Posted on 09/27/2012 2:51:19 PM PDT by BurningOak
There’s no point in putting it gently: Mitt Romney had one of his worst polling days of the year on Wednesday.
It began with a series of polls from The New York Times, CBS News and Quinnipiac University, released early Wednesday morning, which gave President Obama leads of between 9 and 11 points in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Later in the day, Mr. Romney got polls showing unfavorable numbers for him in Colorado and Iowa.
Unlike many recent days, when Mr. Obama’s national polls were slightly less euphoric than his swing state surveys, Wednesday’s national polls seemed to support the notion that Mr. Obama has a clear lead in the race. The Gallup national tracking poll gave Mr. Obama a six-point lead among registered voters, close to his high mark on the year in that survey. The online tracking poll conducted by Ipsos gave him a six-point lead among likely voters. Another online tracking poll, from the RAND Corporation, put Mr. Obama’s lead at roughly seven and a half percentage points, his largest of the year in that poll. And a national poll for Bloomberg produced by the pollster J. Ann Selzer, who has a strong track record, put Mr. Obama six points ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Isn’t that pretty much a requirement for a job like his nowadays? That, or be a militant Muslim. See: Shep Smith, Anderson “My mom’s Gloria Vanderbilt” Cooper, Rachel Maddow, Keithy, most everyone else at MSNBC and CNN, etc., etc.
************
More like.... 1980!!
On steroids...
jmho...
Yeah I wish things were different...
Wiser man than myself once said that a man cannot chose his destiny, but he can chose to embrace or ignore it. Maybe in some alternative dimension Palin is up on Obama by 20 points, with Nate Silver desperately skewing data to show Obama still has a shot at Illinois.
sure seems to be the case....
Not so. I choose my own destiny every morning when I get out of bed. Palin could have chosen to run, which would have resulted in her winning the White House. That she didn't, remains a mystery to us, but it's a destiny she clearly held within her grasp.
As I said before, that path is still open to her, should she ever choose to walk it.
The main problem with the Slimes' numbers is that they are based on turnout models comparable to '08, when registered 'Rats enjoyed a 7-point advantage in turnout. But Republicans are much more energized than 'rats this time around, so those models are grossly skewed so that the results falsely spit out an Obama edge and a better than realistic likelihood of his winning. The reason for the unrealistic models and skewed polling results is to try to demoralize us. The left media - of which the New York Slined is a key component - is acting in concert to do just that, possibly on orders from their pals at the White House. Don't fall for the deliberately phony statistical tricks employed by the lefty pollsters! See unskewedpolls.com for a more objective assessment.
Romney is more and more reminding me of a Republican John Kerry. People wanted Bush out, but there was no way they could vote for FaceMelt.
Keep in mind Nate Silver is a homosexual activist. Like Andrew Sullivan in 2008, it is pretty clear Silver sexual politics are playing more of a role in his analysis then any honest appraisal of the facts.
Take a look around. Do you see anything in your day to day life that shows Obama doing as well with voters in 2012 as he did in 2008?
Currently Silver’s analysis is more about influencing votes then then predicting them. In late Oct he is either going to have to dramatically walk back his claims or be rending a pathetic joke.
Take a look at Rassmussen and ignore all the other polling. Rass was the most accurate poll in 2008.
Here’s what you need to do.
Contact some of the GOP chairs in various counties in the swing states. Ask them what they’ve been hearing from the Romney campaign.
The answer will calm your fears.
LOL, because I’m sure the campaign heads are going to admit to every random person who calls them and might be from the media that the campaigns are having problems.
Those are not reliable polling organizations.
It only matters if you’re polling likely voters.
The article that perhaps convinced me the most how unelectable he was was this one from the Weekly Standard, especially the line I quoted below in bold. Personal charisma is SO important in a presidential election. It was obvious and proven that Mitt didn't have it. So is political skill. That's why Gingrich was the best choice. He had already proven his ability to win great popularity in a national election.
Whatever you think of his political views, Mitt's just an awful candidate and always has been. A lot of people in the party and so-called conservatives in the media just plain lied to the rank and file to push him through. Appropriate revenge needs to be taken after the election.
Overestimating Romney
Aside from getting votes, he’s a great candidate.
Dec 19, 2011, Vol. 17, No. 14 • By JONATHAN V. LAST
"Romney has the least-impressive electoral history of any Republican frontrunner in a very long time." "Romney has faced voters in 22 contests. He won 5 of those races and lost 17 of them." Against Kennedy, "Romney lost by 17 points in what turned out to be the best year for Republicans in more than half a century."
Romney won governor with UNDER 50% of the vote in a 3-way race. "After three years in office, Romney’s approval rating was so low that he was forced to abandon hope of reelection. Romney’s term concluded with a Democrat winning the governor’s office for the first time in 20 years."
"As Romney began campaigning more actively, voters became less favorably disposed toward him." "No matter where he’s run, whether in primaries or statewide elections, he’s never sold particularly well."
Just do this. Speak to them in a forthright manner, telling the truth about your concern for this country.
Then ask them are things as bad as the polls make it seem.
You will get real information from them, and you will see what liars the pollsters are.
Just try it.
I made the same point in another thread today...
It feels to me more like 2004, just reversed politically. We have an incumbent who is very unpopular with a very vocal segment of voters, with solid but unspectacular support from his own base. And we have an older, less charismatic challenger from Massachusetts who has an unlikable personality and is making awkward gaffes that are being jumped on by the opposition.
I’m not dispirited by the polls. I think there’s still time for a good candidate to improve the campaign and move up in the polls. But I am dispirited by the fact that I’ve studied and observed Romney’s political history for a while now, and I don’t believe he is capable of doing what he needs to do to win. The situation in the country is terrible though, and gas prices more than anything should make it really hard for him to lose. But he just might be a bad enough candidate to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Bush had a 53% approval rating on election day 2004, Obama does not.
Well apparently you slept thru the 2012 primaries then.
Thank you for at least finally being honest. Your crusade against Romney here has more to do with your sour grapes that your candidate did not win the 2012 GOP nomination rather then any honest appraisal of the facts.
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.