Skip to comments.Rasmussen: Obama leads Romney in key swing states
Posted on 04/06/2012 4:21:57 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
President Obama leads Mitt Romney in four states that will be critical in determining the outcome of the 2012 election, according to a survey from conservative polling outlet Rasmussen released on Friday.
Obama leads Romney 47 percent to 44 percent in combined polling from Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
The poll has a 4.5 percent margin of error.
Obama will need to win about half of the electoral votes provided by Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire, if he is to secure a second term.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Romney [or whoever] will thrash 0zero - as long as we vote.
How many attack Ads have been placed against Obama recently?
Just wait till the GOP primaries are over.
Translation: Obama has no hope of winning a second term presently.
He is polling below 50 percent as an incumbent
Undecided is 75% opposed to Obama
Rest assured the hill and every other partisan knows this.
A political race of the two parties’ front-runner liberals. I’m guessing the Republican liberal will be tempted to move further left in an effort to beat his opponent.
And the gas prices keep climbing that hill...
Obama will beat Mittens like an unfaithful muslim wife.
> How many attack Ads have been placed against Obama recently?
Wouldn’t surprise me if that’s the same number of anti-0bama0 attack adds throughout the campaign, at least from the Romney camp.
The Romney camp want to look like they’re playing nice. Especially if you challenge chowder-head 0bamarx directly, you’ll be called a “racist”.
Romney likes to use subterfuge and leaks. Keeps his hands clean while dirtying the competition.
Gotta admit, it may be the most effective technique against 0bama’s race-card trump.
All others are "liberal" polling outlets but it's not stated by the MSM.
All others are "liberal" polling outlets but it's not stated by the MSM.
Until the deal 0bummer made with allies kicks in and several nations dump a lot of their oil reserves prior to the election.
Some people consider Rasmussen the Holy Grail of posters.
Rasmussen completely missed the Republican take-over of the US House in 2010, and patriots taking over 26 state legislatures.
Old Ras’ is another rat hack juggling the numbers for his buddy obuma.
Playing Mr Nice guy didn’t work for Juan McAmnesty.
Gonna be some serious denial around here in coming months.
RINO Romney couldn`t beat Obama even if he had a baseball bat.
> Playing Mr Nice guy didnt work for Juan McAmnesty.
Oh, I fully agree.
But Mittens has something going for him that Juan McPain didn’t
Mittens uses the back door. He lets others do his dirty work for him with leaks and rumors.
He gets to act as “surprised” as everyone else, when the damage is done.
He’s been doing it throughout the primaries.
Sadly we would be better off with McCain again.
yes, during Obama’s election, Soros & Co., made sure gas would skyrocket before and in the very month of the election.
They will do the reverse this time.
I would dump futures now. Every witch is a risk. We don't and can't know when they are going to drive the price to ‘Obama gets elected’ levels. But they will. They always do.
The problem is if Obama starts a war before the election. He has been Great at starting wars. He is very likely to do this, and if he does, all bets are off in terms of oil futures.
like it or not....and I don't like it....if we want to crush bamey boy, we'll have to support Romney...
I know...I know..."I'll never vote for that so and so Romney ever!".....
so enjoy your last few years before bamey boy declares a national crisis and becomes dictator for life....
all those millions of rounds of ammo bought by Homeland security....bamey won't waste them on foreign terrorists...
No he didn't. Rasmussen had the GOP up like 12 points over the Democrats on the generic ballot. Virtually everyone including the NY Times Nate Silver knew the GOP was going to take over the US House. The only people that didn't see it coming were the kooks at places like Kos, DU, etc - and even they probably knew it was coming in their heart. Most sensible analysts predicted the GOP pickup was going to be around 50 seats - and also knew crummy candidates like Christine O' Donnell, Carl Paladino, etc, would be easily defeated.
Gallup has Hussein at 50% today. People are going to have to face the fact that Obama is still reasonably popular considering how lousy the economy is and $4.00 gas. He will be hard to beat. Romney is a lackluster candidate and my guess is, unfortunately, that Obama has a very good chance at a second term. Santorum would have fared even worse since he wouldn't be able to stop himself from blathering on about how contraception is "not okay", why we need to wage a war on porn, etc.
You are correct in your assessment of the situation.
These morons who think Barack Hussein is no worse than any GOP nominee have not seen the “wink wink” with the Russian politician with Barack whispering “I will have lot more flexibility with you after the election is over”.
Even Mitt, who is my 3rd choice behind Newt & Rick, I know is not a real conservative, but at least he does not hate United States of America.
I half hope Romney gets thrashed so the GOPe dies a horrible death.
