New Poll Puts Mitt Romney In The Deep End

[knapplc]

Mitt Romney's not just treading water, he's underwater when it comes to personal favorability as the clock ticks down to Election Day.

 

According to the results of a new ABC News-Washington Post poll out this morning, 40 percent of Americans view Romney favorably while 49 percent unfavorably. That means Romney has been "underwater" in 10 consecutive polls this year.

 

What's more, while the the presumptive Republican nominee's favorables have ticked up by 7 percentage points this year, his unfavorable score is up more than double that -- 18 points.

 

"Mitt Romney is laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984," according to ABC News Pollster Gary Langer. President Obama, on the other hand, gets more positive ratings. He is seen favorably by 53 percent of American adults and unfavorably by 43 percent.

 

LINK

 

There are several more statistical breakdowns in the article, none of which are good news for Romney. He'll get a bump (possibly) when he picks his Veep, although a poor choice could have a net negative effect. He'll get another bump at the convention when he wins the Republican nomination, although it'll be interesting to see what shenanigans Ron Paul gets up to with his modest handful of delegates.

 

Regardless, no incumbent has won a second term with the numbers Obama has now. So why is he leading polls this late in the game?

 

My take - Romney is the Candidate of Nothing. To date his entire campaign has been one continuing refrain of, "I am not Barack Obama." Great. Fantastic. You're not Barack Obama. So.... who are you? What are your plans? How are you going to fix the mess we're in? How are you going to fix healthcare, fix the tax code, fix our troops being all over creation, fix.... anything?

 

When you ask Romney, and he has been asked, repeatedly, by many interviewers, he has no answer. Nothing. How are you going to fix taxes, Mr. Romney? I'll work with congress to make a better tax code. Oh, really? That's... nice. But how are you going to fix it? What are you going to do? "I'm not going to get into specifics." The same answers come out about everything. Romney has, to date, offered nothing specific about anything.

 

It's this "nothing" that his hurting Romney in the polls. He may have plans - brilliant plans - on how to fix what ails America. But without specifics, why should I vote for him? I would get more information from an applicant for McDonald's than I'm getting from Mitt Romney right now. I'm not voting for him simply because he's not Obama.

[carlfense]

I've alluded to it before . . . but Romney is in a tough spot. Look at his experience . . .

 

Legislation: Romney has to run from his signature gubernatorial legislation. The GOP base would be apoplectic if Romney spoke truthfully about the success of Romneycare. The underlying policies are identical to Obamacare . . . and the Republican base has absolutely convinced itself that Obamacare is the tyrannical end of freedom in America.

 

Bain Capital: Romney can't talk about Bain without fielding questions about layoffs, tax shelters, outsourcing, etc. Add in the fact that the talk would inevitably drift to Romney's salary . . . and that would raise questions about why someone who earns tens of millions of dollars a year is required to pay a lower effective rate than someone who earns $100,000 a year. That's a conversation that the Republican Party and their extremely wealthy financiers desperately want to avoid.

 

Olympics: Romney can't talk about his turnaround of the Olympics without discussing the fact that the turnaround happened because of an army of lobbyists who received millions of dollars in aid from taxpayers.

 

Proposed Policies: Romney's proposed tax plan (calling it a "plan" is probably generous) shows that he would give enormous tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and raise taxes on the middle and lower classes. Granted . . . that's not exactly Romney's fault . . . that's what the present day GOP wants.

 

 

 

Basically, Romney can't talk about any real accomplishments. Note that I'm not saying he doesn't have any accomplishments . . . just that for one reason or another he can't talk about them. The ONLY thing keeping this close is that Obama is a weak incumbent in a weak economy. Therefore, Romney thinks his best bet is to run as the invisible man . . . refuse to take questions from the press . . . and hope that enough people will vote for the guy who isn't Obama to eke out a win.

 

 

 

 

Honestly . . . I think that the GOP should have ripped off the bandaid and ran a "true conservative" like Bachmann or Santorum. When/If Romney loses the Tea Party base will howl about this always happening when the GOP chooses a RINO. That will just add to the extremism spiral.

[Comish]

The polls reflect the success of the Obama team to define Romney.

 

I agree the rino's and handlers have played it way too cautious and have played into the Dems strategy.

 

When more money is available after officially becoming the nominee and he gets a chance to define himself through the debates; etc. the perceptions will change.

 

I stand by my prediction that it can only go 2 ways.

