Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pollmania: Obama leads Romney by seven nationally, by nine in New Hampshire
Hotair ^ | 04/24/2012 | AllahPundit

Posted on 04/24/2012 2:56:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Second look at dog-eating?

That’s the biggest lead he’s had against Romney dating back to last August. Follow the link and scroll down and you’ll see that it’s independents who are driving it, flipping from a 45/39 split in favor of Mitt 10 days ago to a 45/43 in favor of O. Gallup reasons that a dip in gas prices must be behind it, but the dip we’re talking about here is roughly five cents in the national average. Hard to believe you’d see a poll effect this dramatic because of something as meager as that. I think what we’re looking at here is a very noisy poll.

Not sure about this one, though:

The WMUR Granite State Poll shows Obama leading Romney 51 to 42 percent [in New Hampshire]. That’s close to the 10-point lead Obama had over Romney in December…

The results are a dramatic flip from October, when Romney led Obama 50 to 42 percent. Smith said that shows the Democratic base is mobilizing…

The poll shows a mixed picture in terms of the president’s approval rating in the Granite State. Fifty percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing, while 47 percent said they disapproved. The gap has shrunk a bit since February, when 51 percent said they approved and 43 percent disapproved.

I don’t understand the “Democratic base is mobilizing” logic when it comes to polls. Their base would have answered this question the same way in October as they’re answering now. It’s more likely that Romney’s numbers have shrunk because, thanks to six months of a bitter GOP primary, indies know him better now than they did then and some don’t like what they see. That’s not a disaster — conservative Super PACs will begin the attack ad carpet-bombing campaign against O soon enough — but surely no one’s thrilled to see Mitt start the general election this far back in his own backyard. Nominating a “Massachusetts moderate” was supposed to help Republicans put northeastern states in play, states like New Hampshire and … er, realistically I guess that’s it.

I have a powerful eeyorish urge to go curl up in the fetal position so I’m going to go do that now. Here’s something to entertain yourself with, though — a new election model from WaPo that purports to predict the likelihood of an Obama victory or defeat based on two simple indicators, economic growth over the first three quarters of this year and his approval rating in June. In order to knock his chances of reelection below 50 percent, you need zero percent growth and a job approval of 45 percent. Possible, but not likely.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012polls; obama; poll; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last
To: urbanpovertylawcenter

RE: Yea, Sarah Palin is the answer!
What was the question?


What is : Who can beat Obama convincingly?

21 posted on 04/24/2012 5:09:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Either way a socialist wins. Vomit.

22 posted on 04/24/2012 5:32:56 PM PDT by vmivol00 (I won't be reconstructed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Yes I am posting again about how "nonpartisan" media helps elect Obama.

Options: Scroll, Scan, Scold (cursing allowed), Slur (contumely only), Scrub (ask Monitor to delete my reply)

A Gallup Poll from six months ago shows: Conservatives 42%, Liberals 21%

"Independents" are 37%? I guess.

Yet, Romney vs. Obama is more or less even 50-50 (omitting undecideds).

Conservatives get eight percent of the "independents" (42% + 8%) and liberals get 29% of the independents (21% + 29%).

Why is that?

IMO if that is what is happening it is because most independents do not know the difference between conservatives and liberals. Why is that?

IMO it is because the independents are apolitical and their media are "nonpartisan" entertainment and MSM "news". Neither of course is truly nonpartisan.

So First Family Obama and family are treated with kid gloves and respect. That's fine. Respect the Office.

But no mention of what we here on the Right discuss and document. Tain't fair unless the media source drops the pretense of being "nonpartisan."

In the worse-case "nonpartisan" media accept the popular meme that Republcans in general are anti-poor, anti-minority, war criminals and Daddy Warbucks (Iraq war), and mostly wealthy "who do not pay their fair share."

Another factor is "nonpartisan" media kowtow to MauMauing from the Left and have learned not to invite conservatives as guests. In some cases they limit what conservatives who do make it on to the show can talk about.

I personally have complained several times (including last week) but have received just one response.. an on-air angry denial that the show was bias in favor of presidential candidate Obama (2008) -- followed later in the show by the host exclaiming "I am tired of hearing about Bill Ayers!" after getting yet another caller wanting to talk about Ayers.

23 posted on 04/24/2012 5:43:21 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-23 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson