Skip to comments.Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll (Romney 48%, Obama 44%)
Posted on 04/13/2012 10:05:22 AM PDT by BarnacleCenturion
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17.
In a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup, Mitt Romney earns 48% of the vote, while President Obama attracts 44%. That's Romney's biggest advantage in over a month.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
You are 100% correct. I mean, Romney has only been the GOP POTUS nominee for a few days since Rick Santorum backed out of the running, and.....he has already grabbed the lead over Obama in two polls. The Santorum speech tonight to the NRA was powerful, on target, and strongly supportive of the GOP ticket from top to bottom. Actually, if Romney is smart, he will consider Santorum as his VP choice!!!
Some of the over-the-top rambling by Freepers posting on the Romney candidacy is neither dignified, nor factual and acceptable for supposed conservatives. Where is their decency??? Some of the gutter verbage used is uncalled for coming from so-called American Patriots!!! Just like in the book “Animal Farm”, at the end of the story, no one could tell the difference between the “Pigs” & the “Humans”!!! They had both morphed into the same power hungry, controlling monsters, on the left and right side of the political spectrum!!! Both were equally evil to their core!!!
I sincerely do hope Mitt Romney chooses a bonafide conservative like Santorum, Rubio, Jindal, Bachmann, etc. I believe such a team would win big time come November, 2012!!!
Wow. It’s just like in 2008. McCain was few points above Obama and it dipped down, except when Palin was named VP.
Now, it’s happening again.
They will pump up the enthusiasms of the R, and then later quench it with acidic water down the rail.
Too bad for Romney and his ilks.
McCain lost it in the debates and in the crash remember? Nothing nefarious at all.
No, we're not.
This good information in assessing Romney.
“Sooner or later Obama is going to realize that reality sucks.”
I realized that reality sucks about the time I realized that more than half the country was stupid enough not to recognize Bill Clinton as a con man, when I realized that the same people were too dumb to see through the Kenyan I literally became physically ill.
“Those who say Romney simply cannot defeat Hussein are badly misjudging the situation by my estimation.”
You may be right if we could have a REAL election, unfortunately I don’t expect anything approaching an honest election. Is there some reason I should expect a REAL election?
There should be maybe 4 or 5 regional primaries and a short primary season but the parties and candidates don’t want that. The media doesn’t either. They string it out so long
and as usual some states like Calif. don’t even really get a choice because it’s over by then. The idea is that candidates do a long slog of a campaign all over the country, and as time goes by a few more drop out till finally you have the last two or the last one, and there are still quite a few states left. Allowing unenrolled voters in can drag the chosen candidate to the Left
though admittedly most voters are still nominal Republicans.
(Though more to the left than you’d think, on some issues.)
I come from a state—MA—where the likes of Romney, Brown, etc. are considered “far right Rethuglicans” but enough of their social agenda allows them to be elected, in a state where it seems like 98 per cent of office holders are
far LEFT Democrats. Mass Republican: USA Dem. Mass Dem:
USA Socialist/Communist. For so long I have been hungering for ANY candidate to the right of the Commies. While other
parts of the country paint the likes of Romney and Brown
as “liberal Republicans”, compared to what we normally
get (Kennedy, Kerry, Markey, Deval Patrick, Barney Frank)
they seem conservative. They’re as close as we’re gonna
get. And the Republican candidates often come off to us on the RIght as “well, don’t really like him, but consider the alternative”.
Such as Liz Warren, running against Brown, and
Joe Kennedy III, running against Republican Sean Bielat
for Barney Frank’s old seat. (Maybe Bielat will be half
decent though.) Great, Republican has a chance to win
Barney Frank’s seat when he retires, so what do they
do? They bring out a Kennedy.
As someone said not too long ago here on FR, “What’s in the water up in Massachusetts...besides Mary Jo Kopechne?”
The numbers are NOT with Mitt
Posted by noprisoners49 (Diary)
Friday, April 13th at 5:30PM EDT
Recommenders: garfieldjl (Diary), dialove
Mitt Romney must win over 60% of all remaining hard delegates to secure the GOP nomination. Surprised?
