For the first time since last July Barack Obama does not lead Mitt Romney in PPP's monthly national poll on the 2012 Presidential race. Romney has now pulled into a tie with the President at 45%.
Obama's approval rating this month is 46% with 48% of voters disapproving of him. There are 2 things particularly troubling in his numbers: independents split against him by a 44/49 margin, and 16% of Democrats are unhappy with the job he's doing while only 10% of Republicans give him good marks. Republicans dislike him at this point to a greater extent than Democrats like him and that will be a problem for him moving forward if it persists.
Romney takes advantage of those 2 points of weakness for Obama. He leads the President by 9 points with independents at 46-37. And he earns more crossover support, getting 13% of the Democratic vote while only 8% of Republicans are behind Obama.
An extremely wide electability gap has developed between Romney and all the rest of the Republican candidates. Everyone else we tested trails Obama by at least as much as John McCain's 2008 margin of defeat and in most cases more. Obama's up 7 on Michele Bachmann at 48-41, 9 against Tim Pawlenty at 48-39, 12 versus Herman Cain at 48-36, and as usual has his largest lead in a match up with Sarah Palin at 53-37.
Here's an important note on all of this early 2012 polling though: Obama's numbers are worse than they appear to be on the surface. The vast majority of the undecideds in all of these match ups disapprove of the job Obama's doing but aren't committing to a candidate yet while they wait to see how the Republican field shakes out. Here's an idea of where these various match ups might stand once all voters have made up their minds:
-In the Obama/Romney head to head 21% of undecideds approve of Obama and 61% disapprove. If you allocate them based on their approval/disapprove of Obama, Romney would lead 52-48.
-In the Obama/Bachmann head to head 10% of undecideds approve of Obama and 67% disapprove. If you allocate them based on their approval/disapprove of Obama, Obama would lead only 51-49.
-In the Obama/Pawlenty head to head 9% of undecideds approve of Obama and 75% disapprove. If you allocate them based on their approval/disapprove of Obama, the race would be tied at 50%.
-In the Obama/Cain head to head 8% of undecideds approve of Obama and 76% disapprove. If you allocate them based on their approval/disapprove of Obama, Obama would lead only 51-49.
-In the Obama/Palin head to head 5% of undecideds approve of Obama and 84% disapprove. If you allocate them based on their approval/disapprove of Obama, Obama would lead only 54-46.
So if you dig deeper into the numbers Obama's position is a lot worse than meets the eye. There's a very good chance Obama would lose if he had to stand for reelection today. If there's a silver lining for Obama it's this- he trailed Romney in our poll last July and then led him for each of the next 11 months. For whatever reason summer and particularly the month of July has not been friendly to Obama in the polls ever since he hit the national stage. So perhaps he'll see another recovery now as he has in the past. But for now he's in one of the weakest positions of his Presidency.
Full results here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
Me thinks this debt thing has something to do with it.
This may get me into the Hall of Failed Prognosticators someday, but I sense that the bottom has fallen out of Obama's Presidency...
The big question is "why" they disapprove. I'm willing to bet more of the disapproval comes from the fact that Obama hasn't been tougher with the GOP and Teaparty thugs and goons, and the wimpy Dems he has to deal with. Too much conciliatory rhetoric and bipartisan posturing has gotten his approval this low, and it will take some butt-kicking to bring it back up.
Fork. Done. Good Riddance.
Check this out:
Net Change Private Sector Jobs (under Obama)
Up to April 2010 = 67,600 jobs/month.
After April 2010 = 6,400 jobs/month.
What happened in April 2010? Obamacare passed.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/20/report-private-sector-job-creation-ground-to-a-halt-almost-instantly-after-obamacare-passed/
Creating a whole bunch of jobs for people who are out of work would go a long way toward helping Obama get re-elected.
Focusing on deficit reduction will do nothing to get him re-elected. That's because nobody cares about reducing the deficit. People care about being able to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for themselves and their families. Reducing the deficit by a few tenths of a percentage of GDP will not do that.
Propose a robust program to put people back to work, Mr. President. Even if the Republicans stop the plan, you will at least have tried.
Oh, and cutting Social Security and Medicare to fund tax cuts for the rich? Bad idea.
Nobody in the White House seems to get this. Maybe they'll figure it out on January 20, 2013, as Mitt Romney takes the oath of office.
