Three New Likely Voter Polls

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I think this cartoon says it all about the GOP in this election:

On that pin, I see at least 8 names who would have at least been performing better than Romney in the polls. 9, if you include "Other".

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Huntsman would have won this race by 5 plus points.

Herman Cain would have been more entertaining.

[Dexter]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

I'm a moderate Republican (except on fiscal issues, where I am very conservative and by conservative I mean, its very important to have low debt and very low budget deficits. That means spending cuts when necessary and also tax increases when necessary, I'm not opposed to reasonable tax increases purely on principle. They are often necessary and I support the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts). I supported Huntsman in the primary (check the search function). I'm not a fan of Romney and I never have been, and its mainly because he's a worthless empty suit with only a rudimentary understanding of issues. He won because he had huge financial advantages over everyone else and drowned them out. But I am slightly leaning towards him primarily because he picked Ryan. I am a fan of Ryan on spending issues, most notably on SS/Medicare and I'm intrigued by Ryan's ideas on these issues, and I'm encouraged that he's flexible as well (he worked with Sen. Wyden and slightly altered his approach). I'm encouraged by the CBO analysis of his premium support proposals which also include increasing the Medicare eligibility range over time and the fact that the supports vary by income levels also helps to soften the effect. I know it is essentially cost shifting in part to seniors and I'm okay with that. While its true that through SS and Medicare taxes they have paid into the program, but that doesnt necessarily mean that they are entitled to the exact same benefit formulas that have been provided to others in the past, just that they are entitled to some significant benefit, not necessarily this particular benefit. The changes in demographics with a greater aging population will put a huge strain on us financially. This is the long term debt driver. There has been discussion of raiding the funds in teh past and its true htats happened, but even without that, it wouldnt come close to fixing hte long term problem (and SS trust fund funds dont address Medicare issues). Even CMS admits this is the biggest problem going forward. I think the long term debt is something like 63T over 75 years, about 1T a year without any changes. That a few hundred billion or even a trillion in total were removed from SS trust fund in the past would not have cured this problem. CBO estimated that, without more, the proposal would sharply reduce the debt to GDP ratio over time. I am providing a link to their analysis for your review: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...yan_letter.pdf. With regard to BroncoInferno's point about Romney now saying he won't touch it, I think I read an article awhile back indicating he had put out an actual proposal earlier in the campaign that was not materially dissimilar from Wyden-Ryan, so I'm thinking his current talk is to merely make sure seniors don't abandon him in the election.

I realize that on issues such as taxes, Romney-Ryan are not as responsible as they are on these issues, but I think the tax problem is largely solved due to the fact that if nothing else happens in 2012, we will go back to the 2001 tax code, which will be great for long term debt control. Between that and serious SS/Medicare reform, we will be in good shape. I'm not persuaded that tax increases alone will solve these issues. Tax increases alone doesnt solve a 63T long term problem and I dont think its fair to apportion everything to taxes, anyway. It has to be a balanced solution.

I do support the administration on issues such as cap and trade (I prefer this approach rather than a carbon tax because I like the idea of injecting market based principles into the equation to disincentive businesses from environmentally inefficient conduct, rather than the simple imposition of a tax, make everyone try to run it as efficiently as possible so they can sell their credits elsewhere...there is good precedent for this approach in Europe) and I generally support the administration in foreign affiars with the exception of supporting insurgencies and democracy in the ME. I think thats abysmal. I don't give a **** about "promoting values". I care only about acting to presreve US strategic interests. I'm in the Nixon school of foreign affairs, not the Carter school. I'm more than willing to support brutal, repressive dictatorial regimes, so long as it promotes stability and protects US strategic interests. I'm concerned about AL Qaeda gaining a foothold in the region due to us promoting these popular uprisings. I'm not a fan of this at all. Other than that, I generally approve of the administration in foreign affairs, especially the Vietnamization in Iraq and Afghanistan and continued arms control with Russia.


