Rasmussen daily tracking poll gives Romney his best lead yet

posted at 11:21 am on May 11, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

A bad jobs report and an evolution out of the mainstream didn’t do any favors for Barack Obama’s standing in the presidential race against Mitt Romney.  Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll shows Obama dropping back seven points in the three-day rolling average, while Romney hits the 50% mark for the first time:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support. Four percent (4%) would vote for a third party candidate, while another three percent (3%) are undecided.

Matchup results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

This is the first time Romney has reached the 50% level of support and is his largest lead ever over the president. It comes a week after a disappointing jobs report that raised new questions about the state of the economy.

It’s not exactly a shocking result, given the events of the last week.  When a President goes out of his way to support a position that state after state opposes — same-sex marriage — it’s not going to have a positive result on polling.  It helps even less when (a) no one really believed Obama’s stated former position, and (b) the President has to get pushed into telling the truth, by his own admission, by a Vice President stumbling his way off the reservation.  No matter what the White House wants to claim as courage in this decision, it hardly looks like leadership.

Almost all of the downturn had to have happened in the last two to three days.  In Rasmussen’s weekly crosstabs (subscriber only), Romney only led Obama by one in data collected from April 30th-May 6th.  Obama had a wide lead among 18-29YOs already, 58/29, but an almost-as-wide deficit among seniors, 37/59, who turn out stronger in elections.  Obama held a narrow edge among independents, 44/42.

I’d suspect that those numbers have shifted significantly over the last few days, especially since Obama and Democrats seem obsessed with issues that rank low on voter priorities.  Cultural issues (like gay marriage) ranked dead last in the Rasmussen list, with only 6% considering those to be the most important priority.  A near-majority of 45% say economic issues are the highest priority, with another 17% identifying fiscal issues as the highest.  The longer Obama keeps bringing up distractions, the less seriously voters will take him.


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

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM

You keep talking about documented cheating. You got links? Can you scan some sort of proof? So you heard it from a Ron Paul supporter who heard it where? And you have a whole bunch of proof but your goat ate it?

See, you have appointed yourself as detector of fairness and truth – as all clownish moronic Ron Paul supporters do. “Only caucuses are legitimate.” Horsesh!tE. There. You’ve been un-appointed. I try not to use personal epithets here, but this is Ron Paul we are talking about, and you support the childish little moronic cry-baby fool.

Are you going to vote for Romney or not?

I’d vote for Johnson in a heartbeat over Ron Paul, knowing it would get Obama elected. Because if Obama got re-elected, I know at there would be a few people who would drag him off of the golf-course to do the right thing occasionally. The truth about the Bin-laden assasination is not that Romney wouldn’t have had someone pull the trigger. The truth is that Ron Paul wouldn’t have had the trigger pulled. And when it comes time for Iran to get what they are due, Ron Paul would interfere with the people that have the cajones to deal with it.

Read clown: Ron Paul has said over and over Iran is not a problem. They are trustworthy. Then trust them to keep to their word to push the Israelis into the sea with nuclear weapons. You can’t have it both ways clown.

No concept why you clowns can’t get any traction? Is it any wonder that crazy people can start cults in this world?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Alright, Romney’s astro-turfers here can smear me all they want, but they can’t win fair and square, so they are only proving my point.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM

you can’t win fair and square with a delusional person unless you start living in their own little world…and most of us aren’t :-)…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 3:15 PM

You are supporting a nominee that believes the government has the power to force you to buy a good or service against your will, and continues to argue to that effect. You aren’t exactly to the “Right” of anyone.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM

IncontinentEd, et al have admitted supporting Obama. They also are OK with a fiscal liberal so long as their spiritual requirements are met. They also want a big government to be powerful enough to legislate morality. Thus, they are to the left of more fiscal-minded individuals.