Imagine what his approval numbers would like like if the msm weren't so dead set on re-electing the abysmal, race baiting failure.
If the media reported truthfully on the debt debate oduumbo and dems would be getting hammered - but typically, the media isn't professional enough, nor do they have the integrity, to do their jobs!
Who cares? Listen to Glenn Greenwald explain why voting only props up the whole corrupt mess:
http://wearemany.org/v/2011/07/civil-liberties-under-obama
"Me thinks this debt thing has something to do with it."
Unfortunately, we didn't ask questions about it, but media organizations are reporting Obama winning handily on that issue.
"This may get me into the Hall of Failed Prognosticators someday, but I sense that the bottom has fallen out of Obama's Presidency..."
No, his approval rating remains about where it's always been, and it's a trend we've been seeing every summer. Plus, even those who are undecided and disapprove may end up holding their nose and voting for Obama, depending on who the nominee is. That's less likely if it's Romney or Huntsman, but considerably more likely if it's Bachmann or even Perry.
"What happened in April 2010? Obamacare passed."
HA! That's so laughable. Almost none of HCR has even been implemented yet.
I think even the democrats that disapprove of him (myself included) will have no choice but to vote for him, the only argument that could be made is the enthusiasm factor i.e. are people going to motivated to go out and vote. A Bachmann/Palin ticket is just what the doctor ordered to liven up apathetic democrats.
"What happened in April 2010? Obamacare passed."
HA! That's so laughable. Almost none of HCR has even been implemented yet."
Dustin,
You've obviously never run/owned a business.
I do.
Did it ever occur to you that job creators might act in advance of, in anticipation of, in expectation of, an onerous regulatory scheme that increases their costs?
I can't wait to see Romney eat Obama alive when they debate the economy.
Our disillusion stems from the fact that Obama is impossible to distinguish from the Bush he campaigned against. We've got a galling bait-n-switch going on and swing voters like myself will not be fooled again or believe O's playing some 11-dimension chess.
We are not falling for the Bachmann/Palin scare tactic either, because Obama has proven to be to the right of Bush in so many ways and so the fear campaign is neutered by the leading democrat himself.
"You can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time" ~Bob Marley
Prediction: If Romney is the nominee, he beats Obama by a healthy margin, with surprising strength in Midwest/NE, winning NH, PA and MI.
That's a big assumption that the nominee will be Romney, though. I think it'll be Bachmann.
In that case, she'll lead the summer in polls, but after the first debate, she'll fall to pieces and Obama will win a narrow victory.
I think Perry remains the most frightening, so far. He might be able pull off winning the nomination and a narrow win in the general election.
I disagree with this idea that people will fall into line on the side of the Republicans just because they disapprove of the President. Especially if the GOP candidate is a true nut like Michele Bachmann.
Sure they may not be pleased with Obama, but that does not mean they will vote for Bachmann (especially once people get to know her well - her numbers will be in Palin territory.)
"this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime"
Steve Wynn
"I can't wait to see Romney eat Obama alive when they debate the economy."
Sort of like how Mitt Romney ate Ted Kennedy alive on Kennedy's job-layoff record as a corporate CEO? Oh wait...it was the reverse of that.
""You can fool some people some time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time" ~Bob Marley"
Hey, pothead, Marley didn't say that--that was Abe Lincoln.
@Dustin: I work at a health insurer and healthcare reform (PPACA) takes up a lot of time for a lot of people. Many of the provisions are not yet in effect, but quite a few are, and many of the upcoming provisions aren't the sort of thing you just flip a switch for (like medical loss ratio). It's made worse by the cascading raft of regulations that everyone is struggling to implement.
I'm not an absolutist when it comes to healthcare reform -- there are some good parts -- but as a whole, the damn thing is incredibly burdensome. Generally speaking, people will NOT get to keep their current coverage, and employers WILL drop health coverage altogether.
Can't wait to see the taxpayer lawsuits fly in once the mandate fines start going out...
"We know when we understand:
Almighty God is a living man.
You can fool some people sometimes,
But you can't fool all the people all the time."
"Get Up, Stand Up"~ Bob Marley
Hey Anonymous...
A couple of things...correlation does not equal causation. Only an idiot can draw a direct line between health care passing and less jobs. There are so many factors that influence job growth.