I could still go either way with my vote and there is a good chance I could ignore the top ballot. I don't like Romney and I never have. If he did not select Ryan, and we didn't have the impending sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts merely by inaction (in a divided congress, which we will likely get, a Romney tax cut couldnt pass), I probably would not vote for him at all.

Nice post. Unlike you I really dislike Ryan. There is nothing about the Republican ticket that appeals to me at all. Ryan and Romney are too extreme on social issues to me, and I really don't like their take on healthcare.

However, I will say this. I'm not someone who would have been dedicated 100% to voting for Obama had there been a responsible alternative. Jon Huntsman is someone who is very intriguing, and I've brought his name up in the past around here. Just a few people here actually like him. I really have no idea how he didn't get more consideration than Romney. He seems like he really has a balanced viewpoint on the important issues, and is someone that understands and can connect with the common man. So I'm definitely with you here. - And yes I know Huntsman does support Ryan's medicare plan.

Even though Obama's gotten us out of Iraq, and we've killed Bin Laden and a few other high priority targets, I'm still not a huge fan of his foreign policy. I'm a bit of a pacifist though, I hate the nation building this country is committed to. Fixing what I believe is an awful foreign policy, encouraging the development of clean energy and being independent from foreign oil would go a long way to cut spending. And yes, taxing the top 2% won't fix everything, but giving tax cuts to the middle class, and not those that don't need it will encourage some growth imo. So we don't really agree on foreign policy, but I'm definitely willing to vote for someone I don't agree with on 100% of the issues --Huntsman.

While I don't like Ryan, and I feel like he only appeals to the far far right, I can't believe how much more likable he is by the republican party.

Just an amusing video:http://youtu.be/SclDiN-lcYE

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Huntsman would have won this race by 5 plus points.

That's wishful thinking. He wouldn't turn out the base; more than that, he'd never be the nominee of the Republican party as long as the teaparty is the base.

It's akin to saying Hillary Clinton would win this race (in a general election against Obama) by five plus points. Maybe there's some truth in the notion, but it's based on fantasy circumstances divorced from the actual mechanisms of politics.

[Rigs11]

I don't think any republican would have beaten obama.the right is broken up into too many parties.you have the true conservatives which make up a small percentage then you have the extremist tea party and then you have the deficit spenders who call themselves conservatives.they come up with all these silly plans to cut unions,women's programs,deportation nonsense.all so that they can give corps more tax breaks.hell,the one saving grace the repuba had was the economy.and they even managed to blow it there

[~Crash~]

umm would hold your glee .. but go ahead celbrate four more years of the same ... lol

[~Crash~]

also I remember plenty of you telling us Wisconsin was going to have a new governer .. strange he seems to be still getting your goat.

[~Crash~]

Counting Chickens before they hatch.. I think I will send another $100 to Romney tomorrow.

[SoCalBronco]

Originally Posted by Pseudofool

That's wishful thinking. He wouldn't turn out the base; more than that, he'd never be the nominee of the Republican party as long as the teaparty is the base.

It's akin to saying Hillary Clinton would win this race (in a general election against Obama) by five plus points. Maybe there's some truth in the notion, but it's based on fantasy circumstances divorced from the actual mechanisms of politics.

Huntsman had a chance to win the nomination IF....IF he was willing to ask his Dad to dig deep into his pockets. Huntsman Sr. could OVERWHELM Romney financially....and Romney has at least a quarter billion in assets and probably alot closer to half a billion. That doesnt hold a candle to the Huntsman family's assets. For whatever reason, they decided not to put the Huntsman family money into this race.

Yes, its true the base wouldn't like him, but they don't like Romney either and never have and he still won the nomination relatively easily.

[DenverBrit]

Romney has run a terrible campaign to-date and is a very unpopular ex Governor.

From the State that knows Mitt best:

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

President Obama remains well ahead of Mitt Romney in Massachsuetts.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Massachusetts Voters shows Obama with 55% support to Romney's 40%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while two percent (2%) are undecided.

(To see survey question wording, click here.)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...etts_president

[Jetmeck]

Originally Posted by ~Crash~

Counting Chickens before they hatch.. I think I will send another $100 to Romney tomorrow.

