On second thought: Obama 52, Romney 43

posted at 5:25 pm on April 16, 2012 by Allahpundit

Old theory from an hour ago: Dude, we’ve got this.

New theory: Dude, game over.

Half of those questioned say that Obama is more likely to stand up for what he believes, with only 29% saying that about Romney. Nearly half say that Romney is more likely to change his position on the issues for political reasons, just 39% saying the same thing about the president. Obama has double-digit leads over Romney on likeability, honesty, confidence, values, leadership and almost every other characteristic tested, with one important exception.

“Obama and Romney are essentially tied on who is more likely to get the economy moving again, and that may provide Romney an opening to chip away at Obama’s current overall lead,” says Holland…

Obama’s likeability and strong performance on personal characteristics helps explain why three-quarters of his supporters questioned say their vote will be a vote for Obama, not a vote against his opponent. By contrast, more than six in ten Romney supporters say their choice will be mostly be a vote against Obama.

The crosstabs (in PDF format) are here for your perusal. Unless I missed it, there’s no partisan breakdown given so there’s no hard evidence that there’s a Democratic skew here or a Republican skew in Gallup’s tracker. But here’s a clue as to what’s going on:

Among independents, Gallup has Romney leading O by six; among the same group, CNN has Obama leading Mitt by five. That discrepancy explains the discrepancy in the overall numbers to a large extent, but not entirely. Gallup also has self-identified Democrats and Republicans as mirror images of each other — 90-6 for their party’s nominee over his opponent. CNN has similar numbers for Democrats but for Republicans the split is 85/11. I’m skeptical of that, but maybe anti-Romney sentiment among some GOPers is so profound as to make them take a second look at (shudder) The One. I’m skeptical of this too:

Fourteen percent of tea-party supporters are leaning towards … O? Not staying home, mind you, but actually stepping up for four more years of Obamanomics? C’mon. And what about this?

Obama won women by 13 points in 2008 so a 16-point gender gap is not, alas, out of the realm of possibility. Explain to me, though, how he wins men by three — which would be larger than the spread between him and McCain — after four years of a grinding “mancession.” Again, c’mon.

If you’re looking for good news in the crosstabs, which are consistently brutal for Romney, here’s the best I can do aside from the data point about the economy mentioned above in the blockquote:

Democrats want the election to be a choice between Obama and a guy whom Paul Begala compares to Thurston Howell III. Republicans want it to be a pure referendum on four years of Hopenchange. These numbers suggest an election closer to the GOP’s model — it’s all about the O, with lots of Romney’s support locked in on a pure anti-Obama vote. (That 63 percent figure is the highest CNN has measured since 1984. John Kerry, who drew 55 percent of his support from anti-Bush sentiment, is next highest.) If the economy struggles all the way to election day, some of the indies in the “vote for Obama” column are bound to have second thoughts. Then again, assuming CNN’s numbers are right, it’s ominous that they haven’t had second thoughts already. Should we actually be happy that Mitt Romney is even more dependent upon anti-incumbent sentiment for votes than a charisma-less stiff like John Kerry?

Here’s the new ad from Obama’s Super PAC hitting the Thurston Howell III message with all the subtlety you’d expect. Exit question: How significant is it that O leads Romney by nearly 30 points in terms of likability? Political analysts tend to scoff, I’ve found, when you suggest that likability might carry a struggling incumbent over the finish line despite heavy liabilities on key voter concerns like the economy, but think back over the last 36 years. When has the less likable candidate defeated the more likable one? Likability is a close call between Carter and Ford, I think, but otherwise it looks like a straight line to victory in every election after that. Gulp.

Update: I sure hope I’m wrong about likability because, if not, we’re in for a bruising.


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 3 4 5

What constitutes “likability” for these polled people? I don’t get it.

Paddington on April 16, 2012 at 9:17 PM

Yeah, it’s a CNN poll.

I don’t trust it.

But I do expect to see more polls along these lines soon. Romney will lose. (Though, i admit, I’d be glad to eat my words in Nov.)

avgjo on April 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Yeah, I honestly don’t think Obama’s lead is this big right now. But I do think that in reality Obama leads Romney by about 5 or 6 points. And this is before the media get hold of Romney.

“Obama and Romney are essentially tied on who is more likely to get the economy moving again, and that may provide Romney an opening to chip away at Obama’s current overall lead,” says Holland…

No, that sort of takes away the only thing Romney’s got. He should be leading by about 20 points on that question, whatever the poll.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:18 PM

But it could also mean that this indeed is a referendum on Obama and their dislike for Obama trumps all.

GOPRanknFile on April 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

It never does. Won’t work. You have to give people something to vote for. It’s going to be a hard, hard lesson.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Oh – and you ABR people – come off it. You’re either a commie troll or a uselful idiot. I don’t really care which personally. Feel free to define yourself, but maybe go somewhere else where you’re wanted and even valued. Here, you’re just pitied. Well, and laughed at – there’s that too.