 

(1) Romney in a BIG way..............or (2) Obama in a squeaker (probably with the help of a typical late October "surprise")........

[carlfense]

I stand by my prediction that it can only go 2 ways.

 

(1) Romney in a BIG way..............or (2) Obama in a squeaker (probably with the help of a typical late October "surprise")........

Why do you think that? I think that it will be 1-4 points one way or the other . . . and at the moment it looks like Romney has some serious catching up to do. Plenty of time for that of course.

[zoogs]

Romney needs to make a good, quality VP selection. We all saw the effect Palin had - a legitimate VP candidate would give his campaign a big boost. Particularly since I think, Biden is a weakness to the Obama campaign. For whatever reason the only notable thing about Biden appears to be his propensity for gaffes. Correct me if I'm wrong...it could be one of those "that's how they've managed to define him" things.

[sd'sker]

i thought this point was interesting:

 

I've said this before: for all of the grief that Romney has taken for his multitude of flip-flops over the years, those are not, collectively, as damaging to Romney's ambition as the way the Republican Party has flopped on him. In 2008, RomneyCare was held to be an accomplishment with edge -- he'd neatly co-opted a key Democratic Party plank, universal health care, and delivered it to his constituents, using the individual mandate concept dreamed up by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Coupled with his time spent rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics, Romney had reason to brag about his managerial acumen and problem-solving ability.

 

 

Andrea Saul, Romney Spox, Gets Pilloried For Mentioning Candidate's Most Important Achievement

[Comish]

I stand by my prediction that it can only go 2 ways.

 

(1) Romney in a BIG way..............or (2) Obama in a squeaker (probably with the help of a typical late October "surprise")........

Why do you think that? I think that it will be 1-4 points one way or the other . . . and at the moment it looks like Romney has some serious catching up to do. Plenty of time for that of course.

I agree, of course Romney has some serious catching up to do. But since people really don't know anything about him except the bruising primary fight and the toll the attack ads have taken, I believe there is a huge opportunity in the next few months for him to present himself. That's why I think, once the momentum starts going his way, it will be like Reagan over Carter. Remember that was considered close by the polls right up until the last week iirc and then became a landslide. The reason I think that could happen again, is that BO really has nothing left to unleash in his arsenal to inspire the undecided. Those people that are going to vote for him already know that. Given the economy and the desperation of the level of ads already being launched, I just don't see what he can do other than continue to bash Romney and if Romney can introduce himself to the American people in his own terms......... then he wins big.

[HuskerShark]

VOTE RON PAUL!

[Comish]

Romney needs to make a good, quality VP selection. We all saw the effect Palin had - a legitimate VP candidate would give his campaign a big boost. Particularly since I think, Biden is a weakness to the Obama campaign. For whatever reason the only notable thing about Biden appears to be his propensity for gaffes. Correct me if I'm wrong...it could be one of those "that's how they've managed to define him" things.

Actually, there are a number of people who believe that the Palin pick was the only thing that kept it as semi-close as it was because of the infusion of energy her selection induced.

They believe the ticket was upside down, that Palin should have been the nominee and McCain the "trusted understudy with experience".

I disagree that ticket would have won, but the fact remains that the McCain candidacy never excited anybody.

[knapplc]

I agree, of course Romney has some serious catching up to do. But since people really don't know anything about him except the bruising primary fight and the toll the attack ads have taken, I believe there is a huge opportunity in the next few months for him to present himself. That's why I think, once the momentum starts going his way, it will be like Reagan over Carter. Remember that was considered close by the polls right up until the last week iirc and then became a landslide. The reason I think that could happen again, is that BO really has nothing left to unleash in his arsenal to inspire the undecided. Those people that are going to vote for him already know that. Given the economy and the desperation of the level of ads already being launched, I just don't see what he can do other than continue to bash Romney and if Romney can introduce himself to the American people in his own terms......... then he wins big.

 

This is a fanciful narrative, but it's untrue. Romney is defining Romney, not the Obama campaign. It's not a matter of listening to attack ads, it's a matter of listening to Romney himself. Ignore anything about Romney coming from Obama, the Democrats or any left-wing pundit. Base your answer on Romney sources alone, and answer these questions:

 

What is Mitt Romney's plan to fix unemployment?

What is Mitt Romney's plan to fix the debt?

What is Mitt Romney's plan to fix healthcare?

