Quantcast
U.S. & World

Who is more polarizing, Mitt Romney or President Barack Obama? Polls provide answers

Comments

Return To Article
  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 24, 2012 3:29 p.m.

    Reasons not to vote for Romney:
    He's a Mormon.
    He's rich.
    He's been successful in business.
    He has a reputation for flip-flopping (although it is questionable).
    He is "out of touch" with people.

    Reasons not to vote for Obama:
    Unemployment is STILL over 8%.
    Number of employed people is going down.
    Gas prices are rising.
    He shoved an unconstitutional health care bill down our throats, opposed by most citizens and supported by only Democrats, some of whom were bribed in some way (not to mention blatantly breaking many campaign promises on the way).
    Lowered the U.S. credit rating.
    Record high deficits.
    National debt rising at an alarmingly fast rate.
    Passes bills that forces medical workers to perform an abortion even if it violates their moral beliefs (aka restricting freedom of religion).
    Comments made to foreign leaders when he thought no one could hear him (what's he hiding?).

    All things considered, I know exactly who I'm voting for in November. As horrible as it is to have a successful guy lead the nation, I'm willing to take that risk. Heaven forbid we prosper as a nation!

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    April 24, 2012 3:48 p.m.

    Obama's campaign has, through their NYT surrogate, implied that Romney would make a terrible president because he does not use alcohol. The president cannot tout his own record so he is running on non-issues such as the "war on women," religion, Romney's successful business acumen, statements that being a mother of five does not have the same value as working outside the home, etc. Strange talk for someone ushering in the post-partisan era. The only change I can believe in is not voting for him again.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    April 24, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    To Riverton Cougar
    "Unemployment still over 8%" when he took over, jobs were being lost at a rate pf 400,000/week. Now, I know 8% isn't good, but I'll take it over continuing the policies that made is drop like a stone.
    "Gas prices rising" actually, the last couple weeks, they have started dropping again. They got high when things were looking tense with Iran, but talks have cooled things down, and the prices are slightly dropping. They are still below the all-time peak of 2008.
    "Shoved unconstitutional healthcare bill down our throat" do you mean the one that took months of negotiations, where republicans offered no solutions themselves? The one where Obama compromised until he passed the Heritage Foundations plan (that Romney himself used).
    "Lowered the US credit rating" that was the tea-party congressmen who voted no on rasing the debt ceiling. You would see that if you read the explanation from the credit rating agency
    "Record high deficits/debt rising" the things that have cost the most in the Obama presidency are the economic downturn of 2008, the wars on Iraq and Iran, and continuing the Bush tax cuts.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    April 24, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    Reasons not to vote for Romney

    Does not tell the truth
    Frequently changes his mind on issues
    Does not seem to know how to treat and speak to those who are not of his privileged class without offending them
    Many cannot relate or understand his religion
    Not tuned into the needs of middle class and poor women
    Misspeaks often. The nation will hold it's breath he first time he speaks to a foreign leader, unless they are French:)
    Does not like to speak of his family's past history
    Took computers home along with his Massachusett's Governing emails and history at the end of his term
    Ships much of his fortune to foreign shores where it is kept secret
    Never had to struggle to pay bills, mortgage, buy food, pay medical bills, repay student loans
    Waiting til right before election to reveal 2011 tax return
    (to be continued tomorrow after we see his gaffs today)

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    April 24, 2012 4:08 p.m.

    "Passes bills that force medical workers to perform an abortion" now that is just totally false. If it is true, please cite evidence.

    The reasons not to vote for Romney are that he wants to double down on the policies that got us so wrong in the first place.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 24, 2012 5:31 p.m.

    All things considered, I'll stick with obama.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 24, 2012 7:09 p.m.

    I can understand why people voted for Obama the first time. But it takes sheer, bull-headed, stubborn pride to vote for him a second time. He is the most inexperienced president we've ever had (at least in the last 100 years) and he's running against one of the most qualified candidates we've had. The only response from him and his supporters is to blame the last guy. Not working anymore.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    April 24, 2012 7:31 p.m.

    The article is correct - we need to know them - both of them.

    And after you find that out you will discover there is not a dime's worth of difference between them.
    See for yourselves:
    Google "Romney & Obama the Same video" and compare. It only takes 10 minutes.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 24, 2012 9:49 p.m.

