Rasmussen: Obama-Romney Tied; Slight Lead Over Palin
2009 July 20
If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
The president, seeking a second four-year term, beats another potential GOP rival, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, by six points – 48% to 42%.
It’s only going to set worse for Zero as time passes, the nation is in a deeper hole and people wise up.
[1]
Considering the non-stop barrage of slurs the Democrats, the media and RINOs have thrown at Palin, I am amazed that she is this close. It will be interesting to see what happens in a week when she becomes a free agent and is able to define herself.
I’m sure the lunatic wing of BJG has other thoughts.
[2]
2012 may be just like 2008 in reverse
The country may be so damaged that the out of power party may be a virtual lock to win…
[3]
Forget 2012. Focus on 2010 right now, or there will not be a nation left to save.
That’s what I like about Palin–that is precisely her mindset, whereas slick Romney is primarily plotting for 2012 and his personal political success.
Does anyone have any example of where he has forcefully spoken out against the marxist, even though he is perfectly free to do so and is not a sitting governor?
[4]
For some, it might be better to think about 2012.
The carnage and skyrocketing suicide rates that are bound to happen if the left loses its majorities in the House and Senate in 2010 may be too much to deal with.
[5]
LOL–but seriously folks, look at the numbers. They are against us, even without amnesty. The Democrat party has cultivated huge numbers in the welfare state. California has completely succumbed, despite the best efforts of the citizens. That is the future of the nation.
If you break it down race by race, we will do well to gain 30-40 House seats. Regaining control of the Senate is much more of a long-term project.
[6]
btw, BC
I like the ’stepping stone’ picture alignment. Very creative.
[7]
If we pick up 30 House seats and even an modest 3-4 Senate seats, Obama will find it even more difficult to push his agenda.
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: 2nd QTR 2010 is when most sane politicians will back away from Obama’s ultra-Liberals policies and start thinking about re-election. During the 2010 midterms, the Republicans should win a signfiicant amount of seats. This will leave Obama as a 2-year long lame duck.
[8]
#
Does anyone have any example of where he has forcefully spoken out against the marxist, even though he is perfectly free to do so and is not a sitting governor?
I like Palin, but I was for Mitt after Thompson dropped out.
I went to the NRA convention this year in Phoenix and Romney gave a great speech.
I also liked that he sat out in the audience until it was his time to speak. The others stayed in the back until they spoke.
Link below.
Romney’s speech at the NRA convention
[9]
I like Mitt as well…and contributed to his campaign after Thompson dropped out.
Mitt’s message for the next couple years is simple: “See what happens when you elect someone who has NO CLUE how to run an ecomony!!”
that said…2010 is the ONLY focus. My support for Mitt…or ANYBODY…in 2012 will depend upon how much they help in 2010. Period.
[10]
Going to see King Tut exhibit at the De Young this afternoon. I saw it here in SF back in 1979 when I lived here. That was 30 years ago. Man how time flies. Good to still be alive!
[11]
I’ll bet King Tut would agree with you.
And while we’re at it– link
[12]
Mitt has problems within the Christian community. They won’t vote for a mormon. As seen in 2008, Christians would rather stay home and let BO waltz in than vote for someone whose religion says Jesus and Satan are brothers. Now they complain about BO but that is just too bad. They had a shot at stopping him. Mitt has a shot with Sarah on the card, but not without. I voted for Mitt in the primaries because Hunter and Thompson were gone, then McCain because of Sarah. A Mitt/Sarah ticket had a greater chance than the McCain/Sarah ticket did.
[13]
2010 is very important, but if we dont stop/slow Healthcontrol, Amnesty, Cap and Trade and Card Check it isn’t going to matter much. And the bad guys have the votes and the leverage to make their so-called blue dogs toe the line. I hate to be pessimistic but it will take the defeat of Healthcontrol to make me optimistic.
[14]
Mary -
I did the same thing as you – voted for Mitt because I felt he was less evil than McCain.
On FR yesterday they had a story from one of the British papers about two Mormon sisters in Utah who are married to the same husband. Things like this will hurt Mitt (along with tapes of his debates when he ran against Ted Kennedy for the Senate and for governor in 2002).
[15]
I’m sure the lunatic wing of BJG has other thoughts.
Who are you talking about? :d
[16]
[17]
Mitt has problems within the Christian community. They won’t vote for a mormon.
We are electing a POTUS. Not a pastor. Broken record alert: Religion and politics are a bad mix.
[18]
BTW, I don’t like Mitt. He is too phoney.
[19]
Recent polls tell me that the GOP candidates are pretty much stuck in the lower 40%. Nothing much has changed since the election. Voters are unhappy with Obama but not going over to the GOP candidate.
