More poll numbers - nobody is doing well

[knapplc]

Romney’s Popularity Stays Low, Obama’s is Better, but with Challenges

 

Mitt Romney is laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984. But Barack Obama has his own challenges in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, notably among registered voters, and with much weaker numbers among men than women.

 

Forty percent of Americans overall view Romney favorably, 49 percent unfavorably – leaving him underwater, at least numerically, in 10 straight ABC News/ Washington Post polls this year. A new high of 30 percent now see him “strongly” unfavorably, nearly double his strongly favorable score.

 

Romney finished the primary season with the lowest favorability for a presumptive nominee in ABC/Post polls back 28 years; the question was whether that represented a post-primary campaign hangover from which he’d recover. The answer: not yet.

 

Indeed, while indecision about Romney has fallen from 37 percent last September to 11 percent now, the trend among those who’ve made up their minds has been largely negative: His favorability rating has gained 7 percentage points in the past year, but his unfavorable score is up by 18.

 

The article goes on to say that Obama is weak on the economy, people blame the Feds for the weakness of the economy, and a majority feel it's in worse shape today than when Obama took office.

 

 

 

America is going to vote "None of the above" and demand new candidates this November. Calling my shot now.

[ZRod]

America is going to vote "None of the above" and demand new candidates this November. Calling my shot now.

If there was a strong independent candidate with a good fiscal mind, he would probably have my vote. But when's the last time that happened?

[BigRedBuster]

If they would run campaigns on substance instead of petty sound bites I think people would have such negative attitudes towards it.

[beanman]

Romney’s Popularity Stays Low, Obama’s is Better, but with Challenges

 

Mitt Romney is laboring under the lowest personal popularity ratings for a presumptive presidential nominee in midsummer election-year polls back to 1984. But Barack Obama has his own challenges in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, notably among registered voters, and with much weaker numbers among men than women.

 

Forty percent of Americans overall view Romney favorably, 49 percent unfavorably – leaving him underwater, at least numerically, in 10 straight ABC News/ Washington Post polls this year. A new high of 30 percent now see him “strongly” unfavorably, nearly double his strongly favorable score.

 

Romney finished the primary season with the lowest favorability for a presumptive nominee in ABC/Post polls back 28 years; the question was whether that represented a post-primary campaign hangover from which he’d recover. The answer: not yet.

 

Indeed, while indecision about Romney has fallen from 37 percent last September to 11 percent now, the trend among those who’ve made up their minds has been largely negative: His favorability rating has gained 7 percentage points in the past year, but his unfavorable score is up by 18.

 

The article goes on to say that Obama is weak on the economy, people blame the Feds for the weakness of the economy, and a majority feel it's in worse shape today than when Obama took office.

 

 

 

America is going to vote "None of the above" and demand new candidates this November. Calling my shot now.

 

Our country is screwed. I think I may move to Canada. Better fishing, and those French-Canadian radio stations are pretty entertaining. The best and the brightest in our country are not in politics. And this is why we are left with these two as our choices. This is why I never vote; I don't know who is worse.

[JJ Husker]

If this election were about the issues (like it should be), the polls wouldn't even be close and Romney would already be considered our next President. But, the media and the candidates themselves put way too much emphasis on the sound bites and how the other guy is worse and not how they are better or qualified. It's kind of a catch 22 situation. Obama can't run on his record or accomplishments because he has nothing of substance to brag about. Things are worse and definitely no better than they were when he took office so, his only option is to attack Romney. And Romney, as much as he would like to make it all about the economy, debt, spending, and jobs just can't manage to escape the priveleged rich guy narrative or avoid getting in the mud to counter Obama's attacks. Like I've said numerous times, our system of electing these people is severely broken. It needs to be about the important issues and not only about the BS most Americans are exposed to on their TV sets. I find it simply amazing that this race can possibly be close or tilting Obamas direction after these last 3.5 years. The repubs need some new leadership and need to retool their platform if they can't manage to sleepwalk through this one with a victory. Of course, much better candidates on both sides and much smarter voters would help immensely too.

 

BTW- Not voting is no answer. I understand the sentiment because it is only a choice of the lesser of 2 evils but we all have to do what we can. Giving up is not an option, at least not a good one. We simply cannot let this crap continue and keep passing the buck to our children. For everyday that we allow things to get worse is just more days until they can get set right. At some point in time, regaining what has been lost will no longer be an option. That will be a very bad day and future.

[carlfense]

If this election were about the issues (like it should be), the polls wouldn't even be close and Romney would already be considered our next President. But, the media and the candidates themselves put way too much emphasis on the sound bites and how the other guy is worse and not how they are better or qualified. It's kind of a catch 22 situation. Obama can't run on his record or accomplishments because he has nothing of substance to brag about. Things are worse and definitely no better than they were when he took office so, his only option is to attack Romney. And Romney, as much as he would like to make it all about the economy, debt, spending, and jobs just can't manage to escape the priveleged rich guy narrative or avoid getting in the mud to counter Obama's attacks. Like I've said numerous times, our system of electing these people is severely broken. It needs to be about the important issues and not only about the BS most Americans are exposed to on their TV sets. I find it simply amazing that this race can possibly be close or tilting Obamas direction after these last 3.5 years. The repubs need some new leadership and need to retool their platform if they can't manage to sleepwalk through this one with a victory. Of course, much better candidates on both sides and much smarter voters would help immensely too.

The problem that I see with your bolded statement is that Romney's (and the entire RNC convention's) entire focus lately has been on an out of context Obama quote ("We Built This") and an absolute lie about welfare. That's it . . . that's the Romney campaign at the moment.

 

Romney hasn't demonstrated that he would be anything but a third term of George W. Bush. If he would provide real detailed policy proposals showing how he would fix the things broken during W. and Obama's tenure he'd be much more credible. He either can't or he won't.

[knapplc]

If this election were about the issues (like it should be), the polls wouldn't even be close and Romney would already be considered our next President. But, the media and the candidates themselves put way too much emphasis on the sound bites and how the other guy is worse and not how they are better or qualified. It's kind of a catch 22 situation. Obama can't run on his record or accomplishments because he has nothing of substance to brag about. Things are worse and definitely no better than they were when he took office so, his only option is to attack Romney. And Romney, as much as he would like to make it all about the economy, debt, spending, and jobs just can't manage to escape the priveleged rich guy narrative or avoid getting in the mud to counter Obama's attacks. Like I've said numerous times, our system of electing these people is severely broken. It needs to be about the important issues and not only about the BS most Americans are exposed to on their TV sets. I find it simply amazing that this race can possibly be close or tilting Obamas direction after these last 3.5 years. The repubs need some new leadership and need to retool their platform if they can't manage to sleepwalk through this one with a victory. Of course, much better candidates on both sides and much smarter voters would help immensely too.

The same Mitt Romney who has yet - two months and change before the election - to submit to the nation his plan for fixing what ails us would "already be president" if this were about issues?

 

We don't know where Mitt stands on the issues. We have no idea how Mitt would fix the issues. How would making the election "about the issues" help a candidate like that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

BTW- Not voting is no answer. I understand the sentiment because it is only a choice of the lesser of 2 evils but we all have to do what we can. Giving up is not an option, at least not a good one. We simply cannot let this crap continue and keep passing the buck to our children. For everyday that we allow things to get worse is just more days until they can get set right. At some point in time, regaining what has been lost will no longer be an option. That will be a very bad day and future.

 

Totally agree with this.

[knapplc]

More on the idea that Mitt is the victim of a campaign not being about the issues - his own campaign acknowledges that they're running inaccurate ads and will continue to do so because they work.

 

 

 

Campaign Won’t Be Dictated By Fact Checkers

 

TAMPA (CBSMiami) – Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s campaign has drawn fire for misleading ads against President Barack Obama on welfare. But, the Romney campaign said Tuesday it’s not concerned with being labeled false by independent fact-checkers.

 

“Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” Romney pollster Neil Newhouse told buzzfeed.com.

 

Newhouse continued saying fact-checkers during the current campaign had, “jumped the shark.”

 

The comments come just weeks after Romney himself lamented that campaign advertising should be factually correct or the campaigns should remove the ads from the air.

 

“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said at the time.

 

The ad in question on welfare which stated Obama wouldn’t require people to work and instead would just send you a welfare check was labeled “Pants on Fire” by Politifact and a subsequent comment from Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell saying Obama was trying to unwind welfare work requirements was also labeled false.

 

In the face of proof that the ads they're running are false and misleading, rather than do what Mitt himself said they should do and pull their ads, they instead attack the fact-checkers. No refutation, no support of the facts they're dumping, they just claim the people proving them wrong have an agenda.

 

 

 

 

This is not a man, or a campaign, being unfairly railroaded away from the issues. They are in the engine, steering the train off the tracks. Stoking the fires along the way.

[carlfense]

<snip>

In the face of proof that the ads they're running are false and misleading, rather than do what Mitt himself said they should do and pull their ads, they instead attack the fact-checkers. No refutation, no support of the facts they're dumping, they just claim the people proving them wrong have an agenda.

 

This is not a man, or a campaign, being unfairly railroaded away from the issues. They are in the engine, steering the train off the tracks. Stoking the fires along the way.

[JJ Husker]

 

The problem that I see with your bolded statement is that Romney's (and the entire RNC convention's) entire focus lately has been on an out of context Obama quote ("We Built This") and an absolute lie about welfare. That's it . . . that's the Romney campaign at the moment.