The reason for a lack of jobs is not the health care law. It's a lack of consumer demand. Consumers aren't spending money because 1.) they are in debt from the Housing bust and 2.) they have seen their wages stagnate for over 30 years.
Businesses will hire when demand for the product/services they are selling increase. I think the main reason you're not hiring right now is because you don't have enough customers to warrant hiring anybody. If you saw an increase in demand for your product/service, I bet you would hire people in order to meet that demand.
I'm a business owner myself. And the last thing I want is for money in this country to flow to the very top. That is bad for business because it puts less money into the pockets of people that should be my customers. There is only so much the rich can buy. You'd see that money actually circulate throughout the economy at a much higher rate than giving money to one very rich individual, who will either sit and save the money, or invest it overseas where labor is cheap. Unfortunately, this is what the GOP stands for nowadays.
And another thing I'll add...Romney hasn't been "introduced to the public yet". The fact that he made his millions on basically slashing payroll and firing people won't sit well with working people.
When he was Governor, his state was 47th in the nation in terms of job creation.
The fact that he wanted to let Detroit (and much of the Midwest) go bankrupt will be repeated over and over again once the campaign gets under way.
His argument against Obama's health care law is neutralized by the fact he implemented the same thing in Mass. The states rights argument won't fly.
I think he's a paper tiger. He definitely has a chance to win if the economy gets worse or even stagnates without movement one way or another. But he's a much easier candidate to beat than his polling numbers suggest right now.
Yeah, it could be the massive unemployment rate, the bluffing on the debt ceiling ("Don't call my bluff, Eric."), the terrible housing market, and the unpopular Affordable Care Act.
Or it could just be the month of July. I guess one is just as likely as the other.
Lately I'm concerned that if BHO's numbers get bad enough, we could see the resurrection of Al Gore.
Seriously. He could appeal to the far-left that Boo-Boo hasn't kept his promises, then tack toward the middle by claiming he NEVER would have made the decisions that got us into 2 wars, or that led us down a path toward economic clamity. He's smarmy enough to suppose that everything he says isn't a load of crap (he might actually believe some of it), and he got all those votes in 2000.
What a frightful thought.
No matter how successful Obama is in reducing the deficit, with or wtihout a "grand bargain", it is jobs, or the lack of them, that explains these poll numbers. Deficit reduction a time when people are concerned about their present and future prospects, along with a dollar might buy Obama a half-cup of coffee. The GOP knows it, too, which is why they love all the talk and negotiation on deficit reduction --it reduces any chance of Obama being able propose or even discuss any meaningful action on jobs. It also crowds out any discussion of the major reasons we have the deficit--like the Bush tax cuts and the enactment of Medicare prescription drug legislation that forbade the government from exercising any cost control. (Oh, and did I mention the housing bubble and the funding of two wars "off budget".) I wonder if, in years to come, an older and maybe wiser Barack Obama will regret letting the GOP control the language and the rules of this game?
Anon, a WSJ survey asked economists whether demand or uncertainty about government policy was more important to the state of the economy. Over sixty percent said demand was more important. I just talked to Paul Ashworth, the top forecaster in 2010, and he said demand was crucial.
Also, that comes out of the Heritage foundation which is notorious for sloppy analysis:
http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/04/economic-effects-of-ryan-plan-assuming.html
In May a CNN poll showed Rep. Ron Paul with the best chance of beating Pres. Obama. He is actually running as opposed to say Sarah Palin, and is polling higher than Herman Cain who were both included.
Why is the media excluding a candidate who is out-raising everyone but Romney, is consistently polling in the top 4, is reportedly demonstrating "incredible" campaign organization in the run up to Ames, got 40% of his money raised from small donors contributing less than $200, and raised more money than all other GOP candidates combined from our Armed Services? Google: Ron Paul
Dustin,
When next you make these polls can you please ask those who "disapprove of Obama" if they disapprove from the right or from the left.
It is not really logical to put in ALL those who disapprove of him in the "vote against" category.
I constantly tell pollsters I disapprove of him (because he is a pansy Dem, cowardly retreating and compromising on too many things), but on average I am pretty sure (95% sure) I would vote for him again.
I am certain a significant chunk of Dems or independents are in this category.
Nothing so brings out political acrimony than does the budgetary process in a time of harsh economics and political polarization. President Obama is having the same problem several Governors have.