[20]
“If we pick up 30 House seats and even an modest 3-4 Senate seats, Obama will find it even more difficult to push his agenda. ”
—
Boy are you optimistic if your talking about 2010, if post 2012 results it’s more doable.
Was a little surprised Palin did as well as she did in that poll, however, the poll honestly says more about Obama then it does about Slick Mitt or Mama Grisly in my view, something I agree with da chekmiester about.
[21]
The over/under for 2010 is 45 House seats, 7 Senate seats, 12 Governorships from Conservative blogs, including various posters at HHR, Wiz, HotAir, and others I frequent.
If trends continue continue for another 6 months, and there is no reason they won’t, Obama/Pelosi/Reid are finished and chances for a Republican takeover such as 1994 are very possible.
As per the recent poll, it paints both Obama and Romney in a bad light. I’ve already given my reasons on another thread.
[22]
Wow I’d be fairly surprised if the GOP took back more then 20 hours seats in 2010, and simply netted a wash on the senate seats. Thing is I don’t think today’s numbers will hold though fall of 2010, if they do though and the GOP actually gets a cohesive message running by summer 2010 then your optimism may be proved correct. We shall see, only a couple lifetimes in politics between now and then.
[23]
Are you saying, KH, that you are not ready to precisely forecast the 2010 results yet?
[24]
I’m an optimist.
Also, take a look at the generic ballot on RCP. Last week Ras had it Republicans +3. Exactly one year ago, he had it Democrats +13. When was the last time the GOP had an advantage in generic polling?
[25]
“Are you saying, KH, that you are not ready to precisely forecast the 2010 results yet?”
—
Yup.
Course with my record I probably should wait till november 2010 before making a prediction, man was I off in 2006. lol
[26]
“When was the last time the GOP had an advantage in generic polling?”
Without actually checking I would say 1st quarter 2006 or prior.
[27]
Holy smokes….we agree. I was very active against Huckabee for that very reason. Right or wrong, that IS how they vote….so Mitt cannot be the nominee without someone like Palin to balance him out.
[28]
What are the net Senate seat possible pickups?
We could lose a couple like Gregg, and a pickup in Illinois with “cap and trade” Kirk is no gain.
[29]
I’m not sure you want to jump to that conclusion, JustMary.
I know what YOU mean when you talk about a separation between religion and politics, but when Chek uses that word, I think she is lumping social Conservatives in there. Meaning, no Palin, no Romney, no Huck or anybody like them.
I think she tried to slip one past you, JM. How about it, Chek?
[30]
Religion and politics we will disagree on….voting POTUS or Pastor, we agree.
[31]
Mullet
IL) Burris (D) is trailing Kirk (R) by 30 points. This is Obama’s old seat. Possible pickup.
NV) Reid (D) does not have any real opposition, but ANY Republian in the state has a even chance.
CO) Bennet (D) is facing Tancredo. Tancredo is down 9 points. Favors Bennet, but Tanc could pull it out with the right message and a worsening economy.
AR) Blanch Lincoln (D) is not guaranteed. Possible pickup.
PA) Specter (D) running against Toomey. Specter has an 11 point lead, but that won’t hold. Possible pickup.
CT) Dodd (D) is having all sorts of trouble. Quinn has him down by 6 in a worthless RV poll to Simmons.
DE) Beau Biden (D) is trailing Mike Castle by 20 points in a Susquenhana poll. Possible pickup.
There are some Republicans that are said to be ‘in trouble’, but I don’t think that will be the case. Bunning is one of them (not sure if he’s retiring). Gregg is also retiring, but again, I think Republican senators (in general) have less to worry about than Democrats.
I count 5 with great potential. NY would be a pickup also.
[32]
CT -
Do you actually consider Kirk and Castle pick ups?
[33]
CT….I love your enthusiasm, dont let us ever bring you down. Go get em. There is the City of God and the City of the World….pick the best chance for the good guys.
[34]
BC, its all about polls and we know what they mean this far out. On the positive side, polls this far out prior to 2008 didn’t look good for Republicans, and look what happened.
Kirk I’m not sure about, being Chicago
but wouldn’t that be a sweet victory? Castle vs Biden? The son of an idiot is probably an idiot. (Politically speaking, of course)
[35]
Good analysis, tony. Without bam’s coattails and with an enthused base, I can see some pickups, but the R’s are suspect. We need more good candidates. Rahmbo did that in 06 and 08, picking candidates that could win in R districts. He got the numbers, and somehow Pelosi holds them in check. It’s a mystery.
[36]
Chek uses that word, I think she is lumping social Conservatives in there
No. I have no problem with SoCons except for the one who are trying to use government to push their religion on everyone else. I didn’t care for Huck’s use of religion to get votes in Iowa with his ad saying “Christian leader”.