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

Archivarix on May 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Cuomo I will grant some future potential, but he has not governed like Obama. Bayh’s ship might sailed away by temporary pulling out of politics. His best shot was to stay and oppose Obama from within the party. The potential you speak of is inspite of Obama not because of him.

mwbri on May 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM

The monthly party affiliation numbers for April were “Republicans 35.1%, Democrats 33.1%, Unaffiliateds 31.8%”. The Republican number was down from 36.4% in March.

That is pretty close to 33/36/31.

I wonder if the party affiliation numbers are for all adults, registered voters, or likely voters.

WhatNot on May 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I’ve been looking for those numbers. Do you have a link?

topdog on May 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I guess Obama’s laser-like focus and pivot to JOBS, JOBS, JOBS last January hasn’t really worked out too well for him – or the rest of the Dems. It’s amusing, but rather appalling, that he’s now mum on the issue since his record on job creation has been absolutely terrible. The %-unemployed needle refuses to budge downward at an accelerating rate just in time for Nov 6th. It isn’t going to happen.

Bob in VA on May 11, 2012 at 12:29 PM

Um…what does that have to do with the topic?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Because polls are another way of counting people without faces. When the votes of real people with faces are counted open and transparently, so the GOP establishment can’t cheat, Ron Paul wins. The establishment candidate, that few people like thus people switched from one candidate to another, but never to Romney, only wins when the votes are counted by the GOP machine behind closed doors.

My comment was also about the race for the WH so is on topic in that regard as well.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM

I guess Obama’s laser-like focus and pivot to JOBS, JOBS, JOBS last January hasn’t really worked out too well for him – or the rest of the Dems.

I thought that Obama did a pivot to JOBS, JOBS, JOBs in the summer of 2009. Or was it in 2010? Or in 2011?

Old Fritz on May 11, 2012 at 12:34 PM

The monthly party affiliation numbers for April were “Republicans 35.1%, Democrats 33.1%, Unaffiliateds 31.8%”. The Republican number was down from 36.4% in March.

That is pretty close to 33/36/31.

I wonder if the party affiliation numbers are for all adults, registered voters, or likely voters.

WhatNot on May 11, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I’ve been looking for those numbers. Do you have a link?

topdog on May 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Ed posted the breakdown above, I think you need subscription access to see the c-tabs. I believe Rasmussen uses a “Likely Voter” profile.

novaculus on May 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I guess Obama’s laser-like focus and pivot to JOBS, JOBS, JOBS last January hasn’t really worked out too well for him – or the rest of the Dems.

Yes, the pivot. O’s pivot is a 360 degree spin right back to re-election bid.

LetsBfrank on May 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

I just prefer to keep him away from the War Room. As painfully honest as his foreign and immigration policies may be, they are thoroughly disgusting to most Republicans and Independents.

Archivarix on May 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Suit yourself, but you are only one person and your view is not the majority view in county and state caucuses where Ron Paul is winning.

And just because there are a minority of people in the GOP that don’t like Ron Paul does not give them a right to cheat so that they can preserve the status quo which is more to their liking.

If you lose the will of the people because Bush’s foreign policy didn’t work out very well in hindsight, tough luck. Your side will just have to try harder to convince people to give you back power again the American way through our electoral system.

If all the millions Romney has collected from his corporate cronies doesn’t pay off, to bad, they don’t get a bailout through cheating. If they lose fair and square the lose fair and square.

But winning through cheating is illegitimate and un-American. If Romney wins the nomination by cheating, he will be illegitimate.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Come to think of it, perhaps there’s more to winning elections than just being painfully honest…

Archivarix on May 11, 2012 at 12:10 PM

or like Bubba put it to dear wife, ‘loyalty in politics whadat, get outta here’ :-)…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 12:40 PM

And how does an extreme narcissist react to rejection on this level? Is Barry in a straitjacket by August with Biden as acting President?

It’s not impossible…

As I’ve said repeatedly and in print, going back to Oct 2008, Cpt B+ will not be president by September, and so will not stand for re-election in November.

We’ll see.

Dirty Creature on May 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Backlash!

That’s the upshot of O’s pro-Gay maneuvers. Ramussen tracker has O’s approval at minus 11. Huge, and a 4 point drop in 1 day. A lot of Repubs seem willing to “concede” on gay marriage, thinking by doing that it will help them win the election(s). That’s incorrect. It won’t help in the slightest. Stand our ground on this issue that defines a society in the process of politically correct degeneration, or be cowardly faceless losers.

Another thing that gets me is the stories I’m hearing of the people who only contributed $ to the Prop 8 (anti gay marriage) campaign in CA. These people were targeted by the gays, and often even forced to resign from their jobs. What is next? How much will they take? I hear also that homosexual to heterosexual sexual harrassment / assaults are becoming more common, and in cases this could be turned around where the victim (heterosexual) is given the spin around, and accused of being the assaulter against the gay… a hate crime!

End the slide toward normal people getting the shaft.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

novaculus on May 11, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Thank you!

topdog on May 11, 2012 at 12:41 PM

But honestly, this poll’s R +3 is silly. 2010 wasn’t even that good.

