● Yeah, They Built That: Obama’s “you didn’t build that” line continues to resonate with voters. We know this because people keep talking about it everywhere. Pollsters are even asking the public about it, which means it’s entered “the mainstream consciousness.” And guess what? The public isn’t on Obama’s side. According to Rasmussen:
● 77% believe small business owners work harder that other workers. Only 2% disagree.This is all really bad for Obama, whose campaign strategy is to attack business as a mere outgrowth of government. The public ain’t buying it.
● 57% believe that entrepreneurs do more to create jobs and economic growth than big business or government.
● 61% believe small business provides more valuable services to local communities than big business or government.
● And Gallup found there appears to be a fundamental shift in the public’s view of government as 61% now say the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private business.
● It’s Not Bush’s Fault After All: Nor are they buying Obama's attempt to avoid blame. Riddle me this: who said in 2009, “Look, if I can’t turn the economy around in three years, I will be looking at a one-term proposition”? Here’s a hint: he’s spent the last three years trying to blame all his failures on George W. Bush. Well, according to a new poll taken for The Hill, that excuse has worn thin. The Hill found that 66% of respondents blame the slow economic recovery and total lack of jobs on bad government policy. Of those people, 34% lay the blame on Obama. Only 18% continue to blame Bush. Moreover, 53% of voters say Obama took the wrong actions and caused the economy to slow. None of this is good news for Obama.
What could be upsetting people? How about this. Who said in 2003 that George Bush needed to “fix up the economy” before he did anything else? Here’s a hint, it’s the same guy who decried Bush’s $300 billion deficit as “underscor[ing] the recklessness of the George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress.” And it’s the same man who has now given us five straight years of budgets with trillion dollar deficits. If $300 billion was reckless, what does that make a trillion five times over?
● We’ll Take the Mormon over the Moron!: All of this is adding up fast. USA Today/Gallup asked people who they trust more when it comes to managing the economy, reducing the federal budget deficit and creating jobs. Despite all the time and effort Obama has poured into his Bain Capital attacks, Romney wins this in a blowout: 63% to 29%. And it gets worse. Despite all the attacks Obama has made, including record spending on negative ads, Romney’s popularity has gone up from 53% to 54%, and the number of people who say they share Romney’s views has gone up from 42% to 45%.
But even more importantly, 18% of Republican and Republican leaning voters report being more enthusiastic about voting than normal. This compares to only 4% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners who report the same. That’s an enthusiasm gap of 14%!! Enthusiasm will be key this year because the evidence suggests that less than 10% of voters are actually swing voters. These numbers suggest a blow out in the works.
● A Cold Day In Minnesota: Finally, we have this amazing bit of new. Mitt Romney is within striking distance of winning Minnesota. Yeah, Minnesota. Obama leads 46% to 40%, but the key here is that Obama can’t get to 50% and his 6% lead is half of what it’s been in the past. If Minnesota is in play, then Obama might as well quit right now. The last Republican to win Minnesota was Richard Nixon. Even Ronald Reagan never carried that bastion of idiotic liberalism.
How do you say “blow out” in Minnesotan, eh?
P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
76 comments:
Andrew
It is interesting because I was flying this weekend and when you fly you are forced to watch CNN Headline news. It goes along with the free groping by middleage TSA employees I guess......
Anyrate the talking heads kept explaining how Bain capital was a negative for Romney and his tax returns had a bunch of loopholes from foreign investment and real estate that only rich people like Romney can get... Evidently Obama is too poor or his money is in the secret banking system set up in Pakistani Madrassa's that the CIA can't trace...
They kept mentioning poll after poll where Obama was up in the election..... I find it interesting that their take is so at odds with yours...
PS in Florida I jhave found that if you take the poll in the paper the night before the election the GOP candidate usually does 5 points better in the election results the next day.
