Is it tightening?

[Gustaf]

I don't follow the battles about subsamples, likely voter screens and whether voters with banana-shaped telephones were included in a certain poll.

But it's my impression that recent state polling indicates Romney being quiet a bit closer than the blowout it was looking like last month.

Is this impression wrong?

[AndrewTX]

Eh, yes and no. I think it is going to get tighter up to the nominations, than Obama is going to start to pull away.

[fezzyfestoon]

Eh, yes and no. I think it is going to get tighter up to the nominations, than Obama is going to start to pull away.

That's pretty much what I'm expecting at this point, too. Couple the dissatisfaction with Obama and the general Spring/Summer apathetic Republican poll bulge, and you get a very close race. Up until people pay attention and the candidates actually get out there and make a scene. Then I think it's Obama's to lose.

[NHI]

I did not expect it to tighten this early, especially given the heated Republican primary. I expect the polls to continue to tighten, with respective bounces following the conventions, but come election day this will be a 50-50 race.

[Kevin]

I think it will continue to tighten past convention time for both Romney and Obama; with it being 50-50 come October. I.e this is basically 2004 or even 2000 again IMO.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think the economy will not have created many jobs over the summer. Romney will be leading after the convention. Obama might tighten it a bit, but who knows.

[Tender Branson]

Maybe.

PPP and SurveyUSA still have some solid numbers out for Obama, while (R)asmussen has Romney ahead.

National polls are mixed.

And then there's WI with it's recall LV electorate screen ...

[NVGonzalez]

During the last 2 weeks I've seen so many troll polls out there oversampling both parties (though 85% of the time it has been oversampled in favor of Romney). Something tells me I will have to tune out polls (especially national polls) until probably August.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes, of course the race is tightening from where we stood a month ago when all of the Republican candidates were busy frantically attacking each other while President Obama stood by unscathed. Now, both Romney and Obama are subject to attack blitzes against each other. This was always going to happen once we moved from the primary to the general election. The real question is what will happen next.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The race looks somewhat tight if you look at it with a national eye, but at the state-by-state level, Romney is headed for an ugly loss. Make of that what you will.

[King]

It is, but I still see a solid Obama win in November.  The news cycle has been slow on this race the past few weeks, allowing Romney to settle back into a generic GOP shell.  We can't let that cloud our judgement and forget that the same Mitt Romney we saw struggle through the primaries and debates is still the candidate. 

Idealistically, an election is about issues, but unless something changes Romney's personality weaknesses, they will gradually doom him in October and he won't have a leg to stand on by November.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as obama keeps a lead among female voters which is 9 and michelle is key and he is likeable despite med job num i think obama wins.

[You kip if you want to...]

Romney's campaign has properly kicked in, Obama's isn't in full flow. Obama's busy doing his job. This tends to happen to incumbents - see Presidents Kerry, Dole and Dukakis.

[Wisconsin+17]

No.

[milhouse24]

Romney has the personality and eager to please personality to try to be all things to all people.  Being perceived as a "nice" mormon will get him far.  But it won't help him win over evangelicals.  It probably won't help him win ultra-progressive liberals.

But Romney's blandness is a strength because as seen in the GOP primary, he can win by "Default" when other candidates prove too radical, incompetent, unprepared, or idiotic.  Romney's a smart competent guy, and I think most voters know that. 

Obama in 2008 was more similar to Romney, in that Obama because the plain white board that voters projected their idealism onto.  McCain was the old guy who talked about more Iraq surge.  But Obama embraced idealistic and vaguely worded change.  Hillary was the radical, cemented-personality that voters either hated or loved. 

Now, Obama's identity is more cemented.  So Obama isn't running against Romney but also running against himself and his own identity.  Voters either love or hate Obama in 2012, and Obama has to figure out how to keep the Obama lovers, and minimize the Obama haters.  That's why it is more difficult for Obama to be a bland, middle of the road personality.  That is why he embraced gay marriage because he knew that his only consituency now is hard core liberals.  He can't moderate or triangulate his way to re-election.  Especially because their is no nasty Newt-led congress to triangjulate against.

