Romney's negatives hit new high, poll finds

The Hill/Ballot Box ^ | 03/28/12 at 06:42 AM ET | Meghashyam Mali

[Josh Painter]

A new poll shows Mitt Romney, who is locked in a prolonged GOP nomination fight, with lagging approval ratings, raising questions about his strength in a likely November match-up with President Obama.

Half of those surveyed hold unfavorable views of the GOP front-runner, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll released Wednesday finds.

In the poll, 50 percent of all surveyed and 52 percent of registered voters held unfavorable opinions of Romney. Thirty-four percent hold positive views on Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential contender in Post/ABC polls dating back to 1984.

The poll also finds that Romney’s unfavorability tops Obama’s highest unfavorability rating in the poll's history.

Adding to Romney's challenge in a potential general-election fight, by comparison, Obama holds a 53 percent favorability rating and a 43 percent unfavorable mark, according to the survey.

Obama is also up with independents, 50 percent of whom hold favorable views to 46 percent unfavorable.

But Romney lags among that key group, with 35 percent of independents viewing him favorably to 52 percent unfavorable.

Among voters who identify themselves as moderates, Obama holds a 61 percent to 34 percent positive edge, while Romney is seen unfavorably by more. Forty-eight percent of centrists have a negative view of Romney, to 35 percent favorable.

The poll also shows Obama rallying his base better than Romney...

[ScottinVA]

His own party doesn’t even want to vote for him, he has no base.

McCain had more of a "base" than Romney does.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

It’s beginning to feel like another Jon Cary year for Republicans.

[ScottinVA]

We have been sold a man that cannot defeat “The Divine One.”

I've said on previous threads this is the year in which promoting a conservative, third-party option might be worthwhile.

[ROTB]

In my basketball days, a “deny the ball” defense would normally work against “scoring machine” types.

Go Newt/Santorum!!

[Ingtar]

It would not matter if he asked Newt how to galvanize us, Mitt is incapable of being the sort of candidate that would get our support. He cannot etch-a-sketch himself into conservative shoes.

[Ingtar]

It would not matter if he asked Newt how to galvanize us, Mitt is incapable of being the sort of candidate that would get our support. He cannot etch-a-sketch himself into conservative shoes.

[nhwingut]

I don’t buy any of this. Obama is responsible for $4 gas, Obamacare, $16 trillion debt, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Race baiting, etc.

Once it is one and one and the intra-party fighting ends things will improve. And then if Romney picks Rubio, the conservatives will have some motivation (as if 4 years of unchained Obama and potentially 2 Supreme Court picks isn’t enough motivation).

Of course if Romney goes with some mealy mouth RINO establishment type, then all bets are off.

[Diogenesis]

---

IT’S UNANIMOUS FOR RINO ROMNEY
From the Kennedy Seat in Massachusetts to the entire DNC

“35 Romney endorsers received contributions first”

Mitt Romney wins much coveted Jimmy Carter endorsement

Gore Praises Romney's 'Climate Protection Plan'

Carville(D):
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing.
Romney is an ascendant guy."

Sen. John Kerry (D) to Don Imus on RomneyCARE:
"I like this health care bill".

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) on RomneyCARE:
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."

[Yashcheritsiy]

I've said on previous threads this is the year in which promoting a conservative, third-party option might be worthwhile.

If ever there was a year, it is this one. Forget all that "third parties just help elect Obama" nonsense. When Romney is the essential third party candidate, that all goes by the wayside. Time to make him that candidate.

[GeronL]

Yes. I think its quite possible that Romney loses worse than McCain did

[nathanbedford]

Well, we had nine individuals to choose from and we chose the most blatant Rino among them. We conservatives heard more than 20 debates and voted in countless caucuses and primaries and still could not settle on a conservative. Instead, we bickered and bitched and systematically destroyed one conservative candidate after another, aided of course with tens of millions of dollars in negative ads offered up by Romney. But we have at the end of the day only ourselves to blame.

