PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 12:31:31 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  2012 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead  (Read 6297 times)
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: April 03, 2012, 02:37:22 PM »

In head-to-head matchups, the poll shows Obama five points up on Romney in Pennsylvania, and up six points on Santorum. Both are at the edges of the survey's margin of error.

The Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll interviewed 492 registered voters from March 23 to April 1, and has a margin of error of plus/minus five percentage points.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-pa-presidential-poll-2012-romney-santorum-20120403,0,3046373.story
Logged
marvelrobbins
Rookie
**
Posts: 116
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2012, 03:45:04 PM »

This confirms Q's close race In PA.Although Obama Is doing slightly better here.

Obama will carry PA.Romney might(and I stress might) be more competive than Mccain.I suspect
unline the 10 10 spread In 2008 we are lokking at a 4 or 5 point spread here.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2012, 05:16:35 PM »

This confirms Q's close race In PA.Although Obama Is doing slightly better here.

Obama will carry PA.Romney might(and I stress might) be more competive than Mccain.I suspect
unline the 10 10 spread In 2008 we are looking at a 4 or 5 point spread here.

Pennsylvania projected to be close in 2008 until Election Day. John McCain campaigned  intensely but by all accounts ineptly. Netting everything on Pennsylvania, McCain  neglected other states that he absolutely had to win. I doubt that that will quite be repeated in 2012.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2012, 02:02:00 PM »

Finally, they released the real numbers:

Obama beats former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 45 percent to 40 percent and defeats former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum 47 percent to 41 percent.

http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol_ideas/2012/04/monday-morning-coffee-corbetts-approvals-tumble-in-new-mcallmuhlenberg-poll.html
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2012, 07:05:49 AM »

Isn't being at 45 a bad sign for Obama?  It isn't like he doesn't have name recognition.  Undecideds tend to break 75to25 or more against an incumbent in the last several months.   
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2012, 07:35:54 AM »

Isn't being at 45 a bad sign for Obama?  It isn't like he doesn't have name recognition.  Undecideds tend to break 75to25 or more against an incumbent in the last several months.   

Yes, I think it is.  Nevertheless, the fools-gold aspect others mention above is a huge factor.. its his best prospect after IN-FL-NC-NH-OH to take something away from Obama08 (yes I think better than CO-NV-IA), and followed by MI, but still, its a risk to attend to PA or MI too much with time and money because those first five states listed are still better prospects. 

Another way to put this is the PA/MI prospect is tantalizing, but difficult to act upon strongly given other pressures.  We may look back in 2013 or so and say 'well had he only focused on PA and MI instead of OH and VA, he could've been president', but from 2012 perspective that would be a hazard whatever the polling.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2012, 08:57:52 AM »

Isn't being at 45 a bad sign for Obama?  It isn't like he doesn't have name recognition.  Undecideds tend to break 75to25 or more against an incumbent in the last several months.   
Exactly how President Kerry won in 2004.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2012, 09:05:43 AM »

Bush was ahead of were Obama is in most key indicators and everyone keeps acting like Obama is like Clinton (triangulating, moderating, centrist-ish)... he isn't.   
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2012, 09:24:21 AM »

Bush was ahead of were Obama is in most key indicators and everyone keeps acting like Obama is like Clinton (triangulating, moderating, centrist-ish)... he isn't.   
Romney's also behind where Kerry was.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2012, 09:27:59 AM »

Kerry's primary was over much quicker.  New Hampshire basically ended it.  Obviously the challenger will strengthen now that the general started yesterday. 
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2012, 09:32:32 AM »


http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/
http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/in-your-neighborhood-allentown/

http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/
http://obamaisntworking.com/stories/obama-job-plan-late/

Having grown up in a Union+Dem Lawyer household in the rust belt I can say with some authority that ads like this are just devastating to a reelection bid.   
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2012, 09:39:36 AM »

Kerry's primary was over much quicker.  New Hampshire basically ended it.  Obviously the challenger will strengthen now that the general started yesterday. 
Romney was already in near-record unfavorability territory by the end of January, so you can't entirely blame the primary for that.
Actually, Romney's the one who should be trying to take a page from Clinton's book -- a challenger running against an incumbent in tough economic times, whose unfavorability provides the only precedent for Romney's. Of course, Bill Clinton was unpopular because he slept around, and won the election by feeling people's pain. Romney's unpopular because he's rich and aloof and awkward. "Understanding the problems of people like you" is Romney's Achilles heel.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2012, 09:59:04 AM »