Abiss on April 16, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I’m trying to understand something here. We have a bunch of “so” called conservatives, that won’t elect whoever the GOP puts up, mainly Romney, because he’ll do extreme damage to the conservative part of the party. SO, they’ll vote, or not, on principal, but in so doing they’ll re-elect the most fiscally destructive president in the history of the country???? Sorry, the man has added 5 trillion to the debt, I don’t care if the GOP decides to run a ficus at the convention, I’m voting for the ficus.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM

SO, they’ll vote, or not, on principal, but in so doing they’ll re-elect the most fiscally destructive president in the history of the country???? Sorry, the man has added 5 trillion to the debt, I don’t care if the GOP decides to run a ficus at the convention, I’m voting for the ficus.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM

So if it’s that vital that Obama be removed, why do we have Romney as the nominee? Why have we been propagandized and polled to death for the past 3 years to the end that a good majority should be led to believe that Romney is the ONLY one who can beat Obama? That was a damn lie all along.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM

Eeyore is, of course, wrong as usual about “likability”. Americans largely seem to view O’Bozo as a complete and total as*hole, a liar and a nitwit. Unlikable, uncoordinated, untrustworthy, and a girlyman in Mom jeans.

I used the Pauline Kael method and asked all my friends.

Jaibones on April 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I have stated I will vote for a ham sandwich over Obama …
however the sandwich HAS to have baby swiss and spicy brown mustard …
:D

conservative tarheel on April 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

It never does. Won’t work. You have to give people something to vote for. It’s going to be a hard, hard lesson.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

BS — it works plenty & often — are recently as 2008 when the Dems could have run a cardboard cut out & it would have won after 8 years of Bush fatigue (and, in fact, they did run a cardboard cut out with a teleprompter and it *did* win)>

Dark Star on April 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

So if it’s that vital that Obama be removed, why do we have Romney as the nominee? Why have we been propagandized and polled to death for the past 3 years to the end that a good majority should be led to believe that Romney is the ONLY one who can beat Obama? That was a damn lie all along.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:29 PM

You might be correct there, but do you throw the baby out with the bath water? I’m not a huge Romney fan, but to bring the country back it will take baby steps. You can’t create a third party over night, and something has to be started to slow down the enormous spending of the fed government. It might not be perfect, but it is a start, and the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM

The most important thing right now in these match-ups is the trend.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Reuters/Ipsos had Obama at +11 a month ago, now it’s down to +4.

After weeks of all polls showing Obama up, we’re now seeing some polls with Romney ahead.

Even the CNN poll, a bit of an outlier for Obama, is down to +9 from +11 a month ago.

The only thing to be said right now is that Romney has gained some strength recently, and neither candidate has a clear advantage.

bobs1196 on April 16, 2012 at 9:35 PM

It never does. Won’t work. You have to give people something to vote for. It’s going to be a hard, hard lesson.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Vote for?? That’s simple: anyone or anything but Obozo…..

chai on April 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM

BS — it works plenty & often — are recently as 2008 when the Dems could have run a cardboard cut out & it would have won after 8 years of Bush fatigue (and, in fact, they did run a cardboard cut out with a teleprompter and it *did* win)>

Dark Star on April 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

BS. Obama was Chicago Jesus, a media creation, not a cardboard cutout. And even HE was not unbeatable. The Dems thought the same way in 2004 — anti-Bush sentiment was going to give them the win — and look where it got them. Repubs thought that in 1996 — anti-Clinton fervor was going to win it for Dole.

You might be correct there, but do you throw the baby out with the bath water? I’m not a huge Romney fan, but to bring the country back it will take baby steps.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM

“Baby steps” just means more of that status quo. It means going off the cliff at 40 mph as opposed to 140.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Sorry, the man has added 5 trillion to the debt, I don’t care if the GOP decides to run a ficus at the convention, I’m voting for the ficus.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Hear, hear: a ficus, a bedroom slipper…as I said before, anyone and anything, I mean anything, but Obozo….

chai on April 16, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Vote for?? That’s simple: anyone or anything but Obozo…..

chai on April 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Uh, no. That’s a vote against. A lot of people are tired to death of having to hold their noses and vote against.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

When Romney starts hitting Barry in the general and Barry has a floor-beating tantrum, that personality and likability poll surplus will evaporate. His abysmal record, his drama-queen insistence on having his own way, and his inflated sense of superiority will become more and more difficult to spin away.

Slainte on April 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Rmoney™ is truly the greatest”true con” alive!

Bmore on April 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM

When Romney starts hitting Barry in the general and Barry has a floor-beating tantrum, that personality and likability poll surplus will evaporate.

Slainte on April 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Fantasizing.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Some good news involving Obama’s built-in welfare constituency. A lot of it is concentrated in the big city states such as California and New York. So even if Obama wins California by, say, 3 million votes and New York by 2 million he could still lose the election if he loses the 7 key swing states such as Florida and Ohio.So a popular vote win but an electoral vote loss for The One is possible.

