Posted on 08/02/2012 2:32:18 PM PDT by nhwingut
New polling data out from Pew Research Center finds President Obama with a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney nationally:
Currently, 51% say they support Obama or lean toward him, while 41% support or lean toward Romney. This is largely unchanged from earlier in July and consistent with polling over the course of this year. Across eight Pew Research Center surveys since January, Obama has led Romney by between four and 12 percentage points.
Obama holds only a four-point edge (48% to 44%) across 12 of this year’s key battleground states. While the data does not allow a state-by-state analysis, the overall balance of support in these closely contested states has remained level in recent months, with Obama slightly ahead, but neither candidate holding a significant advantage.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Instead they announce that Bill Clinton will be the keynote speaker for a person that for all intents and purposes Bill Clinton wishes dead.
November is going to be something that Politico is going to say put us out of the capability of paying our rent in Rosslyn, Virginia.
Lets see:
Oversample Democrats by 19 points....
....and Zero leads by 10 points.
Ah gee, maybe this isn’t realy good news for Barry.
No, if you normalize this to a more plausible sample to roughly 1/3 Dem/Rep/Indy, and consider that Zero is running behind Romney with indys, even in this badly sampled poll, it is not good news for the Big Zero. Although the MSM will obviously try to spin it that way.
Pelosi would still have her job if the Pew D/R ratio was accurate. She doesn't, and is unlikely to get it back any time soon.
Good one!
Pollsters are trying to correct for that by increasing the "Independent" classification.
This particular Pew poll corrected by simply increasing the Democrat representation and decreasing the Republican representation ~ and that can only be due to the fact the Independents also reflected they don't like either guy.
This is a RACE TO THE BOTTOM and the lead will change hands back and forth without reference to real popularity ~ just the relative popularity, and the way the pollsters handle their non-responses, and undecideds.
Romney does not have a large Republican following. Take that "Hey, he got 10 million votes in the primary' story. With your average Republican the last 3 elections getting about about 58 million votes, that's just 16% of Republicans saying they liked him ~ and with so terribly many OPEN PRIMARIES, odds are half of them were Democrats!
Not sure a guy who really draws only 8% of Republican votes can beat Obama ~ or anybody else for that matter. George McGovern could have beat that!
Do the numbers yourself ~ you'll get the same empty feeling in the pit of your tummy MItt got back in 2008 when he got 18,000 votes in the Virginia primary ~ against half a dozen opponents! Had to be a really bad feeling eh.
*cough* bullsh!t *cough*
There’s a reason it’s called PEW.
“The BEST thing for us is to go into November with these clowns thinking that they might win.”
The problem is that when Romney wins easily with real results, you will never convince the 10% of the population (composed of unassimilated permanently-dependent ethnic malcontents) that Obama wasn’t robbed. Not that I care, but until they cooperate with the Dems’ plan to contracept and abort themselves into extinction we still have to deal with them.
“Romney does not have a large Republican following.”
I think many white Dems, and independents of all colors, will vote for Romney out of economic desperation; NO Repubs and few independents will return the favor for Obama. He is “the devil you know”, but he is still the devil and his first term has been disastrous for most Americans.
As you already know there are no real Independents ~ but getting a Democrat to vote for Romney would be the trick of the century. More likely they won’t vote for either one.
From what I gather of FReepers’ perceptions of Romney, he should draw more white Dems than Repub voters; he is clean, articulate, and doesn’t speak with a Negro accent (which sufficed for many Dems in voting for Obama).
In tough financial straits, only the far left stays with the Dems; the rest grudgingly accept that the only way their neighborhoods are safe, taxes stabilize, etc. is to vote for the adult (the Republican). FWIW, the Dem Party of 2012 is far different from that of 2008; it is openly at war with the Christian right (especially Catholics), openly including “gay marriage” in the official party platform, publicly insisting things are OK economically, and doesn’t even mask the socialist agenda. Why would anyone (from welfare queens to union members) ever vote for Obama?
I said they "Imagine" that ~ even though such behavior is contrary to human nature when FACTOIDS are involved.
If both the candidates have a history of being pro-abortion, taking public actions to help advance abortion rights, benefiting gays at the expense of the general public, and so forth, Democrats who don't care for that lifestyle are probably not going to vote for either one. Nor are Conservatives.
I guess we’ll see how it unfolds; too many people who voted for Obama in 2008 are desperate to send him packing, and are not going to stay home. They are desperate, and don’t have the luxury of indifference. A few years of unemployment, rising prices of staples, foreclosures, insovency, etc. will do that to people. Reagan won with that...
This is a special thing for a very wealthy man ~ to reveal his income and the broad outlines of his personal affairs ~ just like he were one of us trying to get a home mortgage.
I think he can do it but he doesn't wanna' ~
Harry Reid's guess, using inside Mormon circle connections, is that Mitt loves his money too much to cut anybody else in on it ~ even at the cost of NOT getting to be President.
Remember, this has hit a really sore spot with the guy. He ran in 2008 as if he were going to be President and showed Mc Cain 23 years worth of tax returns ~ which 23 years we don't know, but since then he's made money in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. He's revealed 2010 and a preliminary on 2011 (rich people's returns are far more complex than ours you know).
When he campaigned in 2008 he was presumably prepared to publish a final on 2007 AND 2008. So, tell us, what happened to 1997 and maybe 2008? And what happened to 2009?
As the world economy collapsed how much money did this guy make? That's the only question I can come up with for why he was presumably prepared to reveal a year ~ to wit: 2007, just 4 years ago, but now he's not!
LOL, nice try though.
Oh and Welcome to Free Republic. When the Kenyan gets his butt whooped (just like 2010) you be sure to come back.
First the Chicken Rebellion and now this horse hockey!
The Left is going to get blown out in November, they are desperate !
I have no problem with people asking to see his tax returns; I could see why they’d want to.
It wasn’t the world economy collapsing; it was the West’s, while Asia’s was being built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.