Skip to comments.(Real Clear Politics) General Election: Romney vs. Obama (Romney Losing by 1.9%)
Posted on 05/25/2012 5:28:50 AM PDT by xzins
Poll Date Sample Obama (D) Romney (R) Spread
RCP Average 5/9 - 5/23 -- 45.5 43.6 Obama +1.9
Rasmussen Tracking 5/21 - 5/23 1500 LV 45 44 Obama +1
Gallup Tracking 5/17 - 5/23 3050 RV 47 46 Obama +1
ABC News/Wash Post 5/17 - 5/20 874 RV 49 46 Obama +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 5/16 - 5/20 RV 47 43 Obama +4
FOX News 5/13 - 5/15 913 RV 46 39 Obama +7
Mason-Dixon 5/10 - 5/14 1000 LV 44 47 Romney +3
Wash Times/JZ Analytics 5/11 - 5/12 800 LV 43 44 Romney +1
IBD/CSM/TIPP 5/9 - 5/16 778 RV 43 40 Obama +3
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Chuck Baldwin, the last Constitution Party candidate, garnered .15% of the vote nationally. For a moment, let's assume Virgil Goode catches fire and increases the Constitution party tally by 500%; that still leaves him with a resounding .90% of all votes cast, or somewhat less than 1,000,000 votes out of a likely total of at least 120,000,000 votes cast nationally. What kind of a "protest" is that going to register?
As regards the RCP averages: if you do an average of some really bad polls, you get really bad results. The Washington Post/ABC News polls, for example, assumed a voter affiliation breakdown that was 32% Democrat, 22% Republican; The actual turnout in 2010 was 35% Democrat, 35% Republican. That poll was obviously manipulated to produce a desired result, yet RCP includes it in their average.
Exactly... The only polls I trust are:
Rasmussen (Romney +1 - likely voters)
Gallup (Obama +1 - registered- will convert to likely soon)
Mason Dixon (Romney +3 - likely- good overall track record)
Battleground (Romney up slightly but dated poll - bipartisan)
Meaning that 0bumma is down about 5-points.
Maybe... when factoring in leaners or undecided. My view is Romney is up by 2-3 overall among likely.
What kind of a message does it send if Obama wins in a blowout? He, and the media, will claim a complete mandate to push his soc down our throats non-stop.
>> Obama is up in the RCP’s Likely Voter polls as well as the Registered Voter polls <<
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The average Romney lead for the three LV polls is 1.67%.
Moreover, if we take the grand average for ALL of these polls, LV’s plus RV’s, Øbama’s support currently stands at only 45.5%. Therefore, given the rule of thumb that the undecideds usually break about two-to-one against the incumbent, IMHO these polls are forecasting a 53-47 victory for Romney.
Agree, it will never happen.
I agree that they will not vote for Romney. But they might just stay home over the gay marriage issue, at least a percentage of them. And Obama requires a huge turnout from blacks and young people to have a chance - two groups that traditionally do not turn out in big numbers, but did so in the last election for Obama. If they return to their usual voter turnout pattern, Obama is toast.
I’m more concerned with conservatives taking then Senate than the White House.
Now initially on point you've surmised their strategy because, well, that's what they've said their strategy is -- the Kerry '04 map -- which leads to Ohio as the must-have.
But pinning their hopes there will get Bobo beat because it will come at the expense of losing IA and/or WI and/or some combo of the Intermountain West.
But to stick with the original idea, with the Southeast in hand and with just those 2 Rust Belt flips, Mittens could still lose OH, CO, and NM and still win.
But we all know wherever FL and VA go, that's where OH will go too.
I think Axelrot will eventually relent to Messina and realize Bobo has to focus completely on retaining IA & WI and the entirety of the Rust Belt, and still find a way to keep NV, CO, NM, because he's going to lose the Southeast (FL, VA, NC, et al) and OH.
What looks like the Battle for Ohio on the surface is really a fight for the Intermountain West. And oops, that's Mormon country.
Until +.20 jump yesterday for the holiday weekend. And when the local snooze called 'em up, they blamed the wholesalers -- and of course that was enough for the snooze! Make another phone call? Why bother!
And under that criteria, Morris' poll is atop the poll heap until someone else undertakes a mammoth 6K of Likely Voters...
"From May 5-11, 2012, I conducted a survey of 6,000 likely voters. On such a mammoth sample, the margin of error is less than 1 percent. I found that Romney has amassed a sizable lead over Obama of 51-42, far in excess of what published polling and surveys of registered as opposed to likely voters are indicating." -- dickmorris.com
And you'll note Bobo's people haven't been the same since this Morris poll...unhinged, if you will. Even moreso than the MDS miscreants.