MaiDee on April 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

This poll has no legs. Like Obama’s dad.

BHO Jonestown on April 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

“Baby steps” just means more of that status quo. It means going off the cliff at 40 mph as opposed to 140.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

So by your logic, lets not try anything different, lets go of the cliff at 200mph, granted they both result in destruction, one just faster than the other, and who knows, maybe Romney might do something different. With the One, we know we are going to crater, so lets just crater anyway???

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Fantasizing.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Umm, no. It wasn’t just a fantasy when Romney eviscerated Newton Leroy during the Florida debate. Romney can and will hit Barry hard in the general and Barry will have a floor-beating tantrum. Count on it.

Slainte on April 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Slainte on April 16, 2012 at 9:49 PM

hate to burst your bubble. but when one of he romney boys made an innocuous remark about obama’s birth certificate, the romney campaign went against it like a ton of bricks.

so no. romney will play by marquis of queensbury rules. all fine and dandy, but barack will be all thumbs sticking his face in the mud.

you betcha!

renalin on April 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM

The RCP average is +3 Obama; we have plenty of time to overcome that, and that’s including CNN and other out of wack polls.

IR-MN on April 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Romney will play by marquis of queensbury rules. all fine and dandy, but barack will be all thumbs sticking his face in the mud.

you betcha!

renalin on April 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM

Don’t kid yourself. He just doesn’t want to be seen as an unserious candidate. Taking on the birther persona isn’t presidential. He’ll leave that talk up to the real birthers.

Believing in conspiracy theories like the birthers isn’t going to win him any votes among the independents and other groups.

I, for one, am glad he distanced himself from that fringe end of the Republican party.

SauerKraut537 on April 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM

There is no way that 14% of the Tea party supports Obama. This is just too hard to believe!

Dollayo on April 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Where can we find a polling outfit that uses a R+11 samples just to hack off liberals?

The Count on April 16, 2012 at 10:16 PM

“Baby steps” just means more of that status quo. It means going off the cliff at 40 mph as opposed to 140.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

So you choose 140. I see. Next.

Abiss on April 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Lies. Just lies. The only poll that counts is in November.

BHO Jonestown on April 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Unless I missed it, there’s no partisan breakdown given so there’s no hard evidence that there’s a Democratic skew here or a Republican skew in Gallup’s tracker. But here’s a clue as to what’s going on:

Using the subgroup margin-of-error (rounded to the nearest half-percent), my best guess for CNN’s partisan breakdown is 47% I/28% D/25% R. It isn’t exactly a standard breakdown.

As for the contrast between that and Gallup’s tracking, at least one of those is an outlier. Given the trend, it’s more likely CNN’s that is the outlier.

Steve Eggleston on April 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

So you choose 140. I see. Next.

Abiss on April 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

pretty much, but hey that O is awesome and the status quo under him is the best!

/s

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Old theory from an hour ago: Dude, we’ve got this.

New theory: Dude, game over.

Really Allahpundito? Really? That quickly?

I’m no fan of Romney’s, but even if I was a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic, I’d still drag myself to the voting precinct to vote for Romney against Obama… using nothing more than my tongue & foley catheter to get me there.

So man up Allahpundit… Stop being such a pu$$y!

Danny on April 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Steve Eggleston on April 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

What is this calculation you are making? No one else has even ventured an estimate. Do you have some method I should know about?

topdog on April 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Uh, no. That’s a vote against. A lot of people are tired to death of having to hold their noses and vote against.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Oh, I think we’re ALL tired of that. Fortunately, some of us, having some actual experience with making real life tough decisions between bad and worse, retain the big picture perspective and remain adults. And I say this as a Perry guy who doesn’t like Romney, trusts him to only do what he’s pressured into or out of doing, and believes a third party is inevitable (provided we don’t go full blow authoritarian in the meantime). But before all of this, I believe in ‘first things first.’ First thing is – the Marxist has to go. Preferrably in leg irons and an orange jumpsuit wrist-chained to his buddy Holder, but I’m not particular at this point.

Abiss on April 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I’m voting for the ficus.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Yep. Me too. Ficus, dog turd, the unused condum in John Stewarts wallet. Whatever the inanimate object, they would all make a better president than Barry Clownshow.

Abiss on April 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM

You might be correct there, but do you throw the baby out with the bath water? I’m not a huge Romney fan, but to bring the country back it will take baby steps. You can’t create a third party over night, and something has to be started to slow down the enormous spending of the fed government. It might not be perfect, but it is a start, and the journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step.

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Umm, the time for “baby steps” is over, we’re about to tumble into a financial black-hole. The prog-filth got us into this mess incrementally, but that’s not how things will be reversed, if at all.

ebrown2 on April 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

The RCP average is +3 Obama; we have plenty of time to overcome that, and that’s including CNN and other out of wack polls.