Plus, what he did in MA is allowed under the Constitution because it is a state. States can do many things the federal government cannot. You may disagree with the spirit of the plan, sure. Make sure you voice your displeasure in the primary. There are a few states left to vote in.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Plus, what he did in MA is allowed under the Constitution because it is a state. States can do many things the federal government cannot. You may disagree with the spirit of the plan, sure. Make sure you voice your displeasure in the primary. There are a few states left to vote in.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Tyranny at the statehouse or the Whitehouse is still tyranny. The government does not have the power to force people to purchase a good or service against their will, whether it is a state government, or the Federal government, or a county administration. Romney continues to argue otherwise, and anyone who supports him must reconcile his argument with their supposed Conservatism.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 3:22 PM

You keep talking about documented cheating. You got links? Can you scan some sort of proof? So you heard it from a Ron Paul supporter who heard it where? And you have a whole bunch of proof but your goat ate it?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I’ll put together something with some proof for you later today or early next week. There are many examples of Romney/GOP people calling in the cops to have Ron Paul supporters arrested or expelled. They’ve closed down caucuses and locked the doors when it became apparent Ron Paul supporters were the majority. In my caucus that I participated in a delegate didn’t show up and instead of promoting the first-alternate, they skipped him and went to the second-alternate, a Romney supporter. In Main just this past weekend somebody who has since been identified was passing out false information about Ron Paul delegates to try and split the Ron Paul vote. Apparently this person is involved in the Maine GOP in the state legislature. Then there is the fact that the RNC is supporting Romney even though Ron Paul is still in the race, a clear violation of long standing Republican Party rules. The foul play seems to go right up to the top.

That’s just a quick summary, I’ll delve into in more depth in the future.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Make sure you voice your displeasure in the primary. There are a few states left to vote in.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:17 PM

I’ll voice my disapproval of Obama and Romney in the election when I write-in vote Palin/Jindal.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 3:24 PM

There are many examples of Romney/GOP people calling in the cops to have Ron Paul supporters arrested or expelled.

To clarify: there are many examples of cheating, on one occasion they called in the cops to have Ron Paul people expelled without justification.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

Tyranny at the statehouse or the Whitehouse is still tyranny. The government does not have the power to force people to purchase a good or service against their will, whether it is a state government, or the Federal government, or a county administration. Romney continues to argue otherwise, and anyone who supports him must reconcile his argument with their supposed Conservatism.

States do have that power. While many of us disagree with the spirit of the plan, that does not make it illegal. Good thing about states is they are laboratories where one can vote with their feet. No compulsion to live there if you don’t like it. This is the same reasoning behind striking down Roe v. Wade. States decide, then people act on those decisions.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

When people participate in the Republican nominating process but then refuse to support the nominee, that’s the very definition of RINO, isn’t it?

Good riddance to the fringe nutters! We’ve wasted too much time on their neurotic nonsense already. Now that they have declared themselves undependable allies and irrelevant to the process, let’s allow them to fade into the obscurity where they belong.

Just remember when they sneak back under the tent next cycle: they are unfaithful losers and miscreants, as they are proving now.

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

States do have that power. While many of us disagree with the spirit of the plan, that does not make it illegal. Good thing about states is they are laboratories where one can vote with their feet. No compulsion to live there if you don’t like it. This is the same reasoning behind striking down Roe v. Wade. States decide, then people act on those decisions.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

No they don’t. A state government doesn’t have the power to take away a citizen’s economic freedoms, anymore than a state government can force a citizen to only vote for one Political Party in the National Elections.

And you are still supporting someone who believes the relationship between the state and citizen gives the state the authority to force the citizen to buy a good against their will. That isn’t conservative or even capitalistic.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM

While many of us disagree with the spirit of the plan, that does not make it illegal.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:26 PM

It’s wrong regardless. Just because it’s not your state, just because you’re not the victim, does not alleviate the moral-hazard you create by voting for the creep who introduced that to our nation.

And when you lift the hood and look underneath you see that what the Romney Mandate does is force individuals to buy products and services from the companies that donated so much money to his campaign. By voting for something like that, the lesser of two evils, you beget evil.

I stipulate that moral people who believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights cannot vote for people such as Obama or Romney who violate those rights. If Romney will screw the free people of one state, he’ll do it to us all.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:36 PM

When people participate in the Republican nominating process but then refuse to support the nominee, that’s the very definition of RINO, isn’t it?

