This is good news for Romney. Coming out of a bruising primary season, having
far less campaign cash, and, of course, not being the incumbent with a bully
pulpit and name recognition. He's got his shot.
Instead of seeing polls everyday until November, could we talk about issues?
Ann is wonderful, joining Mitt in his TV interviews. She must be assisting in
creating these exciting poll numbers. The $1,000 shirt she was wearing
certainly proves what a valuable asset she is to Mr. Romney. Of course Ann is
just like every other wife and mom in America!
Considering Gallup had Romney ahead a short week or so ago, and the last CNN/NBC
polls both had Obama up by 5+ points, seems like Mitt had a tough couple weeks.
These polls likely mean nothing for November, but considering how
"bad" things are according to Republicans, you'd assume the
challenger at this point in time would be showing stronger, as Kerry was in 04.
That means one of two things: The majority of Americans aren't
buying what the Republicans are saying about Obama, or there's just no
confidence in Mitt Romney being able to do anything but take us back to what put
us in this mess.Romney had his shot, unfortunately for him and his
party, he had to sell out to just get the nomination, and his chance to beat
Obama in a middle-centered national showdown went with away.
Ironically enough, although this race may be close in the polls, it
couldn't be more opposite coming from a political point of view. The
President wants more communism (pure and simply put, that's what liberalism
boils down to - "spreading the wealth", government run everything and
gutting the military is pure communism). Romney wants more capitalism. The
choice voters need to make is clear. Which way do you want this country to go.
Through out the race card, ignore the red herrings of who got Bin Laden and toss
the whole economy/jobs/whatever. It's communism versus capitalism and the
fate of our country will be determined in November. (Come on Capitalism!!!)
Hey Thornbirds, if you had $250,000,000 in the bank, would you shop at Gap?Didn't think so.
What these polls do not show is the undecided voter numbers. Over the past 60
years the undecided has voted for the challenger. If you take the 15 percent of
those calling themselves undecided it gives Mitt a 15 point lead which really
puts him at 61 percent to 46 percent Obama. So if these numbers hold true to
November it will be a victory for Mitt.
In the end what matters most are the 10 or so swing states (ask Al Gore how much
the popular vote matters), most of which were won by Obama last time (North
Carolina Virginia Arizona Florida Ohio Iowa Missouri Nevada Colorado New
Hampshire and Pennsylvania from RCP). Obama won all of those except Arizona and
Missouri last time.RCP has the other states as lean/strongly for one
of them and Obama leads 227-170 among those (the only slight quirk in those is
Romney leads in Indiana, a state Obama won very very narrowly in 2008).If Romney wins Arizona and Missouri (reasonable to expect) Obama's lead
would be 227-191. Romney would then need 79 more electoral votes or Obama would
need 43 more between: Colorado (9) Florida (29) Iowa (6) Nevada (6) New
Hampshire (4) North Carolina (15) Ohio (18) Pennsylvania (20) and Virginia
(13).PA is probably the easiest for Obama to get and that would
leave him needing only 23 more delegates, as such, Florida is an absolute
must-win for Romney. It's no surprise that Obama's making Ohio State
and Virginia Commonwealth campuses big stops this weekend.
ThornBirdsAnd Michelle Obama looks just as lovely in HER designer
clothes. Both women live in an income bracket above the majority of Americans.
So? So did JFK and FDR. And yet they are touted by the Democratic Party as
heroes. What is your point???
"That means one of two things: The majority of Americans aren't buying
what the Republicans are saying about Obama, or there's just no confidence
in Mitt Romney being able to do anything but take us back to what put us in this
mess."I guess you're referring to Bush when you talk about
"what put us in this mess". Let's see...When Bush was
president, unemployment averaged 5.4%, national debt was below $10 trillion,
deficits were below $1 trillion, and health professionals could object to
performing abortions for religious reasons.Now we have 8%+
unemployment, national debt reaching $16 trillion, annual deficits over $1
trillion, and medical professionals with morals being forced to leave the
profession or else face lawsuits.We sure got change! Isn't it
great?I see what you mean about voting for someone who will take us
"back" into a mess. That's exactly why I'm not stupid enough
to vote for Obama in November. Romney "might" be a mess. Obama has
proven to be a mess!If there are problems with this comment board,
it's In Stitches' fault, because he was the last to comment before me.
