He's up 47-45.So much for the meme "anybody but Romney" is the choice of the Republican Party. But Romney has, I think, gotten the message that Republicans want a real conservative. Isn't it good for the Republicans that Romney has gotten that message, while voters in the middle have gotten the message that Romney is moderate?
Romney has two main things going for him. He leads the President 45-36 with independents. And he's also benefiting from a much more unified party with 88% of Republicans committed to voting for him while only 83% of Democrats say they'll vote for Obama.
December 21, 2011
"Romney leads Obama."
"For the first time in PPP's monthly national polling since July 2010 Mitt Romney's taken a lead, albeit a small one, over Barack Obama."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
62 comments:
The best choice in presidential polls has always been the "generic" republican. "Anyone but Romney" has been the preference of conservative republicans.
The problem has and remains that all the candidates not named Romney are all wanting in some form. That is why generic does better than specific.
Gingrich has more baggage than a Samsonite factory. Paul's capital L libertarian views are puzzling to most mainstream voters. Perry and Bachmann appear under-qualified for the job. (quick support followed by scrutiny that leaves fans disappointed) Santorum can't get elected in his own state.
Romney is the most generic candidate running and I mean that in a good way.
One wonders if Dirty Harry Reid will step up and defend Romney when the media and Leftists start attacking Mormons.
Today's moderates think FDR's economic policies were great, though they began the long march to national bankruptcy and control of your life, from doctors to trans fats to energy use to light bulbs.
The conservative message is not a popular one, as it promises no free ponies. Moderates just promise fewer ponies than lefties do, or more often argue about the bridle.
As Anybody but Obama, Romney fills the bill. And he may have the management chops to steer this bus away from the cliff. I hope so.
He seems to understand how economies actually work, but does he actually get that Keynes was wrong? Utterly wrong? That the Austrians were right?
I have my doubts. The only current candidate who does seem to grasp that is otherwise a lunatic.
While I am cheered that Occupy the White House might be done after only one term, the public willingness to reduce the free ponies and take the boot off the neck of employers seems an impossible hurdle.
Given this, how does one avoid despair?
Nov. 2012 is still a long time away. A lot can happen. Where was McCain in the polls on Dec 2007?
"Isn't it good for the Republicans that Romney has gotten that message, while voters in the middle have gotten the message that Romney is moderate?"
Maybe. Sounds a lot like Obama on the left. That's worked out for some people.
Surely, Gingrich and Paul match up nicely against Obama, too? Right? Right?
A politician pandering? That's exactly why I don't like Romney. His only conviction is that he deserves to be president. I actually respect Obama more than Romney, at least his pandering is to those he agrees with.
In the end though, it will come down to anybody but Obama.
I said I respected Obama more, not that I agree more.
"Isn't it good for the Republicans that Romney has gotten that message, while voters in the middle have gotten the message that Romney is moderate?"
You describe deception so openly and gleefully at the same time.
So, Republicans are going to nominate a Democrat(Romney)?
That's funny...so much for those tea party principles...or any principles...
As demonstrated by the current kerfuffle over the payroll tax "holiday," the Congressional Republicans have a ways to go before they get their bearings in this new world.
Romney might be able to keep the bus on the road for a while while they work it out among themselves.
My fear with Romney is that we will get the able administrator of the People's Republic of Massachusetts and that he will rationalize and streamline the steaming mess that is our overreaching government,
making the unwarranted intrusion into daily life more efficient.
My hope is that we'll get the Bain capitalist who will look at the whole failing mess and decide to focus it on core competencies - the duties enumerated in the Constitution. This would ideally involve wholesale cuts in employment. Since April, week in and week out, the private sector has suffered 400K new unemployment claims. Every week. All I want is one week devoted to the Federal government. From the top, please. Its the GS-teens who do all the damage - they need to go. Then we can cut loose entire departments - Education for example.
And I want a pony, too. Don't want to wait for my next birthday, either.
He seems to understand how economies actually work, but does he actually get that Keynes was wrong? Utterly wrong?
Given that even the Tea Party caucus in the House is willing to extend unemployement "insurance" for a year, I doubt it.
