Posted on 12/29/2011 7:16:12 AM PST by RobinMasters
Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.
The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%. The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.
A generic Republican candidate holds a narrow lead over the president again this week as has been the case all but three times in weekly tracking since late May. Obama leads all the other named GOP candidates by as little as seven and as much as 15 percentage points. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain have all surged ahead of the president at one point but did not maintain those leads.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
I have yet to meet a woman who will vote for, let alone campaign for, Newt Gingrich.
Many of the women I know prefer Romney, and I am not making that up.
The question we should be asking ourselves is who is the conservative we want leading us. As for Obama, the only GOP candidates in the race right now that can't beat him are Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich.
Most women find Romney to be a slimy, untruthful, used car salesman-type creeper....so, yes, smart women will vote for Gingrich before Romney. The dumb ones will vote for Obama again..
Not to mention the possibility of Obama replacing two older USSC members in a second yerm. If one of those is a conservative, kiss the court goodbye for a quarter century.
That wasn't what I thought this thread was about so I didn't mention it. But since I'm being asked, I don't mind responding.
I am currently supporting Michelle Bachmann on a conditional and principled basis. My primary does not occur until March 6 so there is a good chance Bachmann will not be a factor by that time so I may need to change my vote accordingly.
For example, if Bachmann is a non-factor on March 6 and it is between Newt and Romney at that time, I'm throwing my vote over to Newt as by that point, a Bachmann vote would be useless and effectively a vote for Romney.
That said, I'm hoping Bachmann can overachieve her current expectations and come into the March 6 primaries a valid candidate. If Santorum is a valid candidate at that time, I'd have to take a harder look at him too.
They must really think Obama can beat Romney since they are pushing for Romney so bad. I wonder what skeletons they have on Willard, or, do they just assume he won’t fight, like McLame.
Yeah, where’s the shock?
Aside from the facts that he is unattractive, overweight and cheated on his wife, what makes people think that women would come out and vote for him in the numbers needed to win the election?
My argument goes back to the Tiger Woods scandal, in that NO ONE likes a guy who cheats on his wife, and the media will torpedo the daylights out of Gingrich for it.
Gingrich does NOT have a prayer of getting the women's vote to subsequently win the election.
Women almost always vote mostly for Democrats. We almost never get the majority of the female vote. It’s condescending of you to think women will only vote for a “pretty boy” candidate. This is why the establishment morons picked Dan Quayle for V.P. How did that work out? Women are capable of analyzing all aspects of a candidate just like men are. We will probably never get the majority of the women vote in a presidential election but we don’t need it and we will get all we need with Newt.
Interesting comments about Drudge. Yes, he and Ann are part of the West Palm society and along with Rush, are all good friends. However, Drudge is very anti establishment normally, does not care what anyone else thinks, and lives a lifestyle that is, shall we say, WAY outside the Mormon acceptance. WAY outside. That’s why he might fit the Paul camp if anything.
Likely he and Newt had a crossing of the swords at some point personally. He is clearly trying to make 3 candidates look good and/or strong and Newt look bad/and or weak. Clearly.
You’re wrong. Soccer moms, if they voted at all, voted for McCain last time around.
Are you confusing your opinion with reality?
It’s too late for Virginia, but I think we can get Lewis and Buddy on the ballot in most states if we hurry. Of course, that will just split the dog vote and ensure the nomination of Romney.
Mormons don’t serve in the military. Refuse to serve in the military. Let someone else do it. . . .
__________________________________________________________
You are so wrong. Mormons do serve in the military but after they serve missions.
...most likely due to Palin being on the ticket.
Yes you are. You're trying too hard. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Well a lot of demonrats say all the republicans are a joke except Romney. I can’t say they will vote for Romney, either, but they don’t have a built in extremist label for him.
Heresy or not, I just want Obama out of there and will vote for anyone but Ron Paul.
Most maddening part is the wishy washy dems telling you how of course Obama will be reelected.
Well, knock me over with a feather, I didn’t know that.
My pop talked once about speaking to some mormon dudes...that were Marines like him....during WWII.
There is one good argument for letting Obama get reelected if all we’re going to get is Obama-lite as the alternative. Obama will be hamstrung by gridlock from the Republican congress, which we’re unlikely to lose. He will have a lame-duck presidency and then be barred from ever running again.
If Obama is defeated, and we get a liberal-leaning Republican like Mitt whose policies don’t turn the country around, Obama can come back like Nixon and defeat him in 4 years, bringing a much more liberal Congress in with his coattails.
A bad, failed Republican presidency does not help us in the long run. It just paves the way for a bigger comeback for Democrats. We need to pick the MOST CONSERVATIVE candidate who can win. Ceding our principles in our own party before we even start the election is a disaster. Do you believe those principles are good for the country or not? How does having an “R” attached to bad principles help us make our party more popular or successful?
It’s extremely short-term thinking to think we need to put up a liberal Republican just to win this election, while not seeing how that sets us up for bigger failures in the future and even an Obama comeback.
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.