    @A1994

    Right now President Obama has 3 years experience of being POTUS than any Republican candidate running.

    He had exactly as much as his opponent when they he was first elected.

    In fact, most Presidents that are elected have that same amount of experience.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 24, 2012 11:16 p.m.

    "do you mean the one that took months of negotiations, where republicans offered no solutions themselves?"

    No, you must be mistaken. The republicans DID offer solutions, but of course I'm sure you haven't heard of any of them through the news you watched. Obama even admitted at one point that they did in fact have a solution, then went back to his lie.

    "the things that have cost the most in the Obama presidency are the economic downturn of 2008, the wars on Iraq and Iran, and continuing the Bush tax cuts."

    If that's what cost our country so much, then why weren't they as high under Bush? If Bush's stuff is what kept the deficits so high, why were Obama's deficits so much higher? Your logic makes no sense. Obama is pulling the "it's Bush's fault!" card, and people are dumb enough to fall for it.

    @Darrel,

    I think you and I both know he's not talking specifically about POTUS experience, but leadership experience. In fact, at this point Obama's "experience" is hurting him. Despite never having been POTUS, Romney is more qualified than Obama.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    Riverton Cougar, perhaps you could enlighten us with all the suggestions the GOP made on healthcare, plans that would cover those with pre-existing conditions. (And no, "Tort Reform" wouldn't help)
    I have MS, and I'm greatful to have a good job with a good health plan. Reciently Romney said he wanted to disconnect employer health plans, and have people buy them on their own. Well, for me, that would end my care: how can I afford a health plan without being on a work plan that doesn't discriminate for pre-existing conditions?

    Why didn't Bush have as high of deficits? Because when he left office, the economy was still rocketing downward, it hadn't hit bottom yet. And with only 3-4 months of the great recession to pay for, not as bad as Obama's 3 years.
    What policy has Obama done that costs so much? Google the figure "Policy Changes Under Two Presidents". (Summary: Bush $5.07T, Obama $1.44T)

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:09 a.m.

    Of the two I think BO is more polarizing, mainly because of the lessons he learned and follows from Saul Alinsky.

    •“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.”
    •Rule 13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.”
    •Both quotes; Saul Alinsky.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    A1994
    Centerville, UT
    I can understand why people voted for Obama the first time. But it takes sheer, bull-headed, stubborn pride to vote for him a second time.

    _______________

    But Mitt will just be GW Bush on steroids per the policies that he has championed so far. I would NOT vote for Bush a third time no matter what. Why would you want to have the same policies in place that put us in such a bind the first time?

    That is insane. Nothing against Romney, but he does not have any new ideas. Just old ones that have been proven NOT to work.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    @Riverton Cougar
    “He has a reputation for flip-flopping (although it is questionable).”
    Seriously? That’s like saying John Kerry had a slight tendency to change positions! Mitt has completely reinvented himself, a couple times. Moderate Gov., Moderate POTUS candidate, Right-Wing candidate, and is already morphing back into the Moderate candidate, depending on who is listening!
    “If Bush's stuff is what kept the deficits so high, why were Obama's deficits so much higher?”
    Really? Case #1 took over a yearly Gov. surplus, Case #2 took over a Depression that Case #1 started. And you can’t understand why Case #2 has spent more money? It’s unfortunate Case #2 has had to spend money to try and get us out of the Depression he inherited. “

    “Romney is more qualified than Obama.”
    Mod. Gov who apparently reinvented himself from the Mitt of today in order to get elected in Mass. Business experience sitting in an office, firing employees, breaking apart companies, and selling them. Became wealthy by doing nothing, other than playing the Wall Street game. Contributed nothing to society, or the American economy, other than adding to the unemployment rate. Not to mention his 47th ranked job creation record as Gov.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    Riverton Cougar: "If that's what cost our country so much, then why weren't they as high under Bush? If Bush's stuff is what kept the deficits so high, why were Obama's deficits so much higher?"

    --------------

    Bush's administration kept both wars OUT of the budget. They were off the books, while Obama immediately added them back in to show us what is really happening to our budget in Washington.

    Bush's wars have been added back into his total now and you can see that he was running great deficits too. Two unfunded wars, medicare pharms and tax cuts for the rich - ALL unpaid for. Yep. That'll do it. Especially when there is a downturn in the economy and we stop collecting income tax on another 6% of the population. See where Clinton's surplus went?

