The poll showed that relatively few voters consider same-sex marriage their top issue amid continued economic uncertainty, and more than half said it would make no difference in their choice for president. But among those who said Mr. Obama’s position would influence their vote, more said they would be less likely to vote for him as a result; in a close race, even a small shift in swing states could be costly. – Obama’s Switch on Same-Sex Marriage Stirs Skepticism
NO IDEOLOGICAL COMPASS and no economic message since before the 2010 midterms has come back to bite Pres. Obama, giving Mitt Romney a strong showing according to multiple polling snapshots of the presidential race today.
A larger stimulus would have been more effective, while illustrating Pres. Obama had a progressive economic plan, with a strong message in 2010 to take on Tea Party austerity at least showing he had a clearly stated economic vision throughout his first term, instead of the series of reactions to Republicans that it has come to represent.
Simpson-Bowles did absolutely nothing for Pres. Obama except to show that he was farming his economic plan out to a bipartisan commission. But even then he couldn’t make a decision on the group’s decisions, letting them die a slow death, except with infotainment talking heads who love it. Making matters more confusing, Pres. Obama also floated a grand bargain on entitlement “reform,” yet another reaction to Republicans digging in their heels, which Speaker Boehner promised today to do again. Pres. Obama’s populist Kansas speech was met with glorious praise by partisans, but financial word salads and budgetary bromides without force of action mean squat, especially when they’re nakedly political in the first place.
It has all had a cumulative effect and is the single biggest challenge in Obama facing off with Romney, who will not be intimidated on economics, his strong suit, whether you agree with his theories or not.
All the polling out today incorporates the gay marriage equality issue, but come November people will be voting on economics, unless an unforeseen national security matter rears up, then it’s Obama’s advantage all the way.
The snapshot in time polling, starting with the New York Times/CBS, should not surprise anyone, though I’m more interested in the USA Today/Gallup poll.
Though an overwhelming 71% rate economic conditions as poor, a 58% majority predict they will be good a year from now. While those surveyed are inclined to say they are worse off financially than a year ago, nearly two-thirds say they think they’ll be better off this time next year.
[...] Since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, Romney’s favorable-unfavorable rating has jumped to 50%-41%, his best ever and in the same neighborhood as Obama’s 52%-46% standing. The former Massachusetts governor gets stronger ratings than the president when it comes to handling the economy, the issue likely to drive the campaign.
In the poll, 55% say the economy would get better over the next four years if Romney was elected, compared with 46% who say it would improve if Obama was re-elected. Twenty-seven percent say the economy would get worse in a Romney first term, compared with 37% who say that of an Obama second term.
There’s nothing that will convince me the marriage equality statement of Pres. Obama’s last week will factor in with voters who are seriously considering him in the first place. Though it is telling that the Times poll shows such a whopping number of people, 67% to 24% believing it was politically motivated, which points to a character issue about Barack Obama that has been seen throughout his political rise.
Mitt Romney’s character issue on political expediency and convenience, as well as on 1% economic largess, has been documented, as have been his statements proving he’ll say absolutely anything to win and actually has on a number of occasions.
The Obama camp, through Stephanie Cutter, is saying the Times/CBS polling sampling is untrustworthy, though she used the word “biased” when speaking with Chuck Todd on MSNBC.
In the ABC/Wash Post poll, 54% of women approve of his stance, while men weigh in at 37%. Independents are favorable of his stance, 49-43, though some independents are strongly against, but I’d bet they’re also conservatives who hate the notion of marriage equality. Some people will never evolve to the point of accepting it’s a civil rights issue.
In the USA/Gallup poll, understanding we’re talking about a snapshot of today, Republicans have taken the lead in the fight to control Congress, 50%-44%.
Another sign of restlessness with Pres. Obama comes at the very end, revealing the same challenges he had in 2008.
Meanwhile, one in five Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they would have preferred a nominee other than Obama, who didn’t face a primary challenge. They include one in four white voters.
That number, 25%, of white Democratic-leaning independents who say they’d prefer another nominee is a problem, because they could choose to stay home, along with the tiny minority of religious conservative African Americans, who oppose his marriage equality stance, even though it doesn’t change DOMA at all.
Women are listening to Mitt Romney on economics, because that’s the issue that will drive most votes.