"so much for those tea party principles"
We elect the people who run.
And there's a new batch of younger politicians who are, rightly I think, building more substantive resumes in lower offices. Sarah Palin, the most tea partiest candidate really got squashed by her VP role. She would have been a great nominee this year had she stayed out of that race and stayed governor.
So we're left with remnants of the established party this time around, most of which have problems one way or another.
The Tea Party is about long term re-shaping of the party, and I think that is definitely pressing forward. Which is why having someone in office who wouldn't impede Congressional reformation by Tea party oriented candidates is itself a big plus.
The Kennedy administration conducted a RIF (Reduction in Force) through the Federal Government, but I cannot remember hearing of another one since.
The Corps of Engineers effected it by laying off their inspectors and field engineers, so that the construction projects went to hell. Congress then reacted to the resulting clamor by scrambling to authorize re-hiring everybody that had been fired and more, and the Corps types went, "Heh-heh, I guess we taught those damned politicians a lesson this time!"
People say all sorts of things running for President, but once they get elected they act consistently with their previous behavior not what they had promised.
The reason people don't want Romney is his consistent behavior indicates a person who will not be conservative. Someone who will decrease the federal overreach, but rather will put bandaids on things. Perhaps I'm wrong about him, and if I am perhaps someone can point to proof otherwise.
Let's just hope the House Republicans cease their efforts to sabotage the US economy just to get Romney elected...
machine said...
Let's just hope the House Republicans cease their efforts to sabotage the US economy
Hilarious.
I bet you can name all these things they're doing to "sabotage" things.
PS, Obama had 2 years of a Democratic Congress to pass whatever he wanted. How'd that work out economically?
OOPs!
Yay for electability.
For instance, the Speaker's latest position regarding the broadly bipartisan plan to extend a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans. The House took part in negotiations, received concessions and when it came time to vote? Nah...it might actually help the economy. Boehner essentially reversed his position from 3 days before...
Our taxes are going to be raised by the House Republicans...
weakest Speaker eva....
"Isn't it good for the Republicans that Romney has gotten that message, while voters in the middle have gotten the message that Romney is moderate?"
I think It’s largely because most people who say that they want a “moderate” candidate are usually referring to tone rather than policies. They’re voting on their perception of the candidate’s personality rather than any actual substantive politics. Sort of like people who vote for a candidate based on their likeability.
Me, while I’m mostly concerned with the policies that the candidate supports and their ability to carry them out, I’m also realistic enough to know that my own libertarian/conservative policy preferences are a minority in America. Hence I usually follow the William F. Buckley maxim of “supporting the most conservative candidate likely to get elected” with the added caveat of “who has the skills and experience to the job.”
So much for the meme "anybody but Romney" is the choice of the Republican Party.
Please. Romney has ALWAYS been the choice of the Republican Party - you got it wrong:
Romney is NOT the choice of conservatives, and conservatives are the majority of the people.
You'll do anything to put that square peg in the round hole, won't you? I know - meade thinks he's great - but that doesn't call for saying any damned thing, does it?
People say all sorts of things running for President, but once they get elected they act consistently with their previous behavior not what they had promised.
I don’t know that I agree with that. It seems to me that for all of the stereotypes about politicians who say one thing and do the opposite, most of them usually try to follow through on the things that they campaign on. It seems to me that Romney has been pretty good at right setting expectations (like many of the more talented executives I’ve worked with) and not over promising things that are beyond his power to deliver. After four years of the “historic” president, it might be a refreshing change to have someone who is just capable of doing the job and isn’t interested in enacting any sort of fundamental transformation of how the rest of us live our lives.
According to Gallup, Milton and GodZero are tied. So much for polls.
machine said...
So, Republicans are going to nominate a Democrat(Romney)?
It ain't happened yet.
That's funny...so much for those tea party principles...or any principles...
As opposed to the Demos, who haven't passed a budget in almost 3 years, who bitch about a do-nothing Congress, but reject every proposal the House sends?
The only principles the Demos have is stay in power and destroy the country.
Crack - "Romney is NOT the choice of conservatives, and conservatives are the majority of the people."
