• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rasmussen has finally flipped- now not a single poll has Romney in the lead

BobStackFan4Life

BobStackFan4Life

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
31,661
Reaction score
1,538
As this article points out, no presidential candidate has come back from being this far down, this late in the campaign, in over 60 years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidates-lead
The absolute numbers are skewed because of different sample populations (likely voters v registered voters v adults), yet the trend is undeniable. Mitt Romney's main electoral failing has been a lack of favorability, and the conventions did nothing to change this factor.
Click to expand...
 
This is from Rasmussen, which has been the most favorable towards Romney, today:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows President Obama attracting support from 47% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided. See daily tracking history.

When “leaners” are included, it’s Obama 50% and Romney 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.
Click to expand...
 
This has been inevitable from the very beginning. Only chance Mitt had was to have some sort of game changer mid campaign. Instead he stuck to the Republican script and he is going to get trounced. My party needs to wake up and smell the roses. The answer is not the Tea Party, and the answer is not moderates pretending to be Tea Party Republicans. We need to completely change our approach to national elections. It starts with immigration and ends with no tax pledges. I was hoping that Obama's run in the White House would move the needle some in the Republican Party, but it is almost like it has gotten worse.

Hopefully after this election party leaders will see the trends that are starting to form and change course before it is too late. Republicans have lost sight of their values and instead are simply trying to win. Long term that is a loser plan.
 
Yeah, it's looking like a 2-3% lead right now, and yeah, it will be difficult to come back from. But not impossible. The betting sites and Silver all have it with a 70-80% likelihood of Obama winning, which means it's still not a 1996 type of runaway. And even though the recent polling has shown that neither the Libya criticism nor the 47% gaffe have been serious needle pushers (has hurt him a little with independents is all), he just can't continue to have weeks like he has had the last 3 weeks. Having 3 senators running from him and folks like David Brooks, Rich Lowry and Peggy Noonan writing scathing columns about him isn't helping him find a positive game change.
 
It's not about 2-3% lead. It's all about the swing states. He leads in all of them (unless you call NC a swing state).
 
As some have pointed out, Carter was trouncing Reagan at this point (and even later) in the polls.

"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2
 
Sgt Hulka said:
As some have pointed out, Carter was trouncing Reagan at this point (and even later) in the polls.

"Since Gallup began presidential polling in 1936, only one candidate has overcome a deficit that large, and this late, to win the White House: Ronald Reagan, who trailed President Jimmy Carter 47 percent to 39 percent in a survey completed on Oct. 26, 1980."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13caucus.html?_r=2
Click to expand...

Mitt Romney is no Reagan.
 
bobknightfan said:
This is when you are really going to be disappointed. The opposite is going to happen. The people in power in the Republican Party are going to say that they lost because they did not nominate a true conservative.....and are going to drive the party even further to the right. All the former moderates in the party who might have stood up against them have been purged from the party by now. There are almost no moderates left in the GOP.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what will happen.
 
Yep Mitt can easily have the personality and style of Reagan.

Remind me about those hostages that are being held.

McDonald's has fewer straws than Hulka is grasping at.
 
Wrangor said:
This has been inevitable from the very beginning. Only chance Mitt had was to have some sort of game changer mid campaign. Instead he stuck to the Republican script and he is going to get trounced. My party needs to wake up and smell the roses. The answer is not the Tea Party, and the answer is not moderates pretending to be Tea Party Republicans. We need to completely change our approach to national elections. It starts with immigration and ends with no tax pledges. I was hoping that Obama's run in the White House would move the needle some in the Republican Party, but it is almost like it has gotten worse.

Hopefully after this election party leaders will see the trends that are starting to form and change course before it is too late. Republicans have lost sight of their values and instead are simply trying to win. Long term that is a loser plan.
Click to expand...

This is so true. I'm a liberal, but I would have been open minded to voting for a moderate Republican this election, if he/she matched me on enough issue and seemed to have a pragmatic view of the world. If the Pubs had run someone like this, this election would be over. Unfortunately, after Romney loses, signs point to the right thinking Romney lost because he wasn't right wing enough, when I think the opposite is true. Clinton showed that to win, you have to be closer to the middle. If Romney had manned up and been himself this race, not run from his past views, he would have had a lot fewer gaffes, and a lot more respect. People can see through people who are being disingenuous. Romney stinks of it more than Obama.
 