The elephant in the room that no one's mentioning is that Obama had his shot. He got to spend almost a trillion dollars that we didn't have to create jobs and no one noticed the difference. No one believes he can create jobs and I mean no one. He has no case. He can't win.
The brightest spot in our upcoming exercise in electoral farce is that we might have voter turnout at record lows. That 2/3 of the population may realize voting in our system is an utter sham and has been for decades is far more encouraging than whether or not some dipshit technocratic vacuity becomes or remains the latest Imperial Publicist-in-Chief.
FACT: Obama continues to have mid-forty approvals, but on his progressive agenda low to mid-thirties...Another one and done progressive President..
FACT: Obama is Carter...
Where is Ron Paul in all this??
A pollster that would omit Ron Paul at this point is simply not serious. You include Pawlenty and Cain, both of whom poll below Paul and raised less money than Paul, but you don't include Paul.
What gives??
Google: Ron Paul. The only change that can save this country.
"No, his approval rating remains about where it's always been, and it's a trend we've been seeing every summer."
This is true, Dustin, but I'll point out that less than two months ago, this President killed Osama bin Laden. As we have seen, it did practically no long-term good for his approval rating.
I see Obama as being in much worse shape than he was last summer, all things considered. Yes, last summer his numbers were about the same as they are now. But last summer, he hadn't just killed bin Laden. He's in a hole that he can't seem to get out of, no matter what he does.
The American public have soured on Obama to the point that he could win World War III and the majority still wouldn't approve of him.
You should probably discount about 5-10% off the undecideds disapproving of Obama to allow for the Green/Communist/other far left voters who will probably hold their noses and vote for Obama.
i appreciate the honesty in the work.
with the exception of your nc polls, you have pulled some pretty good calls...
the governor's election in nj and the senate race in ma were spot on, and a great intro.
i still give the nod to rasmussen, but you have jumped ahead of gallup.
the three of 'you' i consider essential reading, with all others being a partisan joke.
Notice that Ron Paul's announced and serious candidacy wasn't "tested" in this article's polls. There's a reason for that: they cannot proclaim Romney as Obama's main rival if they test Paul against Obama. So, instead, the MSM lamely and deceptively pretends there is no such candidacy and proceeds to deceive the public as they always do. Whenever you see an article which doesn't even mention Paul's candidacy while pretending to cover the field of hopefuls, then you'll know you're reading a deceitful propaganda piece. Ignore it and look for informative news elsewhere.
1) To the PaulBots who keep posting: just stop. He's not going to win the Republican nomination. He has no prayer of winning the nomination. He isn't polling any higher for the 2012 election than he polled for the 2008, and we all know how that turned out.
2) Dustin's dismissal of the effects of ObamaCare are ludicrous for someone who polls for a living. The latest average of polling on ObamaCare shows that the public favors repeal by 49.8-40.3. And your entire response is "HA! ObamaCare hasn't even taken effect!" Really? I would hope that in retrospect you take back such an obviously thoughtless response to an issue which: a) obviously is on people's minds, and b) which is such a big negative drag on Obama.
People don't support... 9.2% and rising unemployment. Massive debt, high oil, spending, taxes and big government. Obama is in big trouble if the economy is crashing. Ohh yeah. The seniors hate that he threatened them with social security scare. Once he could not bring home the Olympics for Chicago I lost all Hope and faith in OBAMA.
"Yeah, it could be the massive unemployment rate, the bluffing on the debt ceiling ("Don't call my bluff, Eric."), the terrible housing market, and the unpopular Affordable Care Act."
It can't be any of those except maybe unemployment. More likely a fluctuation. People seem to not like him in the summer.
"When next you make these polls can you please ask those who "disapprove of Obama" if they disapprove from the right or from the left."
It's not a bad idea for our next national poll.
"You include Pawlenty and Cain, both of whom poll below Paul"
Pawlenty now does...barely, but we started including him because he was briefly polling in the double digits. Paul hasn't ever done that nationally. And Cain still does, despite losing his flavor-of-the-month status to Bachmann.
"I see Obama as being in much worse shape than he was last summer, all things considered."