No, that is mutton-headed. The majority of Americans are Centrists. While more people identify as conservative, almost 30% - than do liberal - that does not mean they are conservative in ALL ways an extreme right winger would be satisfied enough not to scream RINO! Some are libertarian and pro abortion, some are social progressives but say they are conservative because they are fiscal conservatives or strong pro-military. Many hardcore conservatives vote democrat every election because they happen to be black or a union member.
The polling shows Obama beating all the "litmus test, true believing rightwingers" by double digits. In the last poll before she announced she would not run, Palin was 26 points behind Obama.
Now is the time when Romney will begin to strengthen. It was anybody but Romney until that anybody starts looking like it's gonna be Obama. That realization is all it's gonna take for most to get on board the very weak boat. The boat is not strong or fast, and maybe can't even get up the stream, but at least it's pointing the right direction.
PPP is normally a poll that leans more Democrat. It is paid for by the Democrats and has certain weighting of Dems and a portion of Dem-leaning Independents as "more likely to vote" past what they actually are in the general population.
That Romney is leading overall, and has a big lead amonst independents is very encouraging.
There are better and electable conservatives out there than Romney, but of the Republican candidates running only Huntsman is more conservative and would do a better job than Romney.
The following people will never win a general election against Obama (or even John Kerry): Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, or Rick Perry. Ron Paul is in his own class because he will not win one state.
If there is a Republican establishment, then they have done a miserable job of fielding candidates. So much for them.
It's healthy for the people to elect candidates they are not madly in love with. Obama evoked an intense emotional response from voters and look what we got. Conservatives are especially wary of emotional commitment to candidates-- government stinks, therefore politicians do too. This is why conservatives make the perfect the enemy of the good. I would love to have Palin in the running, but she's not, and at this point all we can do is go with the least worst. I see this as a conservative attitude. If that leaves us with Romney, we can only blame ourselves for not raising up a better candidate before we got to this point.
I am still amazed at how easy it was totally destroy Cain and Gingrich by two weeks of opposition research "scandals".
The only GOP guys not under floods of half truth attacks have been Perry and Romney. I suspect those two had the money to invest the heaviest in opposition research machinery and are therefore in a Mutually Assured Destruction stalemate as to each other.
Traditionalguy,
There was no opposition research needed on Newt. People were just reminded of what an erratic, arrogant, fool Gingrich is. He's the same guy he's always been. Perhaps people weren't aware of his extensive private sector experience in the last 13 years, which didn't help when they find out how Newt makes his money.
A guy who spouts off about "right-wing social engineering" and that Romney should give back all the money he made "bankrupting" companies at Bain is a fool and is not remotelty conservative. Newt has to keep walking back a statement way too much. He can't keep his mouth shut. No disclipine. He can't even lose weight to run for President.
I am still amazed at how easy it was totally destroy Cain and Gingrich by two weeks of opposition research "scandals".
That’s the vetting part of the primary process – better to get this out in the open now than during the general election. Just ask Jack Ryan.
Traditional Guy,
How well do you think the campaign commercial showing Herman Cain's "response" to the Libya question would work out?
Cain was willfully ignorant about important issues. He was not serious about being POTUS. He was and is a huckster who is now blaming his departure on the liberal media hating a "black conservative." He is a fool. Nothing to do with his personal life. He wanted to run for POTUS to make some money selling books and on the speaking circuit. Another false prophet of conservatism, like Palin.
chine said...
For instance, the Speaker's latest position regarding the broadly bipartisan plan to extend a payroll tax cut for 160 million Americans.
Reverting back to 2009 Social Security tax rates will "sabatoge" the economy?
Really?
How much has this payroll tax "holiday" helped the economy?
Further, since this is your example of House Republicans efforts to sabotage the US economy, do you favor eliminating the payroll tax?
Can you point me to an economist or any economic data saying cutting this tax has helped the US economy?
Thanks!
Well, that byte doesn't really tell anything.
Remember that (traditionally) in the primaries, the (D) candidate runs Left and the (R) candidate runs right.
In the general, they both run center.
