General Question

Cruiser's avatar

Latest poll shows Romney would win says Obama Camp. Do you agree?

Asked by Cruiser (40421points) March 15th, 2012

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina wrote today, “If the general election were held today, President Obama would lose to Mitt Romney—according to the latest poll from Washington Post-ABC News.

Is this a true picture of how things would play out today if there was an election or merely a veiled “fear” campaign strategy to garner more donations? If so what are the underlying reasons that would cause our incumbent President to lose to someone like Mit?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

49 Answers

tom_g's avatar

Here’s a collection of polls from different sources and different times that might be relevant.

marinelife's avatar

I think it is an attempt to position themselves as the underdogs.

dappled_leaves's avatar

I think the most important thing that the Obama campaign must do is get as many Americans to vote as possible. This is one way to do that.

tedd's avatar

The last poll I saw had Obama on top of Romney by like 9 points, Santorum by 12, and Gingrich by 14 or 15.

That will tighten up once a single GOP candidate is chosen, but still.

But you can expect any tiny hint of Obama “losing” to be immediately siezed on to get people to donate to the campaign, and get them out to vote.

King_Pariah's avatar

^ What they said, Obama losing to any of the GOP candidates seems highly unlikely currently and I doubt that will change much when November rolls around.

bkcunningham's avatar

Obama’s team is after more money.

ragingloli's avatar

With any other western country I would say no. But considering the fact that something like Santorum can win states in the primaries… As Einstein said, there are only two things that are infinite.

Cruiser's avatar

@ragingloli I think this poll speaks less to the viability of any one of the Republican candidates which has been fodder for much Liberal ridicule as it does to the pathetic performance of our incumbent in the eyes of the average American Citizen. If they would rather elect Romney today over Obama that speaks pretty damn loudly as to just how bad things really are for us.

ragingloli's avatar

“If they would rather elect Romney today over Obama that speaks pretty damn loudly as to just how bad things really are for us.”
That would only be true if the electorate were fed accurate and complete information. With lies floating around, like Obama being a socialist/communist, being born in Kenya, being a Muslim, wanting to destroy america and wanting to take away your guns and other such nonsense, nonsense that is believed by a large portion of the electorate, it is plainly not the case.

Cruiser's avatar

@ragingloli I could only agree with you if I felt the American electorate was entirely that clueless and gullible. Plus the scales that tipped here are on Obama’s side because Romney has not said or done ANYTHING that would make him appear more Presidential. It is Obama that has made Romney appear to be a better choice than him not the media or some Right wing spin..

DeanV's avatar

Romney can barely beat Santorum. I’ll believe it when I see it.

chyna's avatar


saint's avatar

The oldest trick in the book to draw in more money and mobilize voters.
It is always tough to beat the incumbant president unless they truly fuck up. Lot’s of folks don’t like the president, and neither do I. But he isn’t a total fuck up.

Vincentt's avatar

I’m not following American politics, but as far as I know Romney is actively campaigning for the Republican candidacy, while Obama is still mainly focusing on his presidency as opposed to campaigning for presidential elections. That would explain it, be no reason for Obama supporters to be afraid, yet it is obvious for a campaign manager to start raking in donations.

Jude's avatar

Agree with loli.

I love you, loli.

Jaxk's avatar


Obama has been campaigning since he was elected. That is his strength. You are right however, that is is just another campaign strategy

anam's avatar

The answer to your first two questions is “yes”: yes, it seems to be an accurate picture (I’ve been following polls on and Romney and Obama sure seem to be going neck and neck). And yes, it is a strategy to get donations, which doesn’t make it a bad thing, since any campaign needs money to be able to achieve its goals. This is just one of several emails the Obama campaign sends each month, each with a different strategy.
As to your third question, how would President Obama lose to Romney, the polls alone leave me positively baffled.

Cruiser's avatar

@anam it’s not so much the polls that have me baffled it’s Romney that does”

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

I am surprised that so many jellies take for granted that Obama will serve a second term. I don’t personally have anything against the guy, but out in the world I am hearing the complete opposite. Sounds to me like he will only get a second term if no one else runs.

I voted for Obama, as did my mother, but we are not voting for him this time around. I don’t want to get into a big political debate by telling you our reasons – just suffice it to say that we are not as impressed as we had hoped we would be.