This November during the general election, enough conservative voters will, either, blank the ‘12 POTUS race, vote third party, or write-in somebody else for ‘12 POTUS, unless a brokered GOP Convention leads to a decent pro-conservative choice for ‘12 POTUS/VP (I, still, doubt that a brokered convention will, actually, happen.). The U.S. is finished as a capitalistic and conservative country, for the long-term, but I, really, want to be proven wrong about this, as do a highly finite number of other non-leftists.
No matter what the circumstances of the poll if the Republicans in the house and senate had been acting with backbone and smarts, Obama, the worst president our country has ever had, would not be ahead of any republican anywhere.
We get to vote for a liberal to replace an über-liberal.
That is the key and the reason the Dims are working overtime to see Romney as the nominee.
But Romney has not yet shown that he will take the fight TO Obama - dithering around, Romney seems to be perfectly willing to LET Obama define him, much like McCain.
And once being defined, Romney seems set to concede point after point, until there is no perceptible difference between himself and Obama.
It is hard to get enthusiastic about such a game plan. Romney may put up a good defense when attacked directly, but defense does not move the ball down the field, and has NEVER scored a thing.
Obama is vulnerable on SO many fronts, he is a target-rich environment. Almost anything he claims for his credit can be demolished with a few well-directed rounds.
Energy policy. Foreign policy. Cooking the numbers on unemployment and real GDP growth. Tax policy (taxes WILL rise, in the absence of any legislation to extend still further the Bush tax cuts). Presenting a plausible Federal budget, or even permitting the current budget passed by the House to be voted on in the Senate (how about a simple phone call to Harry Reid on this one?)
Never even have to raise the issue of Obamacare. Not a topic for debate or discussion anytime during the campaign.
I don’t believe this.
I'll take the liberal.
I remember clearly, because it was the only real issue the Republicans had to run on. Gas prices dropped like a stone six months before the election, and voters completely forgot it.
Good thoughts. I've heard that Romney's campaign, including his back-channel operators is pretty competent. He also seems to be attracting plenty of support and money.
One thing worries me: Dems are at this business full time: they have government jobs and don't have the distraction of making a living. Republicans by comparison seem disorganized.
But here's the most important thing: Romney will not win by attacking 'bam. He has to present a vision--not a plan, but a vision of what this country should be. That was another thing McCain lacked: he ran as a kind of stalwart boy-scout kind of guy who was steady and dependable. Sheer boredom pushed voters over to 'bam.
I could never understand that election: on one side a liberal talking the same thing as the other liberal, only he was a Republican and had actual experience, on the other side was a total unknown, two years in the Senate with a campaign based on vapid pronouncement, nebulous promises and photo-ops.
But give the devil his due, he painted a pretty picture, a regular Monet.
Romney better come up with a picture of his own.
” Most sensible analysts predicted the GOP pickup was going to be around 50 seats..”
And you didn’t answer my observation about the Republicans taking over 26 state legislatures.
I know there’s ras-bots who love their rat hero, but he is very fallible.
“Oh, I hear consternation and deep misgivings concerning all this for the most part. I just have to shake my head in disbelief at all the Pollyanna verve about Romney.”
Credulous peons doing as credulous peons are instructed. Jonestown mentality, and indeed they WILL drink the coolaid.
Exactly. American sheeple on the whole don't think like those of us here in the conservative environs like FR. We don't have to like it, but Obama still holds at least half of America in thrall, comprising his base. Much of the previous drop in approval ratings can be attributed to a disappointment he hasn't whipsawed the Republicans and turned the country harder to the left. Look at the Gallup numbers... he has gone nearly straight up.. a 15-point swing that commenced right after he made those comments about the Supreme Court. There's something about that confrontation with the Supremes that has the sheep feeling all warm again. Make no mistake.. he's still the rock star and the cool black guy, and in image-obsessed America, that goes a long way. Romney has no discernible base of support and he generates no enthusiasm from any quarter.
It sucks, but America is a different country now, even compared to 2000. Considering 49.5% pay no federal income taxes.. and LIKE it that way and want yet more blood drawn from the "rich" .. Obama has massive structural advantages going into election day. When all is said and done, Obama will win by about the same electoral vote margin as McCain did. But.... this is what the GOP establishment wanted... presenting a sacrificial lamb who will set about losing gracefully. Well... looks like they got what they want.
as McCain did = as he did vs. McCain
Unfortunately, it appears he already has... and people don't like it... or him.
Suddenly, I think that even if he loses, we will still be in deep trouble. Think of all the havoc he will wreak from November to January....
Then America will divide if all is lost... and in that division will come rebirth.
That`s the hope I hold if America does go down.