Romney v. Obama--at this time--tells us nothing; Obama, no matter the telegraphy, hasn't actually launched a campaign.
machine said...
Our taxes are going to be raised by the House Republicans...
weakest Speaker eva....
Hilarious.
The Speaker is so "weak" that he's going to raise taxes.
I'd say your comment is incoherent.
PS, remember when leftists like you asserted letting the Bush tax cuts expire wasn't a tax increase becuase they were going back to the old "real" rates?
Comedy gold.
mccullough said...
There are better and electable conservatives out there than Romney, but of the Republican candidates running only Huntsman is more conservative and would do a better job than Romney.
The illegitimate spawn of Ann Coulter, not to mention the arbiter of Conservatism according to the Gospel of Uncle Saul, speaks.
Edutcher,
Did you look up the 9th Amendment yet?
How about wealth redistribution and Sarah Palin?
You get to call me names when you know more, not until then. Back to the books; you are too ignorant to comment. You make conservatives look bad with your consistently ignorant statements.
mccullough said...
You get to call me names when you know more, not until then. Back to the books; you are too ignorant to comment. You make conservatives look bad with your consistently ignorant statements.
Oooh, attitude!!!
I'm impressed!
moby mccullough applies Uncle Saul's Rule that Conservatives have to live up to the last scintilla of their creed, but it falls apart when he tries the ambush journalism thing and somebody looks up the facts, like Sarah Palin and ACES.
But I digress.
Form Wiki, his "Conservative" Huntsman supported Cap and trade policies and as governor signed the Western Climate Initiative.[29] He also supported an increase in the federal minimum wage. ...when asked about a healthcare mandate, Huntsman said, "I'm comfortable with a requirement
If any real Conservative supported that, we'd be hearing about it.
As always, moby mccullough's rules only apply to his advantage.
OK, I understand your points now. Since Herman and Newt might be hurt by future sure loser Obama's half truths in 30 second video spots, then we should go ahead and shoot those guys for Obama's benefit now.
IMO, that only clears the decks for Admiral Romney 's fleet to sail up the Potomac without fear. He can then sail in with a broom tied to the mast to brag that he has made a clean sweep by sinking all the GOP Conservatives.
Edutcher,
Did you read the 9th Amendment yet? It's on wiki-pedia.
Look at Huntsman's record as Utah governmor, then get back to me, it's on wikipedia as well.
Perhaps if Huntsman jacked up taxes on the oil companies and then handed it out to Utah residents, also known as "spreading the wealth," that would make him more conservative in your book?
Maybe if he had not quit being governor to become Ambassador to China, but instead quit after 2 years to write a book about himself "Going Rogue" and getting state subsidies to host "Jon Huntsman's Utah" that would be good? His daughters are certainly pretty enough to be on Dancing with the Stars, but they don't have any illegitimate babies, so they aren't conservative enough for Edutcher.
TradGuy,
What is the half-truth about Cain's utter willful ignorance on Libya and foreign affairs and the U.S. Military? What is a half-truth about Cain saying that Alan Greenspan was the best Fed Chair?
Cain got more than he could have dreamed out of his run for POTUS. Speaker fees are up and book sales are up. We should all be so lucky.
mccullough said...
Did you read the 9th Amendment yet? It's on wiki-pedia.
Look at Huntsman's record as Utah governmor, then get back to me, it's on wikipedia as well.
If moby mccullouhg actually paid attention to what people say, he'd know I regularly advocate the 9th and 10th amendments here.
But he knows that. Just more snark.
Moby mccullough obviously ducks my last comment. Hint: the bolded stuff, as noted, is from Wiki.
As always, when cornered and rebutted, he tries to change the subject.
Uncle Saul would be disappointed.
Perhaps if Huntsman jacked up taxes on the oil companies and then handed it out to Utah residents, also known as "spreading the wealth," that would make him more conservative in your book?
You mean trying to incentivize the development of new oil fields by disincentivizing the use of the old ones? The oil companies only had to look for new worlds to conquer and they avoided the taxes.
You know the old Conservative principle, "If you want to encourage behavior, subsidize it. If you want to discourage it, tax it". That's what Ann Coulter says.