Now, what do we do? I think we have no choice but to soldier on and support Romney. He may not have my enthusiastic vote but my reluctant vote counts just as much even though I am holding my nose. Let's make sure he picks a conservative running mate and let's turn our attention to putting the fear of God into Boehner and McConnell so they in turn will hold Romney's feet to the fire when he gets into office.

We have better than seven months to shape up, get organized, and defeat Obama.

[GeronL]

“We need Romney to pick up moderates and independents” they said.

So much for that stupid idea.

The GOP sold out its principles and gained what? Another designated loser?

Why do primary voters keep falling for the same crap over and over?

[Yashcheritsiy]

as if 4 years of unchained Obama and potentially 2 Supreme Court picks isn’t enough motivation

Given how he governed Massachusetts, and the type of judges he picked for that state's judiciary, what does it really matter which one becomes or remains President?

[Yashcheritsiy]

Why do primary voters keep falling for the same crap over and over?

Because, when you get right down to it, most people are idiots. And that includes most people here on FR, frankly. Instead of coming together to decide on a compromise conservative candidate who we could all live with, people spent five months posting up inane lists of every little tiny thing that some candidate might have done back in the 1980s, combined with the "__fill in the blank__ one time said __fill in the blank__ about __fill in the blank with whatever esoteric, one-issue drivel that only this person and a hundred other people in the country care about__" comments followed by the "SO I'M NEVER EVER EVER EVER GONNA VOTE FOR HIM EVER!!!!!!!!" declarations.

Cain wasn't good enough. Perry wasn't good enough. Gingrich isn't good enough. Bachmann wasn't good enough. We've blown through the conservatives, and we're surprised that we're stuck with the two RINOs and America's crazy uncle?

Sheesh people, if you want a perfect candidate, then run for President yourself. Of course, the irony of it all is that YOU won't be good enough, either.

[GeronL]

Conservatives should be a party within a party. We could have held our own debates, our own caucuses and chose one candidate to unify behind... last summer.

[COBOL2Java]

LOL! Damned spell check!

[Ingtar]

Fortunately, if Romney needs my vote in Tennessee, he has already lost. I am free to vote my conscience on that line. I do not believe that a token conservative VP is going to change the outcome. The only place Romney is stronger than McCain is where he will lose to Obama regardless.

[Ingtar]

Cain was good enough. Santorum is good enough. Bachmann was probably good enough. Perry and Gingrich would have gotten my vote and support. Paul is simply crazy.

I do find it interesting that you rant about voters being purists and then call Santorum not good enough in the same post.

[Yashcheritsiy]

I do find it interesting that you rant about voters being purists and then call Santorum not good enough in the same post.

Why? Your comment denotes a false dichotomy between "purism" on one hand, and having absolutely no standards of any kind on the other. Neither is an option. It's certainly possible to desire candidates whose records conform to movement conservatism, even though they may not be completely, 100% pure by any single FReepers own personal standards.

Cain, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry - each has some flaws, but each also generally conforms to the standards of movement conservatism.

Santorum was not included in this category because he strays much further afield than any of them ever did. He has a legislative record replete with big-government votes and general conformity to the GOP-e, RINO mentality. In short, he is not a movement conservative. It's not just that he may not be 100% pure and has strayed off the golden path every once in a while, but that he is genuinely not a true conservative, he's a half-conservative at best, with us on some, main social, issues, but otherwise more at home and heart in Washington DC than in "flyover country."

[Ingtar]

You might want to go to the famous set of links that detailed Santorum’s votes. You might surprise yourself. Some things he voted down were attached to such wondrous goodies as SCHIP (remember that?). One of the border votes he voted down was in favor of a stronger one introduced by McCain. Of course, after the first amendment failed, McCain pulled his.

Yes, there were some party line votes. It pays to remember this was also back in the day when we had a weak GOP President and when passing a budget was a requirement.