Throughout Pres. Obama’s first term, he has had no economic message at all, opting instead for a reactionary strategy to Republican proposals, which now is met by Mitt Romney’s relentless repetition that he’s been successful, he has, knows how to create jobs, been there and destroyed some on the way, and Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing, with the success of the auto bailout proving otherwise. Unfortunately, Pres. Obama’s continual rightward shift benefits Republicans across the board.
It’s impossible to over emphasize the damage done by Pres. Obama’s lack of economic message to his own reelection efforts.
However, there’s still no evidence yet Mitt Romney has the political talent to beat an incumbent president, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Mitt Romney is dead wrong on economics, but he’s strong and sure in his messaging, something Pres. Obama has never been. There was another guy who Democrats didn’t think had a prayer to win the presidency and he was a strong and wrong as Romney, winning two terms. George W. Bush endorsed Mitt Romney today.
Romney’s message and/or Obama’s lack of message is not the reason why President Obama will lose in 2012 (yes I’m saying that now). No amount of Obama re-charging, revamping, retooling is going to stop the “you didn’t fix the jobs” situation that hangs over his head like a guillotine. Of course I well aware of that the President doesn’t create or destroy jobs. And our economic woes are systemic and go way back. But he going to get the lion’s share of blame this year,
Now ol’ Mitt Romney “The CEO Prez” is a loser on this as well. In fact, once he is elected, I predict and even BIGGER nasty smackdown on him concerning jobs because his entire demeanor and presentation is just ugly at times. For a President to “fix the jobs” would take unparalleled and unheard of vision and cajones. He/she would have to pretty much declare war on Wall Street’s current ways and wiles. He/she would have to make it issue #1 and not waver in the slightest during their term. T’aint goin’ happen.
I want Romney to win only to watch the Republicans slice each other up in the never ending game of “we can’t fix a thang” while Democrats decry the senselessness of it all while preparing their “we can’t fix a thang” strategy. Seems bleak? Not at all. Pure entertainment.
GO ROMNEY! You big CEO non-fixer-upper you! And Barack, I’ll see you on the academia circuit. Actually I think you would be a good spokeperson for Verizon.
Your comment reminds of the French Presidential election and the debate (Sarkozy-Hollande) 2 weeks ago (lived in France for a while and like to keep an eye on what happens there). On the economy Sarkozy defended his record and stressed that the financial crisis and the economic downturn had been brutal and that his administration had ensured that France was one of the best performing economies in Europe despite the downturn. Mr Hollande kept it simple: “you didn’t fix the jobs”.
Might be fair or unfair (the latter IMO) but the fact was that unemployment had gone up, the French felt worse off now than 5 years ago and Sarkozy lost the election. What is happening in Europe should be keeping President Obama awake, incumbents are being punished by voters.
The difference here is that the incumbent is the voice of “less austerity”. Obama is promoting some austerity but will (or more correctly “says he will”) attempt to make the more wealthy contribute to the cost of austerity, the Romney-Ryan budget focuses on punishing poorer voters, making the average voter worse off, while Romney’s millionaire and billionaire friends will continue to do just fine. If the Obama campaign can make voters understand that they have a chance, if not….
Taylor, one of your best articles I have read. Your right on point. President Obama has got to get a message that will click with people. He does not have one and that could hurt him big time. Its going to be the economy that will decide this election. I have to admit a Romney President scares the crap out of me. Its going to be a hard fight, neither the Republicans or Democrats should think they have it in the bag. There are going to be states that will fall into the Republican hands no matter what like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina and so on. California,New York, Washington, Connecticut and so on will go to Democrats. Its the battleground states that need to be looked at during this election. Polls are going to go up and down this year in this election. Wait until everyone is pounded with political ads, its going to get bad. As far as President Bush endorsement of Romney, Romney better run away from it and fast.
Yeah, Romney had better run and run as fast as he can from George W. Bush the Toxic Texan. That guy ruins everything he touches.