What is Mitt Romney's plan to bring our troops home?

 

That's the problem. There are dozens more questions we need answers to, and Romney has given us nothing. These poll numbers have zero to do with Obama or anyone on the left. They have everything to do with the fact that Romney hasn't said anything substantive throughout the primaries or his campaign.

 

Listen to him talk. Listen to him answer questions from the media, either "his" media or "them." There is never a specific answer, never a plan, never anything. That's entirely on purpose, and it's costing him.

 

Independent voters are not going to vote for this guy if he keeps this up. No VP is going to so Wow! the populace that it's going to carry him to victory.

 

And if you're truly thinking he's going to win this election based on the debates, you need to go back and look at the bazillion Republican primary debates and see how he acted. He put his foot in his mouth more often than not. He had half a dozen other people on the podium saying stupid things as well (like Bachmann, Cain and Perry) so it took some focus off of Mitt, but when it's just him and Obama up there, and Obama is a fantastic public speaker (Fox News' fantasy about teleprompters notwithstanding), and he'll make mincemeat out of Romney one-on-one.

 

I see these next few weeks as critical for Romney. He needs to start speaking plainly about substantive things and stop with his vagaries and deflections. If he waits until the Convention it may be too late.

[knapplc]

Actually, there are a number of people who believe that the Palin pick was the only thing that kept it as semi-close as it was because of the infusion of energy her selection induced.

They believe the ticket was upside down, that Palin should have been the nominee and McCain the "trusted understudy with experience".

I disagree that ticket would have won, but the fact remains that the McCain candidacy never excited anybody.

 

Those people would be what we call "buffoons." That is not a serious thought. If Palin was the candidate and McCain the Veep it would have been one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history.

 

For goodness' sake, if Palin was such a viable candidate then, why isn't she running this time? Why was she polling so terribly low when she was floating the idea of a candidacy? She even did her little bus tour thingy to drum up support for a candidacy and it went over like a lead zeppelin.

 

For that matter, if she's such a good representative of the Republican party, why isn't she even invited to the Republican Convention? That snub alone should put paid to the notion that she would have been a better candidate.

 

Heck, even Dick Cheney came out a week or two ago and said the Palin pick cost McCain any chance he had at the presidency.

[Comish]

Actually, there are a number of people who believe that the Palin pick was the only thing that kept it as semi-close as it was because of the infusion of energy her selection induced.

They believe the ticket was upside down, that Palin should have been the nominee and McCain the "trusted understudy with experience".

I disagree that ticket would have won, but the fact remains that the McCain candidacy never excited anybody.

 

Those people would be what we call "buffoons." That is not a serious thought. If Palin was the candidate and McCain the Veep it would have been one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history.

 

For goodness' sake, if Palin was such a viable candidate then, why isn't she running this time? Why was she polling so terribly low when she was floating the idea of a candidacy? She even did her little bus tour thingy to drum up support for a candidacy and it went over like a lead zeppelin.

 

For that matter, if she's such a good representative of the Republican party, why isn't she even invited to the Republican Convention? That snub alone should put paid to the notion that she would have been a better candidate.

 

Heck, even Dick Cheney came out a week or two ago and said the Palin pick cost McCain any chance he had at the presidency.

Maybe you missed the point where I disagree with those people. Just pointing out that not everyone felt Palin was the cause of the loss.

[knapplc]

Actually, there are a number of people who believe that the Palin pick was the only thing that kept it as semi-close as it was because of the infusion of energy her selection induced.

They believe the ticket was upside down, that Palin should have been the nominee and McCain the "trusted understudy with experience".

I disagree that ticket would have won, but the fact remains that the McCain candidacy never excited anybody.

 

Those people would be what we call "buffoons." That is not a serious thought. If Palin was the candidate and McCain the Veep it would have been one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history.

 

For goodness' sake, if Palin was such a viable candidate then, why isn't she running this time? Why was she polling so terribly low when she was floating the idea of a candidacy? She even did her little bus tour thingy to drum up support for a candidacy and it went over like a lead zeppelin.

 

For that matter, if she's such a good representative of the Republican party, why isn't she even invited to the Republican Convention? That snub alone should put paid to the notion that she would have been a better candidate.

 

Heck, even Dick Cheney came out a week or two ago and said the Palin pick cost McCain any chance he had at the presidency.

Maybe you missed the point where I disagree with those people. Just pointing out that not everyone felt Palin was the cause of the loss.