I don’t understand why RCP averages obvious outliers like this CNN poll. This chart shows what an outlier it is. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-general-election-romney-vs-obama#!

midgeorgian on April 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

Umm, the time for “baby steps” is over, we’re about to tumble into a financial black-hole. The prog-filth got us into this mess incrementally, but that’s not how things will be reversed, if at all.

ebrown2 on April 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

True, but it is what is is. Would you sacrifice everything just to have purity in the party?

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Scru these polls. There is a sure-fire way to de-elect Obama and no one wants to say it out loud.

Well I’m going to.

Our single greatest weapon against a 2nd Obama term is in your back pocket. It’s your wallet. All conservatives should stop all discretionary spending from now until election day. If you don’t need it…and I mean NEED it…don’t buy it. Go Galt and disappear until November. The Occupidiots and Georgetown Law students are the looters Ayn Rand wrote about.

Remind yourselves that every dime you spend between now and November 6 is a de facto donation to Obama’s re-election campaign.

Voters will hang the poor economy around Obama’s neck and on November 7 his official title will be President-Reject of the United States.

We’ll meet at dawn on election day and finish the job we started in 2010.

Doug Piranha on April 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

A bit off topic but…….

Do French Elections Matter On This Side Of The Pond?

Just about a month ago in the wake of the latest Greek bailout both French President Sarkozy and former French Finance Minister and now IMF head Christine LaGrande were declaring in lockstep, that “the problem is solved” and “economic spring is in the air.”

Well here we are a month on and the Spanish stock market is all but collapsed, the Italian’s are but a step behind with trading in Italian banking stocks having to be halted on a daily basis lest they fall to zero on any given day. Credit Default Swaps (CDS) on Spanish debt are spiking dramatically as yields rise to the dreaded 7% level. Look soon for shorting of European banks to be banned once again.

Both Sarkozy and LaGrande it would seem are betting heavily on successful Spanish and Italian bond auctions this coming Thursday. If the bid to cover ratio comes in at something resembling Bear Sterns final attempt to stay afloat (30% of bond face value) all bets are off for a peaceful summer in the Euro zone.

While LaGrande’s tenure at the IMF may be resting on the auction’s outcome, for all intents and purposes, successful or not Sarkozy’s goose seems to be already cooked. All that is left is for the actual ballots to be counted before the fork is stuck in and the declaration of “its done” to be pronounced.

So why should we care that the French, not know for their political acumen, are about to elect a far left wing Socialist in the person of one Francois Hollande? Hollande is taking the all to predictable socialist path, while paying lip service to deficit reduction he campaigns on expanding government spending and subsidizing hundreds of thousands of new government jobs, all financed of course by massive increases in taxation. With his ever-increasing lead in the polls, little wonder that over here, Obama is on the same track.

This brings us of course to the realm of unintended consequences. Up to this point the technocrats in Brussels have managed to forestall the looming disaster only through the close alliance between France’s Sarkozy and Germany’s Chancellor Merkel. Sarkozy’s passing from the political stage all but guarantees the end of this Franco-German alliance. Hollande has made no secret of his contempt for Merkel and Germany’s resistance to the issuance of so called Euro Bonds to finance the ongoing deterioration of the PIIGS.

The EU has already rised dithering until the last moment before reaching so-called solutions to an art form. Any break in Franco-German cooperation may well make any further agreements, particularly in regards to Spain, all but impossible.

The triggering of CDS over the latest Greek bailout and 70% haircuts for the bond holders is a far from settled issue as most of the outstanding bonds are covered under British law not Greek, and as such don’t allow for such losses of principal without triggering the CDS. The issue is already in the courts. If a similar credit event occurs in Spain or Italy it will be disastrous not only for European banks but for US banks as well. Particularly for Bank of America, which has underwritten the vast majority of Europe’s CDS. They don’t have the capital to pay off on all those insurance policies and quite frankly they never did. Such an event would of course bring to the fore that most toxic of political questions in the run up to our own elections. Is Bank of America To Big To Fail? If it fails the cascade into the rest of the US financial structure may be catastrophic, if it is, and the Administration, the Congress and the FED return to the well one more time with another, even more massive round of bailing out the banks and quantitative easing and its incipient inflation, how will the American voters react?

Obama and company are of course hoping that any such event can be held off until after the election. If they loose that bet Obama will join Sarkozy in the cooking pot before November gets here. Even if they win that very risky bet, I doubt that Obama’s or any administration could survive the political backlash of either a deflationary implosion of a massive bank failure or an inflationary explosion brought on by the US taxpayer being put on the hook for Europe’s failure by bailing out the To Big To Fail once again.

But then the creation of new and dreadful wars has always been the political elite’s one size fits all solution to financial crisis.

LCT688 on April 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Ah yes, the ambiguous “who likes XXX” poll.
Can we get a little serious here.

