Obama vs Romney Polls: Obama Tanks Among Women and Independents

PolicyMic ^ | September 6, 2012 | John Giokaris

[2ndDivisionVet]

Just 47% of registered voters in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll see Obama favorably overall, down 7 percentage points from his recent peak in April, while 49% rate him unfavorably. He’s numerically underwater in this group for the first time since February.

The decline has occurred entirely among women registered voters – from 57%-39% favorable-unfavorable in April to a numerically negative 46%-50% now. That’s Obama’s lowest score among women voters – a focus of recent political positioning – in ABC/Post polls since he took office.

On top of that, according to CNN’s latest poll, Romney’s lead among independents has jumped in the last week from 3 points to 10 points today among likely voters.

(GRAPH AT LINK)

Against that backdrop of new polling, there are more campaign ads being released targeting women voters.

Independent Women’s Voice is a 501(c)(4) nonpartisan, nonprofit organization for mainstream women and is the sister organization of the Independent Women’s Forum. IWV has a track record demonstrating that it uses resources wisely while effectively developing and delivering messages to independents and women, key blocs of citizens in 2010 and 2012.

IWV released an ad back in June called “Boyfriend.”

(VIDEO AT LINK)

A good friend of mine worked with IVW on putting that ad together and after testing it, found that it was effective in moving the needle. An Ohio focus group moved from 44% disapproval of Obama to 62% after viewing the ad.

Apparently, it also got the attention of the RNC, who just released this ad today that’s eerily similar in its message.

(VIDEO AT LINK)

You have to admit, both ads aren’t particularly venomous, even offering understanding about how Obama may have inspired them in 2008 and promised them a new direction for America and its politics. The pitch (and the message discipline) produced a reasonable tone and approach, one that tended to ask for unity rather than make a strident base-appeal rally.

Now contrast that with the abortion-palooza that’s the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

“I have NEVER heard this much about abortion as in that hall last night…” That’s according to Melinda Henneberger, who writes the "She the People" column for the Washington Post. She was responding to a post Matt Lewis wrote in which he argued that Democrats risk turning off undecided voters if their convention turns into “abortion-palooza.”

Even liberal columnist Margaret Carlson recently wrote on Bloomberg, “I hate to bring up abortion during the Democrats’ festivities, which are going so swimmingly, but I have a question. Why has the party removed the sentence ‘Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare’ from its platform? It was in the 2004 document but not in 2008’s or this year’s. Can’t Democrats just throw a crumb to the many millions who are pro-choice but not pro-abortion?” (Btw: kudos to Carlson for pointing out the difference).

There’s no doubt that one of the key demographics the Obama campaign is counting on come November is women and are keeping up the disingenuous “War on Women” rhetoric to scare more and more women voters into their corner. It’s also why they’re still trying to keep Sandra Fluke (remember her?) fresh in everyone’s minds.

But the entire convention is turning into a primal scream on abortion and contraception. Don’t be surprised if swing voters feel repelled by the spectacle. They may be breaking up with more than just Obama by the end of this week.

[Sarah Barracuda]

All Romney has to do is make a cheap yet very effective Ad showing the looney DNC Delegates booing God and booing Israel yesterday, just make an Ad with that and send it to every single swing state, Romney will win in a landslide

[lymelady]

Oh I’m pro-choice but not pro-abortion.

You can choose to not have sex. You can choose to wear a condom. You can choose adoption. I’m all about reproductive choice, as long as you don’t kill anyone.

In all seriousness, I imagine it’s the “Pro-life personal, pro-choice political” people. People who think it’s morally reprehensible but want it to be legal, like cheating on your wife. But if it’s a baby, why do you want it to be legal? And if it’s not a baby, why not pro-abortion?

I will grant that a lot of these people want to make abortion rare and believe that social programs will help more pregnant women carry to term and sex ed will prevent more pregnancies. If they truly believe that logistically the best way to eliminate abortion is not through legislation but through outreach programs (including private charities), I can understand that. But I can’t understand the “Well I would never do it because it’s murder, but I want other women to be able to do it,” argument.