Romney seems very stiff and false to me. I once compared him to a Ken doll. Then I heard that many other people thought the same, and even saw a web site with him as a Ken doll, and his wife as Barbie.

Romney would be okay with me. If I had to chose between him and Santorum, I would take Santorum. I would vote for Obama again if the other candidate was Gingrich.

ucme's avatar

Political polls are notoriously erratic. They often portray voters disdain for the sitting government & rarely reflect accurately what the outcome of any forthcoming election may be.
That’s clearly the case here because any fool can see that Romney is a fucking clown, he just wears smarter suits.

dappled_leaves's avatar

” just suffice it to say that we are not as impressed as we had hoped we would be.”

Wow. And you think any of the Republicans on offer will “impress” you? I’m afraid they would, but probably not pleasantly.

wundayatta's avatar

I too, am surprised so many people seem to think Obama is going to win. I’m a big supporter, but as far as I can tell, he’s behind and will have a hard time catching up to Romney.

I will say this—as a resident of Pennsylvania—a Santorum presidency would pretty much guarantee all kinds of awful things would happen, like war, poverty, and even pestilence. The guy is a complete idiot—worse even than Bush II. It would be horrible.

Jaxk's avatar

I can’t help but wonder what would cause anyone to vote for Obama rather than pure ideology. Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%, 3 years later we’re still above 8%. Obama railed against the debt under Bush, 3 years later he has racked more debt than Bush did in 8 years. Last year he told us it was the summer of recovery, this year he is saying the same. I can’t help but think next year he’d say it again. Gas prices are through the roof. Food prices are going up about 10%. Health care costs haven’t slowed they accelerated.

But to off set this economic disaster, gays in the military now openly make out on base. I guess that is ample compensation for all our economic woes. And let’s not forget, he gives good speech. That’s gotta be worth something.

tom_g's avatar

@Jaxk – Lesser of two evils. A democrat who has disappointed by acting like a republican in many respects, or a real republican. I’m not rich and I’m not a social conservative, so the choice is easy. I know many people who are in the same situation and will vote for Obama.

augustlan's avatar

I hate to say it, but I don’t take it for granted that Obama will win in November. It seems unbelievable that any of the Republican contenders could beat him, but it really is possible. I hope that the liberals don’t get complacent, and that every single one votes.

@Jaxk I will vote for Obama because people are more important to me than money. I’d honestly rather have a tough economy where every person is equal under the law, than a booming economy with a bunch of people relegated to second class citizen.

Also, [mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

whitecarnations's avatar

I agree with @marinelife It’s politics at it’s finest. I don’t know if I would call it fear. But a tactic indeed to bestow urgency with the liberals.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

As a famous former Canadian Prime Minister said, “Polls are for dogs!”

The only poll that counts is the actual vote on election day.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@augustlan I would agree with you, except that I don’t think for a moment that the Republicans would actually be better for the economy.

augustlan's avatar

@dappled_leaves I’m in complete agreement with you there. I’m nearly certain they would not be. I was just answering from @Jaxk point of view.

Jaxk's avatar

Whoa!! You were answering from you’re own point of view not mine. From my point of view, I would rather not know what you do in your bedroom nor whom you do it with. I don’t see how my not having that knowledge makes you a second class citizen.

cockswain's avatar

I don’t take it for granted that Obama is a shoe-in either. I thought in 2009, “Man, no way we’d elect a bunch of Republicans back into Congress in the mid-term elections. That would just show zero resolve and backbone for the direction we want to see the nation go as a whole. Especially with this crazy Tea Party shit going on.”

Well guess what….

Cruiser's avatar

@cockswain the latest polls suggest anything BUT a shoe-in for Obama no matter who the Righty contender is.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk I agree that the announcement was likely political strategy more than factual reporting.

But I want to add clarity to a couple of statements in your post. Yes, Obama promised the stimulus would bring unemployment below 8%, but that promise was made when the early estimates of the Bush ear Great Recession were that the economy had shrunk in 2008 by 3.6%. When actual numbers were available, it turned out to be over 9% shrinkage. The stimulus was nowhere near big enough to achieve the desired results. It helped. We’d have likely stayed in a dwindling spiral for a long time had we done nothing.

On the debt, your claim that Obama has added more debt than Bush is simply not true. Bush added 89% to the $5.6 trillion debt he inherited from Clinton. Obama has added 41% to the $10.7 trillion debt he inherited from Bush. And the Great Recession he inherited made doing otherwise, adopting an austerity program to pay down the debt, unthinkable.