 

Romney hasn't demonstrated that he would be anything but a third term of George W. Bush. If he would provide real detailed policy proposals showing how he would fix the things broken during W. and Obama's tenure he'd be much more credible. He either can't or he won't.

 

I'm not sure that has been their "entire" focus but I agree they should back off the "We Built This" deal a little bit. On one hand it is almost too good to not use but, it is being used out of context most of the time. However, I feel it does seem to sum up what most of us dislike about Obama and current dems; that they place more value on the government controlling and providing and less value on hardwork and self reliance.

 

 

The same Mitt Romney who has yet - two months and change before the election - to submit to the nation his plan for fixing what ails us would "already be president" if this were about issues?

 

We don't know where Mitt stands on the issues. We have no idea how Mitt would fix the issues. How would making the election "about the issues" help a candidate like that?

 

I'm not saying Romney is beyond reproach or doing an excellent job. He has not done a good job of laying out his plan(s) or in explaining to us how he is better than Obama. I am simply commenting on how abysmal I feel Obama's tenure has been. Basically, even a caveman should be able to succeed in this campaign but, leave it to the repubs to screw it up. Your last question sort of answers itself. If the election were about the issues it would force Romney to provide better answers and tell us his detailed plans. Any half-assed scheme would look better than the last 4 years. Literally any.

 

IIRC, we had this same problem at the last election. Obama was all hope and change with no details provided. In my estimation, things are worse now than they were then. Not saying it's right or the best way to elect a President, it isn't, but Romney should win for the same reasons Obama won (of course discounting that he's a rich white guy and not in line to be the first black president). If we're comparing apples to apples, why demand more of Romney than you do Obama. I've looked at Obama's website- lots of rhetoric and story telling but no concrete plans. No step by step details of how to get out of this mess. In that regard, both candidates are the same and lacking.

[carlfense]

<snip> IIRC, we had this same problem at the last election. Obama was all hope and change with no details provided. In my estimation, things are worse now than they were then. Not saying it's right or the best way to elect a President, it isn't, but Romney should win for the same reasons Obama won . . . <snip>

You seem to think that Obama shouldn't have won with a campaign based on an empty slogan (I agree!) but then you think that Romney should win with empty slogans? That doesn't make sense to me.

[knapplc]

You seem to think that Obama shouldn't have won with a campaign based on an empty slogan (I agree!) but then you think that Romney should win with empty slogans? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

Um... hey, carlfense. Romney is a Republican.

[Stu]

I also feel it's contest of "who sucks less".

 

When it comes to voting time, I might as well flip a coin and that is a sucky feeling.

 

I try to do my own research, but no matter what site you go too, it seems biased. Different news sources seem to contradict each other and it becomes a pain to find out where the candidates really stand. This country is going to be in trouble for a long time no matter who gets elected I'm afraid.

[sd'sker]

I also feel it's contest of "who sucks less".

 

When it comes to voting time, I might as well flip a coin and that is a sucky feeling.

 

I try to do my own research, but no matter what site you go too, it seems biased. Different news sources seem to contradict each other and it becomes a pain to find out where the candidates really stand. This country is going to be in trouble for a long time no matter who gets elected I'm afraid.

that is just not true, only because of the trajectory of american politics. the smallest choices can lead to incredible consequences.

[JJ Husker]

<snip> IIRC, we had this same problem at the last election. Obama was all hope and change with no details provided. In my estimation, things are worse now than they were then. Not saying it's right or the best way to elect a President, it isn't, but Romney should win for the same reasons Obama won . . . <snip>

You seem to think that Obama shouldn't have won with a campaign based on an empty slogan (I agree!) but then you think that Romney should win with empty slogans? That doesn't make sense to me.

You're attributing "Romney should win" to me in a different tense than I have intended to state it. I don't think either one of them, or anyone for that matter, "should" win with empty slogans. I am merely saying that all things being equal, which I believe in this case they are, Obama won on empty slogans and unfulfilled promises of hope & change because the previous regime was portrayed as totally inept so, I believe Romney is now in almost the exact same boat following a failed regime. Even without detailed proposals, or his tax returns, we can hope that he will be better so therefore, by reasons of elimination, he is the better choice. I don't like the situation but one is a proven failure and the other has yet to prove or detail anything. If anyone is applying a double standard here, it is not me. I won't blow sunshine and tell you Romney has done any better than Obama did 4 years ago in explaining things or that he will definitely be better, that remains to be seen. However, I can say with a high level of confidence that it sure isn't likely to be any worse. And yes, much of that does have to do with the differences I perceive between dems and repubs. It is not simply blind partisanship as knapp is insinuating. It is because I feel fiscally conservative policy is a better direction than the direction I believe Obama and the dems want to undertake. The one caveat I have with that is I'm not convinced Romney has the same ideas of fiscal conservatism as I do but I'm willing to gamble that his version is a whole lot closer to what I desire than Obama's.