Andrew,
One thing I noticed with Rasmussen. He is now tracking Romney like he tracks Obama. The Daily Presidential Tracking Poll. It is interesting to note that Romney is at 46% and Obama is 43%. I didn't know we had co-presidents. ;-)
I always try not to get too hung up on polls this early (nor, as you wisely point out, should I.) I always worry about the fact that past does not always indicate the future in terms of behavior, and all the analysis of a couple of key states making the difference. I could honestly say, Romney ought to be ahead based on double digits. Still, I did find the Dick Morris theme fairly compelling (he charts the fact historical, undecided go overwhelmingly for the challenger.) I am also scared to death of voter fraud if the election is close. computers are too easy to hack, I guess. Still, I will take the cheer you spread today in the spirit in which it is intended :)
All good news! I'm getting more confident about November all the time.
One thing I saw said that in his spending more than he took in spree last month our Dear Leader spent some obscene amount of money on POLLS! Gosh, why did he need to spend so much on polling?
I wonder if Obama's numbers in MN have anything to do with the ramped-up attacks against Michelle Bachmann? Nationally, it's just a blip on the radar, but I'm sure it's big news at home. And while every Minnesotan may not like her, there's usually a rally when outsiders attack one of your own.
Okay, let's be honest--there's not a snowball's chance in the nether regions that Obama will lose Minnesota. We are, after all, talking about the state that elected racist "comedian" Al Franken to the Senate because he had a D by his name.
I think the poll is more interesting in that, if I remember correctly, it shows Obama actually losing in the northeastern, heavily blue-collar part of the state; the part that's much more similar to neighboring Wisconsin and Michigan. If that trend continues, then there is a real chance of Romney scooping up both those states, which would surely have knock-on effects in Ohio; and if he wins those three states, that's essentially checkmate.
Indi, The talking heads are spinning the election. They are hoping that by pushing Obama's line what they say will become conventional wisdom and then the herd instinct will kick in and it will become true.
What I'm giving you is all the evidence they are ignoring. These are the more real "on-the-ground" signs that something is amiss with the national picture they are painting.
Joel, Apparently we do! What's interesting about the tracking numbers is that Obama just can't ever break 50%. That's huge trouble for an incumbent, especially at this point. Obama should be 15-20% ahead of Romney right now with things only tightening up right before the election. The fact they are tied or Romney is even slightly ahead is a huge danger sign to Obama.
Jed, I'm glad I've cheered you up. None of this is definitive, but it is all indicative because it's all pointing in the same direction. And what makes me hopeful is both that all the data points one way, strongly one way, and that it's remained consistent for so long. These aren't just blips, these are trends which have been there for a couple years now without a break.
In terms of Romney leading by double digits, I agree with you. But keep in mind two things. First, out electorate is very much split down the middle, so you don't get the kinds of wide splits you did in the past. Secondly, the polls which show then neck and neck are premised on turnout figures from 2008. If the numbers are more like 2010, then Obama is losing by double digits.
DUQ, That's how I would take it. This trend started to appear in 2009 and by now it seems pretty firmly entrenched as more and more of the numbers conform to it. Right now, I have a high degree of confidence that Obama will lose.
Tam, I saw that too. It was several million on polling. I think that indicates a campaign in trouble. I think that means they have been polling like crazy trying to find a theme they can use. That's my guess about what that means.
tryanmax, It's hard to say. I'm not sure if Bachmann is a favorite figure statewide or seen as a fringer from a fringe district? I suspect it has more to do with Obama losing blue collar whites.
T-Rav, Like you, I don't see a chance of Obama losing Minnesota. That's just not a state that will ever go for a Republican. If they didn't go for Reagan, they won't go for any conservative.
But what's interesting about it is that if Obama is struggling in the safest of Blue states, then that tells us he's in real trouble in purple states like Ohio. And the reason seems to be exactly what you point out -- blue collar whites. That means Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are all in play. Those should be solidly blue states. If those begin to flip, then we're looking at a landslide for Romney.