RJKarl said:
It's not about 2-3% lead. It's all about the swing states. He leads in all of them (unless you call NC a swing state).
Click to expand...

In 1 sense, only twice (maybe thrice?) in our history has a candidate lost the popular vote and won the election. So a national lead is an indicator, though certainly not the indicator. As for the swing states, Romney has been and still is very close in CO, IA and WI. Trouble is for him that Obama is now opening up larger leads in VA, FL and OH, and Romney needs VA, FL & OH (60 EVs) more than he does CO, IA & WI (25 EVs).
 
I seriously doubt Carter was up by 8 that late in the game. That comment refers to one poll done by Gallup. We've got 9 polls- all showing Obama in the lead. As rj pointed out, it's when you look at the swing states that things start to look very bleak for Romney. I think something huge will have to happen to reverse the trends in Romney's favor.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
This is exactly what will happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I rarely agree with bkf, but I do here. I'm starting to see a narrative from conservative commentators about how Mitt is blowing this because he's running such a bad campaign. If this continues, and Romney does lose, I think we'll see many conservative commentators remarking that blaming the candidate and his campaign, retreating further and saying they need a true conservative next time around. And if they nominate a firebrand like Ryan or Rubio next time, I don't think that helps them win. Christie would be interesting, though, because he's much more of a social moderate.
 
If Romney loses Ohio, Florida, or Wisconsin, it's game over. Not mathematically eliminated, but it's like being down 10 points with 2:00 to go and the other team has the ball. Romney has to start fouling and launching contested threes pretty soon or he's conceding the loss.
 
bobknightfan said:
This is when you are really going to be disappointed. The opposite is going to happen. The people in power in the Republican Party are going to say that they lost because they did not nominate a true conservative.....and are going to drive the party even further to the right. All the former moderates in the party who might have stood up against them have been purged from the party by now. There are almost no moderates left in the GOP.
Click to expand...


I'm not so sure. That is what many said after McCain lost, yet here they are again running a supposed moderate masquerading as a hard-line conservative (although with Romney it's hard to tell what he really is). They will run who they think is the best candidate. If Christie gets the nod next time, that will certainly not be a race to the right.

And they shouldn't run right. The pubs need to acknowledge the centrist nature of much of the country and get off of the uncompromising platforms. The fact that Jon Huntsman never had a prayer in the primary speaks volumes. Just like Gingrich "insulted" Romney by calling him the "Massachussetts Moderate." It's ridiculous. Moderates need to have a choice between 2 parties, not 0 parties.
 
Last edited:
cville deac said:
Yeah, I rarely agree with bkf, but I do here. I'm starting to see a narrative from conservative commentators about how Mitt is blowing this because he's running such a bad campaign. If this continues, and Romney does lose, I think we'll see many conservative commentators remarking that blaming the candidate and his campaign, retreating further and saying they need a true conservative next time around. And if they nominate a firebrand like Ryan or Rubio next time, I don't think that helps them win. Christie would be interesting, though, because he's much more of a social moderate.
Click to expand...

So was Romney 4 years ago. The GOP starting listing to the right after McCain went down. A social moderate will not survive what should be a pretty brutal Republican primary in 2016.
 
RJKarl said:
Yep Mitt can easily have the personality and style of Reagan.

Yep

Remind me about those hostages that are being held.

Spot on

McDonald's has fewer straws than Hulka is grasping at.

God dammit, you ruined it with another terrible joke/analogy
Click to expand...

Sometimes less is more.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
So was Romney 4 years ago. The GOP starting listing to the right after McCain went down. A social moderate will not survive what should be a pretty brutal Republican primary in 2016.
Click to expand...

Christie, despite some of his social views, carries a lot of weight with tea baggers. He's the 1 social moderate who has the gravitas with the tea baggers who could pull out the nomination.
 
cville deac said:
Christie, despite some of his social views, carries a lot of weight with tea baggers. He's the 1 social moderate who has the gravitas with the tea baggers who could pull out the nomination.
Click to expand...
a_560x375.jpg
 
cville deac said:
Christie, despite some of his social views, carries a lot of weight with tea baggers. He's the 1 social moderate who has the gravitas with the tea baggers who could pull out the nomination.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I really think once social issues come up in debates and certainly in Iowa, social conservatives will turn out to vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top