Unfavorability #'s on Romney are probably soft because many republicans are/were unsold or uncertain on his true social positions and the 'Romneycare vs Obamacare' thing.  That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.     
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 11, 2012, 10:02:19 AM »

Unfavorability #'s on Romney are probably soft because many republicans are/were unsold or uncertain on his true social positions and the 'Romneycare vs Obamacare' thing.  That stuff is probably a bonus in the general.     
Actually, his really lethal favorability numbers are with independents.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 11, 2012, 10:04:53 AM »

you mean "people that don't know what they really think and often change their mind" Bush in 1999 wasn't strong with independents either. 
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2012, 10:32:46 AM »

"A new poll from the centrist Democratic group Third Way surveyed 1,000 independent voters in 12 swing states. Obama leads Romney among this group by 44 to 38 percent. But the catch came here: Asked to rate themselves from 1 to 10 on an ideological scale, the group collectively put itself at 5.2, slightly right of center. Meanwhile, respondents put Obama at 3.9 and Romney at 6.1—each of them equidistant (1.1 points) from the center. In other words, they said Obama is exactly as liberal as Romney is conservative, and they said they are a bit closer to Romney."
-daily beast (today)

You think that's a problem for Romney?  back flips and cartwheels are in order.
Logged
Queen Mum Inks.LWC
Inks.LWC
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,028
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.65, S: -2.78

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2012, 12:35:55 PM »

Database entry: https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/PRESIDENT/2012/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=4220120401033
Logged
Wisconsin+17
Ben Kenobi
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,127
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 12, 2012, 12:50:15 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not vs Obama, it isn't. Why would a liberal independent prefer Romney's record on Obamacare to Obama?   

This election is gonna be like Goldwater.
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 12, 2012, 06:49:48 PM »

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.
Logged
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2012, 06:51:51 PM »

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.
HINT: it's not the Republicans.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2012, 06:59:10 PM »

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?

Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2012, 07:01:39 PM »

Because Romney is competent.  If you want government to do more, than Romney is your guy because he is a technocratic machine of efficiency.  If you want government to cost less than Romney is your guy because he isn't a radical ideologue hell bent on spending the country into oblivion.  Understanding that COST has to be weighed against BENEFIT isn't a revolutionary concept, but only one party has shown an ability to acknowledge it... or pass a budget for that matter.

Are you saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/economy/gop_candidates_deficits/index.htm

CW seems to disagree with you.

Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2012, 07:01:51 PM »

GOP = passed a serious budget through the house
Dem s = no budget for 3 years


GOP = growing economy, profitable businesses, jobs
Dem s = flat-line economy, demagog business, ZERO jobs

GOP = against failed 800billion stimulus package that created ZERO jobs and exploded debt  
Dem s = In favor of worst government spending package in the history of the country

I think I could create ONE job if I pilled up 5 TRILLION of Debt
Logged
AmericanNation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,081


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: 1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2012, 07:08:04 PM »



"You're not seriously describing President Obama as a "radical ideologue" surely?"

Not necessarily, but the dominant element of his party is and he will never stand up to them.  Spending on his watch has certainly been in the realm of "Radical" and spending is a major part of "ideology."

Am I saying that Romney will balance the budget and reduce the national debt?

Sort of, baring a new military campaign the deficits will trend toward balanced over 8 to 10 years and the solvency of entitlements will be strengthened.
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2012, 07:08:33 PM »

GOP = passed a serious budget through the house
Dem s = no budget for 3 years

Both parties have passed serious budgets. They differ on spending priorities and cuts. You're either ignorant or a lying hack. Maybe both?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You know that we've had about two straight years of job creation, right? That GDP is at a record high?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.



There is a wide consensus among economists that the stimulus propped up GDP and kept unemployment down. The debate is over whether if it was unnecessary and how much it helped. We don't know if it starved off 11.5% UE or 20%.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If your hackery was inversely proportional to your ability to create jobs, you'd probably destroy millions with that $5 trillion.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 14 queries.