Definitely not. 2010 was as bad as it can get for the Democrats. There've been times when he's looked unbeatable this year, and there've been times, like now, when he's slumped a little. And it also still comes down to electoral votes. We've found him vulnerable in NV, NH, PA, and, of course, NC, but only if Romney is the nominee, and he's still holding up when we last did VA (we'll see what this weekend has in store). If he loses those four states, he's still got something like 315 EVs. The only question nationally is whether he recovers from what isn't a very big hole to begin with.
"He's in a hole that he can't seem to get out of, no matter what he does."
Like I said, it's not much of a hole. Mid- to high 40s is pretty remarkable given the state of the economy. People still blame Bush more for the economy than they do Obama, which is probably what's keeping him where he is.
Dustin,
You said:
"Pawlenty now does...barely, but we started including him because he was briefly polling in the double digits. Paul hasn't ever done that nationally. And Cain still does, despite losing his flavor-of-the-month status to Bachmann."
Actually, the Washington Post/ABC poll that's just been released shows Ron Paul garnering 10-11% nationally if Sarah Palin isn't included into the poll, which she shouldn't be because she isn't running until she declares it.
So if it's double digits you seek to start including Ron Paul, you got 'em.
Those who discount Ron Paul may be in for a real surprise. The movement has begun, and it won't be stopped. If Ron Paul won't be elected, the seeds of change will have been sown by his contributions.
Paul receives more contributions from military personnel than all Republican candidates combined and more than Obama. His fundraising is 2nd behind only Mitt Romney, and Paul's donors are all ordinary folks who give mostly small donations.
If you're including anyone other than Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann into your poll, Ron Paul needs to be in that poll. If you don't poll him, how would you know how he does? The political climate is changing.
"Actually, the Washington Post/ABC poll that's just been released shows Ron Paul garnering 10-11% nationally if Sarah Palin isn't included into the poll"
We go by our own polls.
I'd love to know what his approval rating is among non-union taxpaying citizens. I bet it wouldn't even be 20%.
Interesting. Guess we'll see if Mitt has the staying power this time around but I'm not betting on it. Why not add Paul, Perry and a few others to your poll? At this early stage in the cycle, you never know what is going to happen.
Dustin -
"And it also still comes down to electoral votes. We've found him vulnerable in NV, NH, PA, and, of course, NC, but only if Romney is the nominee, and he's still holding up when we last did VA (we'll see what this weekend has in store)."
You're not analyzing here. You're spinning.
How is Obama doing in Indiana? I'm going to guess not well enough to carry that state in 2012 based on his ultra-thin margin in 2008 and his subsequent drop in popularity since then.
If he's vulnerable in Pennsylvania, then it's a safe bet he's also vulnerable in Ohio given that he did far better in PA in 2008 than he did in Ohio.
Since you're at least ostensibly posting on behalf of PPP here, I would guess that you might want to pull back on the spinning and turn more to realistic analysis if you want to maintain at least some semblance of a reputation for objectivity.
Obama's vulnerability in PA is a HUGE problem, and I'm unaware of any serious political analyst who wouldn't say so if asked.
Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. If it goes Republican, then Obama is facing a Bush/Dukakis style blowout. Surely you are studied enough in the history of presidential elections to know this.
I'm trying to reconcile your insistence that somehow if he loses Pennsylvania then he still has 315 electoral votes when you and I both know that's the farthest thing from the truth possible.
I would hope that you have since reviewed your comments and would revise them accordingly if given the opportunity.
What a stupid f****** pollster. Uses Blogger and is clearly a neoconservative who just uses this as a way to push his politically hackery.
I think it's time the Ron Paul movement take you guys down and reveal you for what you are. We got rid of News Reel Blog and Horowitz.. you guys should be next. We don't need intellectually dishonest HACKS like you trying to pervert public opinion. We get that enough. fucking losers.
"If there's a silver lining for Obama..."
If there's a silver lining for Obama, whose entire life has been dedicated to class war, it's the huge number of people that vote (rather than work) for a living. I only hope enough independents wake up and vote against him.
Interesting/horrifying:
http://www.informs.org/ORMS-Today/Public-Articles/June-Volume-38-Number-3/Election-2012-The-13-keys-to-the-White-House
My question is, why isn't Paul being put head to head with Obama anymore? Checking Cain's numbers against Obama's and Palin's is just absurd when Paul is polling 3rd in Iowa and 9% nationwide.
Oh, and in other news, after the Audit the Fed measure, the news just broke that the Fed loaned out $16 Trillion to foreign banks and big banks here. That's more than the entire US GDP ($15.1 Trillion)!! They printed and gave away more money than the US makes in an entire year!
