Why are Romney's favorables going up so quickly?

[old timey villain]

Today Gallup showed a spike in Romney's favorability from 39 to 50.



This trend is apparent in other polls as well. What has caused it to spike?

*No partisan hackery about how Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire or BS like that. I'm looking for a level headed, statistical, analysis.

[tpfkaw]

Gay marriage.

[Brittain33]

Republicans rallying around their nominee.

[Phony Moderate]

Worth pointing out that Gallup last polled his favorability in February.

[cavalcade]

Combination of

Republicans rallying around their nominee.

and an outlier.  RealClear has him at 40% favorable, 41% unfavorable.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire.

[mondale84]

Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire.

Trololol

[5280]

Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire.

And he's going to be the nominee is a 2nd thought.

[krazen1211]

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

[Democratic Hawk]

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government on which to build not destroy

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Republicans rallying around their nominee.

^^^ this.

[krazen1211]

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government on which to build not destroy

Romney won't be dealt such by Obama. He's not complaining.

[Democratic Hawk]

Romney's bold message of economic freedom and prosperity is spreading across the country like a prairie wildfire.

Not that the Reactionary Party knows anything about that. 'Reaganomics' delivered middle class stagnation; 'Bushonomics' delivered middle class decline

I don't see Mitt Romney channelling Bill Clinton do you and raising taxes, especially on the primary beneficiaries of the supply-side tax cuts which fuel $1.4 trillion deficits?

Indeed, the post-war era has proven that its Democrats who own 1) economic growth; 2) job creation and 3) broad-based prosperity whether during the Golden Age of Capitalism or the Washington Consensus

Of course, the 'Crash of 2008' has discredited the neoliberal Road to Serfdom making it as dated as revolutionary socialism

[RogueBeaver]

RRTN from fellow Elephants and Elephant-leaning Indies.

[Democratic Hawk]

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government on which to build not destroy

Romney won't be dealt such by Obama. He's not complaining.

The valueless cipher who stands for little save his own advancement and enrichment isn't there yet? I'd be sticking with the center-right option because Obama will do the necessary and channel Bill Clinton on taxes. Remember 'Clintonomics' and marginally more progressive rates of taxation?

[krazen1211]

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government on which to build not destroy

Romney won't be dealt such by Obama. He's not complaining.

The valueless cipher who stands for little save his own advancement and enrichment isn't there yet? I'd be sticking with the center-right option because Obama will do the necessary and channel Bill Clinton on taxes. Remember 'Clintonomics' and marginally more progressive rates of taxation?

Logic dictates, then, that the public doesn't agree with you as they have witnessed Obama doing the opposite of Clinton on a lot of things in reality, such as, of course, taxes and government spending and job creation. As opposed to your hypothetical and baseless mental fiction.

[fezzyfestoon]

It starts with the letter P and ends with artisans.

[Democratic Hawk]

Romney is focusing on the economy while Obama is palling around with Ricky Martin. You decide which people prefer.

That, and of course obama's miserable economic numbers.

If only a Democrat had been dealt the Clinton legacy of prosperity, low unemployment and solvent government on which to build not destroy

Romney won't be dealt such by Obama. He's not complaining.

The valueless cipher who stands for little save his own advancement and enrichment isn't there yet? I'd be sticking with the center-right option because Obama will do the necessary and channel Bill Clinton on taxes. Remember 'Clintonomics' and marginally more progressive rates of taxation?

Logic dictates, then, that the public doesn't agree with you as they have witnessed Obama doing the opposite of Clinton on a lot of things in reality, such as, of course, taxes and government spending and job creation. As opposed to your hypothetical and baseless mental fiction.

What pray do you think was the road out of the 'Great Recession' like? Austerity . The cost of the primary response to it - the ARRA - being a conservative, and far from radical, $800 bn. Mindful of deficits, President Obama was never going to propose trillions of 'new' supply side tax cuts

Indeed, the US public sector has contracted, as a result of the 'Great Recession', by 600,000, which is quite a drop in demand for private sector goods and services

Its a myth that the private sector can only expand if the public sector contracts

[Penelope]

Backlash against the past few months of anti-mormon bigotry.

But no seriously it's because the GOP is rallying around Mitt Romney and all the Republicans who were unfavorable towards him during the primaries are beginning to have a change of heart.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

But no seriously it's because the GOP is rallying around Mitt Romney and all the Republicans who were unfavorable towards him during the primaries are beginning to have a change of heart

No, their views evolved.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Its a myth that the private sector can only expand if the public sector contracts

Actually that is precisely what has been happening.  The problem is the private sector hasn't expanded fast enough to deal with both the effects of the 2008-9 crisis and the contraction of the public sector since then.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Co-evolution?

[Democratic Hawk]

Its a myth that the private sector can only expand if the public sector contracts

Actually that is precisely what has been happening.  The problem is the private sector hasn't expanded fast enough to deal with both the effects of the 2008-9 crisis and the contraction of the public sector since then.

Emphasis on only Ernest. Maybe the private sector would have expanded more had demand for its goods and services not been reduced by public sector contraction?

Given that the 'liberal' welfare model is weak, I'm loathe to culling the public sector until such time as unemployment is sub-5%. The transition from employment to unemployment in the UK is a most horrifying fate indeed, and the FEAR of losing your livelihood could be suppressing consumer spending
 
'Liberal' welfarism worked during the Golden Age of Capitalism (aka the post-war economic expansion) when UK unemployment averaged 1.6% but it has averaged 7.4% during the Washington Consensus, while I suspect the more downside impact of globalisation may have contributed to an 'expanded' public sector in many developed economies

[Svensson]

Not that the Reactionary Party knows anything about that.
...
Indeed, the post-war era has proven that its Democrats who own 1) economic growth; 2) job creation and 3) broad-based prosperity whether during the Golden Age of Capitalism or the Washington Consensus

And 4) Blind partisan hackery.

Hate to break it to you, but your party sucks just as much testicle soufflé as the other option. Just letting you know.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

But no seriously it's because the GOP is rallying around Mitt Romney and all the Republicans who were unfavorable towards him during the primaries are beginning to have a change of heart

No, their views evolved.

They learned from the master.