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    April 25, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    Not even Eric knows just what to make of "Who's the most polarizing?" because it has nothing to do with presidential success. About all we could conclude is that if YOUR favorite candidate is perceived as "more polarizing", that means the OTHER candidate's operation is successfully muddying the real issues. The article on battleground states is much more informative.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:28 a.m.

    Obama is going to be the most polarizing because he now has a record. His most damaging record is taking the national debt from 10 trillion to 15 trillion in less than 4 years. For those of you who say it's Bush' fault, tell us just what Obama is doing to slow down the pace to 20 trillion. It's like Obama is the captain of the Titanic and even though we know we're headed toward the iceberg, he not only doesn't change course, but says "full speed ahead". I'm sorry to all of you Obama supporters, but after a complete term, 4 years in office, it is his economy. Blaming Bush won't play any longer, especially for re-election.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    April 25, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    "...Gallup admits it is not totally sure what its intensity measure will prove...".

    Enough said.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 25, 2012 12:48 p.m.

    One guy really, Really, REALLY wants Romney to win = 1 vote.
    Another guy wants Obama to win = 1 vote.

    All votes tallied up, Obama wins by a landslide.

    Intensity [i.e., Team Spirit] only matters at High School football games.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 25, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    An intensity measure can show how motivated people are to show up at the polls. The fact that Obama has more polarizing numbers than Romney though doesn't really show anything other than the fact he's an incumbant and everyone tends to already have their mind made up about incumbants.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    April 25, 2012 2:06 p.m.

    Re: alt134

    ....everyone tends to already have their mind made up about incumbants.

    Which is why, as Dick Morris has studied, 9 out of 10 undecided voters will go with the challenger. It makes sense. If people by now don't know they are committed to Obama, most will never be.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    April 25, 2012 2:51 p.m.

    omni scent

    ""Passes bills that force medical workers to perform an abortion" now that is just totally false. If it is true, please cite evidence."

    Read the article from DN on 3/17/12 called "Abortion conflicts puts pro-life health professionals in limbo" and the related "Conscientious objection". Obama has overturned policies which allowed pro-life to refuse to perform abortions.

    williary,

    So are you saying to get out of debt, you spend more? I hope you try that with your credit card debt. Tell me how it works out for you.

    Lane Meyer,

    "Bush's administration kept both wars OUT of the budget. They were off the books, while Obama immediately added them back in to show us what is really happening to our budget in Washington."

    Yet even though the wars are over, the deficits are getting HIGHER. Besides, if those wars were so expensive, why is Obama increasing the national debt at a race TWICE AS FAST as Bush did?

    The logic all you guys are using comparing Bush and Obama in dealing with economy is flawed. The facts don't support your arguments. It's Obama's economy now.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    I would just like to refer readers to Matt Patterson's recent column about President Obama in the liberal Washington Post. What a wake-up call to liberals regarding their president!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 25, 2012 4:04 p.m.

    "Obama's campaign has, through their NYT surrogate, implied that Romney would make a terrible president because he does not use alcohol. "

    You have to love partisan logic like this. I suppose the same could be said that FoxNews, Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest are just an extension of the Romney campaign, and that hey say is under the direction of Romney..... These kind of comments are laughable.

    Riverton Cougar.... you forgot to add that the Pew Research firm just found that we now have net neutral immagration from Mexico... that we for the first time in over 50 years do not have an inflow from our Southern borders. Funny how you missed that one. Largest reason credited - increased enforcement. Funny how you forgot about that one. I also noticed that you forgot to add three years of GDP growth, 2 years of job growth, markets up 80 percent since election... near record highs.

    But I am sure the list on the Obama side was getting too long and you didn't want to confuse the issue with supportable facts.

  • Utah Businessman Sandy, UT
    April 25, 2012 4:33 p.m.

    My apologies--while the Matt Patterson piece about President Obama was--in my opinion--very good, it apparently did NOT appear in the Washington Post.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    April 25, 2012 9:50 p.m.

    Of course Obama is more polarizing. That's his whole m.o. He divides one group against another. I guarantee that those who are supporting Obama now will be shocked by his second term if he wins.