Posted on 08/08/2012 7:27:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Today's Washington Post/ABC News poll gives a little bit of good news to Barack Obama --- and therefore some bad news for Mitt Romney. In an advance look at the overall poll results, Obama leads Romney on favorability. However, the gap narrows when the poll reports only from registered voters, which the Post and ABC fail to mention:
Although 40 percent of voters now say they hold a favorable opinion of the former Massachusetts governor — virtually unchanged from May — those holding negative views of him ticked higher in the new survey, from 45 percent to 49 percent.
Meanwhile, President Obama remained in positive territory on that measure, with 53 percent of voters reporting favorable opinions of him. Only 43 percent say they feel unfavorably toward him.
To find the favorability gap among registered voters, one has to look at the report from the pollster, provided by ABC News. Among RVs, Obama leads in favorability 49/42. That represents a tie for the Obama low in this poll for 2012 (also 49% in February), while Romney's 42% is the second-highest report for him since the primaries started in January. Dropping three points in a month isn't exactly great news for Romney, but it's also not as bad as Obama's drift as an incumbent — especially an incumbent who has spent well into nine figures this spring and summer trying to destroy Romney’s credibility through harshly negative advertising.
Of course, we have a lot of problems in the WaPo/ABC poll series with sampling. In these advance results reports, the sampling data is not usually included, and today’s report is no exception. We can’t evaluate these results fully until we determine how well the modeling of the sample data matches that of the electorate in 2012. That doesn’t mean that the information is entirely useless, however, especially within party-affiliation demographics. Those results are a mixed bag for both candidates, too:
INDEPENDENTS – Obama’s gained back ground he’d lost among independents, customarily swing voters in national elections. In late May he fell numerically underwater among independents for the first time since December (45-52 percent favorable-unfavorable). He’s now back far in front of Romney in this group, largely because of gains among independent women.
Among all independents, Obama’s favorability rating is now 16 points higher than Romney’s (53 percent vs. 37 percent). At the same time, that narrows among independents who are registered to vote – 46 percent favorable for Obama, 38 percent for Romney – indicating, among other factors, the potential importance of voter registration drives in the few months ahead.
That’s an eight-point swing among independents between general-population adults and registered voters — which sounds a little odd to me. I’d expect to see some difference, but eight points is pretty large. Still, this isn’t good news for Romney, who needs to beat Obama’s seven-point win in 2008 among unaffiliated voters.
However, Romney has some good news on the Republican-unity front:
Among partisans, Romney’s caught up with Obama in popularity within his own party; 83 percent of Republicans rate Romney positively, as do 84 percent of Democrats for Obama. That’s Romney’s best-ever rating with the party faithful, up 25 points since mid-March.
Romney’s rated favorably by fewer conservatives, 65 percent, though this, too, is a new high.
That’s not a bad development, nor is Romney in desperate straits as we roll toward the conventions. Team Obama still hasn’t scored a knockout, and they’re three weeks away from getting seriously outpunched in the general election. Having an incumbent at 49% favorability among registered voters suggest that it’s probably lower among likely voters — and both are bad numbers for the candidate looking for re-election.
Update: Yes, I meant to say three weeks – or to be very precise, three weeks and two days. Romney can start spending general-election cash once he accepts the nomination at the convention, and that is the official start of the general election.
A perfect explanation of our education situation. Well stated.
LLS
“A Democrat will vote for a Republican who has some fundamental ideas straight about truth, justice and the American way and who is not a weak kneed wimp.”
Hilarious stuff. While that might have once been true (and this is extremely doubtful) those characteristics are the LAST things Democrats look for and they reject them every chance they get.
People have to get over the idea that there is an alternative to Romney or some kind of miracle can happen at the convention. As much as Romney is not our choice here he is the choice of the GOP and infinitely preferable to The Disaster.
Your idea of allowing This Disaster to slither back into the White House is destructive of the nation’s future. You need to tone back the fanaticism for our kids sake.