And of course Gallup “Carter Leads Reagan by 8″ on the eve of the 1980 election…

Odie1941 on April 16, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Old theory from an hour ago: Dude, we’ve got this.

New theory: Dude, game over.

Really Allahpundito? Really? That quickly?

I’m no fan of Romney’s, but even if I was a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic, I’d still drag myself to the voting precinct to vote for Romney against Obama… using nothing more than my tongue & foley catheter to get me there.

So man up Allahpundit… Stop being such a pu$$y!

Danny on April 16, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Gulp.

Basilsbest on April 16, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Romney maybe be Thurston Howell III, but Obama is without a doubt not the Professor, at very best he is the SS Minow.

SWalker on April 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM

I know that True Believers show their true Conservatism by disparaging Romney, but if you pay attention, Romney is looking a lot more conservative now that the other guys are not shrilling against him.

In 2008, Romney was the best hope for conservatism until Sarah came along.

In 2010, Sarah and DeMint were more outspoken in their support of conservatives, but Romney was also active.

The real question I’ve had for 6 months is: where were Newt, Santorum and Paul in 2010? (Bachmann, Cain and Romney were active; but the other 3 were biding their time.) If your badge of conservatism is dissatisfaction with Romney, what makes you think that support for G/S/P adds to your credibility?

Get over it.

That ficus looks a lot better than Barry, but nowhere near as good as Mitt.

rwenger43 on April 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

True, but it is what is is. Would you sacrifice everything just to have purity in the party?

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

I could care less about the “purity” of the Republican Party. I do care about the future of this country, and baby steps won’t save us now.

ebrown2 on April 16, 2012 at 11:25 PM

Conservatives, Republicans and Libertarians need to remember- it IS the likability factor. WE would show up to vote for Romney because Obama is a disaster, but your average Joe- and this is the part where us political news junkies need to slow down and read this part carefully- your average Joe Does. Not. Pay. Attention.

Your average Joe thinks ALL politicians are evil.
Your average Joe thinks ALL politicians are corrupt.
Your average Joe believes his job is to vote for least evil, the least corrupt, and the guy who seems like he might just mean what he says.

In other words: Your average Joe will vote for the guy he likes best. Average Joe is the swing voter.

If we are going to beat Obama, we have to overcome a serious media bias as well as a lack of enthusiasm for our candidate. I know that’s a touchy subject, but it is what it is.

Book on April 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Your average Joe thinks ALL politicians are evil.
Your average Joe thinks ALL politicians are corrupt.

Book on April 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Just to think, everyone thought the average joe was stoopid :)

uncommon sense on April 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM

“Gulp” my ass…its CNN what do you expect? This says it all…Fourteen percent of tea-party supporters are leaning towards … O? Not staying home, mind you, but actually stepping up for four more years of Obamanomics? This poll is dung!

crazywater on April 16, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Big shock Allah…

Maybe you should have thrown your considerable snark in FAVOR of she who must not be named….

rightConcept on April 16, 2012 at 11:49 PM

The 1980 election was a vote “against” . . . very clearly! Not too hard to remember that one.

Voter from WA State on April 17, 2012 at 12:03 AM

You mean “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” was an attempt to get people to vote for a candidate and not against that candidate’s opponent?

alchemist19 on April 17, 2012 at 12:10 AM

third parties never work. That is why Britain is in such a mess right now. No clear majority by anyone.

Voter from WA State on April 17, 2012 at 12:01 AM

I completely agree, but what they want is to replace a party with another one, kind of like the whigs and so forth, just curious what they really think it will achieve at the moment.

uncommon sense on April 17, 2012 at 12:18 AM

Obama is not getting 11% of Republicans and 23% of the Conservative Vote. CNN can stick this poll up James Carville’s butt!

CoolChange80 on April 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM


If your house is underwater, you are unable to find a job or anything decent or are locked in an underpaying job,

If you hear from the LSM that things are going better but for you it is not visible,

if not only the pain at the pump but your beloved New York Times costs twice as much as in 2007 ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/05/new-york-times-price-hike_n_197007.html )

If you see none of the promises come true,

DO YOU REALLY CARE ABOUT LIKEABILITY OR CARE ABOUT WHO CAN FIX?

these polls all are taken the wrong premise.

O, did I mention that confused disillusioned voters tend to stay home and that fear and anger is the best driving force to the voting booth?

huntingmoose on April 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM

CNN fired Gallup to replace the oldest and most respected polling firm in the world with a Democratic hack. They hired the likes of Soledad O’Brien, for crying out loud.

When a poll doesn’t give a complete open accounting of their sample, it’s usually for a reason.

The polls don’t mean much until after both conventions. Then people other than us political junkies will start paying closer attention.

Ever wonder how Romney had built up a bigger lead vs Obama last year and lost it? It was the intensity of the Republican primary race, with all the charges being thrown around – there are segments of the electorate who move like a flag in the wind. What possible good does it do to know where these fickle swing voters are at this moment? It tells us nothing of where they will be as the election gets close.