Good riddance to the fringe nutters! We’ve wasted too much time on their neurotic nonsense already. Now that they have declared themselves undependable allies and irrelevant to the process, let’s allow them to fade into the obscurity where they belong.

Just remember when they sneak back under the tent next cycle: they are unfaithful losers and miscreants, as they are proving now.

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

A Rino is a democrat who panders to republican voters to win an election, but never holds themselves to their promised positions. Someone like Romney, for instance. A voter can vote for which ever party or no party at all if they want. If both parties nominate people that a voter cannot in good conscience support, than the voter might well not vote at all.

This neither makes them “fringe nutters” nor Rinos, just voters that aren’t being represented by the party that panders to their ideology every few years.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 3:38 PM

The emotional outburst is just a tad weird. I hope it realizes that.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You know what I find weird? That you only used something as mild as “a tad” to describe the nuttiness at hand! :)

Are you talking about me or the other guy? He just wrote a blatant lie, I have every right to call that out, and “freaking” is not a swear word.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You honestly did have to ask that in order to find out, didn’t you? :)

I ask the following questions non-perjoratively: how old are you? Are you male? Are/were you Amish, or something similar?

lol you are weird, as if you are an alien from Uranus who was planted here to learn about American society, and you haven’t quite gotten the hang of how things are done down here on planet Earth yet; and I say that not for the reasons you’ll choose to attribute it to!

Bizarro No. 1 on May 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Just remember when they sneak back under the tent next cycle: they are unfaithful losers and miscreants, as they are proving now.

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

What are you talking about? Ron Paul is winning the caucuses. It’s your guy that is the loser. That’s why it’s Romney and the establishment that have been caught cheating so many times in the caucuses, and no doubt in the primaries too. For sure the one, so why not the other? It’s a totally reasonable assumption and fits with the evidence.

Romney’s support is mostly astro-turf. When real people with real faces have to show up and the votes are cast and counted on the spot, without being transported too and fro, Ron Paul wins. Romney is the fake, the usurper.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Hey. Did anybody else read about the polls today? Weren’t the results interesting? Looks like Romney is trending up, or at least Obama is trending down.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Are you talking about me or the other guy? He just wrote a blatant lie, I have every right to call that out, and “freaking” is not a swear word.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You honestly did have to ask that in order to find out, didn’t you? :)

lol :-)…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM

When people participate in the Republican nominating process but then refuse to support the nominee, that’s the very definition of RINO, isn’t it?

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

To people who don’t have mental issues, yes, that is the very definition! Look at the people who would dispute that with you – need I say more? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on May 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM

No they don’t. A state government doesn’t have the power to take away a citizen’s economic freedoms, anymore than a state government can force a citizen to only vote for one Political Party in the National Elections.

And you are still supporting someone who believes the relationship between the state and citizen gives the state the authority to force the citizen to buy a good against their will. That isn’t conservative or even capitalistic.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 3:32 PM

There is no law prohibitting MA from doing what it did. Put forward an amendment to the Consitution if you feel that strongly about restricting a state’s right to act on its own accord.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Bizarro No. 1 on May 11, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Go ahead and smear me, Bizarro, you can’t defeat my argument so that’s all you can do, but just be aware that I consider it a victory every time one of you stoop to that level. It just further proves my point how Romney and Obama and their follower are all so much alike. Hope and Change.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Hey. Did anybody else read about the polls today? Weren’t the results interesting? Looks like Romney is trending up, or at least Obama is trending down.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Good point oldroy. I put together three substance laden comments about these polls on page 2 of this post, and thought my comments (page 2) would stick around to be seen. But there seems to be a lot of background flak going on, or some kind of feud about Ron Paul or RINOs. That sort of thing has its place of course, and as far as my 2 cents on that I’d hope we would quit attacking the often youthful Paul supporters as they are sincere and have legitimate points, and as Sarah Palin and others say, we dismiss the Paul movement at our own peril, and to O’s benefit.

Main thing, if you want some serious analytical feedback-imploring discussion of these polls today, see page 2 of this post for my 3 comments.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM

This is a thread about the horse race for 2012, my comments have all been on subject.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 4:08 PM

When people participate in the Republican nominating process but then refuse to support the nominee, that’s the very definition of RINO, isn’t it?