61 - 46 Victory for Romney? I doubt it, since 107% is impossible to get in any
election. Considering all the hoopla about Bin Laden in the press
these last few days it honestly surprises me that Romney is still tied. I would
have thought that Pres Obama would have received a bigger "bump" in the
polls because of it. I was not, repeat NOT, impressed with the President
announcing that his administration has entered into negotiations with the
Taliban, to bring "Peace" to Afghanistan. Sure, they can't be
affiliated with Al Queda anymore, but violent people are still violent. If
killing Americans was only cool because Al Queda told them it was, then we
wouldn't have to worry. But Islamic extremists don't just believe in
killing Americans. They believe in killing anyone that doesn't share their
beliefs. The Taliban isn't a political party. They are idealists that look
down on us as "Infidels" and they won't be satisfied by any
agreement that falls short of them having total control. This move by the Obama
Administration should be exploited by the conservative right. I think it's
a major tactical error by the current POTUS.
The point is Romney and his wife consistently try to relate with the middle
class while, clearly, not being anywhere near it.$1,000 shirt, never
worked, but just as hard of a life as any other middle class mother right?
Raising kids is just as hard as raising kids while working FT and having a low
income.The Romney's are a joke .... at least what they portray
of themselves and how they try to relate to the middle class is a joke.
KKB: "The President wants more communism...that's what liberalism boils
down to..."Wow.KKB nicely summarizes the GOP's
problem. To keep the KKB's happy, the party has had to embrace positions
that more thoughtful Americans regard as just plain silly and dangerous.
(Birthers, anyone?)If Romney distances himself from the uber-right
rhetoric of the primaries to appeal to centrists(shake that etch-a-sketch, Mitt)
then the KKB's of the right will feel betrayed, they'll howl even
louder about "communism!" and they'll generally make the Romney
look like the mousy and long suffering Aunt Eunice who hasn't the wit or
the courage to dump the paranoid and abusive Uncle Lars.There's
no winning strategy here for the GOP. Romney simply won't be able to do it.
One third of the GOP, the one third of the party that actually runs the show,
is demanding Romney's alliagence for hardline, irrational positions that
embarrass the other two thirds the party, and that alienate the majority of US
Re: williary Kearns, UT"Considering Gallup had Romney ahead a short
week or so ago, and the last CNN/NBC polls both had Obama up by 5+ points, seems
like Mitt had a tough couple weeks"Oh for heaven's sake!!
Romney hasn't even got the nomination yet, he hasn't selected his
running mate, Israel hasn't made their move on Iran, and we haven't
seen the effects of the economic slow down that is in the news. Wait until
mid-summer for the upcoming Obama train wreck.
I'm surprised that KKB put the election in such murky terms. Most people
have only a vague idea of what communism is, so he should have posted that it
all comes down to "good VS. EEEEVVVIIIIILLLLLLLL."
Romney is going to lose plain and simple. Ron Paul has a real chance, Romney
has NO chance.
I read an article in the Fresno Bee the other day about how the CIA is resuming
its bombings in Pakistan. When did we declare was against Pakistan? Candidate
Obama ran on a platform of change. He promised to bring peace. He even won the
Nobel Peace Prize because of his pretty speeches. I'm still waiting for the
peace. If our cause is so very just, why don't our
Congressional Representatives have the guts to put it to a vote? It is not their
"privilege" to declare war; it is their Constitutional responsibility.
The Democrats complained bitterly about these wars when Bush was in office and
yet refused to vote on them when the chance was presented. They refused to stop
it all during Pres. Obama's first 2 years in office when they controlled
everything. The only change we've received is MORE of the same. More
countries bombed by us, more restrictions on our freedoms, more debt, and more
unemployment. Obama took the problems of the Bush administration and magnified
them.We need more than just pretty speeches.
I think Romney will actually win. However, this country will still be divided
at close to 50/50, which means apparently close to 50 percent of us want
communism (laughing). In all seriousness, this country has been divided for a
long time, and if Mitt wins, let's see if he can keep his promise of
bringing the country together. Not sure how he's going to do that without
LValfre: pfftt Hahahahaha . . . Thanks for that gut buster. I needed a good
I'm looking forward to seeing what the Democrats feel are the
accomplishments from the past 3.5 years. The biggest accomplishment
has to be the courageous call to defy Pakistan and kill bin Laden. That would
have been a horrible mark on this presidency had it failed, but it didn't
fail. Bold, gutsy call, and the world is a better place because of it.Honestly, what are the next biggest accomplishments? What will the Democrats
be touting about for the next 6 months?