Go ahead throw good money after bad. I just gave a hundred to the winner couple of minutes ago and FYI that a-hole Walker may still be there because of special interest money but his BS union busting laws are not there anymore.............judicial system still works just fine....thank you very much !

[Pseudofool]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Yes, its true the base wouldn't like him, but they don't like Romney either and never have and he still won the nomination relatively easily.

Romney, however, has managed the expectations of the base by cowing to them. Is that something Huntsman would do? If not, I don't see how he gets the nomination with however much he out spends Romney.

If Romney doesn't swing hard right, Santorum is the nominee, that's the Republican political landscape. And it should frighten reasonable conservatives.

[TonyR]

What a fantastic last two weeks these have been. I don’t even mean Barack Obama solidifying his lead over Mitt Romney, although that’s perfectly fine. No, I mean the near-mathematically perfect joy of watching these smug and contemptible creatures of the right dodge and swerve and make excuses and, most of all, whine. There is no joy in the kingdom of man so great as the joy of seeing bullies and hucksters laid low, and watching people who have arrogantly spent years assuming they were right about the world living to see all those haughty assumptions die before their eyes. Watching them squirm is more fun than watching Romney and Paul Ryan flail away.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-syndrome.html

[Drek]

Originally Posted by SoCalBronco

Huntsman had a chance to win the nomination IF....IF he was willing to ask his Dad to dig deep into his pockets. Huntsman Sr. could OVERWHELM Romney financially....and Romney has at least a quarter billion in assets and probably alot closer to half a billion. That doesnt hold a candle to the Huntsman family's assets. For whatever reason, they decided not to put the Huntsman family money into this race.

Yes, its true the base wouldn't like him, but they don't like Romney either and never have and he still won the nomination relatively easily.

Obama's too strong a candidate. Huntsman would probably be beating him in national polls, but he wouldn't swing PA, MI, OH, WI, IA, or VA where Obama is stretching his lead.

The Obama campaign predicted the key swing states years out, built powerful ground games, and have been doing unofficial campaigning in those states for a long time now. Coupled with the auto bail out specifically helping most of those states and you see a strong reason why no GOP candidate had a real shot this cycle.

To that end, I'm betting that the Huntsmans understood this and this is why they spent a small amount of money to get some name recognition out there, which will be followed by a much larger effort in 2016, especially if Hillary doesn't run.

Christie is in an economic quagmire and might lose his job to Booker before he even gets the chance to run for POTUS. Jeb Bush has a toxic family legacy and it reinforces the equally toxic American Royalty stigma. Ryan will now be DOA after being a poor VP candidate. The landscape on the GOP side isn't very strong when you think about it realistically. Huntsman could begin running in earnest much sooner this time around and would have the major early primaries lined up and soaked in money well in advance.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Drek

Obama's too strong a candidate. Huntsman would probably be beating him in national polls, but he wouldn't swing PA, MI, OH, WI, IA, or VA where Obama is stretching his lead.

This is the crux of the argument, both for this election and for hypothetical ones like Huntsman, etc. vs. Obama. The election is not determined by national numbers. Rather, it's determined every year by the same 10-15 states who represent what the middle thinks. Although there are several candidates who would probably be performing better than Romney, I have yet to see a convincing argument from anyone on how exactly they would be doing better than Obama where it matters.

[Requiem]

UnskewedPolls was a site/firm started by Republicans. Unskewed my rear. Their whole model is going under the assumption that African-American and Latino turnout will be much less this year.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Requiem

UnskewedPolls was a site/firm started by Republicans. Unskewed my rear. Their whole model is going under the assumption that African-American and Latino turnout will be much less this year.

Actually they had a story about that the other night. Apparently he applied the Rasmussen research methods to all polls, and then Rasmussen came out and was all like, "That's not how it works, guy, you can't just apply the same pollin methods to different polls."

Rasmussen sucks, too.

