Rasmussen Poll-Election 2012: Obama 49%, Gingrich 39%

Rasmussen Reports ^ | 12-14-2011 | Rasmussen

[willk]

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich now trails President Obama by double digits, his second straight weekly decline since becoming the GOP frontrunner. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds Obama earning 49% of the vote, while Gingrich receives 39% support.

[org.whodat]

You have a magic 8 ball saying that debates will take place, ok, who is going to win the super bowl and what is the point spread and the top four in next years Kentucky derby in the order they finish. Thanks we can all get rich quick.

[Cobra64]

Bachmann, Santorum, or Huntsman is a winning ticket.

The problem is that not one of them have listed their agenda, goals and objectives. They're typical politicians who merely recite the "Vote for me" mantra.

On the other hand... http://www.newt.org/contract/videos

[garjog]

“Newt’s intelligence is going to go a long way towards softening up liberals who love to bash the Republican party for being stupid,”

Excellent analysis. They can’t say that Newt is stupid like they normally do to all of our candidates. The debates will feature his intelligence so well that he will win over people as he exposes what a fraud Obama is.

Moreover, I wonder if the fact that Newt mistreated his second wife, as horrible as that is for conservative Christians to consider, might actually resonate with “Independents” or conservative Democrats who have had similar experiences with failed marriages. “Hey, this guy is human just like me.”

[C210N]

If you try to tear down Newt before we have a suitable replacement...

Exactly Right. These attacks from republicans would have a great deal more weight if there was at least some evidence there was some thinking behind them to get Bachmann or Santorum to the forefront. Until that evidence surfaces, these attacks are destructive to the conservative movement. I'd GLADLY move from the Newt camp to the Bachmann or Santorum camp, BUT, its now Primary Season Eve. We can't let the Romster get in with his paltry 25% by ensuring that Newt, Bachmann, AND Santorum are ALL individually below 25%.

[willk]

Great illustration!

[JediJones]

Yeah but Quayle became a liability in 1992 after the media made a narrative out of his gaffes.

I do not agree that Newt has to run from his past. He has an incredible record from the beginning of his career as a grass-roots conservative leader through taking over the House in 1994 and passing a lot of legislation that has people now looking back on the ‘90s with great fondness.

Besides, the stuff people are bashing him for now in the primary like the Pelosi ad absolutely cannot be used by Democrats in the general election. That’s why I think some of this was strategy so he can come back and say he can work with Democrats, something the general electorate likes. Plus he has a record of doing that with Clinton.

I doubt most voters were even aware of McCain’s infidelity and divorce, so that wasn’t an issue last time. And McCain was a POOR communicator, totally unlike Newt on that front. Newt isn’t going to say “I’m not very good on the economy” or that “Obama would make a good president.” Newt will hit Obama hard.

[TexMom7]

I’m not wild about Newt’s infidelity BUT that is not why I would not vote for him.

Newt = Big Government
Romney = Big Government

I do admire a man who is faithful to his wife BUT

that is not why I am voting for Perry.

I am voting for Perry because he understands smaller government, states rights, gun rights, less regulation, cut federal spending, a balanced federal budget, lower taxes, creating an environment that allows Americans to create jobs, energy independence, strong military/defense, strong faith and value issues, securing the border and getting the federal government out of our lives allowing We The People more Freedom.

[JediJones]

I don’t think Newt’s found the best way to spin his divorces yet. It actually felt like he shrunk back from answering that question in much detail in the last debate because he didn’t want people who might not have heard about it to realize they were talking about him. I think he needs to use stronger language and say he regrets what he did profoundly, say he’s embarrassed by his past, reiterate asking forgiveness from God and say he’s tried in the last decade to turn his life around and become the kind of husband, father and grandfather that his family deserves. His ego’s been getting in the way of him truly showing humility on this front.

Bottom line, though, as someone said, it’s conservatives who are more likely to be upset about the infidelity. Democrats tend to consider that sort of thing a non-issue. They might more or less use it shamelessly as a campaign tactic, but they might even shy away from that because of how easy it would be to bring up Clinton and to point to how popular he still is among Democrats.

I’m not sure the Democrats have a solid negative narrative on Newt yet. With Bachmann and Paul it would be “they’re crazy,” with Perry and Santorum it would be “they’re stupid,” and with Romney it would be the Bain capital/Carly Fiorina/Meg Whitman angle of making him out to be a heartless corporate 1%er who threw his employees under the bus and doesn’t understand the plight of the working man (A la the G.W. Bush 2nd term attack over the price of groceries, was it?). No idea on Huntsman either...maybe that’s why Clinton said he thought he’d be a formidable candidate, no real negatives to speak of.

They may try angling for Newt on the “crazy” angle because of some of his ideas, but he parried one of those pretty well with the moonbase answer last time, and his obvious intelligence is a good counter-strike to accusations of an unstable mind. The infidelity and the lack of private sector experience don’t work well as attacks for Democrats. They’re probably going to have to fall back on him being a “mean” conservative who is going to cut welfare. I don’t know if we’ve had to run against that line of attack for a while. Maybe Dole a little? I’m too young to remember how the Nixon campaigns played out, I only know that he won twice.