19 states still need to be heard from, and of those states 869 hard delegates are available at the state and district level (discounting the 37 total delegates available between Indiana and Arkansas, which have proportionality rules only a democrat could love). State and committee GOP delegates number about 69, which Im throwing into my calculations as a given for Romney.
Nevertheless, Romney still needs 663 delegates to reach that magic 1144 number.
Can he do it?
Of the 11,280,792 votes cast so far, Romney has accumulated 4,595,908 or only about 41%. Typically, Romney does not garner more than an average of 44% of the vote. Santorum averaged about 25% of the vote. Even if half of Santorums supporters vote for Mitt, this still does not give him the necessary 60+ % to secure the GOP nomination.
>> This guy isnt going to be a graceful loser <<
Agreed. And after his inevitable loss, we’ll probably face vicious riots in Harlem, Watts, Detroit and other large urban black population centers — that is, if “Trayvon Martin riots” don’t destroy most of those cities first!
No different than the rules you set at your own front door.
You are wrong, my friend. I don’t do a FReepathon to get people to help my my monthly mortgage and bills. If people pay to keep this website going, then they should have freedom of speech here. If someone is paying my house note, then they should be able to say what they want to say in “my” house.
>> Either way, we get to the same deplorable destination <<
At least Romney can’t say that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin. And at least Romney won’t have a beer on the White House lawn with Henry Louis Gates. And when her husband wins, at least Ann Romney won’t say it’s the first time she’s been proud of the USA. Good enough for me!
True, but those are at most nothing but symbolic gestures that amount to a fart in a windstorm, but the real damage will still be the same in the end.....and, like it or not, the vast majority of the population WILL consider Mitt to be a representative of Conservatism, even though we all here know that's bulsh. But Romney will destroy conservatism for good. At least with Obama, the Rats will own it, and we can regroup for 2016.
>> There was every reason to believe that Newt would pick up most of Santorums support <<
Earlier polls did not show that. Closer to a 50-50 split, if I recall correctly. Seems that a lot of religious conservatives would prefer a Mormon “family man” to a thrice-married Catholic “sin-no-more” convert.
Your logic is flawed.
Every one of us provides a good or service to others to make a living. We do not give up our right to set the rules of our own houses when we accept payment from others for that service.
If you run a restaurant or similar establishment, you've got every right to throw out a paying customer, if they break the house rules.
>> the real damage will still be the same in the end <<
I can’t agree:
1. If the Congress passes a bill to repeal Øbamacare, then Baraq would veto the bill. Romney would not.
2. Baraq wants to reduce our Navy to its lowest level since World War ONE. Romney wants to strengthen the Navy.
3. Baraq wants to reduce our nuclear arsenal to 200 warheads or less. Romney will keep it at around 600 to 800.
4. Baraq has already told Putin that he’ll give in to Russian demands if re-elected. Romney won’t, because he would want to be re-elected in 2016.
5. Baraq has already dissed Netanyahu umpteen times and gives every sign of abandonning Israel in the face of Iranian threats. Romney and Netanyahu are close friends, dating from their work years ago at the same firm in Boston, and Romney gives every sign of strong support for Israel.
6. Baraq is advised on SCOTUS appointments by Eric Holder. Romney is advised by Robert Bork.
7. Baraq is advised on foreign relations by Hilary Clinton. Romney is advised by John Bolton.
Sure, Romney is far from the best candidate the ‘Pubs could choose. He suffers from numerous flaws, and he’s absolutely terrible in some respects. I’d much prefer Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.
But we gotta face it:
The next POTUS will be either Øbama or Romney. And there’s simply no way that Romney can be as bad as another four years of Baraq. Let’s be real. As another Freeper said recently, You don’t get to choose your own reality. It creates itself.
Please tell me where the Free Republic House Rules are posted so I can follow them. Can you give me a link as to where to find them?
Well, sure, he has to find "registered" voters first, to separate them from "all adults." But then he filters for likely voters. And his final results are always reported in terms of likely voters, whereas almost all other surveys use registered voters right up until a few weeks before the election -- at which point many of them switch from registered to likely.
