Rasmussen: Romney tops Obama, 45/39; Update: Party affiliation ratio in sample added

Hot Air ^ | 29 Dec 2011 | Ed Morrissey

[mandaladon]

Two polls released today show Barack Obama in serious trouble for re-election. Rasmussen has polled Obama head-to-head against various Republican candidates most of the year, and in today’s matchup against Mitt Romney, Obama falls behind among likely voters to the widest margin yet:

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.

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.

It’s Obama’s number that is more significant in these early head-to-head matchups. Republicans are still vigorously contesting a primary, which means Republicans haven’t united behind a candidate in the way Democrats are already lined up behind Obama.

[DestroyLiberalism]

1010RD wrote:
<<
Wow. No wonder Hilary’s shills are out in force pushing her for VP. If the POTUS and the VPOTUS kill each other who becomes President?
>>

**************************************************************

Right now that would be Speaker Boehner. ;-)

[DestroyLiberalism]

Raycpa wrote:
<<
I would take a RINO over Romney any day.
>>

**************************************************************

LOL!

[AndyTheBear]

i think republicans will be more motivated than democrats in 2012.

I agree, but I think that was the case in 2010 as well. Heck I think it is usually the case, but particularly since the country has seen the kind of job Obama is doing. Thus Republicans are more likely than Democrats to vote in bad weather and low turn out elections favor Republicans. My guess would be that the marginally motivated drones are more likely to vote in a general than a mid term.

[ME-262]

I fear Romney would try to keep Obamacare(Romneycare-National) if elected. Or if repeal was unstoppable he’d push for a very similar replacement policy.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Yesterday’s Gallup Tracking Poll had Obama back down to 41% Approval and 50% Disapproval.

[Grunthor]

Given that Myth is a socialist, yes, a RINO would be slightly better.

[riri]

The happiest night of my life, well one of them, would be seeing the results come in that the Marxist Puppet is toast.

Not holding my breath though.

[mojitojoe]

Oh please.... I’m sure as hell no Mittens the dog abuser fan, BUT to find someone as bad as Barry Soetoro the Islamic Marxist Kenyan, you won’t find them in the GOP candidates. NOBODY is as bad as he is. He’s incompetent, he’s a Marxist, he’s lazy, an empty suited grifter, in it for the perks and to feed his narcissism. He wants to RULE, not govern, not lead. I would vote for a pile of dog poop before I would ever vote for the loser in chief that now usurps the WH.

Remember what his brain(Valerie Jarrett) slipped up and said, “ He will be ready to RULE day one”.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo

[The Pack Knight]

Unless I bungled the point, Romney is able to better score over Obama because the supporters of the non-Romneys remain unable to coalesce around ONE non-Romney candidate.

I'm not sure why the diffusion of support for conservative primary candidates would matter for any Republican's numbers against Obama. If someone supports Santorum over Gingrich, for example, does that mean that person is less likely to vote for Gingrich over Obama in November?

I'd be interested to see what percentage of Republicans would stay home, vote third party, or even vote for Obama rather than vote for each potential Republican nominee. I suspect the numbers are rather small.

I think Romney's performance against Obama is rather easily explained. Independents and moderates have soured on Obama, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly in love with conservative Republicans. Most of them are eager to vote against Obama so long as that doesn't mean voting for someone they like even less.

Candidates like Gingrich, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul, and Perry turn off significant portions of the moderate swing vote for various reasons. For whatever reason, Romney turns off far fewer of them.

I think it's inescapable right now that nominating someone other than Romney increases the chances that Obama will be re-elected. It may be a gamble that could pay off with a more conservative President, but it is still clearly a gamble.

I think we each need to make a sober assessment of whether its a gamble that is worth taking. I know I am giving the issue a lot of thought and, while I am still planning to vote for someone other than Romney, it isn't set in stone. Of course, the decision will likely have been made for me by the time I get to vote in April, or at least my options will be greatly reduced.

None of this is to say a good conservative candidate couldn't trounce Obama. Unfortunately, we don't really have one.

[rbmillerjr]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdv_Iowa_1229.pdf

Looks like it is Gingrich surging in Iowa now.

Mittens 17
Gingrich 16.7

[The Pack Knight]

That’s a good sign. I don’t know whether it necessarily means Gingrich is surging, but I think it does show that these Iowa polls are highly volatile for a lot of reasons and that you can’t count anyone out yet.

There’s an interesting article on the front page of today’s Wall Street Journal on how evangelicals in Iowa have as yet been unable to unite behind a single candidate as they did with Huckabee in 2008. That situation of course benefits Romney.