A few days ago when Obama made the decision to stop evolving ( that alone is enough to make some people sick ) I said it was a mistake, and I believe the polls show this to be true. There are many people in this country who simply don’t believe gays should marry and many more who don’t want their president on the cover of Newsweek magazine labeled as the first gay president. For many it brings into focus all the disappointments with Obama, the man they thought would be their savior. Though it is still too early for polls I do believe Mr. Obama could lose. He could lose simply because most American voters are not intellectually equipped to understand who they are voting for; if they did they would pick a third party candidate and tell Obama and Romney to go to hell the same way Iceland told their banks to go to hell. He could lose because Jamie Dimon has shown the country that nothing has changed since ’08 and he and the other Wall street bankers have spit in Obama’s face for good measure. He could lose because his national security and immigration policies are the same or worse than Bush and this will cause many voters who believe in the constitution to just stay home. Osama bin laden not withstanding, many see Obama as weak and ineffective; being labeled gay only makes it worse for all those unaware of all the tough battle hardened gay troops who made the ultimate sacrifice. Finally, it is interesting that the polls showed a surprising level of cynicism regarding Obama’s gay marriage decision; I too saw it as a cynical ploy to ramp up the gay bundlers and nothing more .
In the CBS/NYT poll women slightly approve of Romney over Obama (2 percent). It would have been interesting to ask if the ‘war on women’ is politically motivated.
As I predicted President Obama’s statement on gay marriage would be a net loser. Gallup also published a poll post Obama’s announcement that showed independant voters were twice as likley not to vote for President Obama because of his stance on gay marriage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/154628/Six-Say-Obama-Sex-Marriage-View-Won-Sway-Vote.aspx
The Gallup poll is schizophrenic when it comes to an Obama Romney matchup. The USA Today/Gallup poll has always shown a GOP bias. In today’s Gallup poll uinaffiliated with USA Today Obama has a small lead over Romney in contrast to the USA Today/Gallup Poll. The Gallup poll is a seven day rolling average and Obama showed a decline after the announcement but the seven day rolling average has trended upwards after a decline.
The critical polls are the state polls. Obama has a large electoral college lead and is within 20 points of an electoral college win with nine battleground states up for grabs. Obama has small to large leads in an Obama Romney matchup in all the battleground staes (Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Colorado, Florida). If Obama wins either Ohio or Florida the election is over. If he loses both Florida and Ohio all he needs is a combination of two states consisting of. Colorado, Virginia,North Carolina, New Hampshire or other toss-up battleground states. He leads Romney in all those states.
Obama never did have much of a message. The “hopey-changey worked four years ago but there’s no substance. There’s even less substance in “Forward.”. Axelrod should go back to advertising. And the administration’s messaging on things that were accomplished like the ACA has been laughable.
It is articles like this that keep me coming back here, along with commentary that is by and large intelligent and thought-provoking.
I condense it down to this: Barack Obama was an “Etch & Sketch” candidate in 2008. With respect to Fangio’s comments, I’m sure many voted for a “savior” yet many voted for someone who would (and could) actually turn the ship of state onto a new course. It’s happened in our history. In fact, roughlly every 70 years or so the times and the person came together for a critical adjustment to the nation. There was George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. We were need of such in 2008..not a savior but someone who had vision; had the courage and conviction to actually LEAD the American public.
But as Ms. Marsh has so well put it now and in previous posts, Barack Obama lacks that internal light that leads himself, let alone anyone else. What’s happening now is very similar to 2010: the president didn’t really care if Congressional Dems paid a price for his fecklessness and snuggling up to Republicans. All that mattered was that any defeat not reflect on him.
Only now it’s his turn. and again, there is this rudderless rowboat quite content to enter a hurricane. Those who voted for Obama in 2008 thought that fortune had finally smiled on those who have been forgotten for decades. What no one saw coming was a president who actually believes that the American people are very fortunate just to have HIM.
A vote for Romney will be for dine-in. A vote for Obama will be for drive-through. Either way it’s the same fast food pablum. As regards Obama’s statement on gays, it was delivered within days of the NC amendment one. Of course it was a cynical ploy. The man has had over 3 1/2 years to take a stand on this issue. He’s had the same amount of time to take a stand on anything.
Romney is a recipe for a quicker disaster than Obama, but not necessarily any worse in the end. And as crazy as his positions are, he has them. Voters know there is substance to his insanity.
President Obama’s moral compass consists of wetting a finger and holding it up to the wind.