PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 06:30:34 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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: PA-Muhlenberg: Obama with a moderate lead  (Read 6405 times)
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


« 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
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


« Reply #1 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
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


« Reply #2 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
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


« Reply #3 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
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


« Reply #4 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
ajb
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 869
United States


« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2012, 07:19:12 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

Obama's private-sector job creation record at this stage in his presidency is actually better than GWB's was. The overall job numbers are worse because so many public-sector jobs have been eliminated under Obama, whereas Bush II presided over a massive increase in the public-sector workforce.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.026 seconds with 16 queries.