Even a 7 year-old had it right on Sean Hannity today. He called Romney, Obama-light!!
Im guessing the Republican liberal will be tempted to move further left in an effort to beat his opponent.
Yeah, right before he wins and moves even farther to the left.
Okay, if you wish to dispute my points and yet are too lazy to do your own research I guess I will have further demonstrate how entirely wrong you are:
Here are the final pre-election 2010 congressional generic match up numbers taken from RCP:
Rasmussen has the Republicans with a +12 generic ballot spread spread over the Democrats (which is EXACTLY what I told you already). EVERYONE in the world other than head-in-the-sand lefties knew the GOP would pick up 40-60 seats in the House - with most suggesting around a 50 seat pick up. Rasmussen's polling was some of the evidence used to predict this. Rasmussen had predicted about a 52 seat House gain for Republicans - which would easily have resulted in a GOP House majority. It turned out to be more, but he was clearly on the right track and was correct that the Dem's were about to get the boot.
Here was Stu Rothenberg predicting Republicans winning at least 50 seats in the House.
BULLETIN Stu Rothenberg, The Rothenberg Political Report: Democrats seem likely to lose at least 50 seats, but the GOPs ceiling for gains is much harder to predict. With close to 100 Democratic seats in play, GOP gains of five or six dozen seats are not at all impossible. House Democrats appear headed for a historic bloodbath, with losses probably exceeding 1994s 52 seats. We estimate likely GOP House gains at 55 to 65 seats, with gains at or above 70 seats possible.
The liberal Nate Silver also almost predicted these outcomes very accurately. Here were his predictions in the NY Times on 2010 based on polling:
The 538 model had forecast a net pickup of 7 seats by the Republicans in the Senate, but the outcome was a pickup of 6 seats.
Our forecasting model, which is based on a consensus of indicators including generic ballot polling, polling of local districts, expert forecasts, and fund-raising data, now predicts an average Republican net gain of 54 seats (up one from 53 seats in last nights forecast), and a median net Republican gain of 55 seats. These figures would exceed the 52 seats that Republicans won from Democrats in the 1994 midterms. In final vote tallys as of December 10, 2010, the Republicans had a net gain of 63 seats in the House, 8 more than the total predicted on election eve though still within the reported confidence interval
Of the 37 gubernatorial races, FiveThirtyEight correctly predicted the winner of 36. Only in Illinois, in which the Democratic candidate Pat Quinn defeated the Republican Bill Brady 46.6% to 46.1%, was the FiveThirtyEight prediction wrong by just half a percentage point.
Charlie Cook and Larry Sabato were also very close in their predictions of a GOP take over of the House with around 50 seats, a 6-8 Senate seat pickup, and EVERYONE basically agreed that at the state legislature level the Democrats were going to lose at least 700 seats (the number ended up exceeding even that because so many Democrats defected and became Republicans shortly after the massacre
Did you want me to do your research for Cook and Sabato as well? It shouldn't hard to find.
I know theres ras-bots who love their rat hero, but he is very fallible.
This is what everyone says when A)they don't like the polling results or B) refuse to accept polling is pretty darn accurate and getting better all the time.
General election and generic polling is remarkably accurate actually - especially when you use a tool like the RCP average. Lots of people refuse to believe this, but the facts are what they are. Primary polling tends to be less accurate - especially when dealing with caucuses, but it is also getting better all the time. The Dem outfit PPP nailed Wisconsin almost perfectly by predicting a Romney 7 point win. Other pollsters were showing the same, a 7 or 8 point Willard victory.
As the 2010 midterms came near, almost every serious analyst (who wasn't so partisan their analysis could be safely ingored) know the Republicans would win the House, come up with about 6-8 Seats in the Senate (could have been 10 had we not run crappy candidates like Christine O Donnell, Sharon Angle, McMahon, etc), and would romp the Democrats even worse at the local level. This was no secret. If you were surprised at the outcome, you weren't following the news.
We get to vote for a rino to replace a radical socialist anti American racist traitor.
Yeah I know ....same thing /sarc
At least voting for Obama offers the convenience of staying home and not voting at all while puffing about the purity of our principles.
Romney is a self proclaimed Progressive. Romney's staff visited the WH dozens of times to help Obama craft ObamaCare. Are you sure Romney is just a RINO or is he left of RINO? Remember, Romney ran left of Ted Kennedy.
“He is polling below 50 percent as an incumbent”
Rest assured the hill and every other lamestream partisan media outlet will HIDE this.
They will try to make Romney’s loss to Obama a self-fulfilling prophesy. Disgruntled conservatives will be (ab)used to depress Republican voting.