Chuck Schick on May 11, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The poll has a R +3?!?!? Wait a minute. When polls have a crazy skewed Dem sample Ed Morrissey does a great analysis, line by line of the flawed methodology. Here he accepts the poll as unvarnished truth. I am beginning to suspect that Ed may be a hack.

libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

I think a fed inmate getting 41% against him hurts, too. It cut Obama down to size and served as a reality check that there really are a lot of people, even Democrats, who can’t stomach Obama.

WannabeAnglican on May 11, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Is it just me or is Obama diminished each and every day? For example, you can’t look Presidential when you are out there saying you forget just how many Americans have been put out of work by Obama’s policies. You don’t appear Presidential when you lead from behind on gay marriage. By November, he seem the pathetic moron he has always been.

Happy Nomad on May 11, 2012 at 12:43 PM

The link I posted was of angryed’s great-grandfather.

Here is the link to yesterday’s thread.

Del Dolemonte on May 11, 2012 at 12:24 PM

lol :-) I figured :-)… I saw the link at the end of your first post and assumed that it was of the yesterday thread before I clicked on it :-)…found the bully thread myself and must admit some of the things that angry idiot said there were hardly palatable, but seeing him in total melt dtown mode was gratifying :-)…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Ron Paul wins…..

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Oh brother….. you are delusional. This is the problem with you Paulestinians. You try to glom on to anything you can and then flail at people with wild illogical conspiracy rants. And then you cry a river. Enough already. Just because he can astro-turf a caucus doesn’t mean he can win anything. Just because he can astro-turf internet chats doesn’t mean anything.

Your boy Ron Paul is a freaking idiot. How does Ron Paul being a freaking racist idiot have anything to do with Romney being ahead of Obama in the Rasmussen poll? It’s over and done. Romney is the nominee. And win or lose for Romney come November, Ron Paul will still be a freaking racist idiot, and he will never be able to win any nomination, caucuses or not.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Just because he can astro-turf a caucus

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 12:46 PM

That’s a preposterous statement and is quite impossible. You’re the conspiracy nut.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

The ObaMarxists are freaking out because Zero’s popularity is supposed to make up for his incompetence.

Losing ain’t cool so the Obama Marketing Department (Washington Post) and shameless brown-nosers like David Corn are desperately trying the high-school pranks diversion. Now, even that silly tactic is collapsing.

viking01 on May 11, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Just because he can astro-turf a caucus doesn’t mean he can win anything. Just because he can astro-turf internet chats doesn’t mean anything.

So say you, but the fact that it’s impossible to astro-turf a caucus and he keeps winning the caucuses disproves your other claim that his support is only astro-turf. His grass roots support in the real world has been proven at the caucuses, which he keeps winning, so there is no reason to assume that his grass-roots on the Internet isn’t also real. You are only trying to smear and dismiss his supporters, and the facts are not on your side.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:54 PM

That’s a preposterous statement and is quite impossible. You’re the conspiracy nut.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

So getting people to a caucus is the be-all end-all of fairness and a predictor of how a candidate would do in a fair general election? So you are guessing that all of the people who don’t show up to a caucus just wouldn’t vote in the general election because they didn’t care enough to go to the caucus? Really?

So you think a caucus, where literally dozens of Ron Paul supporters show up is some kind of indicator of anything other than Ron Paul supporters some how thinking their few dozen opinions matter more than 10′s of thousands of primary voters?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

His fawning media parasites will do their best to provide the much needed distrations—anything but the serious issues the entire nation is facing. (Wapo’s 5000 word yellow jounalism story of Romney’s “pranks” that may have happened 40+ years ago, is a perfect example of the desperation the liberal left is in).

We can expect the NY Times to produce a sordid tale of Mitt’s “other transgressions” some time in October.

At least with Mitt we should be pretty safe from any stories regarding alcohol, drugs, DUI, marital infidelity, etc. The personal stuff will likely not pan out.

Expect to see stuff about business practices, and of course, religion.

FuzzyLogic on May 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

I am beginning to suspect that Ed may be a hack.

libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Ed is hard-working and professional, and he provides great commentary and analysis. Ed actually puts these polls in a useful context, and notes the critical demos.

I don’t have to suspect what this poster is, I know.

novaculus on May 11, 2012 at 12:59 PM

So say you, but the fact that it’s impossible to astro-turf a caucus and he keeps winning the caucuses disproves your other claim that his support is only astro-turf. His grass roots support in the real world has been proven at the caucuses, which he keeps winning, so there is no reason to assume that his grass-roots on the Internet isn’t also real. You are only trying to smear and dismiss his supporters, and the facts are not on your side.

You can say many things about Ron Paul, but “astroturf support” is not one of them. His support is the proverbial mile-deep but inch-wide. A caucus, where a small number of dedicated supporters can heavily influence results, is the prime place for him.

An election, which requires some actual broad support, is not.

FuzzyLogic on May 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support…

Hmmmmmmmm…

… 50% – 43% = ?

+7%…!!!