I also think, however, that the situation is very fluid, and a lot could happen by Tuesday. Maybe even Santorum could pull out a win here. I’ve always thought he was the most natural fit for the evangelical bloc. Also, and maybe this is just my ignorance as to what drives the evangelical vote in Iowa, but I’m skeptical that Santorum’s Catholicism is really that big an problem for him there.

Oh well. One thing is for certain - at least one of the recent polls is going to be proven dead wrong next Tuesday.

[thecodont]

I see this more as a “we don’t want BO” rather than a “we do want Romney” polling result.

[BigEdLB]

...the MSM was breathless about a poll showing Obama’s job approval rating was sharply increased.

The MSM saw the Gallup tracking poll on Dec 26, with the flawed data, which self corrected the next day. Now when that flawed poll was released, the MSM reacted like I did, when as an teenager I saw my first centerfold in Playboy... A blonde, I think from Scandinavia, and well proportioned... long neck, long legs, and ample... But it was as meaningful as the paper it was printed on. A delight to the eye, but no long lasting effect.

[BigEdLB]

Wow. No wonder Hilary’s shills are out in force pushing her for VP. If the POTUS and the VPOTUS kill each other who becomes President?
Um.... Boehner

[RitaOK]

” I think we each need to make a sober assessment of whether its a gamble that is worth taking. “ <<<

I believe there is no gamble whatsoever here. The “sober assessment” business is standard practice for every election. It is sold to us every cycle by the Establishment, even the *conservative* media, our local moderate Republicans, and fluffed up for us, politely, by the Democrat flacks in the beltway media. (The only occasion when they are polite.) And it works. We nominate old empty suit, milquetoast moderate, bland and uninteresting, and a leader of no one, no fight, substance lite, but for what he has hustled in Congress, through plum committee appointments, ingratiating himself through compromise, for power and influence. OF COURSE, IN EVERY CASE, WE LOST.

This is being fed to us predictably this cycle as well. If a Republican ran like a Republican, we could sweep. The nation is crying for leadership and goodness, confidence and direction, from our nominee.

Romney is the only Socialist on our ticket. ( I have no words for describing Ron Paul.) And we are going to carry his water? Not a chance. If the Marxists, the Socialists and Liberals, altogether Godless, want him then let them carry his water and vote up for him. We will be done as a nation short of another Civil War.

The nation is all but gone now, but for worsening. Even if this self promoter should eek out a win, Romney lends no hope, and the final blow to capitalism, taking the freedom to work right along with it.

Our party has been co-opted. Conservatives, Christians and Evangelicals, and Constitutionalists have no place here. We shall not fit, strangers in our own homeland.

American education guarantees churning out well groomed and more little Marxists, unabated, out of control, for at least another generation. We are all become Godless.

:) Aren’t you glad you pinged me? Sorry about that, but this election is our very last hurrah. Bank it, or brave up and try to block it.

[NoRedTape]

"Proof positive that the public sees Romney and Obama as basically the same person."

Mr. Romney..........Get lost, chump.

[NoRedTape]

Romney? Biggest phoney on the Stage. Ever. FH.

[The Pack Knight]

This is being fed to us predictably this cycle as well. If a Republican ran like a Republican, we could sweep. The nation is crying for leadership and goodness, confidence and direction, from our nominee.

I agree with this, and with most everything else in your post, save for one problem: While there are a number of people out there who could run like a Republican, show leadership, goodness, confidence, and direction and beat Obama on a conservative message, none of them decided to run for President this year. Instead, we have a number of mediocre candidates, each of whom has serious problems.

We shouldn't have to trade principle for a chance to beat Obama, and we deserve better than the choice we've been given. However, in the words of William Munny, deserve's got nothing to do with it.

I would ultimately love to make this race a stark choice between a continuation of Obama's failed policies and a strong conservative alternative. I am just not convinced that any of the candidates can accomplish that. I am skeptical of Perry's ability to articulate conservative policies, I suspect that the focus with Santorum would be on his social positions, and I worry that everyone would be too distracted by Gingrich's baggage, unlikability, and inconsistent positions to listen to what he has to say. In other words, with any of those three, we run the risk that the race will become a referendum on our nominee rather than on Obama.

With Romney, while I certainly don't think he's the President we need, he's better than the one we have, and I think he's inoffensive to enough voters that the focus will be on Obama's failings - specifically because he is bland, moderate, and uninteresting. That may be a weak choice, but I am not ruling out the possibility that he is the worst choice except for all the others.

All that said, I don't currently plan on voting for Romney. If I were voting today, I'd vote for Gingrich. Despite my many misgivings, I have a ton of respect for the only candidate who can do more than spout empty platitudes and bar napkin policy positions.

[Does so]

"Two polls released today show Barack Obama in serious trouble for re-election."

Drive-By Media:

"What elephant?"

[BenKenobi]

Boner.