I doubt completely that Bachmann is a favorite statewide figure. Still, she keeps MN in the news, and that counts for something. Just look at Ben Nelson until he pushed that tactic too far. And I have a hard time believing that the Twin City suburbs can be considered a fringe district.
That said, I think Obama keeps MN. I think there's a certain Scandinavian mindset permeating all things up there, and that mindset seems invariably inclined toward social-entitlements wherever it resides.
tryanmax, I have no idea how popular/unpopular Bachmann is statewide. I know from my Colorado experience that sometimes famous Congresscritters are not too popular in the rest of the state.
In any event, I can't see MN flipping either. But the fact it's withing range of flipping should be enough to cause Obama serious heartburn everywhere else.
I'll take the smiley faces where I can get 'em! thanks for sharing!!!
rlaWTX, You're welcome. These are quality smileys!
I don't remember where I heard it, but rumor was that Bachmann was not, in fact, all that popular in MN, and if redistricting had gone a little differently, she might have had real trouble holding on to her House seat. So I don't think this is any reflection on her.
T-Rav, I've heard a lot of people say she's not very popular in Minnesota, but I have no real knowledge of the state. So I can't for certain either way if that's true or not.
Interesting. According to Dick Morris, Obama's negative campaigning has been causing his favorability to crash. Morris says that Obama's personal favorability, which was above 50%, fell to 42-45 in April and now has fallen to 36-48%. That's even more bad news for Obama!
LINK
I love these posts. This is tje kind of stuff that makes me excited for November!
Terry, I'm glad you like them! Obviously, we can say for sure, but I think November is going to be a good time for us.
I guess I'm still just plain scared that Obama might pull this off. At this point, I see lots of positive signs for Romney, and your summary helps me feel a little more confident, but I'll stop worrying when the final counts are in. I just can't help thinking that it's going to be very close, Obama may win the popular vote with Romney eking out a victory in the Electoral College. And then the Democratic cheating would start.
My prayer is for clear and decisive majorities for Romney in the states that count so they can't cheat. Franken got his seat by the usual Democratic method--force recounts until the Democrat wins, then stop counting.
I'm expecting the same thing to be repeated on a national level if the margins are close. Obama has cadres of shysters ready to challenge every close election, not to mention the power of the crooked, dirty, unethical DOJ.
Lawhawk, I'm not as worried about Democratic cheating this time because I'm becoming increasingly confident the state by state races won't be that close. If places like Minnesota are close, then I think Florida will be at least a 5% Romney margin of victory and that's way too large for them to do anything. The Democrats can only pull off their usual garbage when the votes are within a few thousand votes. I just don't see that happening in the red or purple states.
Andrew: I think your logic is flawless at this point in the game. God, I hope you're right.
Lawhawk, We'll see I guess. At this point, we just don't know anything. But the indications are good.
Andrew, We may not be able to know for certain until November, but I really feel it in the air. I feel that the public has turned on Obama and all of these polls just confirm it.
Also, the Morris article is interesting because Obama's personal popularity has always surprised me and it's been the one bit of support he's always had. Now that's finally going away, which to me is the last piece of the puzzle.
Terry, I sense it too. I see it in the way people talk about him now, the way people are willing to criticize him in public, the change in tone on message boards, the demoralization of liberals I know, and in all the polls that keep coming out. Everything keeps pointing to more and more people disagreeing with him and wanting him gone.
I really hope the Romney campaign makes mincemeat out of Obama's "you didn't build that" debacle. Even though more people say he's more trustworthy on the economy, there's still enough personal dislike of him that attacks like the Bain ads might gain traction if they go on long enough. The best thing Romney can do is turn this all around on Obama and make the election a referendum on his administration. If that happens, he's done, and the Dems know it.
Terry, I think the Morris article is really good news. The one thing Obama has had has been personal likability. That comes from the moderates as moderates judge people on who comfortable they are with them. The fact he's losing this tells me he's losing/lost the moderates. They will be key. Moreover, he won't get them back once he's lost them.