If Romney becomes the nominee and then the MSM opens up on him with both barrels, as they will, Mitt will be too "nice" to fight back. Guaranteed.
OK, I understand your points now. Since Herman and Newt might be hurt by future sure loser Obama's half truths in 30 second video spots, then we should go ahead and shoot those guys for Obama's benefit now.
No, the point is that if a candidate has a skeleton in their closet, it’s better to have it come out during the primary than the Friday before Election Day when it would do the most damage and the candidate would be least able to mount an effective response. If it turns out to be a non-issue, they can deal with it and move forward and even if it comes out again during the general election, it’s unlikely to have as much of an impact. If on the other hand it turns out to be a serious issue or the candidate fails to respond to it successfully, then it’s better we find out now than after they become the nominee and it’s too late.
Form Wiki, his "Conservative" Huntsman supported Cap and trade policies and as governor signed the Western Climate Initiative.
And Wikipedia also goes on to say:
“In 2007, in response to the issue of global warming, Huntsman signed the Western Climate Initiative, by which Utah joined with other governments in agreeing to pursue targets for reduced production of greenhouse gases.[83] He also appeared in an advertisement sponsored by Environmental Defense, in which he said, "Now it's time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse-gas pollution."[83] In 2011, however, Huntsman said, "Cap-and-trade ideas aren't working; it hasn't worked, and our economy's in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn't the moment."[84] "There's not enough information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all, primarily because it's a global issue," Huntsman said. "We can enact policies here, but I wouldn't want to unilaterally disarm as a country. I wouldn't want to hinder job creators at a time when our economy is flat."”
So basically in 2007 Huntsman supported cap and trade as did a lot of Republicans at the time who had hopes that it would act as a quasi-free market solution to the issue of greenhouse gas emissions similar to how it worked as a means of dealing with sulfur dioxide emissions in the 1980s. By 2011 he pretty much renounced his prior support for cap and trade because it hasn’t worked. What happened between 2007 and 2011 was new information came to light about the European Union’s attempt to implement cap and trade and the problems that resulted.
So basically Huntsman once supported an idea that was pretty respectable at the time but changed his mind after he saw that it didn’t work in practice. I’m not sure how this is a knock against him though.
Jay, the Speaker is weak because he agreed to the Payroll Tax cut this past weekend, then could not get his caucus to vote his way....then he could not even allow a vote on the issue because it would have passed after his Romneyish flip-flop on the issue...
Raising/lowering taxes does not make a Speaker weak...having absolutely zero control over his peeps makes him the weakest...Speaka...eva...
Pelosi could bench press him...
machine said...
Jay, the Speaker is weak because he agreed to the Payroll Tax cut this past weekend, then could not get his caucus to vote his way....then he could not even allow a vote on the issue because it would have passed after his Romneyish flip-flop on the issue...
Hysterical.
So there was no vote?
That is your assertion?
PS, the Speaker passed a one year payroll tax cut.
That is what he agreed to.
It is also comical to watch you avoid the questions about the economic benefit of this.
Telling.
machine said...
....then he could not even allow a vote on the issue
Um, since there was no vote "on the issue" perhaps you can explain this:
The House voted Tuesday to disagree with the Senate-passed payroll tax cut extension bill and call for a House-Senate conference to sort out differences between the bills.
the motion to disagree with the Senate was approved with the support of nearly every Republican. The motion passed 229-193, with only seven Republicans voting against it and no Democrats supporting it.
Since the Speaker didn't allow a vote, how was there a vote total?
PS, How much has this payroll tax "holiday" helped the economy?
Further, since this is your example of House Republicans efforts to sabotage the US economy, do you favor eliminating the payroll tax?
Can you point me to an economist or any economic data saying cutting this tax has helped the US economy?
machine said...
Jay, the Speaker is weak because he agreed to the Payroll Tax cut this past weekend, then could not get his caucus to vote his way
Er, "his caucus" passed a one year payroll tax cut extension.
Can you make a post without lying?
Edutcher,
Your ignorance knows no bounds. "Incentivize development of new oil fields" is a crock. Just like they do in Norway, Sarah wanted to take from the evil oil companies and hand the money to the people. How does giving residents the oil companies money incentivize the oil companies? How does it incentivize the residents to provide for themselves?
You regularly post nonsense here and I call you on it time after time.
Your comment yesterday said the 9th Amendment was for the states. It's not. You excoriate Obama for 57 states, but try to dance around your own gaffes. You're like Obama; you think you're smart, but your not. You're lazy, just like Sarah. Go learn something.
machine said...
Jay, the Speaker is weak because he agreed to the Payroll Tax cut this past weekend, then could not get his caucus to vote his way
So far you have asserted:
1. the House Republicans are trying to sabotage the US economy. Yet you can provide no example of this.
2. There was no House vote on the Senate version of the payroll tax cut bill, which is false.
3. That the House Speaker agreed to the Senate version of the payroll tax cut bill, which he never did.
Gee, it is almost as if you're not really all that up to speed on this topic or something.
I know you won't believe me...but will you believe the Wall St. Journal:
"Republicans also failed to put together a unified House and Senate strategy. The House passed a one-year extension last week that included spending cuts to offset the $120 billion or so in lost revenue, such as a one-year freeze on raises for federal employees. Then Mr. McConnell agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on the two-month extension financed by higher fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (meaning on mortgage borrowers), among other things. It passed with 89 votes and all but seven Republicans.
Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension, but House Members revolted over the weekend and so the Speaker flipped within 24 hours."
Looks like even the Wall Street Journal is smacking down the children in the House GOP. Wow.
Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension, but House Members revolted
_______________
How dare they! Don't they know that they are simply puppets and should simply shut up and do as they are told?
This is not the first time that Boehner has engaged in these backroom "deals" and had it blow up in his face. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is to not engage in these backroom deals, to actually legislate in public, following regular order, rather than a handful of people running things like they are the Politburo and expecting everyone to rubber stamp it.
The entire Republican leadership, including not only Boehner, but Boehner lackeys Ryan and Cantor, needs to go.
But I suppose I am wrong to blame Boehner and Ryan and Cantor and McConnell, et al.
We should just blame George W. Bush. It's his fault.
Why shouldn't we blame him? We blamed him when he had to deal with these very same Republicans doing the very same incompetent bullsh*t that they are doing now. Nothing has changed. Bush is long gone and they are still screwing things up at every opportunity.
"Romney has got the message ..." does not mean "Romney has become a conservative".
It means only that he will expend more effort trying to appear one.
What's the evidence he got the message? Today he said this about mandates imposed by the states:
"Personal responsibility is more conservative in my view than something being given out for free by government." The Hill: http://tinyurl.com/8yatpjc
Apparently Romney thinks personal responsibility equals being forced by a government agency to be responsible.
Not conservative.
Isn't it good for the Republicans that Romney has gotten that message, while voters in the middle have gotten the message that Romney is moderate?
Yes, it is good. This primary cycle has been good for Romney & made him a better candidate. He's gonna need to be better as next years election is not going to be cake walk. It doesnt matter how bad Obama's numbers are now or next year, the country is split 50/50 so however one slices n dices it, the road to the WH was always going to be tough going.
"Romney has got the message ..." does not mean "Romney has become a conservative".
It means only that he will expend more effort trying to appear one.
I'll take Romney trying his best to look like a conservative over Obama sincerely being himself any day.
ABO
Obama is running as Huey Long. Romney will do well against him. The others will not. Huey Long can beat them.
machine said...
I know you won't believe me...but will you believe the Wall St. Journal:
Um, where is the part that says there was no vote like you asserted?
You understand that quoting Senate Republicans say Mr. Boehner had signed off on the two-month extension isn't fact, right?
So again, How much has this payroll tax "holiday" helped the economy?
Further, since this is your example of House Republicans efforts to sabotage the US economy, do you favor eliminating the payroll tax?
Can you point me to an economist or any economic data saying cutting this tax has helped the US economy?
Dukakis was (17) pts. ahead of Bush41 after the 1988 Dem convention. He lost by 8 pts.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched! ~ Mike Tyson
Post a Comment