Interestingly, here’s Fox News on high gasoline prices when they happened under Bush.

All that be as it may, I think this presidential election is going to be a real horse race, and Obama could easily lose it to Romney if the economy and gas prices cooperate with the GOP, and lord knows they’ll be using their power in Congress to see it does.

Jaxk's avatar


It’s funny that you would use that clip from O’Reilly. O’Reilly used it himself on his show a couple of days ago to show how it had been edited to make it look like he was saying there was nothing that could be done. Actually he was criticizing Bush. You need to lay off the liberal websites and get some real information.

Obama has said that higher prices wold be good. His secretary of energy said we need to find a way to get gas prices up to the level in Europe. Now in the election year, they both want us to believe there’s nothing they can do. Obama tells us that the only way to reduce the price is to lower demand. He seems incapable of understanding that there are two elements to the supply/demand curve. Some of the congressional Democrats seem to know that since they go begging Saudi Arabia to supply more. They’re even talking about releasing some of the strategic reserve. It seems they will do anything except increase production here at home. Things like the Keystone Pipeline, the oil in ANWAR, or leasing the oil in Green River Basin. Hell maybe even push through permits in the Gulf. Instead we push for solar like Solyndra. That won’t have an impact on oil even if it worked. Idiots.

As for national debt Bush started with $5,662,216,013,697 and ended with 10,699,804,864,612. Looks like about $5 trillion to me. Obama started with 10,699,804,864,612 and it is now at 10,774,728,192,008. Looks like about $5.1 trillion to me. You’ll excuse me if I took liberties with a couple of months and rounded.

I understand that you all want to believe that Obama had no idea what he was doing when he said he could fix the economy. Hell, I believe he had no idea what he was doing. The very minor improvement we’ve seen has only come about due to the gridlock in Washington. Once we stopped putting major roadblocks in the way, the economy has tried to recover. Just think what it could do if we actually removed some of the roadblocks. Unfortunately, Obama is a one trick pony. Spending is the only thing he knows how to do. If it hasn’t worked, it must be because we haven’t spent enough.

As for the horse race, I agree. Obama isn’t getting his $billion stash and without that it will be a bit tougher. But he is an excellent campaigner, we’ve seen that for about 4 years now. Romney, not so much. Both of these guys have major hurdles. But Romney hasn’t already destroyed the economy while Obama has. It will be fun to watch Obama try to distract and evade the record he has. Americans can be gullible, we’ll see just how gullible they are.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk Perhaps you should consider laying off the conservative media, as well. Domestic oil production is up 8% since Obama took office. Imports are down, and for the first time in decades, we are exporting energy. When O’Reilly originally said that politicians promising to lower oil prices are lying, he was right. Keystone will probably end up getting built, but not on the routing over sensitive ground water. The oil from tar sands is highly toxic. If there were a leak on that route, it would be utterly devastating to life and agriculture through the nation’s heartland.

ragingloli's avatar

I think we have seen here quite well how gullible americans are…

augustlan's avatar

@Jaxk Every reason you gave not to vote for Obama was in the financial realm. You said you didn’t understand why anyone would vote for him, due only to financial issues. I answered you as if your points were all true, and explained that I will still vote for Obama despite your points, and why. From your perspective, see?

As to you not wanting to know what goes on in anyone’s bedroom… are you suggesting that public displays of affection on military bases should be outlawed for heterosexuals, too? If not, I don’t see how you can claim it doesn’t make some people second class citizens.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Hey, Auggie…since this is our question of the day, I want to clip it and re-post it on my “status,” but I’m not sure how to link it to the Facebook question where they can discuss it, rather than have it try and send them here….

cockswain's avatar

@Cruiser I was actually responding to @augustlan‘s post a few above mine. Sorry for the confusion.

Jaxk's avatar


I don’t really want to waste time on this because O’Reilly really is an idiot. Nonetheless, here is the edited and unedited clips from what he said. He said it was BS because they weren’t really trying not because it couldn’t be done.

As for exporting refined products, I’m not sure I see the connection. Gasoline and other refined products are tied to the price of crude. The refining costs are fairly stable and the refineries are not going to sell their products below thier cost. They’ll simply cut production. So if the lower usage of gas means they export rather than cut production, that’s a good thing.