Adjoran on April 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM

You mean “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” was an attempt to get people to vote for a candidate and not against that candidate’s opponent?

alchemist19 on April 17, 2012 at 12:10 AM

No, but this was. So was this.

Let’s not get goofy here.

Nom de Boom on April 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM

No, but this was. So was this.

Let’s not get goofy here.

Nom de Boom on April 17, 2012 at 12:39 AM

You’ll get no argument from me that there were plenty of reasons to vote for Reagan, and Mitt does have a decent share of votes that are for him and not just against Obama. I just took some of the earlier comments made in this thread to imply that attracting voters who are supporting a candidate merely to defeat their opponent is either a new thing or a bad thing.

alchemist19 on April 17, 2012 at 12:46 AM

Obama and company are of course hoping that any such event can be held off until after the election. If they loose that bet Obama will join Sarkozy in the cooking pot before November gets here. Even if they win that very risky bet, I doubt that Obama’s or any administration could survive the political backlash of either a deflationary implosion of a massive bank failure or an inflationary explosion brought on by the US taxpayer being put on the hook for Europe’s failure by bailing out the To Big To Fail once again.

But then the creation of new and dreadful wars has always been the political elite’s one size fits all solution to financial crisis.

LCT688 on April 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

brilliant analysis…

jimver on April 17, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Okay, first things first.

The last time CNN/ORC published the party affiliation breakdown for a head to head between Romney and Obama, they gave Obama a near double digit democratic advantage, and included VERY few independents. The fact that THIS time they are not revealing the breakdown, makes me double suspicious.

Additionally, this is only a poll of registered voters, not likely voters. Granted, so is Gallop, but it looks like Gallop at least went through the effort of throwing together a realistic sample.

Finally, CNN/ORC has a very bad track record, at least if previous elections are any example. During 2000, 2004, and 2008 I routinely ignored pollsters like AP, Reuters, CNN, USAtoday, etc. I looked at pollsters like Rassmussen, Gallop, Fox, and a few others. I took, “these,” pollsters and created my own averages, and they’ve consistently come far closer to matching the end results than the RCP average which almost always includes outliers.

I mean, let me put it to you this way.

Rassmussen has had Romney up anywhere from 3-5% for the past week.

Fox had Romney up +2%

Gallop today also has Romney up +2%

Among these polls the internals end up matching up fairly well, and Romney ends up performing well in the demographics Republicans traditionally perform well in.

Look at CNN however, and suddenly on certain questions you see Obama roughly splitting the tea-party vote on certain questions. You see him rated fairly well on economic questions, show him winning female votes by larger margins than in 2008, AND show him about tying with men.

Whats even stranger, is that CNN shows Romney winning the Suburban and rural vote, yet the Urban vote alone is enough to counteract that by near double digits?

I’m sorry Allah, but the CNN poll just looks goofy when you look at the internals. Stick with Rassmussen and Gallop, they have a much better track record for these sorts of things.

WolvenOne on April 17, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Now we all have to pay the price.

c.j.ammenheuser on April 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

hey we warned you all that Romney flip flopper liberal is unelectable but instead of looking at facts and records the mit voters decided to go with polls as a reason to vote for him. Now when the polls trun on Mitt which they will because the liberals control the polling companies in this country what does Mitt have to fall back on? his base? ROFL… Mitt may yet win this but I doubt it. I can see Mitt getting Mondale types of EV. He will not win the NE, the south might go blue for the first time since Reagan. Mitt will when Utah and some of the midwest I hope but it doesn’t look good. I’m voting May 8th for whoever isn’t Mitt on the gop ballot. Maybe it isn’t too late to get someone that can win.

unseen on April 17, 2012 at 1:43 AM

There are only two types of Obama voters: Morons and socialists. I don’t care what twisted reasoning you may have about Romney not being a conservative or letting Dems own their failure; you are one of the two if you vote for him.

But Romney’s going to win.

Malachi45 on April 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM

Now we all have to pay the price.

c.j.ammenheuser on April 16, 2012 at 6:27 PM

hey we warned you all that Romney flip flopper liberal is unelectable but instead of looking at facts and records the mit voters decided to go with polls as a reason to vote for him. Now when the polls trun on Mitt which they will because the liberals control the polling companies in this country what does Mitt have to fall back on? his base? ROFL… Mitt may yet win this but I doubt it. I can see Mitt getting Mondale types of EV. He will not win the NE, the south might go blue for the first time since Reagan. Mitt will when Utah and some of the midwest I hope but it doesn’t look good. I’m voting May 8th for whoever isn’t Mitt on the gop ballot. Maybe it isn’t too late to get someone that can win.

unseen on April 17, 2012 at 1:43 AM

Don’t be stupid. The South’s not going to go blue.

Malachi45 on April 17, 2012 at 2:22 AM

There are only two types of Obama voters: Morons and socialists. I don’t care what twisted reasoning you may have about Romney not being a conservative or letting Dems own their failure; you are one of the two if you vote for him.