T-Rav, I think that's exactly what Romney has been doing. That's why he's not fighting back very hard on Bain because that would turn it into an issue "worth debating." Instead, he's letting it basically collapse under it's own weight. And that seems to be happening because there's nothing that people can latch onto. That's why Obama is struggling with that line of attack.
The "you didn't build that" thing seems to have become a huge gaffe. People are talking about it and joking about it, even though it's already ancient in terms of news-cycle age. So I think this was a big deal which inflicted a pretty large wound
I recall you saying that about Peggy Noonan I think? I agree with you. Moderates seem to need to like the person they support. If they don't like Obama anymore, then they won't support him. Will Romney grow on them? I can't say, but even if they just don't vote for Obama, that would be good enough.
Terry, Yep. I wrote an article about an article Noonan wrote where she decided that Obama had gotten "creepy." I pointed out that this was one of the phases moderates go through, where they decide they don't like a politician anymore and then suddenly everything the person does which they thought was so great before suddenly become "creepy" or some other similar word. That struck me as the moment Obama lost the RINO vote.
My very favorite thing about "you didn't build that" is that Dear Leader is on the defensive, trying to defend the indefensible! Smug superiority isn't working this time.
Tam, I like that too. He's trying to act like what he said was fine and everyone else is just trying to spin it into something bad. That won't work with the public. That's the kind of defense which keeps an issue alive much longer than it needs to be. His best bet would have been to say he misspoke and then clarify it away. But he's too arrogant to do that, so the bleeding continues. :)
I agree that all of this is excellent, but I just don't understand how the national polls don't show Romney 5+% ahead? How can Obama still get so much support? It's boggles my mind.
Ed, It's all in the sample actually. If you look at the samples, they are all over-weighted toward Obama by around 5%. When you factor that out, then the national polls begin to look more like all the other data that's coming in.
That might make a good topic for an article? Just saying. I'd like to see some of the numbers.
Ed, I'll think about it.
Maybe not all of the RINO vote. I read an article last night about the so-called "Obamacons" who believe that Obama is the candidate a true conservative should elect. No, I can't even begin to explain their reasoning. What can I say--they're "special."
Wow, that's pretty messed up. I can't imagine any conservative thinking Obama has the slightest conservative instincts?
T-Rav, That's insane. Who are these people? Do you have a link?
Andrew, Is that a yes? :D
It's good new Tuesday! Well done, Andrew. Well done, America! Let's hope all of this means something in November.
Ed, I don't have a link, no.
Ellen, Thanks! Yep, I hope this carries through to November. I think it will. It seems to have been building since 2009 with no slowing.
Ed, I'm sorry, I thought you were asking me. Maybe T-Rav has the link?
Okay... so I've been wondering lately... if Romney wins in November, and given how sick, sick, sick & tired we are of hearing the whining about everything being Bush's fault, when we know it's not Bush's fault, how does Romney proceed to fix things without saying that everything's Obama's fault and having us be accused of the same whining we're complaining about even though it really will be Obama's fault?
Long winded question, but do you know what I mean?
RE: likability -- Mitt has a total advantage on that front because, outside of the Mormon angle which only so-cons care about, there's really nothing not to like. Obama and the Dems tried to come up with something in the way of his wealth, his career in finance, and even claiming he is a possible felon, but they can't seem to cast him as someone unlikable. In the process, Obama ends up seeming less and less likable.
RE: polls -- I just got a friend of mine to understand the ~5% across-the-board skew in favor of Dems in the polls the other night. He was under the illusion that the RCP poll was able to factor that out. So I pointed out that when all the data shares the same bias, you can't average it out, you can only find the average amount of skew. You need bias in both directions in order to cancel it out.
Cheryl, I know exactly what you mean. I would think two things will affect this.
