SurveyUSA: Americans mostly share Obama's world-view, want him as dinner guest

[Tender Branson]

More Share Obama's World View Than Romney's Or Santorum's: SurveyUSA asked 1,300 registered voters from across all 50 states which Presidential candidate's view of the world more closely matched their own.

* Asked to choose between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, 49% said Obama's view of the world is closer to their own; 35% said Romney's view is closer to theirs.

* Asked to choose between Obama and Rick Santorum, Obama's view of the world is seen as closer to their own by 52% of registered voters; Santorum's by 37%.

* SurveyUSA then asked those who chose both Romney and Santorum how the two Republicans' views matched up with their own; 51% of these voters said Santorum's view of the world was closer to their own; 43% said Romney's.

Women say Obama's view is closer to their own than Romney's by a 20 point margin, and closer to their own than Santorum's by 22 points. Men say Obama's view is closer to their own than either Romney's or Santorum's by identical 9-point margins.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ea9ece4a-627f-4236-8de1-9afd3c10f6f5

...

Obama Is Nation's Top Hypothetical Barbecue Guest: Ignoring that hotdog and hamburger season doesn't begin in earnest for another three months, SurveyUSA asked 1,300 registered voters from the entire United States which one leading Presidential candidate they would most like to invite to a barbecue.

47% say they would invite Barack Obama.
14% would invite Rick Santorum.
14% would invite Ron Paul.
12% would invite Mitt Romney.
8% would invite Newt Gingrich.

Stating the obvious: there are 4 major Republican candidates for President, and 1 Democrat. Adding together the numbers for each Republican shows an effectively tied barbecue invitation race, with 48% inviting a candidate other than Obama, 47% inviting Obama.

Among just Republicans:

30% invite Rick Santorum.
26% invite Mitt Romney.
17% invite Newt Gingrich.
13% invite Ron Paul.
9% invite Barack Obama.

Among just independents:

43% invite Barack Obama.
22% invite Ron Paul.
13% invite Rick Santorum.
11% invite Mitt Romney.
7% invite Newt Gingrich.

Among just Democrats, 86% invite Barack Obama; 5% Ron Paul; each other candidate is invited by just 2% of Democrats each.

Full crosstabs below break down invites by strong/weak party affiliation, by Tea Party membership, by ideology, by region, and by other characteristics.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d7a2b8a1-2916-49c9-ba99-22285921b8f9

[TheGlobalizer]

I really don't understand what people find interesting about Obama.  That said, Santorum is even less interesting.  I'd talk finance with Romney, foreign policy with Ron Paul.  I'd try to get Gingrich drunk.

[NHI]

Hmm...no.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Hmm...no.

I imagine you're one of the 35% and 12%.

[angus]

47% say they would invite Barack Obama.
14% would invite Rick Santorum.
14% would invite Ron Paul.
12% would invite Mitt Romney.
8% would invite Newt Gingrich.

Hear, hear.

Gingrich wouldn't leave much food for anyone else.  Santorum would make you say grace.  I wouldn't have any idea what to serve Romney to drink (are they even allowed to drink anything?)  And of course Ron Paul subsists on Geritol and bran muffins, so the barbeque would go to waste.

That pretty much leaves Obama as the only decent dinner guest among them.

[King]

The results of the barbeque question might actually be an accurate national primary poll.

[oakvale]

Aw, poor Newt.

[ajb]

Aw, poor Newt.

Worst. Dinner guest. Ever.

He'd monopolize the conversation, then hit on the blondest woman there.

[oakvale]

Aw, poor Newt.

Worst. Dinner guest. Ever.

He'd monopolize the conversation, then hit on the blondest woman there.

"Have I mentioned I'm a historian?" *licks lips*

[Politico]

Too bad this isn't 2004, huh? Otherwise, Obama would be looking pretty good right now. Alas, economic/social conditions are not favorable towards re-election based solely upon personal likeability ratings.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Too bad this isn't 2004, huh? Otherwise, Obama would be looking pretty good right now. Alas, economic/social conditions are not favorable towards re-election based solely upon personal likeability ratings.