But Romney’s going to win.

Malachi45 on April 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM

That is very true but I think you could shorten it to just morons.

alchemist19 on April 17, 2012 at 2:41 AM

All this angst over a poll seven months out from an election. I wasn’t excited about polls showing Romney in the lead, and I’m not panicked over this one showing Obama ahead. Wait until the conventions are over and we get past Labor Day. That’s when people really start to pay attention. Polls right now don’t mean a thing.

That said, if you’re really worked up over this poll, it IS an outlyer. Wait and see if it becomes a trend before getting upset and arguing amongst yourselves.

DRayRaven on April 17, 2012 at 5:06 AM

Why don’t you use BIG Gulp for a change in your next ridiculous article.

AllahPundit’s just another Tweak Freak.

DevilsPrinciple on April 17, 2012 at 6:04 AM

Ooooh, I misread this. It’s a CNN Poll. Hell, no wonder. Another rigged poll.

WannabeAnglican on April 17, 2012 at 7:49 AM

Looking at this post again, you weren’t very clear just whose poll this was. Be more clear next time. You nearly ruined my dinner last night.

WannabeAnglican on April 17, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Romney is more likely to change his position on the issues for political reasons,

Democrat political bullchips aside, isn’t a candidate or actual political office holder suppose to represent the voters and therefore to what the electorate wants…whimsical or not?

One has to question the logic employed here. Puting aside one’s personal beliefs in favor of the position their electorate wants is not “flip-flopping”. It’s called representative democracy.

Marcus Traianus on April 17, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Only down 9? Actually closer than I thought it would be for Mr. Inevitable.

james23 on April 17, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Don’t worry. Once Willard releases his Dream Act and CapnTax proposals, and his HealthcareFix 2.0, he will close that gap.

james23 on April 17, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Democrats want the election to be a choice between Obama and a guy whom Paul Begala compares to Thurston Howell III. Republicans want it to be a pure referendum on four years of Hopenchange.

Typical. Liberals=demagogue; Conservatives=Fact finders.

the_souse on April 17, 2012 at 8:33 AM

This poll is not credible. Romney’s in good shape and will win in November. He’s ahead in more reliable polls–Fox, Gallup, Rasmussen–and is polling well in the swing states. End of story.

writeblock on April 17, 2012 at 8:34 AM

It’s a CNN poll . . . need I say more? When will these professional pundits ever learn?

rplat on April 17, 2012 at 8:39 AM

I’m voting May 8th for whoever isn’t Mitt on the gop ballot. Maybe it isn’t too late to get someone that can win.

unseen on April 17, 2012 at 1:43 AM

voting on May 8th as well .. leaves us Newt or ron …

I will probably write in Perry …. and vote for the marriage amendment …

conservative tarheel on April 17, 2012 at 8:52 AM

That said, if you’re really worked up over this poll, it IS an outlyer. Wait and see if it becomes a trend before getting upset and arguing amongst yourselves.

DRayRaven on April 17, 2012 at 5:06 AM

some folks like to ride roller coasters ….

conservative tarheel on April 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

ABC/Post – Democrats with historic advantage…..
CNN – Obama with 23% Conservative support……

When are these biased polls going to become a major story?

They’ve been doing this long enough that you can rule out incompetence so all that’s left is blatant bias. The Democrats have had, in their own words, a bad week and we get served crap like this?

Two polls that we can leave off of any calculation, that’s for sure.

Acceptable recent polls:

Rasmussen Tracking 44 47 Romney +3
Reuters/Ipsos 47 43 Obama +4
Gallup Tracking 45 47 Romney +2
FOX News 44 46 Romney +2

Zybalto on April 17, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Acceptable recent polls:

Rasmussen Tracking 44 47 Romney +3
Reuters/Ipsos 47 43 Obama +4
Gallup Tracking 45 47 Romney +2
FOX News 44 46 Romney +2

Zybalto on April 17, 2012 at 9:07 AM

Cult members only like polls showing cult leader in positive light.

angryed on April 17, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Romney should be running away with this, why isn’t he?
Because he is not a conservative, it’s that simple. And his supporters continue to prop up his disdain for conservatives. They have ignored all of his transgressions, and so he now thinks he is immune, that he is the RNC choice…if he was truly the choice, the polls wouldn’t be close.
He needs to have a huddle, begin his outreach to conservatives, and tell his little minions to settle down and show some respect.
The one thing people have learned, Mitt’s supporters, his hard core supporters are some of the meanest rascal’s around…anyone who says “Mormon’s are great people”, are right if they remove the Mitt supporters out of the equation.
I notice that Joann and csdeven are not around much anymore, I guess they were taken off the payroll…but some others not smart enough to have gotten paid are still around…nasty little creatures.

right2bright on April 17, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Cult members only like polls showing cult leader in positive light.

angryed on April 17, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Cult member?