I read the headline from the Des News: the election between Obama and Romney
couldn't be any closerand I think: Must not be very close. Sad thing when journalism loses its objectivity . . . at least we all
know the same old slant.
To KKB: Gutting the military is communism? Is that why the Soviet Union had such
a tiny military?
@ouisc"Honestly, what are the next biggest accomplishments? What will
the Democrats be touting about for the next 6 months?"We went
from Obama inheriting a 700k jobs loss per month rate January 09 to getting back
to positives within a year and gaining private sector jobs I think 26 months in
a row now. The economy isn't as far along as we'd like but it's
heading in the right direction and been heading that way ever since the stimulus
was passed. Corporate profits are at record levels, the DOW is back up to where
it was December 2007 (about 4000 more than it was when Obama got into office).
Healthcare access expanded which is the biggest thing for me personally since I
needed surgery a year ago so being able to stay on my dad's insurance
helped a lot with that.
Not sure what Wednesday Rasmussen poll the writer was looking at but I receive
all the polls and the Rasmussen poll has Romney up three points not down today?
Polls only show trends now not the reality of who will win. However,
among independents and moderates Romney leads. Among Republicans, until today,
Gingrich supporters would still show him as their choice while all democrats
have one to choose from. Romney may pick up one additional percentage point from
that. Romney picked up 4 to 7 points when Santorum dropped out. That took him
from 3 or 4 behind Obama to in front 3 or 4. The Rasmussen poll
tends to be more accurate than Gallup based on who's asked. In addition,
Blue states Obama won had Democrat Governors then. Obviously power is switching.
Look at Pennslyvania, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada. All now have
Republican Governors. In addition when Obama ran the House was controlled by
Democrats. Now 60 more districts are Republican. These results will play into
the election. With Census/Electoral College reapportionment Red States gained 6
votes and Blue states lost 6. New Hampshire Republican?Obama took
the day off? A bad economy didn't!
@metamoracoug,Put Romney vs Obama and you'll lose. Put Ron
Paul vs Obama and you have most of the youth, and even many minorities,
switching sides.Romney is going to get creamed vs Obama. He's
old school, conservative and very religious. He doesn't find common ground
with anyone in this country besides Mormons and Obama haters.
I'm amazed at how this race can even be close. This world has a long
history of people putting in corrupt rulers. Ninety nine percent of all people
who have lived on this planet, has existed as a third world society, and we are
willfully transforming to that state. We have learned very little from history.
Polls mean nothing. We are a Republic.GW Bush showed us
all that, votes don't matter -- only the delgates from the Electrol
College matter.Utahns with their Caucus system should know this by
LValfre: Which explains why Paul has less than 10% of the total number of
delegates that Romney has and apparently only won a majority of delegates in
Minnesota -- a Democratic stronghold that would vote for Obama regardless of who
the Republican delegate was.
Current electoral college numbers based on state by state polling. Obama 341
Romney 197. I guess it's not so close.
@don17"Look at Pennslyvania, Virginia, New Mexico, Iowa, and Nevada.
All now have Republican Governors."Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and
Wisconsin too. Only one problem... I think the Republican Governors are an
advantage for Obama. Michigan's governor has that emergency manager law
that people hate. Ohioans voted to strike down the anti-union bill their
governor pushed. Walker (wisconsin) is getting recalled. McDonnell (Virginia)
has the ultrasound bill working against him. Scott (florida) at one point had
approval ratings below 35% and has slashed education. Corbett (pennsylvania)
responded to his forced ultrasound bill that even pointed the screen at the
woman by saying that a woman could just close her eyes. These wildly unpopular
governors pushing through their agendas has spawned a pretty large backlash and
actually might be Obama's best asset.
So long as obama wins, that's OK.