:)

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

To paraphrase Bill Clinton, Obama is an incompetent, an amateur, who doesn’t know how to be president.

And more and more people are starting to see that.

AZCoyote on May 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM

If you are referring to Edward Klein’s book named “The Amateur”, the Clintons deny these statements.

The book’s explosive claims were shot down last night by spokesmen for the White House and the Clintons, who closed ranks last night.

Bill Clinton’s spokesman Matt McKenna said the excerpts were “totally and completely false” and called Klein “a known liar.”

Phillipe Reines, a spokesman for the secretary of state, noted that Hillary Clinton challenged the veracity of an earlier book Klein wrote about her, “Truth About Hillary.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz accused Klein of making up facts to sell books.

“Nobody in their right mind would believe the nonsense in this one, especially since both Secretary Clinton and President Clinton have been loyal and supportive of the president at every turn.”

Klein, a former editor of The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, defended the book and his earlier one as factually sound.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bill_blockbuster_an_amateur_XJHYdaV5LT1vpr5I39IKrN

timberline on May 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

So why can’t the nutty little Doctor ever win enough actual at the ballot box primary votes to lead and win the nomination? Did we all cheat? Did every one of the primary states cheat? Did they cheat by tens of thousands of votes?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I still don’t care for national polls, even Rasmussen.

FL, VA, and NC are all a dead heat, and Obama still seems to be 3-4% ahead in OH and maybe 6% ahead in PA, and even Rasmussen has Obama carrying NV by 8% as of 12 days ago.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Remember when Clintoon said of Obungler “A few years back he’d be getting us coffee”…..?

viking01 on May 11, 2012 at 1:09 PM

This poll pleases me, so I choose to believe it.

EddieC on May 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM

You can say many things about Ron Paul, but “astroturf support” is not one of them.

FuzzyLogic on May 11, 2012 at 1:02 PM

But that is exactly what caucuses are. An attempt to use a few people to make it look like a much more sizable block of votes exists – if it weren’t so, then caucus winners would always be primary winners. It’s the caucuses that need to be done away with. And the primaries should be held on the same day.

But….what does that have to do with the Rasmussen poll?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

. I am beginning to suspect that Ed may be a hack.

libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Be careful, libby. Ed has a short fuse for blasphemy and personal insults. Methinks you are on the bane short list. Now drop and gimmie 50.

timberline on May 11, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I think he should establish an Office of The Lame Duck President in November.

It nicely closes the circle on this jerk.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on May 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM

..close this down folks! This here’s the winner!

If a Romney victory eventuates, someone’s gotta do this! Only trouble is that the SCOAMF would actually latch onto it and take that into “retirement”. And how pathetic would that be?

The War Planner on May 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Obama only has himself to blame for these poll numbers. While Romney winning is bad for me personally, it may be good for liberalism in general since “conservative rule” over the next 4 years will be even more failed than the first Obama administration and folks will start to learn their lesson about rampant corporatism.. We’ll see.

libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Sitting there in the ivory tower of academia you just don’t get the reality out here, do you?

There are over 15 million people in this country who are presently unemployed, but would desperately like to be. For many their extended unemployment benefits have essentially run out, and there is no money left to give them. They know who to blame this time.

No matter how much the liberals spin the “improving” economy those 15 million people know otherwise. They are living the reality.

No matter how much the liberals spin the green-energy economy, and kill coal mining and energy generation and oil pipe lines and oil and gas drilling those 15 million people know otherwise. They are living the reality.

No matter how much the liberals attempt to divert attention to a “war on women” and gay marriage those 15 million people know what THEIR real problem is. They are living the reality.

Guess what Ms. liberal professor. Those 15 million people are going to vote the reality in November, and they remember those corporations that used to employ them, when they were allowed to do such a thing.

Yoop on May 11, 2012 at 1:12 PM

This poll pleases me, so I choose to believe it.

EddieC on May 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM

LOL

timberline on May 11, 2012 at 1:13 PM

So getting people to a caucus is the be-all end-all of fairness and a predictor of how a candidate would do in a fair general election?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 12:56 PM

You falsely alleged that Ron Paul’s support in the caucuses and the Internet are “astro-turf” which means they are paid fakes. You are a liar, Ron Paul’s support is genuine, that’s why he keeps winning and Romney keeps losing when real voters with faces are counted in the caucuses and Romney can only wins when the GOP machine counts the ballots secretly behind closed doors.

We know for an absolute fact that Romney/GOP establishment people have cheated on numerous documented occasions in the caucuses to cheat Ron Paul out of legitimate victories, and I feel confident that they’ve probably likewise during the primary votes behind closed doors where they didn’t get caught.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:17 PM

and I feel confident that they’ve probably done likewise during the primary votes which are counted behind closed doors where they didn’t get caught.

The RNC is also violating long established Republican Party rules that they can’t support a candidate if there is still another candidate in the race.

Ryance Prebus or however you spell it should be fired for violating the rules and ethics of the Republican Party.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:20 PM

So the RNC is now and remains in violation of Republican Party rules by supporting Romney before he’s actually won while there is another candidate in the race.