IF you live in one of the 17 states where he's on the ballot...
I am not voting for Virgil Goode to send a message. I am voting for him because out of the 3 people running, he is the best. Romney has little influence on whether I vote for Goode or not. Romney and Obama are basically twins in most issues.
Give us a break. The Constitution Party was on the ballot in 37 states in 2008...shooting for 40 this time around: Constitution Partys Pres Nominee Hopes to be on Ballot in 40 States
I would also venture to stay in those 10 other states that it won't make much difference if you voted for Romney or not...
If those are liberal states, Obama will win, anyway. (Plus not enough FREEPERs to swing votes in most states, anyway)
HOWEVER, if some ABO conservative who is supporting Romney only because he's been shoved down conservative throats gets to Oct 31 and sees Romney down 3+ points (approximately the MOE in a large sample such as right before the election) in the polls, then it makes sense for that guy not to WASTE his vote on Romney. Why vote for a liberal who is losing?
Instead, that ABO conservative would send a powerful message by voting for a real conservative, Goode, rather than waste a vote on a losing Romney.
By their own logic, the only reason they are voting for Romney is because he has a “better” chance than any 3rd party or write-in. If Romney is losing by a significant difference at election time, then it makes sense to NOT waste a vote, but instead to send a conservative, COUNTABLE message by voting for Goode.
The ABO’s can, of course, set their own threshold. Maybe they want to use 5+ points or 7+ points. If it's 7+, I guarantee that Romney is losing.
I believe OPEC manipulates gas prices for profit and politics. They were very high a month ago, and they are now easing. They took in a lot of money. (I also believe OPEC has been smart enough over the years to have their fingers in ALL the various methods of making money from their oil, from pumping and selling by the barrel all the way to selling at the pump to speculating to selling short to whatever.)
They support Obama because Obama bows to the King of Mecca.
At the same time, they do want their profits, so they’ll incite ups and downs and bring prices down at opportune times to benefit their obedient obama.
I think this is obvious, but for others I’m tin foil and conspiracy 101.
PALIN is the only choice
Newt would have been way ahead by now. Rick Santorum must be happy
Why do you say Romney will lose?
My hunch is that, after next Tuesday's Texas primary, Romney will have sewn up the necessary votes to make him the successful GOP candidate. At that point, do not expect any "surprises" out of the nominating convention in August. Do not expect any back-room maneuvers to replace him on the ticket in the general election in November. (By the way, why do you expect a convention run by the GOP to intervene in, and change the verdict rendered by voters in the primaries? It is simply not going to happen.)
In any case, the good man Virgil Goode the rock-ribbed conservative hasn't got a chance of defeating Obama in the general election anyway. Short of divine intervention, of course.
Yet I expect our good Lord leaves this kind of electoral business to us, We the People.
You seem to want to cast a taint on the "ABO" crowd. That there is something deeply immoral about people trying to remove this tyrant that would be Obama from office.
I find myself located in the ABO company. This must make me a very bad person, on your view.
And yet, for me the bottom line is: I can no longer stand to live in a political society premised on outright, daily lies and spin of the real situation in which America finds herself nowadays, under Obama and the thugs that surround and enable him. If Obama does not want to deliberately destroy the country we know and love, you could have fooled me: His policies which he constantly misrepresents (i.e., lies about) are designed to do just that.
In conclusion, Obama is a serial, pathological liar. He is trying to create a "second reality" out of sheer rhetoric....
I'd vote for my cat before I'd ever vote for him. And I won't waste my vote on Virgil Goode who hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected President of the United States just to send a "message" to the GOP "establishment."
Secure the well-being of the country first. Though you have demonized him and constructed an unrecognizeable caricature of the man in my view from Massachusetts Romney has the right stuff to at least stop the bleeding. Then we can deal with the feckless and seemingly increasingly unprincipled GOP establishment.
In short, if the boat is sinking, bail the boat first. A sunken boat only means drowned crew and passengers.... And that sort of thing is "forever."
To go vote Republican this year, no. But many could sit out.
ALL: "ABO" is simply a euphemism for a (potential) Romney voter, or a Romney supporter/advocate, or a Romneybot troll [those are 3 separate categories of "aid and abetting")
How do we know that?
Because usually when we suggest -- say, a Virgil Goode as an "ABO" alternative, it's met with some measure of displeasure by the euphemistic "ABO" company...meaning, it's not REALLY "ABO." (It's Romney ONLY)