First, I think things will begin to improve soon, which reduces the need for an excuse. Plus, he should have 1-2 years of "wait for my policies to begin working" before the issue comes up of him casting about for blame.
Secondly, I don't think Romney will be as blatant as Obama has been. Obama made it a strategy from day one to tell people that everything was Bush's fault, and he's been very direct about it. He constantly says things like "considering the problems we inherited, we've done pretty well." Romney's rhetoric has been different. It's been more positive and more forward looking. Plus, when he looks at the past, he's been rather general and spoken about "challenges" and the such. I have yet to hear him try to blame specific people or things in the form of an excuse.
So I think that will ultimately be the difference -- Romney's tone isn't about evading responsibility, it's about claiming the future, whereas Obama's tone has been about excusing his current failures.
tryanmax, What RCP does is actually a bit of statistical fraud. You just can't combine different polls to get an average unless, as you say, there is known bias in both directions. And in polling there really isn't.
On likability, the thing Romney has going against him is that he's stoic and standoffish. That doesn't play well with a public used to the Kardashians. So he does have a disadvantage there, although Obama has a similar problem as he's not really a warm guy either. And now that the moderates and some liberals have turned on him, you don't even hear hints of how great a person he is anymore.
Thanks. You're right.
I agree that things will begin to improve soon.
Then not only will there be no need for finger-pointing, but we will be so vindicated in what we've been saying all along about progressive vs conservative policies. (And this administration has given such a glaring example of the failure of progressive policies.)
I can't wait!
How will the MSM handle our success?
It'll be fun to watch (tee hee hee)
Ed, ask and ye shall receive. LINK
Honestly, I recommend a read-through. These are some willfully obtuse people, but it is interesting.
Cheryl, I agree entirely. Things will improve and it will highlight to people the difference between our ideas and progressive ideas. And Obama really has helped make that difference super clear.
How will the MSM handle it? Sour grapes. They're going to claim that the reason things got better was that Obama laid the groundwork. It's the same way they used to try to credit Jimmy Carter with starting Reagan's recovery. No one bought the lie though.
T-Rav, Thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it. . . sort of. Or not.
Cheryl, when the GOP captured congress during the Clinton administration, Peter Jennings characterized the electorate as two year olds having a temper tantrum. You can expect some variation on that theme.
K, That's true. And the Tea Party was a racist tantrum against Obama doing things we needed. I would expect the same this time around. In fact, MSNBC is probably already writing their "this must be racism" commentaries.
Andrew, I think you gently tapped upon an aspect to Mitt's likability issue that the pollsters have not. Right now, the news outlets are playing ping-pong with the Gallup numbers showing Obama has a 30% likability advantage over Romney. Putting aside the fact that Obama's numbers are almost certainly inflated due to race, the poll has no way to take into account why Romney is unlikable.
The Democrats were reminded how important likability is when they put Al Gore and John Kerry up for the White House. Al was disliked because he was an arrogant know-it-all and John was disliked for being a condescending prig. Mitt is simply disliked for being a cold fish. Those are two very different kinds of dislike. That's a difference that could show up in ballot boxes.
tryanmax, I agree. I think there is a huge difference between standoffish and arrogant. Romney doesn't come across as arrogant, he comes across as socially awkward. I don't think the public will hold that against him, at least not against Obama. I think Romney would have a problem against a Clinton or a Reagan, but not an Obama.
OK - I read T-Rav's article (that's an unfair moniker, but it's what I've got).
From what I got, they are isolationists and against the big business take-over of politics that they feel is trampling the middle class. Right? And how in the name of all that is holy does that translate into a vote for Obama??? I can almost-sorta see the 2008 vote (McCain was too establishment and too hawkish for them and TOTUS was making all those pretty promises.) Several admit they might vote for Romney - but just because he's no different than Obama. But how does their argument even come close to supporting the Left? Leftist are more fair, "like in the 60s???" GACK.