This is just further proof that the RNC and the GOP are cheaters and that these aren’t isolated incidents at all, the come right from the top.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wow 50% of the country are braindead RINO mittwitts trying to force their establishment on the rest of the country. That’s what I get from that.

Swerve22 on May 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Another thing that gets me is the stories I’m hearing of the people who only contributed $ to the Prop 8 (anti gay marriage) campaign in CA. These people were targeted by the gays, and often even forced to resign from their jobs…
.

This is a big deal. Even conservatives seem to say that though they be against most McCain style campaign finance limitations, they qualify that, as if to suggest they are of the “enlightened,” by saying that “it should all be transparent, all contributors should be listed on the internet immediately.”

Bad bad idea. Like unions that push for ending free anonymous elections, even I am deterred by a sense that any $ i give could be held against me.

Freedom to give $ is also the freedom to be anonymous, to not be tarred and feathered for your humble good-intentioned donation. Fight for this.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney earning 50% of the vote and President Obama attracting 43% support…
Hmmmmmmmm…
50% – 43% = ?
+7%…!!!
:)
Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM

While this is good news, it’s still “wait and see” as the months roll along. But looking at the chart at RCP, it looks like Romney’s overall trendline is up and Obama’s down since February. This follows the same pattern Romney established vs. his assorted primary opponents.

whatcat on May 11, 2012 at 1:27 PM

As the polls get gloomier for Obama, watch out for some wag-the-dog event or game-changing action by him as a hail mary. Something along the lines of “Biden is unable to run as VP due to health issues, so ______ replaces him.” or some uprising (domestic or abroad) that, by some miraculous coincidence, only he can and does quell.

AverageJoe on May 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

If you are referring to Edward Klein’s book named “The Amateur”, the Clintons deny these statements.

The book’s explosive claims were shot down last night by spokesmen for the White House and the Clintons, who closed ranks last night.

Bill Clinton’s spokesman Matt McKenna said the excerpts were “totally and completely false” and called Klein “a known liar.”

Phillipe Reines, a spokesman for the secretary of state, noted that Hillary Clinton challenged the veracity of an earlier book Klein wrote about her, “Truth About Hillary.”

Klein, a former editor of The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, defended the book and his earlier one as factually sound.

timberline on May 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM

..firstly, timber, I realize this is a screen-scrape of the NY Post article on the boo. (Nothing wrong with that, just didn’t want you to think I was rebutting you.)

But, simply, would one have expected the Clintons and Obama’s people to respond to a Regnery publication with something like, “Wow, we got busted. They just nailed us”?

Of course they’re gonna close ranks.

But one wonders why a former NYT guy would write such a book.

Also, from his Wiki bio (with a whole lotta emphasizin’ goin’ on):

Klein is the former foreign editor of Newsweek and former editor in chief of The New York Times Magazine. He frequently contributes to Vanity Fair and Parade; he has a weekly column in Parade called “Personality Parade” under the pseudonym “Walter Scott”. Many of his books have been on The New York Times Bestseller list.

There’s not a lot of NRO or Weekly Standard here so one begins to wonder. I mean, why would someone with his pedigree write about Obama and Clinton like this?

Regnery is a noted right-wing hit-piece publishing house. Why Klein?

Inquiring minds? Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire? Tippecanoe and Tyler too?

The War Planner on May 11, 2012 at 1:30 PM

I am beginning to suspect that Ed may be a hack.
libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Ed doesn’t care what you suspect. Ed doesn’t give a whit.

whatcat on May 11, 2012 at 1:32 PM

FloatingRock – You have no idea that his is exactly why people get turned of about Ron Paul? You have no chance. So you cry a river. It’s not fair. Boo-hoo.

Can you people ever talk ideas and policy? Nope. Because you have to talk about Ron Paul’s ideas and policies. And that is why he can’t get votes and never will.

You just go right on claiming it’s not fair, because that is all you’ve got. Sing it from the mountaintops. “We can’t get votes and it’s just not fair.”

boo-hoo….boohoohoo….

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

This is just further proof that the RNC and the GOP are cheaters and that these aren’t isolated incidents at all, the come right from the top.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:23 PM

The truth is that the MSM is the mouthpiece of the establishment and it still holds more sway over public opinion and perception than the Internet, and people are desperate to get rid of Obama so they’ll vote for whoever they’re told to if they want to get rid of Obama, even knowing they’re eating a $#!7 sandwich.

Unfortunately that attitude is a trap that allows the failed status quo to stop patriotic Americans from fixing the problems our country faces.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:36 PM

While this is good news, it’s still “wait and see” as the months roll along. But looking at the chart at RCP, it looks like Romney’s overall trendline is up and Obama’s down since February. This follows the same pattern Romney established vs. his assorted primary opponents.

whatcat on May 11, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Really though, Obama seems to be pulling his punches with Romney. Mitt’s biggest weaknesses are his propensity for flip-flopping, and Obama has been focusing his attacks on all of this piddly-nothing level stuff that voters don’t care about.