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Which is exactly the whole Ron Paul thing has been so bizarre in the first place. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and only became “Republican” in order to split off some votes in his desperate search for some sort of legitimacy. he never intended or dreamed he would be the nominee, nor have even more than a small sliver of his supporters been supportive of voting for the eventual nominee if it wasn’t going to be Ron Paul. It was a ridiculous joke from the beginning. In policy he is just as close to the left as to the right.

As much as I didn’t like Romney being foisted on us, when you allow non-competitive un-serious jerks like Ron Paul in the race, it crowds out oxygen for other thinking humans. At this point he hasn’t even been able to provide an original of his Certificate of Alien Birth. How legitimate could he be?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 4:09 PM

and as Sarah Palin and others say, we dismiss the Paul movement at our own peril, and to O’s benefit.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Yes…but it’s always at “our” peril. All of these small fringes we cater to until we are the no-direction party just like the democrats. Tents can only be so big until it’s chaos. Aren’t we close to that now? If Ron Paul had such a great message hows come he can’t get any traction as the Libertarian candidate?

Never is anything at Paul’s supporters peril. They have legitimate arguments. But they have completely wackjob arguments too. And most of their legitimate arguments are things that conservative people and candidates been pointing out for decades. We didn’t know the budget was out of control? Gosh thanks, Ron, we just didn’t know. The Federal Reserve plays politics? Gosh, who knew? Why would the Republican party bend to a group that has no loyalty to it. This is the problem. The party has bent until it is nearly unrecognisable. North-East Elite vs. East Texas Wacko. Is there really any difference other than neither if these things are the Republican party that we want?

The point is the Paulestinians can’t fall in line ever. Because they aren’t part of the same line. Our peril is not in not keeping them happy, our peril is to water down a conservative message again and even more, and cow-tow to every nut-job that comes along – or they will take their votes elsewhere. They were never going to vote for the Republican if it wasn’t Ron Paul in the first place. Isn’t that pretty clear after reading this thread?

At this point, isn’t part of that message: “Hey look, just slightly conservative Romney is wiping the floor with Obama.”? I wonder what a fiscal conservative with some sense of social conservatism would be doing with Obama at this point. He (or She) would be farther ahead.

Also part of that message is that in a three-way poll, Ron Paul lags massively and Romney still comes out on top. Does anybody really think that all of those Ron Paul poll percentages come directly from Romney only?

Does anybody really think if Paul was the presumptive nominee, that the polls wouldn’t be Obama in a 30% lead?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

When people participate in the Republican nominating process but then refuse to support the nominee, that’s the very definition of RINO, isn’t it?

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM

YUP!!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Ron Paul is winning the caucuses. It’s your guy that is the loser.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Delusional.

So, when Romney officially becomes the nominee, are you going to support him or are you a RINO?

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 4:53 PM

….Does anybody really think if Paul was the presumptive nominee, that the polls wouldn’t be Obama in a 30% lead?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

i agree with about 95% of what you said…except this last part. if its a 2-way paul/obama…i give it to obama, a little more close: 45/54. 45% will vote for a tomato can before they vote for obama. and RP qualifies under that stipulation; i think.

t8stlikchkn on May 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

45% will vote for a tomato can before they vote for obama. and RP qualifies under that stipulation; i think.

t8stlikchkn on May 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Well, I agree about the tomato can. But Ron Paul is more of a can of mixed fruit. How would a can of mixed fruit stack up to Obama?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 5:16 PM

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Does R Paul represent a radical fringe, or with just a little moderation here and there, the wave of the future? Even people like Hannity have said straightup that “I agree with Paul on domestic policy.” ?? Is Hannity of the fringe? Ron Paul’s foreign policy seems off the mark, and in truth his domestic policy has got to trimmed of the ultra-extremes.

Anyway, I’m not thrilled with Romney either, but that’s who we ended up with in a fair battle, I’m afraid. All the other horses were terrible. We got what we got, and an O reelection could bias the Supreme Court for a generation, making leveling disruptive Wealth Taxes of 10% yearly or more possible, in California, and the nation. Think about what Van Jones wants, and that’s where we could head with another O victory.