[peacepipe]

http://occupyamerica.crooksandliars....e-favorably-mi

The most recent Bloomberg poll shows Bush with a 46% to 49% favorable rating as compared to Romney's 43% to 50%.

you know you got issues when GWB has a higher favorably than you.

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Actually they had a story about that the other night. Apparently he applied the Rasmussen research methods to all polls, and then Rasmussen came out and was all like, "That's not how it works, guy, you can't just apply the same pollin methods to different polls."

Rasmussen sucks, too.

You keep saying this...but facts prove the opposite. Do I need to show you more studies in which Rasmussen came out on top with the most consistent and accurate polling in past elections?

Or does "sucks" just mean you don't agree or like their polling results?

[peacepipe]

the problem cons have is they can't accept the fact that Willard is losing. they complain about the polling but act as if ras is the only poll out there that can be trusted.

every poll out there has Obama with a lead,but yet we're to believe that all the polls are wrong,except for ras. even though ras has obama leading as well.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

You keep saying this...but facts prove the opposite. Do I need to show you more studies in which Rasmussen came out on top with the most consistent and accurate polling in past elections?

Or does "sucks" just mean you don't agree or like their polling results?

The facts prove that they did well 4 years ago.

How many more people have cellphones and no landline now than back then? Their polling methods are crap. How many times does this need to be shown to you?

Or do you really believe that landline-only polls really have any significance in 2012?

I suppose if you sample payphones only you'd probably get biased information on what the soup kitchen on 5th should serve for dinner, too.

[Rigs11]

Righties are in panic mode.tea party is trying to suppress voters in Ohio, windbag limbaugh is crying about the polling,repubs are now supporting Akin.repubs are trying to make mittens the underdog in the debates...oh except for Christie who is saying that mittens is gonna turn this around in the debates.gotta love it

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Righties are in panic mode.tea party is trying to suppress voters in Ohio, windbag limbaugh is crying about the polling,repubs are now supporting Akin.repubs are trying to make mittens the underdog in the debates...oh except for Christie who is saying that mittens is gonna turn this around in the debates.gotta love it

he also stated this morning that these complaints about the polls are bogus.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

You keep saying this...but facts prove the opposite. Do I need to show you more studies in which Rasmussen came out on top with the most consistent and accurate polling in past elections?

Or does "sucks" just mean you don't agree or like their polling results?

But, you aren't really presenting facts. You are just going with Rasmussen because they show the closest race of all the pollsters out there.
Rasmussen was crap in 2000, Solid in 2004 and 2008 (most were, there were even more accurate pollsters in 2008) and did horrendous in 2010. I mean, how do you get a certain race 40 points completely wrong?

If you go by what Rasmussen is reporting now, Mittens gets New Hampshire and North Carolina. Obama wins all the other battle ground states. Too bad for Mittens.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Requiem

But, you aren't really presenting facts. You are just going with Rasmussen because they show the closest race of all the pollsters out there.
Rasmussen was crap in 2000, Solid in 2004 and 2008 (most were, there were even more accurate pollsters in 2008) and did horrendous in 2010. I mean, how do you get a certain race 40 points completely wrong?

If you go by what Rasmussen is reporting now, Mittens gets New Hampshire and North Carolina. Obama wins all the other battle ground states. Too bad for Mittens.

Yep. If you go entirely by Rasmussen's numbers right now, Obama still wins 313-225.

This is starting to seem like another example of attempted refutation of science by conservatives. I'm sorry you either don't agree or can't understand, guys, but polling, statistics and the like...it's a science. You can't make pre-ordained assumptions on the party leanings of a particular state before taking a poll. You must attempt to sample the most accurate representation of the US, otherwise your numbers are worthless.

What world do you guys live in where not calling cell phones is going to give you an accurate representation of the populace?? Just looking at my and my wife's own families (who are about 50/50 conservative/liberal), there are 12 family units in our immediate family. 4 years ago, 6 of 12 had landlines. Currently only 3 do, and take a guess the age and political leanings of those 3. Derp.

Numbers and science are nothing to be afraid of, conservatives.