So far, even in the primaries, Romney hasn’t had to deal with a well-funded sustained assault on his record and endlessly changing positions. Once the Campaigns and PACs really start trying to paint each nominee as a serial liar, we’ll have a much better idea of what November will look like.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Andrew Cuomo and Evan Bayh are young, energetic, and very popular Democrats who will likely be challenging Romney in 2016.

Archivarix on May 11, 2012 at 12:20 PM

Andrew Cuomo is to NY what Obama is the America. Personally popular, but our state is a mess. He has gotten his legislative agenda passed to what effect? #1 in education spending, 36 in graduation rates; #1 in Medicaid; NYC is home to the 60% black abortions rate; 48th in new business creation. Businesses and people leaving the state. Wall Street jobs are moving to NJ. We’ve lost 2 congressional seats in 10 years. Oh, but we have gay marriage, so there’s that…

Republicans will have a decent candidate in 2014.

monalisa on May 11, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Can you people ever talk ideas and policy? Nope.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 1:33 PM

You have no idea, that’s all I ever do! I talk about the problems our country faces and how they can be addressed and resolved and in return all I get is name calling and ridiculous straw-man arguments. Nobody that supports Romney ever tries to argue with me on Romney’s merits or the merits of their own principles, they don’t seem to have any.

I’ve had good debates about stuff with Palin supporters and Santorum supporters and even Perry and Newt supporters, but in all of my time no Romney supporter has really refuted anything I’ve said, because what I say is true. All they do is attack me, not the problems that our country faces.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:43 PM

So why can’t the nutty little Doctor ever win enough actual at the ballot box primary votes to lead and win the nomination?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Because those are the votes that the GOP establishment machine counts behind closed doors, the same GOP establishment machine that has been caught cheating at caucuses all around the country, and still they lose.

They’ve tried but so far haven’t been able to get away with cheating at the caucuses because there are so many witnesses from all sides. No so for the primary votes.

I’m not saying they’re all fraudulent, only that some of them probably are if the GOP’s foul play in the caucuses is any indication—and it probably is.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

The poll has a R +3?!?!? Wait a minute. When polls have a crazy skewed Dem sample Ed Morrissey does a great analysis, line by line of the flawed methodology. Here he accepts the poll as unvarnished truth. I am beginning to suspect that Ed may be a hack.

libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Ed posts the positive polls, Allah the negative. I wouldn’t call it hackery.

I don’t at all believe Romney’s up 7, but the trend of the polls is unmistakably going in his favor. And alot of these polls are total jokes, like AP’s presposterous D +12.

RCP

HuffPo/Pollster

Pollster hasn’t added this one yet.

Chuck Schick on May 11, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Really though, Obama seems to be pulling his punches with Romney. Mitt’s biggest weaknesses are his propensity for flip-flopping, and Obama has been focusing his attacks on all of this piddly-nothing level stuff that voters don’t care about.

So far, even in the primaries, Romney hasn’t had to deal with a well-funded sustained assault on his record and endlessly changing positions. Once the Campaigns and PACs really start trying to paint each nominee as a serial liar, we’ll have a much better idea of what November will look like.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Bless your heart!

Now go outside and play with the other children.

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I’m not saying they’re all fraudulent, only that some of them probably are if the GOP’s foul play in the caucuses is any indication—and it probably is.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Here’s the thing-Romney’s up by millions of votes. The votes counted in the Republican primaries thus far would have to be mostly fraudulent (not just some, but the majority)-in every precinct, in every state- for Ron Paul to be the real winner. I don’t think so. Polls aren’t the final answer, elections are, but Paul’s never polled anywhere near well enough to be the overall winner. So for you to be correct in your assertion that Paul has the highest degree of support of all the Republican presidential candidates this year and has only been vanquished by a grand GOP conspiracy, almost every poll must be wrong or corrupt and essentially every election must be corrupt.

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

It nicely closes the circle on this jerk.

ICanSeeNovFromMyHouse on May 11, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Heh. Nice. That includes all of his circle, ahem, his “czars”. How very un-American a concept. Czars.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Ron Paul is retired.

-

As for the polls, put that in your pipe and smoke it, as my sainted mother used to say.

smellthecoffee on May 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM

for you to be correct in your assertion that Paul has the highest degree of support of all the Republican presidential candidates this year and has only been vanquished by a grand GOP conspiracy, almost every poll must be wrong or corrupt and essentially every election must be corrupt.

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

I’m a Ron Paul supporter who was bribed by the Pennsylvania RNC to vote Romney last month. They gave me a new Prius paid for by Bain Capital & Halliburton. I feel so…tainted.

LOL!

DRayRaven on May 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Maybe they are, who knows. All I know is that when real people are counted in an open process that anybody can get involved in, Ron Paul wins. When the votes are counted behind closed doors, the GOP establishment wins. The same GOP establishment that shows little interest in following the rules even at the national level. It is against the rules of the Republican Party to support Romney in the primary while Ron Paul is still in the race and Romney hasn’t won.

The RNC is violating it’s rules, and so on down the line to the state and country level.