The ethanol subsidy was removed this year, that adds 10 cents a gallon to the cost of gas. I’m not against the elimination of the subsidy but would rather see all subsidies eliminated. It merely hits us at a bad time. Timing is everything in life. We are also seeing a backup of the cheaper crude (so called Tight Oil) from Montana and N.Dakota. The Tight Oil is the primary increase in our oil production and without the pipeline it is not getting to the refineries very quickly.

And I think it is significant that when Bush rescinded executive order banning off-shore drilling the price of oil dropped $20 within 2 weeks. And that had no impact since the congressional ban was still in place. Psychology has a lot to do with the prices of oil and any sign that we may increase production has an immediate impact. Our energy policy has everything to do with our price of oil and gas.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk Are you that biased? The full edition says just what is true. The Republican party is preventing any control on speculation, which is about the ONLY thing a President might push Congress to do to control oil prices.

I am glad we agree it is a good thing we are exporting energy again. My point was that that fact flys in the face of GOP criticisms that this president is an anti-energy president.

I agree we should end all subsidies to big oil or to support industries. With an annual haul of $37 trillion if they can’t stand on their own, shame on them. But it is the GOP blocking elimination of subsidies to the oil companies.

Finally, it it absolutely true that psychology and not rationality rule in oil speculation and price per barrel on the world market. What isn’t true is that this administration has been blocking needed exploration. Aside from a very reasonable drop-off right after the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, drilling permits are up.

This is mostly just a political football and has nothing to do with rational energy policy or reality of any kind.

Jaxk's avatar


I keep hearing about subsidies to the oil industry. Maybe you could explain exactly what subsidies you’re talking about. From what I can find there is nothing that the oil companies get that is not the same as every other industry. Even the subsidy I mentioned above is not an oil subsidy it was an ethanol subsidy.

And just for the record, he’s not an anti-energy president, he’s an anti-oil president. The oil speculation is not a major driver of oil prices and can only have short term impacts. The primary control mechanism is margin requirements and is handled by the exchange.

It is laughable that you would think energy policy has no impact on energy prices.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk Here’s evidence that the ethanol subsidy is a separate thing. The $21 billion per year in oil company subsidies Much of that is amied at paying for or reimbursing oil exploration.

Note that the article lists left-leaning environmentalists who are on board with eliminating both the ethanol and the big oil subsidies. I am fully on board with that.

Jaxk's avatar


I have no problem with eliminating subsidies but you haven’t mentioned what oil subsidies you’re talking about. And they are not reimbursing for oil exploration. It’s how they handle the depreciation of capital expenditures for oil exploration. I don’t know if you understand how depreciation works but it is primarily a way for the government to tax you on money you don’t have.

Skaggfacemutt's avatar

I am just having a hard time because the republicans have gone so far right that it’s ridiculous, and the democrats have gone so far left that it is equally ridiculous. I don’t support a philosophy that Americans should financially support and police the whole world, that we as americans don’t have to right to control our borders, the country should belong to all humans and everyone should be able to come in, and all of the other humanitarian and special interest group hoopla. I also don’t support the philisophy that we should be anal church-lady prudes who push to make the whole country non-smoking, non-drinking, drug free, god-fearing health nuts. It is a toss-up between the party that wants to give what little wealth we have left to everyone and anyone other than us – the ones that work for it; and the party that has become like the gestapo that wants to control every aspect of our lives.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk I’m not against depreciation. That’s not what is in question in the debate about oil and gas company subsidies. Here’s an article that touches on the topic. As they note, finding all the subsidies down withing the 100,000 page tax code is a daunting task.

Jaxk's avatar


I’m not interested in getting into another ‘Falme War’. Your link doesn’t even touch on what these subsidies are. If they can measure the dollars, they must know what they are otherwise they’re lying to you. Here’s a quick article that touches on what they are. They are all about depreciation. And it’s the same depreciation that every company uses.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk As I said, I am not against legitimate depreciation factored into the tax codes. O don’t know whether the depreciation allowed to domestic oil producers is legitimate or not. I do know that $4 billion per year is about 1/10th the total tax incentives given to big oil annually. I’f love to see some investigative journalist with no political ax to grind wade through the labyrinth of tax code and tell us honestly what these “subsidies” really involve.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther