New National Poll: Obama With Sizable Lead Over "Out of Touch" Romney

[Stephanie]

Yeah well Jimma Carter and Bush I were incumbents too..

No Obama is not the same person he was in 2008, he lied and hid who he really was, the people have NOW had a chance to see what his, I want to transform American really means..

vote him out folks

 

[JoeNormal]

That said, if the economy completely goes shit-house in the next five months, I'm not sure Romney wouldn't beat Obama at that point.

Don't say that. The House pinheads will redouble their efforts to destroy the country.

 

[VaYank5150]

While I agree that Romeny IS out of touch with "the little people" who do not have elevators for their cars in their homes, let's be honest...they ALL do this crap. Do you remember Obama's "beer summit"? Hillary's "shot" moment? Caribou Barbie's "Philly Cheese Steak" moment? McCain's "my wife is a slut" moment at Sturgis?

And every one of them lost. With the exception of Obama, whose beer summit was AFTER he won.

And he is STILL doing it:

What pansie "sips" beer this way???? Especially GUINNESS!!!!

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Interesting take on the Bloomberg poll from CSmonitor.com:

Obama leads Romney by 13 points in new poll. Can that be right? - CSMonitor.com

I think it's definitely not as high as the poll shows, but since the sample group wasn't stacked with voters likely to vote either way, who knows? And apparently the group that conducted the survey is well-regarded. I don't think the number is as important as the responses though.

Again, I'm not predicting a landslide at all, but this poll is definitely interesting.

 

[Stephanie]

That said, if the economy completely goes shit-house in the next five months, I'm not sure Romney wouldn't beat Obama at that point.

Don't say that. The House pinheads will redouble their efforts to destroy the country.

good grief, another one..yawn and boring

 

[Oldstyle]

Basically, for those who won't read because Bloomberg is a hate site (defined as any site not pushing pro-Right Wing Agendas of course), the poll shows that while a lot of Americans give the President low marks on the economy, Romney's plan seems much worse to them. They also see him as being disconnected.



There's certainly a lot of time between now and the election, but it would appear that at this point, Romney's not doing a great job of looking like someone that the public in general is buying into. That said, if the economy completely goes shit-house in the next five months, I'm not sure Romney wouldn't beat Obama at that point.

Also of note, this poll was conducted after Obama got basically three straight weeks of shitty economic news. So how does Romney start to engage voters and not look like a robotic puppet of Wall Street?

Obama Leads Poll; Romney Seen Out of Touch - Businessweek

Bloomberg is the only one showing such a lead. Gallup and Rammussen, both having a much better track record on these issues then Bloomberg, have Romney leading.

Gallup Presidential Election Trial Heat Results: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

But hey, you cling to anything that gives you hope.

FOUR MORE MONTHS, FOUR MORE MONTHS!!!!!!!!!

I'm not clinging to anything. I'm reporting on a national poll of likely voters. I'm not sure why YOU are the one shitting all over Bloomberg's poll, other than it doesn't bode well for your candidate.

In fact, considering I just said in my own post that there's so much time left, your tone is, oh, what's the word, dumb-sauce-retarded-lame. I'm just throwing it out there. And just because you don't WANT your candidate to have issues connecting with the average person, he does. You know it, we know it.

i don't think there's anything wrong in admitting your guy's weaknesses. Obama definitely has some of his own. It's one poll and one thread. Calm down.

Poll takers are either right about their numbers or they are wrong about them and that is something that is shown during actual elections during which actual voters vote. The reason that Bloomberg's polling numbers get "shit on" is that compared to other pollsters THEIR polling numbers turn out to be less accurate. If you're a pollster and you have a history of NOT being accurate then you're going to get abused.

 

[Stephanie]

Wrong, the poll isn't interesting...it's being picked apart as we speak..

what would you expect from Bloomberg folks

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Bloomberg is the only one showing such a lead. Gallup and Rammussen, both having a much better track record on these issues then Bloomberg, have Romney leading.

Gallup Presidential Election Trial Heat Results: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

But hey, you cling to anything that gives you hope.

FOUR MORE MONTHS, FOUR MORE MONTHS!!!!!!!!!

I'm not clinging to anything. I'm reporting on a national poll of likely voters. I'm not sure why YOU are the one shitting all over Bloomberg's poll, other than it doesn't bode well for your candidate.

In fact, considering I just said in my own post that there's so much time left, your tone is, oh, what's the word, dumb-sauce-retarded-lame. I'm just throwing it out there. And just because you don't WANT your candidate to have issues connecting with the average person, he does. You know it, we know it.

i don't think there's anything wrong in admitting your guy's weaknesses. Obama definitely has some of his own. It's one poll and one thread. Calm down.

Poll takers are either right about their numbers or they are wrong about them and that is something that is shown during actual elections during which actual voters vote. The reason that Bloomberg's polling numbers get "shit on" is that compared to other pollsters THEIR polling numbers turn out to be less accurate. If you're a pollster and you have a history of NOT being accurate then you're going to get abused.

It wasn't Bloomberg conducting the poll, it was Selzer & Co, and they have a good reputation, at least according to the CSmonitor link I posted. So who knows? Again, this was just to spark a little discussion to the biggest issue Romney has which is making people see him as ANYTHING other than a big business guy who wants to go back to Bush II policies. Like it or not, the majority of the country does not want to go back to those fiscal policies, and Bush II is still very tainted in a lot of people's minds.

Focus less on the number and more on the issues Romney has looking like someone you want representing your country in its most important position. That shit still matters, no matter how much money is spent.

 

[Flopper]

Bloomberg is the only one showing such a lead. Gallup and Rammussen, both having a much better track record on these issues then Bloomberg, have Romney leading.

Gallup Presidential Election Trial Heat Results: Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

But hey, you cling to anything that gives you hope.

FOUR MORE MONTHS, FOUR MORE MONTHS!!!!!!!!!

I'm not clinging to anything. I'm reporting on a national poll of likely voters. I'm not sure why YOU are the one shitting all over Bloomberg's poll, other than it doesn't bode well for your candidate.

In fact, considering I just said in my own post that there's so much time left, your tone is, oh, what's the word, dumb-sauce-retarded-lame. I'm just throwing it out there. And just because you don't WANT your candidate to have issues connecting with the average person, he does. You know it, we know it.

i don't think there's anything wrong in admitting your guy's weaknesses. Obama definitely has some of his own. It's one poll and one thread. Calm down.

Poll takers are either right about their numbers or they are wrong about them and that is something that is shown during actual elections during which actual voters vote. The reason that Bloomberg's polling numbers get "shit on" is that compared to other pollsters THEIR polling numbers turn out to be less accurate. If you're a pollster and you have a history of NOT being accurate then you're going to get abused.

The polls are accurate. They just don't mean what you think they mean.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

I'm not clinging to anything. I'm reporting on a national poll of likely voters. I'm not sure why YOU are the one shitting all over Bloomberg's poll, other than it doesn't bode well for your candidate.

In fact, considering I just said in my own post that there's so much time left, your tone is, oh, what's the word, dumb-sauce-retarded-lame. I'm just throwing it out there. And just because you don't WANT your candidate to have issues connecting with the average person, he does. You know it, we know it.

i don't think there's anything wrong in admitting your guy's weaknesses. Obama definitely has some of his own. It's one poll and one thread. Calm down.

Poll takers are either right about their numbers or they are wrong about them and that is something that is shown during actual elections during which actual voters vote. The reason that Bloomberg's polling numbers get "shit on" is that compared to other pollsters THEIR polling numbers turn out to be less accurate. If you're a pollster and you have a history of NOT being accurate then you're going to get abused.

The polls are accurate. They just don't mean what you think they mean.

Or maybe they don't mean what he WANTS them to mean.

 

[Oldstyle]

When voters see the choice is between the lesser of two evils, they go with what they know, not the unknown. Romney is an actor and not a very good one with only one consistent message, "I'm not Obama", which can mean just about anything. With Obama, what you see is what you get. He's the same person voters elected in 2008 except now he has 4 years experience as president. There is no doubt he's more qualified.

What has Barry done in the past 3 1/2 years that translates into "qualified", Flopper? Are we observing the same person? Barack Obama hasn't had a plan to fix the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer both quit and skedaddled back to the safety of their tenured teaching jobs at Harvard and Berkeley. I bet you can't even tell me WHO his chief economists are now because they've been invisible for the last two years. Obama went all in with a Keynesian economic approach...trying to spend his way out of a recession with trillions in government spending...but then he breaks one of the principle Keynesian "rules" by proposing to raise taxes in the middle of a soft economy. The fact is...he doesn't have a plan nor a clue when it comes to economics. His economic plans are now solely based on coming up with something he can "sell" to enough of the voters that they'll give him another term. You REALLY tout his four years of "experience" as the reason we should vote Obama into a second term? Four years of floundering? Four years of unsuccessfully trying to "learn on the job"?

Let's be a LITTLE realistic here, Flopper. When it comes to economics...Mitt Romney is SO much more qualified than Barack Obama that it's not even a debate.

 

[sarahgop]

they must have called of the kennedys.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

What has Barry done in the past 3 1/2 years that translates into "qualified", Flopper? Are we observing the same person? Barack Obama hasn't had a plan to fix the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer both quit and skedaddled back to the safety of their tenured teaching jobs at Harvard and Berkeley. I bet you can't even tell me WHO his chief economists are now because they've been invisible for the last two years. Obama went all in with a Keynesian economic approach...trying to spend his way out of a recession with trillions in government spending...but then he breaks one of the principle Keynesian "rules" by proposing to raise taxes in the middle of a soft economy. The fact is...he doesn't have a plan nor a clue when it comes to economics. His economic plans are now solely based on coming up with something he can "sell" to enough of the voters that they'll give him another term. You REALLY tout his four years of "experience" as the reason we should vote Obama into a second term? Four years of floundering? Four years of unsuccessfully trying to "learn on the job"?

Let's be a LITTLE realistic here, Flopper. When it comes to economics...Mitt Romney is SO much more qualified than Barack Obama that it's not even a debate.

I know you Right Wingers hate to hear it, but a good part of the country still blames Bush for the economy, and they're starting to see more and more just how much the GOP has actively tried to dig their heels in on bills that Obama's team wanted to stimulate the economy. That strategy is starting to backfire, as this poll shows.

Mitt is NOT more qualified to be the President when it comes to economic policy. Obama's comments a couple of weeks ago about Romney's bonafides when it comes to economic policy were spot-on. What Romney is really good at is making money for investors and for his company. That's NOT what a President does; and that's not government's role in the economy.

If this were an election for the CEO of a big bank or venture capitalist group, Romney would definitely be the guy for the job. But this idea that you have to have an executive who has business experience is ******* stupid, and inaccurate. As much as the Right Wing loves to say that government shouldn't be in the business of making money, why do they want someone in office whose only REAL experience is in making money?

It's completely insane to think that Romney's experience as a venture capitalist makes him qualified to run the country. Because outside of the fiscal stuff (which again, there are plenty who think he's NOT more qualified than Obama to set policy), there's foreign relations where Romney is even more of a babe in the woods than Obama was in 2008.

So no, dude, Romney's not the solid guy you all want him to be. And don't look now, but those Ron Paul robots are nipping at your party's heels, and there could be a massive split of your party if you don't start giving those people some attention and concession.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

they must have called of the kennedys.

You must not have read the article, or the csmonitor article I posted.

Gee, I wonder why?

 

[sarahgop]

they must have called of the kennedys.

You must not have read the article, or the csmonitor article I posted.

Gee, I wonder why?

the poll doesnt make any sense. its way too far off any other poll.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

they must have called of the kennedys.

You must not have read the article, or the csmonitor article I posted.

Gee, I wonder why?

the poll doesnt make any sense. its way too far off any other poll.

Read the csmonitor link. That'll help put things into perspective. And the numbers aren't as important as the opinions of the very broad-based sampling group they used. Romney is in real danger if he cannot connect with anyone outside his base.

 

[Stephanie]

What has Barry done in the past 3 1/2 years that translates into "qualified", Flopper? Are we observing the same person? Barack Obama hasn't had a plan to fix the economy since Larry Summers and Christina Romer both quit and skedaddled back to the safety of their tenured teaching jobs at Harvard and Berkeley. I bet you can't even tell me WHO his chief economists are now because they've been invisible for the last two years. Obama went all in with a Keynesian economic approach...trying to spend his way out of a recession with trillions in government spending...but then he breaks one of the principle Keynesian "rules" by proposing to raise taxes in the middle of a soft economy. The fact is...he doesn't have a plan nor a clue when it comes to economics. His economic plans are now solely based on coming up with something he can "sell" to enough of the voters that they'll give him another term. You REALLY tout his four years of "experience" as the reason we should vote Obama into a second term? Four years of floundering? Four years of unsuccessfully trying to "learn on the job"?

Let's be a LITTLE realistic here, Flopper. When it comes to economics...Mitt Romney is SO much more qualified than Barack Obama that it's not even a debate.

I know you Right Wingers hate to hear it, but a good part of the country still blames Bush for the economy, and they're starting to see more and more just how much the GOP has actively tried to dig their heels in on bills that Obama's team wanted to stimulate the economy. That strategy is starting to backfire, as this poll shows.

Mitt is NOT more qualified to be the President when it comes to economic policy. Obama's comments a couple of weeks ago about Romney's bonafides when it comes to economic policy were spot-on. What Romney is really good at is making money for investors and for his company. That's NOT what a President does; and that's not government's role in the economy.

If this were an election for the CEO of a big bank or venture capitalist group, Romney would definitely be the guy for the job. But this idea that you have to have an executive who has business experience is ******* stupid, and inaccurate. As much as the Right Wing loves to say that government shouldn't be in the business of making money, why do they want someone in office whose only REAL experience is in making money?

It's completely insane to think that Romney's experience as a venture capitalist makes him qualified to run the country. Because outside of the fiscal stuff (which again, there are plenty who think he's NOT more qualified than Obama to set policy), there's foreign relations where Romney is even more of a babe in the woods than Obama was in 2008.

So no, dude, Romney's not the solid guy you all want him to be. And don't look now, but those Ron Paul robots are nipping at your party's heels, and there could be a massive split of your party if you don't start giving those people some attention and concession.

Romney's time at Bain sure makes him a hell of lot more qualified than obama was when he was running for President in 2008, and you all didn't have a problem voting for him..

The polls you love are showing the people don't have faith in Obama on the economy and that is something you Obamabots are just going to have face, and it doesn't bode well his re-election...thankfully

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Romney's time at Bain sure makes him a hell of lot more qualified than obama was when he was running for President in 2008, and you all didn't have a problem voting for him.

No it doesn't. He's pretty much a one-term governor with more experience on Wall Street than anywhere else. Your argument would be slightly more compelling if you'd said he was "As qualified." But like a typical sycophant, you didn't.

The polls you love are showing the people don't have faith in Obama on the economy and that is something you Obamabots are just going to have face, and it doesn't bode well his re-election...thankfully

So you don't think it shows a massive weakness for your guy that the country can be unsure about Obama on the economy but he can still either be in the lead or neck and neck? By your (totally flawed and elementary) logic Romney should be mopping the floor with Obama; but he's not.

Romney has a real problem being relatable, and the GOP knows it. That's why the shit-show that was this year's primary went on so long. They were hoping SOMEONE more charming and personable would enter the race, but no one did. So now the focus is "**** Obama" instead of "I'm the better guy for the job." Because even when he tries to make this his message, as this poll shows, people don't buy it.

 

[Stephanie]

Romney's time at Bain sure makes him a hell of lot more qualified than obama was when he was running for President in 2008, and you all didn't have a problem voting for him.

No it doesn't. He's pretty much a one-term governor with more experience on Wall Street than anywhere else. Your argument would be slightly more compelling if you'd said he was "As qualified." But like a typical sycophant, you didn't.

The polls you love are showing the people don't have faith in Obama on the economy and that is something you Obamabots are just going to have face, and it doesn't bode well his re-election...thankfully

So you don't think it shows a massive weakness for your guy that the country can be unsure about Obama on the economy but he can still either be in the lead or neck and neck? By your (totally flawed and elementary) logic Romney should be mopping the floor with Obama; but he's not.

Romney has a real problem being relatable, and the GOP knows it. That's why the shit-show that was this year's primary went on so long. They were hoping SOMEONE more charming and personable would enter the race, but no one did. So now the focus is "**** Obama" instead of "I'm the better guy for the job." Because even when he tries to make this his message, as this poll shows, people don't buy it.

Romney is unralable
I suppose you think obama is relatable
Obama doesn't speak to the people, he PREACHES..maybe that is something you like, but I beleve most people can't stand it..And nobody is buying what Obama says anymore, he is just repeating the same shit over and over and passing the blame onto everyone like he hasn't had a damn thing to do with anything...No Obama is in deep shit and he knows it..
I hope the people send him back to community agitating, because that is all he knows, he has no clue how to be a President even after four year of on the job training

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Romney is unralable

Other than your misspelling, this is the smartest thing you've ever posted. Keep it up!

I suppose you think obama is relatable

Uh yeah. In fact even his most ardent detractors admit to it. It's only bias-blind sheeple who don't see his many, many character strengths. He wouldn't have beaten Clinton in the primaries, or handed McCain his ass so handily if he wasn't relatable. The whole reason Bush II won was because people "wanted to have a beer" with him. Maybe you don't know this, though. You seem to live a life in a bubble with only Fox News and Conservative radio and your tinfoil hat.

Obama doesn't speak to the people, he PREACHES..maybe that is something you like, but I beleve most people can't stand it.

a) You're wrong. He's just a very eloquent speaker. You might not recognize it because for the previous 8 years we had a ******* simpleton moron making words up and chuckling like a ******* stooge. He's a great public speaker. Part of his relatability.

b) You believe wrong. Again, he's very well liked, and the GOP and Romney Camp knows it.

And nobody is buying what Obama says anymore, he is just repeating the same shit over and over and passing the blame onto everyone like he hasn't had a damn thing to do with anything...No Obama is in deep shit and he knows it../QUOTE]

This demonstrates the BIG flaw in Conservative Extremist thought. This idea that the WHOLE COUNTRY thinks like you do. Guess what, Granny, there are just as many people on the other side of the aisle that do buy into what he's saying. Don't believe? Explain the 2-to-1 favorability rating his immigration policy is getting. Explain the massive boost in Latino approval he got from that decision. Look at the massive swing in favorability he got from the black voters on gay marriage once he came out for it.

You're a fool. A blind fool who can't see the forest for the trees.

I hope the people send him back to community agitating, because that is all he knows, he has no clue how to be a President even after four year of on the job training.

We'll see, but you highly underestimate the job he's done; like most of your fellow sycophants. That's fine. It gives you guys a false sense of smugness and assuredness that could make you all very, very unhappy if you lose again in November. Just please, point the guns away from others if it comes to that, okay, Nutbars?