Winners don’t have to cheat, that’s the losers gambit.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

country level = county level

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The votes counted in the Republican primaries thus far would have to be mostly fraudulent (not just some, but the majority)-in every precinct, in every state-

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:02 PM

This is a logical flaw in your argument. What I’m saying is that a little bit of vote rigging back in an early state like New Hampshire, where Ron Paul was in second place (according to the GOP establishment), could swing the entire race. If Ron Paul had won New Hampshire then Ron Paul might have surged into the lead as the not-Romney candidate.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Maybe they are, who knows.
FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I’m a Ron Paul supporter who was bribed by the Pennsylvania RNC to vote Romney last month. They gave me a new Prius paid for by Bain Capital & Halliburton. I feel so…tainted.

LOL!

DRayRaven on May 11, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Not only are they corrupt, but other than DRayRaven, all the conspirators (and there would need to be at least thousands to fake every precinct) have kept remarkably quiet-no leaks. It just doesn’t seem likely.

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Nobody isn’t saying the the Republican Establishment types don’t need to be sent packing. Yes, they over-supported Romney through this whole thing. But at the end of the day this non-Romney supporter, will vote Romney – I’ won’t even have to hold my nose. And also at the end of the day, even though I wished for better candidates from the beginning, nobody stepped up to the plate except for Romney. He had did the homework, he built an organisation to finish and win. Nobody else did, gosh darnit.

Ron Paul won’t be the nominee. Are you going to vote for Romney, or are you going to punish the country – maybe to a point that we can never recover from?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Maybe the GOP only had to cheat Ron Paul out of one or two wins, in secret, but if there hadn’t been any cheating and he had won one or more early primary votes, then everything is off the table that’s happened since then and the race could have gone quite differently.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:18 PM

This is a logical flaw in your argument. What I’m saying is that a little bit of vote rigging back in an early state like New Hampshire, where Ron Paul was in second place (according to the GOP establishment), could swing the entire race. If Ron Paul had won New Hampshire then Ron Paul might have surged into the lead as the not-Romney candidate.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:16 PM

If Ron Paul was a really strong candidate, he could have overcome a little vote rigging in an early state-look at Santorum who did well mid race.

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:20 PM

BTW, I would have voted for Paul over Obama. Paul has some interesting ideas. My fantasy is for Romney to beat Obama and make Paul head of the Fed.

talkingpoints on May 11, 2012 at 2:22 PM

See, notice Ed puts up these polls and Allahpundit only puts up polls favorable to Obama.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

The point is that the caucus system should be strengthened so to help prevent cheating in the future. The primary votes are extremely suspect.

Ron Paul grass roots have proven that they are real. If anything it is Romney whose support is “astro-turf”.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I’m not saying they’re all fraudulent, only that some of them probably are if the GOP’s foul play in the caucuses is any indication—and it probably is.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 1:48 PM

So, the good Dr. is such a strong candidate that he is running only slightly behind the front runner.

Oh, wait,
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

FR, you are only deluding yourself.

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM

“Caucuses are better because anybody can get involved.”

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Uh, no, sorry but that statement strikes me as foolish.

Caucuses ALWAYS result in less voter participation than primaries, always. The rules are less clear and straight forward, which makes it more difficult for individuals to participate in them. Because fewer people are involved, caucuses favor the candidate with the most enthusiastic supporters. As such the decision to come out of a caucus is typically less democratic.

Which of course is just fine, if you’re a Ron Paul supporter trying to overturn the result of a fair election. 9_9;

Besides, its not as if grass roots candidates can’t win primaries. Look at what happened in Indiana for crying out loud.

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM

So, the good Dr. is such a strong candidate that he is running only slightly behind the front runner.

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 2:26 PM

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. You just made that up, it’s what’s known as a straw-man argument, which Obama and his supporters, as well as Romney and his supporters, are well known for.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

See, notice Ed puts up these polls and Allahpundit only puts up polls favorable to Obama.

The Notorious G.O.P on May 11, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Ed is a ‘the glass is half-full kind of guy”, I assume AP/Eeyore is a ‘glass is half empty kind of guy” when it comes to polls.

Plus the polls have been more favorable here lately, and maybe AP just can’t get into a happy mood about it yet. But given time he’ll come over from the dark side.

But you gotta hand it to Ed. He does the math on these things. The Captain does his homework.

Most interesting thing about the polling on the day was what Dick Morris has to say. I guess I don’t always agree with him, but Dick Morris usually/mostly (75%) gets these things right.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

FR, you are only deluding yourself.

Even if the good Dr. got ALL of the remaining delegates, he would still have LESS than Romney.

Gunlock Bill on May 11, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Seemingly in response to the O’s gay actions, Rasmussen shows O dropping to minus 11 approval, and tracking further down vs Rasmussen. But Gallop is showing a track in the opposite direction! I trust Rasmussen, and I’ll explain.

I ask you all, though, what is difference between Gallup & Rasmussen trackers? I’ve been trying to figure this out since ’08.

My tentative unsubstantiated thinking on it. It’s a feeling: Rasmussen gets more independents, while Gallop has perhaps an older crowd of more traditional Repubs and Dems.

Also, for some reason and I’m not sure why, Rasmussen seems to be quicker to get the trend right. Gallop seems to lag, as if the people that make up their sample are slightly slow (word choice?) voters who take their time in changing their minds, but do ultimately change their mind. If I am correct on this, gallop’s O popularity tracker and the presidential election tracker should soon see them ticking Romney’s way, in a couple of days.

Any thoughts on the difference between Gallop & Rasmussen?

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Dude, this is the Republican Party which is supposed to embody Republican principles. The caucus system is at the heart of that, and as it turns out it is more democratic than a secret vote because it’s harder to cheat! If you don’t like the Republican Party, go elsewhere. Pure democracy is mob rule where the rights of the minority go unheeded. I don’t want to live under tyranny, and my forebears fought in American wars to preserve our freedoms and I’m not about to give that up. Frankly, even the Democrat Party is republican enough that they use a caucus system as well, so you’re going to have to go 3rd party if you want pure democracy, because even the Democrats aren’t that stupid.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

There is no barrier to people getting involved in the caucus process. The system has been there for ages, it’s been used before, it’s all out in the open, any registered voter can get involved.

The reason that Romney is losing the caucuses is because his support is mostly astro-turf.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM

That’s the inconvenient truth that the corporate-media and the corporatist GOP establishment don’t want people to know. Romney’s support is mostly astro-turf. It is a fiction that has been created by the MSM and corporate ad buys therein.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Oh,incidentally. It should be noted that even +3 Republican isn’t outside the realm of possibility, it isn’t even close in fact. Keep in mind that in 2010 there were more incumbent senate democrats up for election, and a slight majority of them were up for election in states that traditionally went blue or slightly blue. Yet despite that inherent advantage Republicans still managed to tie in terms of turnout.

This time around the election will be spread across the entire country, including traditionally red states that did not come into play as heavily in 2010. That could easily give Republicans a slight boost in the overall ratio of voters.

Also keep in mind, that in the past six months Republicans have been more enthusiastic on average. That enthusiasm waned slightly near the end of the primary, but it appears its already starting to rebound somewhat.It’ll probably return to the average high held before the primaries got underway by the time we reach the convention.

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 2:40 PM

While I enjoy seeing Obama fall flat on his traitorous face as much as the next fellow, I must once again note that it is 179 days to the election, and there will be at least two daily tracking polls every single day until then, not to mention the myriad of other polls being released along the way. The total will probably exceed 500. The election won’t turn on any of the ones we are seeing now.

The reason for the difference between Rasmussen and Gallup is Scott is using likely voters while Gallup won’t switch to that model until the conventions, I think.

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. You just made that up, it’s what’s known as a straw-man argument, which Obama and his supporters, as well as Romney and his supporters, are well known for.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:28 PM

oh, shut up already, you’re becoming awfully boring with your constant O/T Crazy Dr posts…I am surprised that Ed did take (short lived) action against Canopfor for posting so-called off topic stuff, while you are off topic by default, with all this nonsense talk about Ron Paul and how he got robbed of votes (which he never got to begin with)…so stop flooding the threads with these absurd claims and go find yourself another hobby apart from Ron Paul….

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Whatever.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 2:46 PM

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I’m not off topic. This is a thread about the race for the White House. You are just trying to shut me up through force because you’re losing the discussion.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Hey, did you see that Romney has a sizable growing lead in the Polls. vs. Obama, the guy we all would like to see defeated? You going to vote for Romney “IF” he is the nominee?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

…And you’re also losing the caucuses where real people are counted in a verifiable way.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:51 PM

While I enjoy seeing Obama fall flat on his traitorous face as much as the next fellow, I must once again note that it is 179 days to the election, and there will be at least two daily tracking polls every single day until then, not to mention the myriad of other polls being released along the way. The total will probably exceed 500. The election won’t turn on any of the ones we are seeing now.

The reason for the difference between Rasmussen and Gallup is Scott is using likely voters while Gallup won’t switch to that model until the conventions, I think.

Adjoran on May 11, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Good luck starting an actual discussion, all I get is a Mittbot sticking his tongue out and then everything returns to Ronbot-on-Rombot. I can’t wait until Ras has Obama up by 3% a month from now and all the Mittbots are screaming that it’s too early to listen to the polls.

Buckshot Bill on May 11, 2012 at 2:53 PM

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM

You’re just gonna keep spewing out idiotic drivel aren’t you? As it happens, primaries aren’t pure democracies, but they are considerably more transparent than caucuses.

Fact of the matter is, fewer people participate in caucuses. While its true there aren’t any artificial barriers to participating, they are less convenient and more difficult to participate in, which drives down participation.

Besides, lets be honest. The only reason you like caucuses is because they benefit your candidate of choice. If the situation were reversed, you’d be decrying caucuses and holding up primaries as the superior nominating mechanism. I myself, wouldn’t like the situation if it were reversed, but I’d accept it. While I do agree that pure democracy isn’t desirable, the majority decision still needs to be respected as well.