Now the methods that Ras uses to filter out the "registered" and "likely" categories must be proprietary. I'm sure he doesn't want the competition to know how he achieves his results. But achieve them he does, and he clearly has the best long-run record for accuracy.
The above having been said, some member of the regular anti-Ras crowd (actually, just a handful) here on FR will probably pop up now and tell us how the current poll is just another instance of Rasmussen's trying to dupe us. Ho hum. What else is new?
Actually, if Romney is smart, he will consider Santorum as his VP choice!!!
Not sure that would be “smart”. Rick might not even be able to carry PA for the GOP Ticket. I firmly believe that is the main reason he left the race; polls showed him possibly losing his home State of PA to Romney. Also, he alienates more people than he would bring in. Rick is not good at speaking “off the cuff” and then has to spend days “explaining” that he really didn’t mean what he said. Now..........
......if Romney is smart, he’ll choose MARCO RUBIO as his VP choice. Rubio can cut into Obama’s Hispanic vote and he can carry Florida. Whoever wins FL, wins the White House. Rick is a nice guy, but he needs to move on with his life and get a real job in the Private Sector and support those 7 kids and his wife.
Just go to the FR homepage, where you’ll find this near the bottom:
“Please enjoy our forum, but also please remember to use common courtesy when posting and refrain from posting personal attacks, profanity, vulgarity, threats, racial or religious bigotry, or any other materials offensive or otherwise inappropriate for a conservative family audience. . . .
“Free Republic is a site dedicated to the concerns of traditional grassroots conservative activists. We’re here to discuss and advance our conservative causes in a more or less liberal-free environment. We’re not here to debate liberals. We do not want our pages filled with their arrogant, obnoxious, repugnant bile. Liberals, usurpers, and other assorted malcontents are considered unwelcome trolls on FR and their accounts and or posts will be summarily dismissed at the convenience of the site administrators.”
Rubio is just fine and peachy with me!!!
Who is making you read this thread?
I thought conservatives were self reliant and willing to exercise personal responsibility.
I other words, quit your whining. Just don’t read the thread and you’ll feel better.
I will read whatever I feel like reading for reasons of my own choosing, over which you certainly do not have a vote, and about which your opinion counts for absolutely nothing. Go find someone else to annoy.
“I sincerely do hope Mitt Romney chooses a bonafide conservative like Santorum, Rubio, Jindal, Bachmann, etc. I believe such a team would win big time come November, 2012!!!”
IF a someone like Santorum took a VP slot, he would lose his credibility. Also, if Romney lost, which despite these momentary polls, he will....it destroys Santorum as a contender in 2016. A true conservative, and wise one, would not ally himself with Romney.
I don’t use profanity in reference to Romney. I call it like it is; he is an insidious evil. Obama is obviously evil, which in a way makes him less of a threat. Hidden evil is always worse than what is open and obvious. As a Christian, I do not use the term “evil” lightly. Romney is a dedicated member of a psuedo-Christian cult. That makes him an instrument of evil, but candy coated so it isn’t easy to recognize. Also, staying strictly in secular politics, his terrible records on the 2nd Ammendment, Abortion, Judicial Appointments, over reaching government are well documented. He is not conservative in any sense. So, the combination of psuedo-conservatism and psuedo-Christianity makes him totally unacceptable.
Some scream about the fracturing of the GOP. Blame Romney and Ron Paul for that. Paul is a libertarian whack job and Romney is a liberal “Fat Cat” “Country Club” “Northeastern Liberal.” Neither he nor Paul should ever have been on the ballot of the GOP.
Folks, my oposition to Romney isn’t about wanting “purity.” It is about wanting someone remotely acceptable. Romney is not remotely acceptable. Plus, it offends me that he hasn’t won the nomination, he bought it.
