So what's Gallup showing currently? Obama leading, 49% to 44%, as of Sunday (yesterday). That's after a tsunami of ritual-style adulation and homage in the media over Bill Clinton giving a speech. (Clinton even got bonus points for not raping anyone throughout the convention, especially with Hillary thousands of miles away.)
What Gallup and other pollsters aren't fully factoring in is the dismal Friday jobs report, indicating as many as 368,000 people dropping out of the work force (technically known as 'joining the Democrat Party').
Obama says the reason for the lousy job market is because Bush's still running the economy from Crawford, Texas. As Obama would put it, this jobless recovery is stamped with three proud words, Made in the U.S.A by the Bush Junta.
Don't know about you, but every poll I've seen shows the economy as the numero uno issue on voters' minds. As Joe Biden would say, everything boils down to a 3-letter word, jobs.
And there's nothing indicating the economy will magically be turning around in the next 50 days or so. So, since Obama's post-convention poll boomlet was the result of Clinton's speech, the media are now telling us Clinton's speech was the 2012 campaign's 'inflection point', that the election this November no longer boils down to jobs and the economy but will ultimately come down to Clinton's speech-making skills. Oh really? Ask yourself, what are the odds that on Election Day the economy won't be the top issue on voters' minds, but rather some speech Clinton gave in the summer? I like R/R's chances.
Anyway, that's ...
My Two Cents ...
Monday-morning mega ping! Have a great day, y’all!
Not one analyst has considered the 2010 results, as far as I have seen.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
“”Let’s see what Gallup’s tracking poll is showing. It’s September 10, and so far Gallup is showing a small lead for Obama, ranging from 7 points (49% to 42%) on one day, stretching to 10 points (51% to 41%) only days later. Oh, wait! That’s the Gore v Bush, not Obama v Romney”””
Races with no incumbent have polls that are very unstable. Look at Gallup in 1960,68,88,2000 polls varied almost weekly. In 1968 at one point Nixon was up 15 even with Wallace in the race. He won by less than 1. Races with incumbents are more steady.
There are a lot of parallels between Kerry and Romney, but that doesn’t mean Romney has no chance. A Massachusetts liberal who is a governor is slightly better than a Massachusetts liberal who was Senator.
Why is Charlie Cook so revered by the press as such a political whiz to be respected? This isn't the first time I have seen him so highly regarded in an article while being so terribly wrong in his "analysis".
Election 2000 and 2004 were way to close for comfort. Both could easily have gone either way. It all came down to one state. If 2012 is the same, we better hope that Colorado goes Red.
Yep, you are so correct with your 2 cents!
Oh, Lordy, JH2...why are there so many serious posts in reply to such a wonderful and exquisite $.02 by you?
We need better clientele around here! lol
“Ask yourself, what are the odds that on Election Day the economy won’t be the top issue on voters’ minds, but rather some speech Clinton gave in the summer? I like R/R’s chances.”
You, and me, too, my FRiend.
I hope you are back, and plan to post more during the election. Your posts crack me up! At the same time, there is great truth to them.
From, dc2k...your greatest fan. ;o)