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Whatever. Were all cheaters. Ron Paul is the only legitimate candidate. Yada yada.

For what it’s worth. I would have never voted for Ron Paul. I would have gone third party to Johnson before I’d vote Ron Paul. Hope that helps your disposition. Now you have proof that even googly-eyed Gary Johnson’s team is in on the conspiracy.

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM

Hey, did you see that Romney has a sizable growing lead in the Polls. vs. Obama, the guy we all would like to see defeated? You going to vote for Romney “IF” he is the nominee?

oldroy on May 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

If he can’t win the caucuses then his support will have proven to be astro-turf and even the primary votes are suspect because there has already been a lot of documented cheating on Romney’s behalf. I will not vote for a cheat and a fraud who is a virtual clone of Obama.

If Obama were the Republican nominee, would you vote for Obama?

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Can anybody put aside your other off-topic conversations long enough to answer the question I’m about to ask?

Namely, didn’t some blue states–maybe CA and MA–vote to award all their Electoral Votes to the winner of the Popular vote? If so, it would not necessarily be relevant to giving either candidate the victory as much as turning a Romney victory into a Romney blowout.

Any knowledge of this issue would be appreciated.

BTW, I like you FR, but November 6 is not a caucus. Dr Paul will not gain any votes through the belligerence nor persuasiveness of his supporters that day.

rwenger43 on May 11, 2012 at 2:59 PM

I’m not off topic. This is a thread about the race for the White House. You are just trying to shut me up through force because you’re losing the discussion.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Ron Paul is not in the race for the WH, get that into your head…this post is about how Romney polls against Obama, nothing to do with crazy uncle Paul, so yes, you are off topic…

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Ron Paul is not in the race for the WH

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

You freaking liar!

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Obama only has himself to blame for these poll numbers. While Romney winning is bad for me personally, it may be good for liberalism in general since “conservative rule” over the next 4 years will be even more failed than the first Obama administration and folks will start to learn their lesson about rampant corporatism.. We’ll see.

libfreeordie on May 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM

This is EXACTLY the “brilliant” strategery the ABR/TruCons believe in. This time it is just coming from the Left further left. Both support Obama, interestingly.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:02 PM

You freaking liar!

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

bite me :-)

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 3:02 PM

You freaking liar!

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I see this one’s droppings on multiple threads; each more unhinged than the last.

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

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I have to add another analysis of the Rasmussen (O approval) polling numbers: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

The number I’m looking at is those that “Strongly Approve,” now at 23%. In previous cases where O took a lurch to the left, like on Afganistan, while the overall approval number may have dropped, the Strongly Approve ticked up, often to nearly 30%. Likewise, in general, when O has moved in a conservative direction, the overall approval improves, but the Strongly Approve has dropped.

In contrast, over the last two days we have seen the Strongly Approve drop from 27% to 23%. This is counter-intuitive, and would seem to defy prediction as being a result of O’s pro-gay action. It may be that the hard left question O’s sincerity? Or even that a portion of the lost Strongly Approvers are Afro-Americans that just are not so enthused anymore because they are against gay marriage.

Again, I ask for your sense of what’s going on with this.

anotherJoe on May 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Ron Paul is not in the race for the WH

jimver on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Just like you have to lie to “win” an argument, Romney has to cheat to win a caucus. But just like Romney’s people have been caught cheating and he keeps losing the caucuses, by lying, you lose the argument.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM

You freaking liar!

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:00 PM

And you’re at least nominally delusional.

Ron Paul himself has privately insinuated on several occasions that he does not expect to be the nominee, and his actions reinforce his words. He’s largely stopped campaigning, and is already preparing for his freaking retirement, which he would not have announced so early if he seriously thought he could grab the nomination.

Ron Paul isn’t running to be the nominee, nor does he have any real chance TOO be the nominee. He’s building a political machine for his son Rand, nothing more. If you weren’t so eager to be a mindless little sheep for his movement, it’d be blindingly obvious to you.

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 3:07 PM

I think the Media may turn on Obama before we hit November. They will try and destroy Romney of course, but I already see cracks forming.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I see this one’s droppings on multiple threads; each more unhinged than the last.

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

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:04 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

And you’re at least nominally delusional.

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 3:07 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

This is EXACTLY the “brilliant” strategery the ABR/TruCons believe in. This time it is just coming from the Left further left. Both support Obama, interestingly.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:02 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

Just like you have to lie to “win” an argument, Romney has to cheat to win a caucus. But just like Romney’s people have been caught cheating and he keeps losing the caucuses, by lying, you lose the argument.

FloatingRock on May 11, 2012 at 3:06 PM

While I think Paul’s ideas are good to a degree, the obsession with certain phrases his followers have is weird.

Like something out of Rainman/Truth of Math/Psychospiritual mind expanding inanity.

antisense on May 11, 2012 at 3:12 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

Sorry, but Romney HAS won, and he did so fair and square, using the same set of rules that Doctah Paul is running under. The fact that you insist otherwise essentially proves my earlier point.

Now would you please stop spamming the comments with Paul campaign drivel.

WolvenOne on May 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3