The MSM manufactures two polls for their chosen candidate and you continue to offer them latent support…..

…or are you saying that we should believe the unbelievable polls because it fits YOUR narrative?

Zybalto on April 17, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Most believe we need a change in leadership in the White House, as Obama’s agenda has more than failed Americans, and we sure don’t want any more of what he is serving. Corruption, and out of control spending has our country reeling close to bankruptcy. One term and out the door.

Amazingoly on April 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM

“This poll is not credible. Romney’s in good shape and will win in November. He’s ahead in more reliable polls–Fox, Gallup, Rasmussen–and is polling well in the swing states. End of story”

Actually, Romney is doing horribly in swing states like Ohio, Florida and Virginia, all states Romney must win.

gumbyandpokey on April 17, 2012 at 9:35 AM

In April of 1980, Carter led Reagan 41 – 34. Granted, Romney is no Reagan, but – fortunately – Obama is worse than Carter, and even more of a scold than Carter. It is important to compare Carter’s dour tone and wagging finger when we see Obama doing the same kind of things and claiming the Reagan mantle. How ludicrous. The Audaciousness of a Dope.

kscheuller on April 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM

It never does. Won’t work. You have to give people something to vote for. It’s going to be a hard, hard lesson.

ddrintn on April 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

I totally agree with you and I must say I find it funny that many did not see this coming.

In reality, Romney will be lucky to lose by 43-52 in the general election.

And here is the reason why:

Half of those questioned say that Obama is more likely to stand up for what he believes, with only 29% saying that about Romney.

TheRightMan on April 17, 2012 at 9:52 AM

In April of 1980, Carter led Reagan 41 – 34. Granted, Romney is no Reagan, but – fortunately – Obama is worse than Carter, and even more of a scold than Carter. It is important to compare Carter’s dour tone and wagging finger when we see Obama doing the same kind of things and claiming the Reagan mantle. How ludicrous. The Audaciousness of a Dope.

kscheuller on April 17, 2012 at 9:42 AM

It is an insult to the memory of Reagan to dare to compare an Obama-Romney matchup to Carter-Reagan.

Reagan knew what he stood for and the base could trust him that he would fight for conservatism.

What exactly does Romney stand for and who will benefit most from his presidency? It certainly will NOT be conservatives.

TheRightMan on April 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

It is an insult to the memory of Reagan to dare to compare an Obama-Romney matchup to Carter-Reagan.

TheRightMan on April 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

No it isn’t. Its a testament to Carter and 0bama.

cozmo on April 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM

No it isn’t. Its a testament to Carter and 0bama.

cozmo on April 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Compared to Obama, Carter was success personified.

It is a testament to Romney’s weakness that he isn’t soundly thrashing Obama in the polls at this juncture.

TheRightMan on April 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM

I’m sorry, but I think CNN is cooking the books on this. I know a lot of people who voted for BHO, but are now, at best, lukewarm. They don’t trust him and they don’t respect him.

So just how do they really measure “likeability?”

EdmundBurke247 on April 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM

It is an insult to the memory of Reagan to dare to compare an Obama-Romney matchup to Carter-Reagan.

TheRightMan on April 17, 2012 at 9:55 AM

No it isn’t. Its a testament to Carter and 0bama.

cozmo on April 17, 2012 at 10:01 AM

Precisely, cozmo. Thanks for seeing it that way – the way I clearly put it. Romney is no Reagan – I did say that. It will be the lesser of two evils. But Romney has done well in his life. People dump all over the fact of Romneycare (understandably). A democrat governor would have given Massachusetts socialized medicine outright. He will be better than Obama. I bet there are a lot of so-called “Obama-cans” who regret their switch to the Dem side, and many independents who will not vote for Obama again. I am cautiously optimistic. Obama did not win by a blowout margin over McCain, and Romney is more conservative than McCain. I wanted Romney to beat McCain the last election. We can only run who we have. Newt imploded, and would have imploded in the general. Santorum believes more of the things I believe. So does Alan Keyes. Both Santorum and Keyes have the same problem. They are both unashamedly strident, and hence come off as scolds, especially with the LSM pointing out how square they are. They make it too damn easy for the “War on women” meme. That just ain’t going to stick to Romney.

kscheuller on April 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Compared to Obama, Carter was success personified.

TheRightMan on April 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Again, no. I was there. The parallels of the the two presidents is striking. Carter was willing to take a much greater risk with operation Eagle Claw than 0bama did with Osama. Carter dealt with international problems that arose due to his policies, 0bama creates them problems with his policies. The major difference is that the media no longer has a monopoly.

Precisely, cozmo. Thanks for seeing it that way – the way I clearly put it. Romney is no Reagan – I did say that.

Yes you did, and only the Romney fluffin’ nutballs are making that comparison.

Makes the assimilation that much more difficult.

cozmo on April 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM

The low info voters who decide elections vote on tone and likability is a huge part of that.

motionview on April 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5