And spare me any BS about whatever Loser you are contemplating throwing away your vote for.
Next thing you know they were running Lyndon Baines Johnson. He won in a landslide.
As events progressed it was quite demonstrable that he was the worst possible choice Democrats could have ever had.
Next election up Richard Nixon ran on Conservative issues and not only won, he pulled over millions of white Southerners who never looked back.
We have the same sort of situation here ~ think of Obama as a bad LBJ. Almost the entirity of the Roman Catholic voting base in America is up for grabs ~ and so we are running a guy just like Obama.
These great power shifts don't happen everyday. Why we are giving away this one is a very good question.
It’s the same disaster with either candidate.
There is no comparison of The Disaster to LBJ. LBJ was a political genius compared to this goof.
Nixon only won because the Democrats had turned the nation against them by the War not because of anything he said or did. His “Secret” Plan to end the War? Given me a break. Not only that but the Democrats were bitterly divided as exemplified by the Convention riots and the fact that Wallace took a lot of Democrat votes with him when he ran as a Turd Party. Wallace won states that, at that time, would not vote Republican for anything.
Are you comparing LBJ to the goofy Romney or the goofy Obama? You have to be specific ~ they are remarkably similar.
Not by a long shot are they the same.
Romney is NOT anti-American.
Romney is NOT anti-Business or a socialist.
Romney has NOT associated AT ALL TIMES (or any time) with America-hating Left Wingers.
Romney IS constitutionally qualified to be President.
Romney has NOT hidden his college transcripts.
I could go on and on but this is sufficient to prove there is nothing in common between these candidates except they BOTH have two legs.
First off, you know those donor lists ~ with the "Little people" ~ you won't get to use them in future campaigns.
Second, no one worth appointing will be willing to serve in a Romney regime. Obama has had a similar problem ~ remarkably similar. He has the worst bunch of appointees I can recall. Romney attracts the same class.
Nixon ran on Law and Order because the Democrats were rioting at their convention and the Blacks were burning down their neighborhoods in big Northern cities. Had little to do with “conservatism” which had been discredited by the Goldwater debacle.
You are the one bringing up LBJ not me. What I said was that he was a political genius compared to The Disaster.
Presumably you are equating JFK’s assassination to a “miracle”. But that was a big factor in LBJ’s getting elected because of the enormous sympathy it generated. Rather than being portrayed as a corrupt, racist, mobbed-up, vicious scum-bag, ole LBJ was the inheritor of the saintly mantle of Camelot.
Once again no bearing on this election.
In later years we found his interest in social conservatism was pretty much like what we see with Obama ~
But Law and Order is still a Conservative game plan that sells ~ particularly when the Democrats are rioting.
BTW, they aren't rioting this year!
Let’s see sentence by sentence:
Nonsense;
no idea what that is supposed to mean;
nonsense.
Or, maybe you want to run the idiot ~ where's the backup if the idiot does something idiotic ~ did you know there are, at present, four people running around loose who have attempted to assassinate Presidents? One succeeded in shooting a candidate (Wallace) as well. One succeeded in shooting a President (Reagan)
Ask yourself "who let these guys out'?
Goldwater not only was Mr. Conservative then but still considered as such.
Not much of conservative thoughts gets through the Enema-media’s propaganda screen. Maybe one in a hundred even knows what they are.
LBJ was not an “idiot” by any measure. He was a practiced and skilled politician as his Senate career easily demonstrated. The fact that he ran into a problem not susceptible to his skills didn’t make him an idiot either.
Nor is Romney an “idiot” by any stretch. Unless “idiot” is now defined as “someone you don’t like.”
Nor will I deny that there are loose cannons (or worse) about capable of derailing any political campaign. But the effective ones have rarely been delved into deeply after they have been painted as “lone assassins”.
You gotta' keep up on this stuff.
Barry's biggest contribution to political life came in the form of political theory ~ not ideology.
It was his contention that the "Normal curve" didn't reflect American political thought with the left on the left and the right on the right with a big bunch of moderates in the middle.