[TexMom7]

You:”Amen and btw as a woman I don’t really care what Newt and his wives did.I’m looking for a President not a husband....”

Newt’s unfaithfulness is not why I will not vote for him.

I’m not looking for a President that is a smooth talker or smooth debater, I’m looking for a principled conservative who has a solid record. And for me, that is Perry.

[hosepipe]

I would NOT trust Rasmussen counting my fingers..

[garjog]

"You have a magic 8 ball saying that debates will take place,"

We can count on at least three Presidential debates since that has occurred in every election since JFK vs Nixon.

Newt has argued for seven debates to parallel Lincoln vs Douglas and believes that Obama will accept since Obama has a fantasy that he is the re-incarnation of Abe.

Chaos theory says rightly that no one can predict what will happen next. But, based on Newt's stellar performance in ever debate I've seen him in during the last months I am confident that he will be impressive against Obama.

Based also on watching Obama coldly read the prompter, punctuated by "ums" and "ahs" every other sentence over the last three years, I'd say that he certainly hasn't lived up to the moniker of being a great orator.

And judging by the fact that Obama's ideas are bankrupted or corrupt I'd say that Newt stand a fair chance at trouncing Obama in the debates.

It will be brainy Newt vs twitty Barak.

Thus speaks my eight ball.

[larryleo]

Once Newt wins nomination and starts focusing in on Obama — these numbers will change. Unless the general public is completely brain dead, they’ll eventually understand why Newt is much more qualified to be President than Obama ever was. The Republicans still have to make the case to replace Obama (which is sad to begin with) and there is nobody better to make the case than Newt.

[Dogbert41]

“Independents and women will either stay at home or vote for whom they believe is the cool guy”

I believe the struggle for survival by election time may put these women in line for a smart guy with anwers than a dumbass golfer in a suit eating $100 a pound steak.

[org.whodat]

I think you forgot to turn the ball over each time.

[JediJones]

Which one of those things is Newt not running on in this campaign? The only thing you could say he wavers on is immigration, but then so does Perry. From what I understand, Texan conservatives aren’t bothered much by illegals, would never act to get rid of the cheap labor, and are integrated much better with Hispanics in general than they are in California. The fact is there are very few illegals that are ever going to leave this country. Already Alabama is rolling back their tough immigration law because it’s messed up a status quo that people were more or less happy with. There are very few if any concrete gains to be made by evicting millions of illegals and a lot to lose in terms of Hispanic votes.

I want a secure border and I want an orderly immigration process that allows people from all over the world to come here, not just South Americans. But at a certain point it becomes like the Palestinians expecting the Israelis to leave. It’s just not humane to expect long-term residents entrenched where they are to be uprooted and deported elsewhere. If they had children here, parts of their families are U.S. citizens, so we’d basically be allowing a lot of these people right back with legal visas to be with their families or work visas. So the whole immigration fight ends up coming down to a piece of paper and not much else. We have far more to gain by having a compassionate policy on this particular issue and warming the party up to the Hispanic vote.

[garjog]

OK, you are voting for Perry because of his small government positions and think Newt is for big government.

Can’t be sure, but in a few weeks Perry may be dropping out because few people share your support. Maybe he can turn it around, but you know it doesn’t look that way.

Just like in the super bowl you have to route for the team you like the most if your home team didn’t make the play offs. The presidential play offs are going on now and Perry will probably be cut.

I like Rush’s analysis about Newt being a good alternative to Romney:

“Who was the last person to actually cut government? Who was the last person who actually led a movement that balanced the federal budget? Who was the person that did that? You’re not gonna take a guess? That’s right, it was Mr. Newt! He was the last guy who gave us a balanced budget. Now, there are a lot of other Republicans involved — Kasich was key and a lot of others — but Gingrich was Speaker. The last time this budget was balanced, the last time there was true welfare reform, the last time government was cut, Gingrich did it. Who is number one enemy of everybody today?”

[garjog]

“They’re probably going to have to fall back on him being a “mean” conservative “

Good points all. They can’t say that he is stupid or made his money on Wall Street. So they will fall back on attacking his character as mean, uncaring, extreme and evil.

They will say that is is evil like the Grinch of Stole Christmas, while Obama is a kind, loving father who plays with his daughters and dog and lounges on the beach in Hawaii eating shaved ice.

Hopefully voters will be paying more attention to how Obama’s policies are destroying the economy and causing world wide collapse of western civilization than to Democrat campaign narratives.

[syriacus]

Who gets the rest of the votes?

[4rcane]

ginrich is under attack tea partiers as well. Gingrich is a socialist, central planner

[syriacus]

49% (Obama) + 39% (Newt) = 88%.

Who gets the other 12%?

A third party candidate? We already know that the presence of a third party candidate could lead to an Obama victory, no matter which Republican runs.