[smoothsailing]

Is there a breakdown for PA? The last one I saw had Obama 48%, Romney 44%. It was from July.

[Sarah Barracuda]

Im not sure, when I click on the link
http://www.rightspeak.net/2012/09/rasmussen-daily-swing-state-poll-romney_7.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

but than it says to read the full story go to the rasmussen web site but I dont know where to see the breakdown, I dont go on the site much so not familiar how to look around to get the correct info

[smoothsailing]

Thanks. The breakdown for the Rasmussen swing state poll is for paid subscribers to his website. I thought maybe you were a subscriber. :)

[VRWCer]

Thank you for answering! See, I think exactly as you do: Its not my business what anyone else does behind closed doors, and they should certainly have their choice of (self supplied!) contraceptives! And of keeping their panties on. ;-)

I see what you’re saying about some people taking a higher moral ground (at least in their minds) than the all access taxpayer funded, abortion as birth control crowd, by saying they themselves would never do it, but its ok if someone else does. The thing about that though is, if a person can look the other way when an innocent child is being murdered, what is the difference between that and looking the other way in cases of child abuse, domestic abuse, etc? Doesn’t every person deserve to be defended or protected from harm at another’s hands? It is sort of like Pontius Pilate washing his hands after handing Jesus over to be crucified, and that’s a scary analogy but very apropos, I think.

[Dragonspirit]

Just remember, in the “War on Women” the only casualty so far belongs to Ted Kennedy.

[boatbums]

Because they never could find a focus group, even among drunks, serial killers, racists and other Democrats who could answer the question: If abortions are safe and legal, why should they be rare?

BINGO!!!

Some years ago during debates over this subject, the NOW nags were actually proposing that abortion is like getting your teeth cleaned (10 Planned Parenthood Lies Every Pro-Choice Person Should Condemn).

[TChad]

Here's the Independent Women's Voice video "Boyfriend":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asJMw_T61Q

Nice.

[D-fendr]

Excellent find, thanks.

I can see why Boyfriend ad is effective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8asJMw_T61Q&feature=player_embedded

IWV deserves support:
http://www.iwvoice.org/

[D-fendr]

I agree on the Boyfriend ad.

I’m no expert, but I think it would be even better run in rotation with this one from American Crossroads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-ky5Obzk5A&list=FLn6M7EPsiL3cSVHGW8Gsr1g&index=7&feature=plpp_video

[Caipirabob]

To think, we still got 4 debates sprikled throughout Oct to get through, plus whatever Oct Surprise there is.

I'll be impressed if we get one and extremely impressed beyond that.

[Pollster1]

Pro-choice but not pro-abortion, that is the second time today that I have heard a liberal try to make a distinction, one that I admit completely escapes me. Does anyone understand what point they are trying to make and if so, would you be willing to enlighten me? I mean, I don’t see any gray area between taking the life of an unborn child, or protecting it. How can one be both pro-choice and against abortion? Or is this another attempt at equivocation, courtesy of the democratic party?

There is a libertarian perspective that abortion is (or may be) immoral but is not a government issue. There is also a strict constructionist perspective on the Constitution that says that regardless of its lack of morality or desirability, abortion is not a federal issue at all because of the Enumerated Powers, and the 9th and 10th Amendments. One can think that abortion is a terrible thing but that the government should not meddle with that "personal" decision. My abortion views on what should be legal are different from my views on what is moral, and my views on appropriate federal laws are different from my views on appropriate state laws. I don't describe myself as "pro-choice" because that term implies no restrictions. I also don't approve of a complete ban on abortions, particularly when the medical risk to the mother is high.

[workerbee]

I LOVE all 3 videos. I’m esp. glad to see the RNC turning the “war on women” rhetoric against the Dems so effectively. Great editting.

[keats5]

I love this ad, “Wa Wah,” Charlie Brown style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xsvXbfnwSg&feature=autoplay&list=FLn6M7EPsiL3cSVHGW8Gsr1g&playnext=1

[lymelady]

I agree with you. It kind of kills me when I hear the same people wondering how nazi soldiers could stand by and do nothing, or how people could allow slavery to continue. If you see a human rights violation but do nothing, how are you any different? It doesn’t make sense to me.

