986, 2000, 2004

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Yeah, just love it that a raging centrist was elected in 1980 and 1984. Good Lord, the revisionism is getting ridiculous. And don’t forget that “compassionate conservatism” lost the popular vote to the Wooden Man.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

As long as it’s a crap sandwich I’ll be happy to hand you your due.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

You’re overstocked on crap, so it wouldn’t surprise me that a crap sandwich would be your specialty.

portlandon on December 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Yeah, just love it that a raging centrist was elected in 1980 and 1984. Good Lord, the revisionism is getting ridiculous. And don’t forget that “compassionate conservatism” lost the popular vote to the Wooden Man.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Some of us are old enough to remember Reagan Democrats.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Yeah, just love it that a raging centrist was elected in 1980 and 1984. Good Lord, the revisionism is getting ridiculous. And don’t forget that “compassionate conservatism” lost the popular vote to the Wooden Man.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Reagan was a raging liberal according to the Mittbots here.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:27 PM

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM

So you two are just here to trash Mitt and not offer any real alternatives. That’s fine. It’s good to know who the trolls are.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Wow, the rules have changed. That was approved behavior when the trashee was someone like Palin and the Mittbots were too ashamed to come out and say they support the guy.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Who says he has to support anyone? Maybe he’ll just lie low like Mittbots over the past several years and just throw stinkbombs. Like it?

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:26 PM

Now that Romney’s competition for the nomination has (seemingly) almost been eliminated, I guess the rest of us are supposed to switch gears and say only nice things about Romney now. Well, if the GOP can trash their own candidate in Delaware in the 2010 general election just because “she’s a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE candidate!11!1!11!1″ (just to take one example), even though her opponent was a full-blown Marxist, then I’m not seeing why it’s such a big deal to badmouth the Massachusetts pretend-conservative before anyone has even voted in the primaries.

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Some of us are old enough to remember Reagan Democrats.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Those people voted for Reagan because they liked his message of conservatism. That’s the lesson from 1980 and 1984. You can win over Democrats if you have a good conservative message. If you have a McCain/Dole type squishy liberal moderate who flip flops on every issue conservative Democrats laugh at you as they re-elect Obama.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:37 PM

Some of us are old enough to remember Reagan Democrats.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

Some of us are old enough to remember that Reagan didn’t run as a moderate, either.

Reagan was a raging liberal according to the Mittbots here.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:35 PM

In retrospect. It’s grave-robbing. The 1980 version of the Mittbot was no doubt a Bush or Anderson supporter in 1980.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Tell me more about the income tax cuts in MA between 2003 and 2006. Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM

As long as it’s a crap sandwich I’ll be happy to hand you your due.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM

Yes, we realize that Romney and Obama are a pair of crap sandwiches. Nice to see you recognize that. Odd that you would still argue with us about how much tastier the first one is than the second.

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5