Posted on 09/08/2012 11:34:56 AM PDT by nhwingut
50% voter preference. The theory being that an incumbent is already known to the voters and that the so-called "undecideds" are withholding their vote because a.) they are less than satisfied with the incumbert and are b.) actively considering the challenger.
As a consequence, the vast nmajority (2/3 or more) of "undecideds" will break toward the challenger once they are forced into making a decision.
Thus, an incumbent who cannot muster a 50% share of voter preference is unlikely to ever reach that level -- and will likely lose.
your post 116 is right on the money.. These people will vote for Zero even if they are eating from dumpsters..Romney wont win.. Zero has his followers convinced that the republicans are the enemy that caused all this..
If I remember correctly, Isn’t Gallup under investigation by Obama’s DoJ... any correlation here?
And besides, the media needs a horse race right up till election day, to keep the masses hyped and watching commercial news outlets...
He would be down 20 if he were white...
I agree.
People need to remember that Dukakis had a 17 POINT LEAD in the Gallup poll after the 1988 Dem convention. And our candidate that year was George Bush I, not a strong candidate. Sort of a Romney-esque guy.
Just google “Dukakis 17 point lead” if people don’t believe this.
Really doesn't matter. Gallup is just as screwed up and any other poll.
In itself, that point could be the game-changer. The welfare class is less of a political threat than you might think because of their entitlement mentality. They're convinced they have the right to welfare while doing nothing in exchange. That "nothing" includes getting off the couch and voting Democrat.
That entitlement mentality is the likely cause of the low turnout rates in the welfare culture. They're so sure they're entitled, many of them don't vote their interest because they see no need to.
On the other hand, a guy in his 50s who needs the assistance is more likely to pull the lever for the (D) to show he's not an ingrate. Believe it or not, your Republic may be saved by entitled ingrates who get the idea that voting Dem in exchange for their benefits is beneath them
Speaking of polls, didn’t the polls the day before the Wisconsin recall election have Scott Walker defeating the recall forces by 1 point? After the vote, we all saw that Walker actually defeated the recall by 7 points.
In 2008, Obama won the independents by 8 points.
If Romney is really 15 points ahead with independents at this time, and maintains that margin through November 6th, then Romney is the 45th president of these United States.
I’m hoping the “soft-money” PACs are going to hit Obama hard at some point. The GOP-e / Romney ads.....I hope they do likewise at some point, but I’ll believe it when it actually happens. The conservative PACs are not going to portray Obama as a “nice guy.”
The reason Obama's even in this race is because half the country gets some form of government welfare check on a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly basis.
Yep, Government bribing people with other people's money to keep re-electing the same assholes that caused this mess. Brilliant.
‘Middle class entitlements’ should be an abhorrent oxymoron but it’s fallen into common usage even by so-called conservatives.
Why do you say that?
This is America, the country that elected Obama, the country that is more balkanized than the Balkans, that invited death to live with it in the form of Islam and sucks up to it, that slaughters its future generation and that works relentlessly to erase every visible and invisible trace of God in its society.
What do you expect, miracles?
I’d like to think Romney does too, but who knows? This is turning out how I thought it would. Romney and his PACs destroyed his Republican primary challengers with gusto, but when it comes to going after Obama, mostly crickets. This is what happens when you run a “moderate”.
That B.S. fest energized some more of the gutter end of the Democrat spectrum.
The other side of the Democrat spectrum may be still waiting for a reason to leave. It is traditional for modern Republicans to pack a lot of campaigning into a handful of weeks. Mitt does not saturate all states with the same ad. His publicity people have a bit more discernment than that.
People are making excuses, but I’m not buying them. Four years ago on FR, I tried to reassure myself with the excuses over the poll numbers. Not this year. All the polls are showing Obama with a lead.
Granted, he has a convention bounce, but why? Why after the job he has done? I’m a pessimist, and I’m willing to expect the worst, Obama will be reelected.
At this point, we can only hope that the Romney campaign turns up the heat and for Romney and Ryan (shouldn’t be hard for him against Biden) to perform well in the upcoming debates.
The first meaningful poll should be next Thursday or perhaps the week after Thursday. The immediate polls after the conventions are meaningless.
Rasmussen has Romney at 46 and The O-imposter at 45 in his daily tracking poll for 11 swing states. Let’s not over- react to Gallup’s lying poll.
“Not surprising. The DNC was masterful and aggressive compared to the weak, neutered, Obama-is-a-nice-guy-whose-policies-are-bad RNC. And Obama got a BIG assist from the media, who purposely distracted from the RNC with Issac, gave Obama a pass after Romney beat him to Louisiana, and refused to even cover the ugly God/Jerusalem chaos at the DNC.”
All true.
The Democrats are playing dirty, brass knuckles, and we are not exposing all of Obama’s failures strongly enough to get it through the media.
The key that Romney team fails to grasp but Newt has is that if you say something strongly enough, the media will consider it controversial and run with it. For example, the Clint Eastwood speech. Turns out he was sort of ad libbing - from the heart. The media didnt like it so they played it up... but it worked.
Ryan’s speech was effective so the media goes in overdrive to rebut it. Whereas for example, Christie didnt have a ‘sock it to them’ speech like Clinton. Net result - ignored, zero impact.
If you want impact, you have to hit ‘em hard. Give ‘em hell.
Obama is a very bad President, and he’s been running a desperate and dishonest campaign. Yet despite the desperation and dishonesty, they are now running ahead, slightly.
Romney still has to work to win this thing.
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.