Obama didn't fix anything when he and his party had control of the House,
Senate and White House for 2 years. Why should we waste another 4 years waiting
for him to learn how to be a leader? He should go back to being a teacher or a
community organizer. Let's get an actual Executive into the Executive
Branch. Let's get someone who understand economics to fix the economy.Says Mitt to Barack, "I see your J.D. and raise you an M.B.A.. I see
your complete lack of Executive experience and raise you a lifetime of it."
Obama voted out of office ... Now THERE'S a change I can believe in!
Readers and D-News this election is over "6" months away. Even though I
no longer care for Obama, and despise anything like Rommney and his following of
big money mentalities this race won't even be close! Victor Obama. Reason,
mistrust of former Republican lead Bush Wacker administration that "put"
this country in the mess we are presently and still in! It's time to vote
out every single incumbent from both parties and send our congress thieves in
office now the message- it's over for them! We have that ability voters,
just do it.
Polls of individual voters don't matter. The Electoral College picks the
At this point the the campaign Reagan trailed Carter badly.To date Obama
has been able to avoid talking about the economy. He will not be able to
deflect forever. He can only invent non issues, like the non-existent war on
women for so long.Romney will kill "The One" when the
economy comes up front and center. Some goes for most real issues.
Romney will win. There is no compelling reason to vote for Barack Obama. He
doesn't have a record to run on. No president has won re-election with
unemployment over 7.2% since FDR.
@ Roland Kayser: "Instead of seeing polls everyday until November, could we
talk about issues?"Great idea! Then we might actually learn
where each candidate stands, rather than where we THINK he stands or where the
news media tells us he stands.So, select an issue, such as National
Defense or similar title, go the the official websites of each of the three
remaining candidates, by just googling the "last name 2012" and take a
look at what they say. Some are pretty generic, that is, any candidate would
say the same thing but look for the one who is more specific about his stand.
We need to do our own research. We need to quit listening to polls,
esp. those that are 6 months out for crying out loud. Have an open mind - you
might actually learn something new. Quit thinking in terms of Republicans and
Democrats - both parties have done great harm to our Constitution. We need to
select a candidate by comparing his words AND actions against the Constitution.
That is the oath of office they take. If you no longer believe in
the Constitution, then perhaps you need to learn more about it.God Bless
An open message for the Deseret News:Regarding the comment: "Instead
of seeing polls everyday until November, could we talk about issues?"Why doesn't the Deseret News publish some articles that do a side
by side comparison of the three remaining candidates for President, as taken
from their official websites? We need to know what they plan to do
if elected or re-elected. This would give your readers some
accurate information and will be of much greater service than publishing polls
that are projecting six months in advance.The televised debates were
not of much value in telling us where each candidate stands and this is an area
where newspapers can excel. The printed word has great power and certainly
lasts a lot longer than TV or radio.So that is my question for the
Deseret News. Please kindly advise us of your decision.Thanks for
As with Presidential elections in the past 200 years or 50 election cycles, the
incumbent doesn't have to have simulated events to guess what will happen
and make a decision. Somethings happen either planned and mainly unplanned that
affect the election on its own. Those decisions will cause people to question
why they would vote for that person to be elected another time. This President
hasn't been on the ground very long for the past 4 years of campaigning for
this second term. As President he hasn't spent too much time on the ground
and in his office. CNN polls are not necessarily as valid as some of the other
polls. Numbers are put out to make a change for people's minds as people
don't like to look at real issues, only polls make up their minds.
Let's try something different. Hand both Romney and Obama an identical IQ,
and high school standardized tests. As government employers we have the right to
evaluate our candidates. Let's see school transcripts and other vital
information instead of the constant rhetoric. Give us some information to work
Hutterite"So long as obama wins, that's OK".Don't be so vague. List some reasons for your statement. Let's make
this a learning experience.
It's a sad commentary on American voters that almost half support our
Leftist president who appears Hell-bent on destroying the republic!He's done virtually nothing in his life... and can't even prove who
he is.Anyone with even a low IQ can see that our only hope for
survival is Mitt Romney.