They are, however, favorable towards re-election based upon head-to-head polling nationally and in key states.

[ajb]

Too bad this isn't 2004, huh? Otherwise, Obama would be looking pretty good right now. Alas, economic/social conditions are not favorable towards re-election based solely upon personal likeability ratings.

Because there was so little going on in 2004 that the campaign could be entirely about superficial issues like likeability.

[angus]

Too bad this isn't 2004, huh? Otherwise, Obama would be looking pretty good right now. Alas, economic/social conditions are not favorable towards re-election based solely upon personal likeability ratings.

2004 was about sandwiches, not barbeque, and John Kerry's preference for swiss cheese seemed to have made him a poor dinner guest.  (Never mind Bush's choking on a pretzel the year before!  That seemed to have been forgotten.  Besides, Condi was manning the grill in Crawford and wouldn't let Bush anywhere near it after that segueway incident, so Bush was safe.)

Too bad Hermann Cain isn't still in the running.  He'd make a fine dinner guest, imho.  

[TheGlobalizer]

If we're talking about barbecue, I could work with Obama.  I'd like to chat with a brother who has the 'itis.

[Politico]

Too bad this isn't 2004, huh? Otherwise, Obama would be looking pretty good right now. Alas, economic/social conditions are not favorable towards re-election based solely upon personal likeability ratings.

Because there was so little going on in 2004 that the campaign could be entirely about superficial issues like likeability.

The economy was in much better shape in 2004 than 2012. Yes, people were upset about gas being $2.25 a gallon, but what is it now? Yes, there was a war going on, but Bush used that to his advantage ("don't change horses in midstream"). With an economy most Americans do not perceive as recovering, Obama cannot use the line "don't change horses in midstream." Besides, such an argument is kind of absurd when there is no war at hand.

[Politico]

Scratch that, gas was on average only $1.9X/gallon in November 2004. And people were upset about that, so can you imagine what people are going to think this November if gas is $4-5/gallon?

Source: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_11_26_04.pdf

[King]

Scratch that, gas was on average only $1.9X/gallon in November 2004. And people were upset about that, so can you imagine what people are going to think this November if gas is $4-5/gallon?

Source: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/afpr_11_26_04.pdf

Gas prices won't be $4-5/gallon in November.  Demand for gas isn't high in November.

In July 2008, we had the highest gas prices in US history at $4.12 national average.  On election day it was $2.11.  By November 23rd (a similar date to your 11/26/04), it was $1.61.

$5 in November would literally require some sort of national crisis the likes of which we've never seen.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

If I had the candidates over for dinner:

I would get investment advice from Romney.

I would discuss world and American history with Gingrich.

I would discuss the constitution with Paul.

I would tell Obama how he can end the slaughter in Syria.

And Santorum, well, I would ask him if he really believes half of what he actually says.

[ajb]

Too bad this isn't 2004, huh? Otherwise, Obama would be looking pretty good right now. Alas, economic/social conditions are not favorable towards re-election based solely upon personal likeability ratings.

Because there was so little going on in 2004 that the campaign could be entirely about superficial issues like likeability.

The economy was in much better shape in 2004 than 2012. Yes, people were upset about gas being $2.25 a gallon, but what is it now? Yes, there was a war going on, but Bush used that to his advantage ("don't change horses in midstream"). With an economy most Americans do not perceive as recovering, Obama cannot use the line "don't change horses in midstream." Besides, such an argument is kind of absurd when there is no war at hand.

The fact that a war was going on is precisely what I'm talking about. The election was dominated by a contentious debate about that war that split the nation almost evenly. Likeability just wasn't that much of a factor. 

[Χahar]

I really don't understand what people find interesting about Obama.  That said, Santorum is even less interesting.  I'd talk finance with Romney, foreign policy with Ron Paul.  I'd try to get Gingrich drunk.

What would you even say about foreign policy? I'm pretty sure Ron Paul's foreign policy consists of closing his eyes and plugging his ears and yelling at the top of his lungs.