Now is Mr. Obama a disaster as POTUS? No doubt about that! The ONLY good thing about his election in 2008 was that a Black Man was now electable in America. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has set back race relations in this country. His is indeed dangerous, but he serves to rally conservatives to elect conservatives to the House and Senate where they can keep him in check. Romney won’t have anyone to keep him in check. The GOP members of congress will be brow beaten to go along with whatever nonsense he comes up with to do. So, I don’t see him as a real alternative to Mr. Obama. In fact, he could very well make things worse for establishing a conservative America.
So, I won’t support him. I won’t support Mr. Obama either. I am supporting congressional conservatives I can support in the fall. We have a good GOP congresswoman in my district that got elected in 2010...she needs to be kept in office. We have a terrible Dem Senator that needs to be removed...I will help on that. Putting Mr. Romney in place of Mr. Obama just doesn’t strike me as worth doing.
I support your right to choose your own course!!! I disagree with your logic. I am not a great lover of Mitt Romney at all!!! I believe in and I see mortal danger in our country if Obama is elected to a second term. Obama is another “Hitler” IMHO, because he is power driven only and will end our republic as we know it when he is unfettered by politics.
You may be willing to chance that there will be a free election in 2016. Knowing Obama the way I do and his mantra, I must do everything I can to insure his defeat, even if a blind monkey with one hand tied behind his back is running against him. The loss of freedom and liberty just to get even with Romney because this guy or that gal did not get the nomination is a poor excuse for putting our great country on the line!!! However, if that is your choice, I support your right to hold those feelings!!!
This is terrible news for Freepers who want to sit out and send a “message.”
We must find a way to suppress the Romney vote!
“You may be willing to chance that there will be a free election in 2016.”
I have more faith in strength of our republic. You are being ruled entirely by fear...I understand it, but it is not based in reality. The biggest danger Mr. Obama poses are continued bad economic, foreign policy, and judicial appointments. However, I don’t believe Mr. Romney will ultimately be any better on any...except maybe the economy.
“The loss of freedom and liberty just to get even with Romney because this guy or that gal did not get the nomination is a poor excuse for putting our great country on the line!!!”
You are making several false assumptions. The first is that already addressed...you are using an assummed “reality” of your fear’s assumptions to justify your actions. That is a logical falacy called “circular reasoning.” Of course, we all (myself included) do this. However, to say I’m acting out of vengence that my “person” didn’t get the nomination is a falsehood, you are assuming what is not true again. I have NEVER had a hard core choice in this cycle. I “logically” concluded that Newt Gingrich was the most “balanced” of the candidates and voted for him in the primary. However, I would have settled for Santorum or several of the others that were conservative. My disdain for Romney is not based upon him winning. I have opposed Romney since the 2008 primaries when he ran then. I also strongly opposed Ron Paul this cycle because I abhor Libertarians. My strong opposition to Romney is based upon my values....not upon him winning a primary. Were I seeking “revenge” against anyone or thing it would be the GOPe that has ignored its conservative base year after year when we were the ones that kept the party afloat.
Sir, I don’t like people that “wrap themselves in the flag” but I will tell you I have served and am still serving in the defense of this country. Believe me, I would NEVER do anything to jepordize its security. So, when I tell you my “perception” is that Romney is just as dangerous if not more so, don’t question my motives. Obviously, you can question my judgement as I question yours. But, don’t dare accuse me of harming this country for you are out of line sir! My judgement is just as valid as yours. And frankly, I’m actually being more rational than those of you supporting Romney out of fear of Obama.
Like I keep pointing out to folks here on FR. This is Jim Robinson’s home. He owns it, it is his property. True, he needs support from those of us here, but his does not hold a gun to my head and extort money from me. Therefore, when I enter his house, I follow his rules. He has been clear that Romney support is not permitted here.
If you think that Mr. Romney is the great white hope that will save you from the “fill in the blank” Mr. Obama. Well, it seems to me, that on this forum, you should keep that to yourself. It is promoting Romney. If you don’t like it, go elsewhere. Strangely, I have seen posts where persons have said, “I have paid for the right to speak my mind.” Thus, implying that because they donated it gives them a right to not follow the rules. Well, like I said, Jim Robinson didn’t force you or me to give him a dime.