@Riverton Cougar"When Bush was president, unemployment averaged
5.4%"Did you seriously just try and play that card?That's like saying in the Utah/BYU game last year, BYU was on average
ahead on the scoreboard, in the first half, only to lose by 44 points!Bush took over at 4.2% unemployment, it was almost double when he left, 8.3%
in February of 2009. When will Republicans accept the fact that his Presidency
didn't end in 2007, it extended another 2 years as the economy
collapsed.I have no issue with Republicans hitting Obama because he
hasn't fixed the economy quick enough, I think everyone wishes it was
already done, but all you're doing is showing your utter
head-in-the-sand-ness to actually try and say Obama created the mess this
country is in. He inherited a Recession, that was later reclassified as a
Deep-Recession, that is just a fact.Pathetic.
williary,It's not about Bush. He's gone!! Reagan
inherited a bigger mess when he took office, and quite well.Let's have a president who can DO something, rather than play golf,
vacation, campaign, and blame.This is pathetic.
As reported in the New York Times in 2009:"The deepest and
longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in
1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6
percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter
1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters
during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip
recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003.
Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982. As can be
seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama
inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising
unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far
direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime
interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in
which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this
year) and interest rates were very low."
More from New York Times 2009:"President Obama has taken the
polar opposite approach to President Reagan’s to reignite the
economic-growth engine. Reagan pushed for cuts in marginal tax rates to
encourage people to work, save and invest in an effort to spur the supply side
of the economy as well as the demand side. Mr. Obama has chosen only to greatly
increase government spending in an attempt to increase demand while, at the same
time, many of his new labor, environmental, energy and other regulations are
impeding the supply side of the economy. Mr. Obama had the advantage
of both houses of Congress being controlled by his party, so he was able to get
his stimulus package passed within a few weeks of taking office. Reagan was
handicapped by having the opposition party in control of the House of
Representatives, whose members both delayed (until August 1981) and reduced his
tax-reduction stimulus package." The Reagan tax cuts were not
fully phased in until 1983, more than two years after he assumed office. Reagan,
hobbled by an opposition Congress, was not able to get the spending-growth
restraint he wanted, at one point reaching 6 percent of GDP.
@JWBFilibustering was not so common in the 1980s, yes Obama was able to
get the stimulus passed, but only under heavy concessions to republicans so that
he could get three Republicans (the two from maine and then-Republican Specter
of PA) to support it, for instance half the stimulus bill was/is tax cuts.
re:JWBDavid Stockman helped Reagan usher in the largest tax cut in
U.S. history, a cut that mainly favored the rich. But things didn’t go
exactly as they planned them. The economy sagged, and in 1982 and ’84,
Reagan and Stockman agreed to tax increases.In 1985 Stockman left
government and wrote a book critical of his own years in power: The Triumph of
Politics: The Inside Story of the Reagan Revolution.Stockman wrote:
"Through the 1984 election, the old guard earnestly tried to
control the deficit, rolling back about 40 percent of the original Reagan tax
cuts. But when, in the following years, the Federal Reserve chairman, Paul
Volcker, finally crushed inflation, enabling a solid economic rebound, the new
tax-cutters not only claimed victory for their supply-side strategy but hooked
Republicans for good on the delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit
if plied with enough tax cuts.By fiscal year 2009, the tax-cutters
had reduced federal revenues to 15 percent of gross domestic product, lower than
they had been since the 1940s."
JWB, why is it that conservatives just can't seem to get facts straight?The piece you refer to, The Worst Recession? was not reported in The New
York Times, it was an opinion piece in the Washington Times by Richard W.
Rahn a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for
Global Economic Growth.The CATO Institute, as I'm sure you are
aware, is an extreme conservative think tank, founded as The Charles Koch
Foundation. Yes, that Charles Koch. Rahn is a staunch advocate
of supply side economics and was Vice President of the US Chamber of Commerce
during President Reagan's administration.Now there is nothing
wrong with using Rahn as a source, I just don't understand why you would
attempt to portray his opinion piece as being "reported" in the NY
Times, as though it were news.
This is very bad news for Obama. Basically the contentious primary and all the
negative ads run against Romney by Billionaire Las Vegas mogel Sheldon?
Didn't gain leverage for Obama. The all out marketing of MSNBC and NBC,
CBS,ABC and CNN has not been effective as surrogates for Obama. The fact that it
is basically tied actually means that Obama is losing big in the critical swing
states and among independents. The next wave will be outrageous and awful anti-
mormon ads which will be level two smear attempts. It will be a bumpy ride but
Obama may actually be a one term president. Having lived recently in two liberal
states Obama won handily in 2008 I can see him losing both states this time.