Carville-Greenberg Poll Panics Dems: Romney Leads Big Among Independents

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | August 30,2012 | Rush Limbaugh

[Kaslin]

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: This has not been reported on much. I haven't seen it anywhere. I got a secret e-mail yesterday afternoon. Stan Greenberg and James Carville have this company. It's called Democracy Corps, and they go out there and they do polling. And you recall that it was Carville who warned Obama some months ago, "Don't go out there and talk about the economy, especially an economy in recovery. Don't go out there and try to convince people that we're roaring back, because we're not. And they know it because they're living it."

He warned Obama: Stay away from it.

Well, guess what? Carville and Greenberg have just released a new poll, and it's devastating for Obama. Among independents -- the precious, eagerly sought, oh-God-everybody-loves-them independents -- Romney leads Obama (this is a poll this week) by 15 points, 53 to 38 in independents. This is remarkable. This is a Stan Greenberg and James Carville poll. "Independents disapprove of Obama's job performance 56 to 40%. And when looking at intensity, disapproval is greater than two to one, 47 to 20%."

It is devastating.

This is James Carville's own poll.

Now, according to exit polling, Obama won a majority of independents in 2008. It was 52 to 44, an eight-point majority in the election of 2000, according to exit polls. "His cratering of support among swing voters reflected in this Carville poll," and in many others, "is the equivalent of losing more than 5.3 million independent voters from his 2008 total." This is undoubtedly the kind of polling data they have in the White House, the often-referred-to "internals," meaning the real stuff.

The candidates have to know the truth.

They do not put out polls to try to affect news or shape opinion.

They have to deal in Realville when it comes to polls. We never see the polls the candidates do. We never do. All we see are the polls from the news networks and other polling organizations. Of course, they have their own agendas. But the candidate polls, or in this case the White House polls? This is as close as we're ever gonna get to seeing one: The Carville and Greenberg poll. People who live and die, A, with polls; and then live and die, the independent vote, to right now to see Obama down 15 points?

This was before the convention. I got this yesterday. And the convention had not been going on long enough to have been a large factor. Now, here's why. Here's why the deficit: "President Obama's government-centered policies created the chasm that he now faces with independents, and any likability advantage that he holds has been unable to bridge the ideology divide." So his likability is not making up for the chasm created with independents over big government.

The independents are rejecting big government, government-centric policies, according to a poll from Carville and Greenberg. So I'm sure this is what they've got in the White House, and this is why they're panicked. And it's why they've been panicked for a while, and the "likability" isn't making up for it. Now, it's fascinating. Folks, there's a story that, without me putting these two things together, you might not be able to assemble in the proper context.

Our old buddy Jim Rutenberg at the New York Times, who is one of maybe three people there in the last 24 years who has written fairly of me. That's why I call him "our old buddy." (It's hurt him a little bit. But we stick with it.) "Emotional Ties to Obama May be Central to the Election." Now, remember what we just heard: Independents prefer Romney by 15 over Obama, from a Stan Greenberg/James Carville poll. The reason: The independents don't like big government and government-centric policies of Obama, and his likability is not bridging the gap.

Ergo, New York Times: "Through three nights of gauzy videos, sentimental testimonials, and final his own speech to the nation, Mitt Romney worked hard to show he has a heart. But he still needs to tackle the much harder job of convincing those Americans who so emotionally invested their hearts in Obama four years ago that it's time to accept that his presidency did not work." Now, the point of Rutenberg's piece here is the emotional ties to Obama make it hard for people to accept that he is a failure as a president.

That's their hope.

That's what they're clinging to here.

That's what this means. His presidency is a failure. Everybody it knows. But there was so much hope, and there was so much emotion tied to Obama. So much invested! (Ohhhh, we love the guy and he's such a fresh face! He's the first black president. We wanted him to succeed so bad!) And the theory is that the tie, that the strength of that emotional bond is such that not even a failed presidency can break it. But -- but! -- we go to Carville-Greenberg poll. Uh-oh, contradictory! The emotional tie is not enough to keep the independents from disapproving of Obama by 15 points.

So my take is Greenberg-Carville comes first, they put their information out, this is yesterday. The next day, today, we get this story in the New York Times basically refuting it, that the emotional ties of Obama voters who now acknowledge he's a failure as a president will make it tough for them to abandon him. And in the Greenberg-Carville poll they already have. Why are you frowning? Am I not making this... (interruption) Good. I thought you were frowning in there 'cause you didn't understand what I was saying, and I don't know how much clearer I can make this.

So what's your question? What are they gonna do to change the emotional tie? No. Keep their people from getting depressed. Keep their people from getting dispirited. Give 'em something to hold onto. They're not try to change reality; they're trying to blunt reality. They're trying to tell people, "Don't worry, don't worry, people still love the guy," and that's gonna be enough. That's the point of the New York Times story even though Carville and Greenberg's poll says it ain't even close to enough.

END TRANSCRIPT

[tumblindice]

Whatever happened to Paul Begala? He was even more despicable than Gollum Carville.

