Quantcast
U.S. & World

All tied up: presidential race between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama could not be any closer

Comments

Return To Article
  • Joe Moe Logan, UT
    May 2, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 2, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    Instead of seeing polls everyday until November, could we talk about issues?

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    May 2, 2012 1:20 p.m.

    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!

  • williary Kearns, UT
    May 2, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    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.

  • KKB Draper, UT
    May 2, 2012 1:32 p.m.

    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!!!)

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    May 2, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    Hey Thornbirds, if you had $250,000,000 in the bank, would you shop at Gap?
    Didn't think so.

  • Dadof5sons Montesano, WA
    May 2, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 2:23 p.m.

    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.

  • In Stitches Provo, Utah
    May 2, 2012 2:24 p.m.

    ThornBirds

    And 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???

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 2, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    "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.

  • Article-Reader Spanish Fork, UT
    May 2, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    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.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 2, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 3:12 p.m.

    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 voters.

    Game over.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 2, 2012 3:27 p.m.

    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.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 2, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    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."

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 2, 2012 3:40 p.m.

    Romney is going to lose plain and simple. Ron Paul has a real chance, Romney has NO chance.

  • fresnogirl Fresno, CA
    May 2, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    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.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    May 2, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    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 some compromise!

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    May 2, 2012 4:00 p.m.

    LValfre: pfftt Hahahahaha . . . Thanks for that gut buster. I needed a good laugh today.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    May 2, 2012 4:00 p.m.

    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?

  • Palintram Holladay, UT
    May 2, 2012 4:10 p.m.

    I read the headline from the Des News: the election between Obama and Romney couldn't be any closer

    and I think: Must not be very close.

    Sad thing when journalism loses its objectivity . . . at least we all know the same old slant.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 2, 2012 4:14 p.m.

    To KKB: Gutting the military is communism? Is that why the Soviet Union had such a tiny military?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    @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.

  • don17 Temecula, CA
    May 2, 2012 4:25 p.m.

    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!

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    May 2, 2012 4:25 p.m.

    @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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 2, 2012 4:35 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 2, 2012 4:56 p.m.

    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 now.

  • metamoracoug metamora, IL
    May 2, 2012 5:13 p.m.

    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.

  • mamiejane Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 5:35 p.m.

    Current electoral college numbers based on state by state polling. Obama 341 Romney 197. I guess it's not so close.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 5:42 p.m.

    @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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 2, 2012 5:44 p.m.

    So long as obama wins, that's OK.

  • There's always room for Jello Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 5:52 p.m.

    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."

  • pabellon Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 5:54 p.m.

    Obama voted out of office ... Now THERE'S a change I can believe in!

  • Old Timer the boonies, mexico
    May 2, 2012 6:42 p.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 6:49 p.m.

    Polls of individual voters don't matter. The Electoral College picks the president.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    May 2, 2012 6:49 p.m.

    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.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    May 2, 2012 9:00 p.m.

    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.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    May 2, 2012 9:10 p.m.

    @ 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 America!

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    May 2, 2012 9:21 p.m.

    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 listening!

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 2, 2012 9:47 p.m.

    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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 2, 2012 10:35 p.m.

    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 with.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 2, 2012 11:08 p.m.

    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.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    May 3, 2012 12:26 a.m.

    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.

  • williary Kearns, UT
    May 3, 2012 7:53 a.m.

    @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.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 3, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    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.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 3, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    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."

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 3, 2012 8:26 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 3, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    @JWB
    Filibustering 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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 3, 2012 2:10 p.m.

    re:JWB

    David 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."

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    May 3, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    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.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    May 7, 2012 1:27 a.m.

    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.