[© tweed]

that's what she said

[pbrower2a]

Weak incumbents (especially the corrupt and incompetent) run from their records and and lose. Strong incumbents run on their records and are next-to-impossible to beat.

The race is tightening because the President isn't campaigning much but Mitt Romney does nothing else. Challengers like Romney can carp all they want about the incumbent.

[hopper]

I don't see how Romney wins. So what if he is winning the popular vote right now. Does that mean anything? Just ask Al Gore that question. Bottom Line is Romney has to win either or Colorado or Nevada to win and we know he is not going to do that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

um... that just isn't true. Any of Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, or Nevada will do. And if Romney can break into Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, that won't even matter.

[milhouse24]

Weak incumbents (especially the corrupt and incompetent) run from their records and and lose. Strong incumbents run on their records and are next-to-impossible to beat.

The race is tightening because the President isn't campaigning much but Mitt Romney does nothing else. Challengers like Romney can carp all they want about the incumbent.

Those sentences seem to be opposing statements.  If Obama was a strong incumbent then he would already be further ahead. 

So when do you think Obama will be trying to campaign then?  How about October?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

And anyone who thinks Obama is actually campaigning on his record is foolish. His slogan is "Forward." That should tell you enough.

[Gustaf]

that's what she said

I was wondering if someone would pick up on that.

[pbrower2a]

um... that just isn't true. Any of Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, or Nevada will do. And if Romney can break into Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, that won't even matter.

Nothing indicates that Mitt Romney is a more astute politician than Dubya was. Cultural patterns in the Northern states have not suddenly become more amenable to Republican pols. The Tea Party is a political flash-in-the-pan, its electoral success leading to further erosion of respect for Congress. 

To win back the North the Republicans must win back the sorts of voters best described as 'Rockefeller Republicans' whose politicians included the likes of Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Lincoln Chaffee who were nearly libertarian on economic issues and libertarian on personal rights. The Hard Right offers nothing to them that Barack Obama doesn't offer but would impose specific superstitions and harsh repression as well as (at the least) cultural bigotry. 

Mitt Romney must move to the center -- but the Hard Right won't let him. I see him vulnerable to the sort of assault on his business ethics (John Corzine would have the same trouble if he were the Democratic nominee) that Republicans used against John Kerry -- if the "flip-flop". "Multiple Choice", or "Etch-a-Sketch" argument either isn't used first or fails. 

[tpfkaw]

'Rockefeller Republicans' whose politicians included the likes of Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Lincoln Chaffee who were nearly libertarian on economic issues and libertarian on personal rights

lolwut

[milhouse24]

um... that just isn't true. Any of Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, or Nevada will do. And if Romney can break into Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania, that won't even matter.

Nothing indicates that Mitt Romney is a more astute politician than Dubya was. Cultural patterns in the Northern states have not suddenly become more amenable to Republican pols. The Tea Party is a political flash-in-the-pan, its electoral success leading to further erosion of respect for Congress. 

To win back the North the Republicans must win back the sorts of voters best described as 'Rockefeller Republicans' whose politicians included the likes of Norm Coleman, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Jim Jeffords, and Lincoln Chaffee who were nearly libertarian on economic issues and libertarian on personal rights. The Hard Right offers nothing to them that Barack Obama doesn't offer but would impose specific superstitions and harsh repression as well as (at the least) cultural bigotry. 

Mitt Romney must move to the center -- but the Hard Right won't let him. I see him vulnerable to the sort of assault on his business ethics (John Corzine would have the same trouble if he were the Democratic nominee) that Republicans used against John Kerry -- if the "flip-flop". "Multiple Choice", or "Etch-a-Sketch" argument either isn't used first or fails. 

So you hate christian conservatives and evangelicals.  That's really southern politicians like George W Bush. 

Reagan didn't have a difficult time winning northern states, but he was from California. 

Mitt will talk a little about evangelicalism, but no one believes him especially the evangelicals.  That is why Santorum won all his votes so easily.  I don't think christianity will be much of an issue for Romney voters in the North.  I'll have to look at the polling in the north but Romney is not seen as a religious radical.

It will be interesting to see who he picks for VP, but knowing Romney, it likely won't be a religious firebrand either.