[mancini]

Zero is in a tough place. He HAS to talk about the economy because that’s what EVERYONE is talking about. Trouble is his record SUCKS...and everyone knows that too. Hey, Zero, get off our lawn!

[SoFloFreeper]

Hell, there was a poll by a DEMOCRAT polling firm out a couple weeks ago with Romney pulling a FIFTEEN POINT LEAD in Florida.

And some Suffolk University “expert” was on Miami tv this past week saying Obama has lost Florida.

Good news.

[Gumdrop]

The concept that each candidate has internal polls that are not being made public is interesting and it explains that following:

Why Romney’s convention’s emphasis was the lack of economic recovery and the spending/budget deficit; plus nudging the people who formerly liked Obama and voted for him toward the idea that even though you like the guy, you can vote him out of office because he has failed.

Clint Eastwood’s talk last night was exceptionally powerful in that he managed to ridicule Obama’s lack of success and narcissism, while also laying out the very clear concept that when a person fails in his job, it is OK to replace him with another.

Now all we need to have happen is work hard for the Romney/Ryan ticket and on November 6th MAKE OUR DAY!

[alloysteel]

The internals must be bad enough, the collective leadership of the Soros-financed team has to be crapping bricks, perhaps even in sufficient quantity to build a pretty magnificent edifice.

James Carville told the campaign managers to stay clear away from ANYTHING to do with the present economic conditions in America and throughout the world. This is about as much the anti-Clinton stance as the Democrat party could take, and now the Republicans own the issue on the economy.

It is still the economy, stupid, and the Democrats have gotten around on the wrong side of the issue.

[Morpheus2009]

All I have to say is the utter childishness that so many try to use to argue for Obama is despicable.

Second part is the fact that at least with Romney, we hopefully will have someone for whom the media will actually be critical about for once, not let fly like they did with Obama.

[Morpheus2009]

The funny thing is, if plenty of Democrats actually had enough brains, they would at least ally over the economic issues, disagree on the rest.

[Morpheus2009]

The funny thing is, if plenty of Democrats actually had enough brains, they would at least ally over the economic issues, disagree on the rest.

[tumblindice]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/06/15/dnc_chair_debbie_wasserman_schultz_we_own_the_economy.html

Achtung: Li’l Debbie images! Yeah, there’s no wiggle room here for an egg-sucking weasel, mangy yellow dog or even a lyin’ Democrat.

[chuckee]

Well Obama can’t talk about the economy during the campaign. It is a loser for him. Guess he is going to have to dredge up Bin Laden from the Arabian Sea and have him shot again just before election day.

[LaserJock]

Etch-a-Sketch is gonna need these independents.

[patriotsblood]

I watched Obama’s speech at Fort Bliss today for the ten minutes that Fox News carried it live,then tuned into CNN who carried it for ten additional minutes before they also pulled the plug. What I saw was someone who seemed to know that he has already lost the election and was just going through the motions.

[Hugin]

It’s interesting that the polls of Carvile and Dick Morris, the two guys who did Clinton’s polling show Obama doing much worse that they “mainstream” polls. I know Morris says the other polls are way oversampling Democrats, 7-9%, based on 2008, where traditionally it’s more like 2%. And if course if you’re just counting independents that doesn’t apply.

[AC86UT89]

“What I saw was someone who seemed to know that he has already lost the election and was just going through the motions.”

I didn’t watch the Obama speech because I can no longer stand to see his face or hear his voice. However, if your observations are correct, then I wonder if some of his recent announcements and executive orders - gay marriage, DREAM Act - are less about fund-raising for the current election and more about preparing for his post-election prospects.

If he already knows he is going to lose, he will do whatever he can now toward cementing what he considers important to his legacy and to set him up for post-Presidency activities like speaking engagements to his left wing base.

[tet68]

Now that Romney is the nominee I will be interested
to see what kind of ad campaign he starts.

[Terry Mross]

They HAVE to talk about the economy and Carville is stupid to advise them not to. I guess he thinks obama should ignore whatever the republicans throw at him.

[taildragger]

Great post one and all, especially the one about he knows he has lost this...

But onto Carville.

I hadn't seen him much lately, but he was on a panel thumbing through the dial at the RNC Convention. When asked about Ann Romney's health and will the rest of Campaign be a factor to wear her out, I saw a side of James I haven't before.

Note, Rush says he is a great dad and husband and maybe age has mellowed him. But his response was she will be fine, the primary was the rough part.

But it was subdued and civil, a side of "Serpent Head" I hadn't seen in a while if ever. So the question begs, was it his good side, or was it the begrudging respect of the vanquished that they often have towards their victor given what Rush has said in this article.

Maybe a bit of both...

[Gator113]

My goodness, those ARE devastating numbers.

[hinckley buzzard]

Obama is not worried. By the time the DNC convention winds up next Thursday, we will be living in the midst of the greatest boom of all time. And all the media will affirm.

[hinckley buzzard]

The thing you have to understand about Carville--yes he's a partisan, but he's basically in this for the money and the sport. Like Billyboy was, in it for money power and easy women. They are/were not malignant like the obama crowd is.