Sounds like they are crybabies who aren't getting enough attention in the Tea Party version of the GOP!!!
Andrew,
On the Obamacrons, they are simply people who would complain about Reagan because he wasn't conservative enough. Not one of them understands what the laffer curve means, nor do they understand the left's utter lack in integrity. They see Obama as a disappointment, not an outright disaster. From what I could tell, not one of them has ever missed a meal, nor strove for what they have, nor sacrificed today's pleasures for tomorrows riches.
These are the caricatures of rich right-wing conservatives. Liberals are desperately trying to portray Romney and Republicans as these people. In short, they would never attend a Tea Party because it might soil their clothes.
They don't understand the danger of Obama. They don't understand the danger of socialism. Their knowledge of economics is crude at best. Another way of putting it, their spiritual ancestors helped put a dictator in power in Germany during the 1930's.
Andrew
My fondest wish is that Allen West would be our VP - for many good reasons.
But I would love to just shut them up about this whole racist bologna!
rla, I forgive your attributing this article to me, and agree with you on all points. :-)
The credentials of any conservative are suspect when they talk about the need to preserve the FDR and LBJ welfare state. This is basically what the "Conservative" parties of Europe have become, and I hope these people aren't a sign that we're following in that path.
rlaWTX, I think we should consider it T-Rav's article. :)
I agree with you, I think they are isolationists and conspiracy theorists. But it makes no sense to me how they could make that leap to supporting Obama? Even if you think Romney is true establishment, he's 100% better than Obama on all these issues.
It sounds like they're just confused.
Joel, That's an interesting observation and I can't disagree. I remember the first time I ran into one of these "Reagan was no conservative" types in college. There wasn't a lot of brainpower to go with that thought, just a lot paranoia and anger, and a good deal of fantasy. They were particularly upset that he increased the size of the military (which was absolutely needed), and his failure to shut down the department of education (which wasn't within his power to do).
Cheryl, Same here. Plus, West has this devastating mouth that just crushes his enemies and he shows no fear! He would be awesome choice for VP or President! :)
T-Rav, Preserving the FDR and LBJ welfare state are not things any actual conservative would ever say. It just doesn't happen. These guys sound like clowns.
Andrew,
HotAir has a new NBC/WSJ poll. In order to keep Obama at the same level, the pollsters are going D+11. Link Even at D+11, Obama's favorables are down. I really do wish there was someone who could give an accurate poll with no slanting.
Joel, Wow! D+11 is extreme. Even 2008 wasn't more than D+5 (max). If they're getting that desperate then Obama is truly staring at a blow out. No wonder they spent so much on polling.
It's a little dated, but half of it can still come true.
LINK
Jen,
Perfect!
Jen, That would be a fantastic ticket! :)
I usually watch Fox & Friends in the morning while eating breakfast, but they were experiencing technical difficulties this morning. After a few minutes CNBC was on instead of Fox and some guy was talking about Dear Leader's popularity. He said that 2/3 or 67% of the country liked him. It was a good thing I wasn't eating anything when he said that. I find that totally ridiculous - I don't see how it's possible that 67% of this country could still like him. They continued talking about how Romney didn't have a very good chance of beating Obama. I promptly changed the channel at that point.
Thankfully Fox News came on just a few minutes later. This just serves as a reminder of why I don't watch those other channels and it really shows how much they are spinning things in his favor.
TJ, In America, it is a statistical impossibility that 67% of the public likes Obama. It just is. 67% of the country doesn't like anyone. We're not that kind of country. I have no idea where he got that from, but I would certainly not trust any investment advice or news he gave me!
And you're right, all comments like that show is the bias of CNBC. Those just aren't credible comments and for a news organization to promote them is ridiculous.
As for Romney beating him, I'm all but certain it's guaranteed that Romney will win. The only real question in my mind right now is how large the victory will be? Will it be a squeaker because the nation is so divided demographically or will it be a blow out? I'm not sure.
Post a Comment