Democrats & Independents fed up with Obummer and all the interchangeable/indistinguishable status quo Tea-o-con religious wing-nut flip-floppin' GOP candidates ain't gonna cross over for that!
But they will for Ron Paul, and they are. In droves!
Dustin: "Pawlenty now does...barely, but we started including him because he was briefly polling in the double digits. Paul hasn't ever done that nationally."
Oother guy: "Actually, the Washington Post/ABC poll that's just been released shows Ron Paul garnering 10-11% nationally"
Dustin: "We go by our own polls."
Read: "We're not just polling, we're pushing politics and our agenda."
We're you REALLY interested in the truth you'd have polled between Paul and Obama. Alas Ron Paul typically does better in those match ups than anyone else. Ignore the man behind the curtain, these are not the driods you are looking for.
"I'm trying to reconcile your insistence that somehow if he loses Pennsylvania then he still has 315 electoral votes when you and I both know that's the farthest thing from the truth possible."
It's simple math and estimation without looking exactly at the shifts of EVs due to the census. If he loses the states I listed (not including VA, since he's still ahead there, last we polled), he'd have somewhere under 320 EVs. We can't poll in IN, so if you take that away too, that's still around 305-310 EVs. The GOP nominee would still have to win at least 35 EVs from states where Obama is still in the lead even against Romney, some combination of CO, VA, OH, FL, IA. VA and FL or OH would do it.
"Pennsylvania hasn't voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988. If it goes Republican, then Obama is facing a Bush/Dukakis style blowout."
That doesn't logically follow at all. We haven't polled OH since May, and he was up on Romney by 4. But we've found him consistently on edge, essentially tied, with first Huckabee and now Romney in PA. It's a different state with different voters. It's just as tough now as NC, which is becoming bluer as the years pass, as more voters from states like PA, OH, NY, etc., move in. The turf is changing. It's not 1988 anymore. It's 2011, in case you weren't aware. Obama has made legitimate inroads into the Southeast and Southwest, as have Democrats generally.
"What a stupid f****** pollster. Uses Blogger and is clearly a neoconservative who just uses this as a way to push his politically hackery."
That's funny. We're a Democratic pollster, and most of our criticism comes from the right. But just shows that when you get the numbers right, someone's gonna be upset.
"Jim B said...
1) To the PaulBots who keep posting: just stop. He's not going to win the Republican nomination. He has no prayer of winning the nomination. He isn't polling any higher for the 2012 election than he polled for the 2008, and we all know how that turned out."
Well I am sorry you feel other people are robots, especially those that have researched their candidate and understand why they are for them. But by your analogy, John McCain should be the nominee since he won last time. Or maybe you believe Romney will fall back quickly as last time. Or maybe people have realized that Ron Paul was right and the economic crisis he warned of while so many laughed at him is upon us.
If we don't show Ron Paul in our polls, then maybe the public will forget he's even a candidate! Forget that he consistently polls in the top 3 or 4 candidates, or that his popularity is surging in Iowa and he looks to be in great shape to win the Ames straw poll.
Yuck. Let's hope that, starting soon, any polling company that purposefully omits Ron Paul's candidacy loses ALL credibility.
Green Room/Hot Air: ABC News cheerleading for Obama more than Daily Kos pollster
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/23/abc-news-cheerleading-for-obama-more-than-daily-kos-pollster/
That's a pretty big assumption, allocating the undecideds purely on their Obama approve/disapprove. His head-to-heads consistently run above his approvals, once he's put up against an actual Repuglican. It'd be interesting to see the crosstab of Obama/X undecided voters with their approval ratings of each candidate X. Given how far down their approval ratings are, you could make the argument the other way and point out that if you allocate the undecideds on their approval rating of the Republican candidates, Obama's lead grows dramatically and turns into blowout after blowout after blowout.
Also, hopefully the Paultards will fall apart after 2012, when their cult leader is out of Congress and once again lost by humiliating margins in the primary.
How the hell did you poll Cain, Pawlenty and someone who isn't even running over Ron Paul who poll's higher and raises more money than those candidates?
You don't want the GOP to have an appealing option, we get it but look past partisanship -- Ron Paul is the choice of Independents.
Post a Comment