[TheOldLady]

It’s just another example of double-think.

“It’s okay for someone else to murder her child in the womb, but I would never do it.”

That’s pro-choice and anti-abortion. IOW, the woman is frelling insane.

[TheOldLady]

But I can’t understand the “Well I would never do it because it’s murder, but I want other women to be able to do it,” argument.

That's just because you're a sane, intelligent, decent person.

[boatbums]

There is a libertarian perspective that abortion is (or may be) immoral but is not a government issue. There is also a strict constructionist perspective on the Constitution that says that regardless of its lack of morality or desirability, abortion is not a federal issue at all because of the Enumerated Powers, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The "Libertarian" perspective surely must admit that the role of government - the CENTRAL role of government - is to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens, yes? If there is a "right to life" that supersedes all other rights, and it most certainly has to considering no rights would be of any worth to one who is not alive, then governments must protect this right - of innocents most of all - above all others. This, I think, is the primary reason why I do not believe we can ever be in favor of a "choice" that denies the right to life of an innocent child who had NOTHING to do with how it was conceived.

In the case of danger to the mother's life - and this is an extremely rare occurrence - then it is not a matter of taking a life so much as saving a life. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy - where the embryo attaches to the fallopian tube wall instead of the uterine - then surgery MUST be done to remove the developing baby as allowing it to remain would cause the death of the baby AND the mother. In such a case, there is no way to save the life of the child - no technique exists to re-implant the embryo where it should be.

In all other cases - yes, even rape and incest - the life of the human being conceived must and should be protected by law. Will there STILL be abortions performed if it is made illegal? Sure, the "back alley" butchers who got to move into the open to practice their grisly trade will just move back into the alleys again. Violating the law was never their concern anyway - there was far too much money to be made.

The ideal, of course, is to make everyone aware of the facts about abortion. Get rid of the euphemisms and false claims of women's rights and help our society to get to the point where abortion will become unthinkable. It won't have to be made illegal then. Putting our collective heads in the sand and hiding behind slogans that, "I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice.", because it sounds enlightened, will only prolong the fight. Until the most innocent life of all is protected, NO ONE will be truly safe. The Libertarian perspective on this issue is a cowardly one.

[boatbums]

There is a libertarian perspective that abortion is (or may be) immoral but is not a government issue. There is also a strict constructionist perspective on the Constitution that says that regardless of its lack of morality or desirability, abortion is not a federal issue at all because of the Enumerated Powers, and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The "Libertarian" perspective surely must admit that the role of government - the CENTRAL role of government - is to protect the unalienable rights of its citizens, yes? If there is a "right to life" that supersedes all other rights, and it most certainly has to considering no rights would be of any worth to one who is not alive, then governments must protect this right - of innocents most of all - above all others. This, I think, is the primary reason why I do not believe we can ever be in favor of a "choice" that denies the right to life of an innocent child who had NOTHING to do with how it was conceived.

In the case of danger to the mother's life - and this is an extremely rare occurrence - then it is not a matter of taking a life so much as saving a life. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy - where the embryo attaches to the fallopian tube wall instead of the uterine - then surgery MUST be done to remove the developing baby as allowing it to remain would cause the death of the baby AND the mother. In such a case, there is no way to save the life of the child - no technique exists to re-implant the embryo where it should be.

In all other cases - yes, even rape and incest - the life of the human being conceived must and should be protected by law. Will there STILL be abortions performed if it is made illegal? Sure, the "back alley" butchers who got to move into the open to practice their grisly trade will just move back into the alleys again. Violating the law was never their concern anyway - there was far too much money to be made.

The ideal, of course, is to make everyone aware of the facts about abortion. Get rid of the euphemisms and false claims of women's rights and help our society to get to the point where abortion will become unthinkable. It won't have to be made illegal then. Putting our collective heads in the sand and hiding behind slogans that, "I'm not pro-abortion, just pro-choice.", because it sounds enlightened, will only prolong the fight. Until the most innocent life of all is protected, NO ONE will be truly safe. The Libertarian perspective on this issue is a cowardly one.