And I agree with you that polls involving Paul as a contender in this race are going to overestimate his support, as O would make mincemeat of Paul’s “extremist” anti-welfare-state positions. Many of Paul’s left-learning guileless supporters think that Paul is a big govt guy, so the revelation that that’s completely backward would come as a rude surprise.

In no way do I suggest we kowtow to Paul. But we could give them a break; a lot of them are youthful, and we could either be the “bigger man” and ignore comments that get our gander, or just don’t call them nuts and insult them.

It costs us nothing to at least be civil and nice. Not a cent.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Um..yes he does represent the radical fringe. Ron Paul domestic policy is self evident isn’t it? Nor is it terribly original.

Civil? I’m done being civil with nut-jobs. It’s all of this cowtowing to these people that got us where we are, one little civility at a time. How is it civil to make wild accusations that millions of people and all of the primary states are involved in some sort of conspiracy to deprive the wildly popular Ron Paul of the nomination? I’d say that is offensive, abrasive and rude and slanderous towards millions of people.

I’d say not only is that uncivil, but it should be met with the utmost UN-civility possible.

To support a man that will support the idea that Iran can have a nuclear program and it’s none of our business, is uncivil. Take all of his very un-original domestic policy and implement it. Whatever good it would do, take one Iranian bomb over Tel-Aviv and the whole world unravels. Armageddon. We’ll weep for the days when we had federal reserve policy disagreements. His very un-original Domestic policy won’t matter much then, will it?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Floating flotsam almost rises to the level of thought on occasionn

derecho on May 11, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Nor is it terribly original.

I understand that R Paul is perhaps 100% John Birch. I’m not sure about that, but he’s got similar views on most things, and I don’t know if JBirch’s foreign policy is that extreme?

But I still hold out hope, oldroy, that you will try to be civil and nice with the Paulers, even if they sometimes insult us. I am not a Paul supporter. Does Sarah Palin think Paul is extreme? Yes.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 5:48 PM

We got what we got, and an O reelection could bias the Supreme Court for a generation, making leveling disruptive Wealth Taxes of 10% yearly or more possible, in California, and the nation.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Romney doesn’t have nearly as many delegates as the media says and Ron Paul has a lot more than they say. If Ron Paul defeats Romney through the delegate strategy it is every bit as legitimate as when Ronald Reagan tried the same thing against Ford and almost succeeded.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Looks like gay marriage isn’t such a winning issue for the Democrats after all

Stoic Patriot on May 11, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Go ahead and smear me, Bizarro, you can’t defeat my argument so that’s all you can do, but just be aware that I consider it a victory every time one of you stoop to that level. It just further proves my point how Romney and Obama and their follower are all so much alike. Hope and Change.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:49 PM

You put me in my place good and well, didn’t ya? lol

Deciding that someone is negative and delusional because you believe you have good reason to is no more ad hominem argumentation than saying 0bamessiah is a lying moron. I could debate you, but I should first decide that it’d be worth my time, shouldn’t I?

You don’t follow linear thought very well, you don’t seem much interested in the opinions of others, and you act as though your convinced that it is impossible for you to be wrong i.e. discussions with you are tedious, uninvolving, and you take yourself too seriously for me! If you wanted to pique my attention in order to debate me, you could start by admitting that you’re a flawed human being like the rest of us, and acknowledge that you may have blind spots you don’t notice about yourself, but are seen by others.

Until I see a change in you, you keep on cherishing your imaginary “victories” over me, and I will continue to believe that you are an unhinged Paulbot misfit, an unhealthily obsessive devotee who reminds me of the Palinistas*, overzealous fanatics with terrible observational skills on the prowl for anyone who wasn’t as enamored of Sarah as they themselves were. Sounds like a great deal for both of us, doesn’t it?! :)

*to head off a potential misunderstanding: to earn the label “Palinista” in my book, it takes more than an adoration of Palin – it requires hypocrisy and bad manners in defense of her as well!

Bizarro No. 1 on May 11, 2012 at 8:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3