>>I’m honestly curious as to the rules of what can be said about this, and what will be the rules going forward. If people applaud Romney leading Obama in the polls, etc., is that going to run afoul of FR’s policy regarding supporting Romney? <<
Exactly. Are we supposed to cheer this, or “boo”?
When we wake up and Romney has been defeated and the Marxist Dictator is triumphant, are we supposed to high-five and pop the champagne corks?
I think we have entered Wackyland.
I don’t believe those polls for a second. The whole race Romney was always supposedly the 2nd choice... yet each and every time someone collapsed... all of their support went to someone else.
The media is trying to keep information from us about how close the race currently is between Romney and Gingrich.
Romney will not and should not win in November (if he somehow is the nominee).
You wanna quit pinging us?
“You wanna quit pinging us?”
Actually no. Jim Robinson has declared this site to be Romeny free. The poster was pushing more pro-Romney nonsense and questioning my commitment to National Security. The “Oh My, the world will end if we don’t support Romney.” Are you going to enforce Jim Robinson’s statements or not? If you are not, then what good are you?
Mr. Robinson, I’m confused. Why do you allow these folks to continue to “backdoor” push Romney? It does not follow from clear statements you have made sir. Also, if you review many comments on the thread they should be removed. For one the picture of “Republicans for Romney” is deeply offensive and direct affront to those of us that won’t support Romney on principle. The clear statements made is that “OBR” is equivalent to being for Obama. Why aren’t the Admin Moderators deleting that stuff?
So, when I see Pro-Romney posts, I’m going to notify the Admin Moderators, because it needs to be purged.
Mr. Robinson, this is your home. I will abide by your rules. IF you directly tell me, not a moderator, that you don’t want me doing this. Then sir I will stop immediately.
Please lay off the moderators. My long standing instructions to them is to not ban members unless absolutely necessary. If a long term member has to be banned, I prefer to be the heavy and take the blame myself. They can ban newbie trolls and bots that show up, but I’ll take the responsibility for accepted or long term members who have now decided to leave the Life & Liberty fold.
Yes sir, I will comply in both letter and spirit. Thank you for the clarification. Admin Moderators, my apologies.
Granted, my experience was brief and ancient as well. Plus the New England state was an entirely different world from Massachusetts at the time and, even still, is the most conservative of the six (New Hampshire), but I was told then that the town council was the most basic unit of government and, if organized with other town councils, could basically override what was decided at the state level.
I would assume that is now past tense even in New Hampshire, given the libtrard love of centralizing government. But I'm assuming it was also true in Massachusetts at one time, right? If so, how long ago?
Why is it the only polls being conducted are Obama vs. Romney. Newt & Paul are still in the race and just because Santorum’s not campaigning doesn’t mean people can’t vote for them.
If it was such a hard climb for Romney before Santorum, shouldn’t there still a challenge? I hate this crowd, cramming this guy down our throats 24/7.
The best we can hope for is that Romney would not see fit to declare himself president for life as Obama is certainly intent on doing. Romney may actually have some limit beyond which he will not go but I see no evidence that the current illegitimate occupant recognizes any limit whatsoever.
“He may have some good ones but they are so outweighed by the bad...”
Good traits...let’s see now...OH, YEAH, how about...no, that’s not right...OKAY, how about this...naaah, that ain’t gonna fly...I give up.
So will you be glad when and if Obama defeats Romney? If so, that is the most demented and sick worldview I can imagine.
But you would have that in common with Democratic Underground.
Amen, brother. Newt HAS to get his campaign going again in high gear. He has much of the support from Santorum's backers now.
How exactly would a banished person apologize to the forum if they are banished?
If anybody could do it, you could. I can’t imagine you, or any other Freeper with any pride, doing it though.
Weird stuff going on.
Who should win then? 0bozo?
And hey, by now, it's pretty clear that Romeny will be the nominee. It's not a matter of “somehow is the nominee”. Look at the delegate count.
We’ve weathered storms before, we’ll ride this one out too I reckon.
Maybe, just seems a little more intense. At least before we got behind the eventual nominee. FR has been my sanctuary against all the liberals I’m surrounded by. Now, not so much.
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.