Instead, he came up with the bi-modal design ~ which had a major mode we can call Republican and another we can call Democrat, but only two of these things, and neither one actually overlapping on the basis of ideology.
He applied a strictly economic caste to it's existence. However, he got it right that the way to win was to first protect your base then peel off a faction from the other mode. Going to the middle turns out, under Goldwater's analysis, to be very, very stupid because NOBODY IS THERE!
Later analysts have taken Goldwater's observation and turned it into quite an accurate predictive model. LBJ took it and turned it into political victory in 1964. He first pushed through the civil rights acts ~ with the help of the Republicans, then he promised blacks he'd do that again the next year if they voted for him.
The Republican wing of the African-American community moved to LBJ and never looked back. He got 97% of their votes ~ not just the 70% JFK had gotten.
Russian analysts looking around for ways to stabilize political life in post USSR Russia looked over the same issue and noticed that SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS lent themselves easily to explaining why the USA and UK tended to have two parties (Or two modes). The deal is ya' gots' ta' win, and it's best to get 50% + 1 vote! So, parties form to get a winning candidate over the line. And, in almost Hegelian fashion, an opposition rises up to beat them and get their guy in office instead. (That's the old thesis/anti-thesis stuff that used to be so popular with the commies ~ in this case political parties do appear to be derived from a similar phenomenon, although some have argued that football is a much better model).
I got there a good decade earlier and have been writing about the process since the mid-1970s. Since LBJ won with Goldwater's idea, and then Nixon did the same, and then Reagan did it too, no one has "gone to the middle" for anything! Well, at least no one who intends to win has done that ~ and sure as shootin' Romney's MIttbots talk about their boy going to the middle.
Sorry guys, still nobody in the middle!
Interesting, it is obvious that Mitt’s selection of Ryan means he is NOT going to the middle.
Right and Left, Liberal and Conservative are labels which no long have any real meaning since the meanings of the terms have either switched or become obsolete.
The key concepts now involve degrees of purity around some idea. For the RATS it is the idea of a government with sufficient power to take what it wants from the rich and give it to their clients.
For the far Right it is the idea of ANTI-government which contains the seeds of its defeat. Since there is no patronage to come from anti-government it is very difficult to organize any kind of professional political establishment to fight (or even understand) the HIGHLY professional party of Government.
We had anti-government of the Left which defeated HHH and anti-government of the Right which motivates today’s conservatives. The former was to a specific government/policy the latter is as a philosophic conclusion.
It is hard to see the latter winning any permanent victory given the utter corruption, ignorance of the American voter.
The problem with the whole analogy to the Republican series of candidates from 1932 to 1952 is that Obama, the Democrat this time, didn't come up with anything worth listening to ~ hardly anything to grab your attention, or even to care about, AND, compounding the Democrat disaster Obama began picking up on leads dropped by Romney!
He demonstrated that tendency last week in his interview with Jon Stewart ~ John said "Not optimal" and Obama followed with another "Not optimal".
He's probably been spending too much time memorizing set pieces for use in the debates ~ but there you have it ~ Obama the parroting idiot.
I"m sure we could dig through last evening's debate and find Romney doing one of his passes to the left, sounding lie he's toadying up to 'bama, and then we find 'bama toadying up to Romney.
Gad was that a bad debate ~ for both of them.
I thin the polls ~ showing a dead heat race ~ prove my 'Race to the bottom' thesis though ~ and that's just terrible!
You are not analyzing these polls if you believe they are showing a dead heat. When you do there is NO good news for The Disaster and any hint of that is disappearing fast.
Romney is not MY “boy” but he is the only alternative to The Disaster so will get my vote.
My idea is to surround him with a solidly conservative Congress and that will keep him in good standing.
I look at what these guys say their error range is, and they’re all down there at the same place ~ I believe I used the term ‘statistical dead heat’ ~ which means that based on that poll or those polls nobody really knows!
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.