 

That sounded like it was aimed at you, and it wasn't. My apologies for writing that poorly. I was aiming that response at those people who thought Palin was a serious candidate for any national office. My bad.

[Comish]

I agree, of course Romney has some serious catching up to do. But since people really don't know anything about him except the bruising primary fight and the toll the attack ads have taken, I believe there is a huge opportunity in the next few months for him to present himself. That's why I think, once the momentum starts going his way, it will be like Reagan over Carter. Remember that was considered close by the polls right up until the last week iirc and then became a landslide. The reason I think that could happen again, is that BO really has nothing left to unleash in his arsenal to inspire the undecided. Those people that are going to vote for him already know that. Given the economy and the desperation of the level of ads already being launched, I just don't see what he can do other than continue to bash Romney and if Romney can introduce himself to the American people in his own terms......... then he wins big.

 

This is a fanciful narrative, but it's untrue. Romney is defining Romney, not the Obama campaign. It's not a matter of listening to attack ads, it's a matter of listening to Romney himself. Ignore anything about Romney coming from Obama, the Democrats or any left-wing pundit. Base your answer on Romney sources alone, and answer these questions:

 

What is Mitt Romney's plan to fix unemployment?

What is Mitt Romney's plan to fix the debt?

What is Mitt Romney's plan to fix healthcare?

What is Mitt Romney's plan to bring our troops home?

 

That's the problem. There are dozens more questions we need answers to, and Romney has given us nothing. These poll numbers have zero to do with Obama or anyone on the left. They have everything to do with the fact that Romney hasn't said anything substantive throughout the primaries or his campaign.

 

Listen to him talk. Listen to him answer questions from the media, either "his" media or "them." There is never a specific answer, never a plan, never anything. That's entirely on purpose, and it's costing him.

 

Independent voters are not going to vote for this guy if he keeps this up. No VP is going to so Wow! the populace that it's going to carry him to victory.

 

And if you're truly thinking he's going to win this election based on the debates, you need to go back and look at the bazillion Republican primary debates and see how he acted. He put his foot in his mouth more often than not. He had half a dozen other people on the podium saying stupid things as well (like Bachmann, Cain and Perry) so it took some focus off of Mitt, but when it's just him and Obama up there, and Obama is a fantastic public speaker (Fox News' fantasy about teleprompters notwithstanding), and he'll make mincemeat out of Romney one-on-one.

 

I see these next few weeks as critical for Romney. He needs to start speaking plainly about substantive things and stop with his vagaries and deflections. If he waits until the Convention it may be too late.

 

These poll numbers have zero to do with Obama or anyone on the left. (Your quote here fits much more effectively into the definition of fanciful)

 

The fact is that millions of dollars in unprecedented attack ads HAVE defined Romney so far. (now he's a murderer)

There have been virtually NO serious attempts by the media to offer him a forum to explain his plans.

That will change and there is plenty of time to do so.

You can label this a fanciful narrative but I don't see it that way.

 

I stand by my prediction. On November 7th one of us will need to capitulate.

[Comish]

Actually, there are a number of people who believe that the Palin pick was the only thing that kept it as semi-close as it was because of the infusion of energy her selection induced.

They believe the ticket was upside down, that Palin should have been the nominee and McCain the "trusted understudy with experience".

I disagree that ticket would have won, but the fact remains that the McCain candidacy never excited anybody.

 

Those people would be what we call "buffoons." That is not a serious thought. If Palin was the candidate and McCain the Veep it would have been one of the biggest landslides in presidential election history.

 

For goodness' sake, if Palin was such a viable candidate then, why isn't she running this time? Why was she polling so terribly low when she was floating the idea of a candidacy? She even did her little bus tour thingy to drum up support for a candidacy and it went over like a lead zeppelin.

 

For that matter, if she's such a good representative of the Republican party, why isn't she even invited to the Republican Convention? That snub alone should put paid to the notion that she would have been a better candidate.

 

Heck, even Dick Cheney came out a week or two ago and said the Palin pick cost McCain any chance he had at the presidency.

Maybe you missed the point where I disagree with those people. Just pointing out that not everyone felt Palin was the cause of the loss.

 

That sounded like it was aimed at you, and it wasn't. My apologies for writing that poorly. I was aiming that response at those people who thought Palin was a serious candidate for any national office. My bad.

No offense taken........