President Obama is not in good shape for an incumbent. But considering what voters think of his policies, challenger Mitt Romney's position isn't great.

Here's the latest from a CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac poll:

President Obama leads Mitt Romney among likely voters in Ohio and Florida - and has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania - according to a Quinnipiac University/CBS News/New York Times poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted from July 24-30, shows Mr. Obama leading his presumptive Republican challenger 53 percent to 42 percent in Pennsylvania. The 11-point lead results largely from independents, who favor the president by 22 points, and women, who favor the president by 24 points.

Mr. Obama holds a six-point lead in Ohio, 50 percent to 44 percent, a state where he holds a campaign event later today. His lead here is also due in large part to women, who back him by a 21-point margin. Romney leads by ten points among Ohio men, and seven points among Ohio whites.

Now, there are all sorts of problems with this polling sample. Respondents were asked who they voted for in 2008 and their sample of Florida voters went for Obama by 13 points and their sample of Ohio voters went for Obama by 15 points. The actual results in those states in 2008 were Obama by three points in Florida and Obama by four points in Ohio.

The poll wants us to believe that independents are going to go for Obama in Pennsylvania by 22 points (58-36). That's, in a word, insane. Jim Geraghty has more on just how weird the sample is.

But even if you say these samples are way off, and they seem to me to be way off, correcting them wouldn't put Romney in a great position in some states we know he'd like to win.

And my question to you is why you think this is. It's early. Anything can happen. Maybe you don't even think it's a big deal that the numbers are what they are now. But why aren't they better?

I'll get things started by passing along a couple of thoughts I read recently.

Yesterday David Brooks offered up several reasons for why the race is so boring. First, intellectual stagnation. The big government, small government debate is about where it was a generation ago. Everyone knows the arguments for and against. These arguments lack any hint of intellectual innovation. The risk of saying something wrong is so big  that candidates just avoid saying anything unexpected. He says that campaigns are focused on the uninformed voters and lack serious policy proposals. Political passion is mostly negative -- driven by hatred against the other (or fear about what the other will do to the country) than positive enthusiasm for their own. There's much more -- including some interesting thoughts about how technology makes campaigns stupidly respond in the moment and get lost in tit-for-tat minutiae. He ends:

This is the paradox. As campaigns get more sophisticated, everything begins to look more homogenized, less effective and indescribably soporific.

And Byron York says:

Looking over NYT poll results (which are imbalanced), and combining that with other info, it does appear that…

Obama is benefiting from the fact that many people just don't think things will get much better, regardless of who is president…

And they give the edge to Obama, not because he'll improve things but because they think he sympathizes a little more with their plight

Really? I'm not an average voter and I try to remember that when I analyze various campaign strategies. But does the phrase "sympathizes with their plight" sound right for him? I don't know.

So how about the Ricochet mind explain it. Why is Romney struggling? Why is Obama even competitive?

Comments:


Johnny Dubya
Joined
Aug '10
Kevin Walker

There will be high-minded policy-, philosophy-, and demography-based explanations posted here, no doubt, but one problem is the personal qualities of the candidates.  If you reduce it to a high school analogy, Obama is the cool kid, the smooth-talking, pot-smoking member of the "Choom Gang", who nevertheless endears himself to students and teachers by telling everyone exactly what they want to hear; and Romney is the earnest, dependable, competent, straight-arrow nerd--the "Eagle Scout", who ironically doesn't garner equivalent respect. 

Furthermore, the left so dominates the academy that there are many educated folks who are totally cool with "fundamentally transforming the United States of America".  This is an intractable problem that will outlive Obama's administration. 

And, of course, Obama gets assists every day from compliant mainstream media.  I wonder how often reporters shout out at Obama at formal ceremonies, taunting him by demanding a comment about his many gaffes?  Not too frequently, I'd wager.

After the disastrous Carter administration, and the more-successful centrist presidency of Clinton, it is a wonder to me that a hard-left president who is a demonstrable failure is polling so well.

Edited on August 1, 2012 at 4:31pm
Dan
Joined
May '11
Dan

One thing that seems to be overlooked is that a fair amount of the money Republican outside groups are spending goes to the down-ballot races - Senate in particular.  Vacationing down here in Florida, I've been inundated with political ads, and a good portion of the Republican ads are attacking Bill Nelson (the local Democratic Senator).  I've yet to see a pro-Nelson or anti-Connie Mack ad.  The Democrats are focusing exclusively on the presidency.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules

Just for starters we can dismiss anything coming out of CBS and the New York Times.  Rasmussen is the most respected  polling organization, and they have Romney up by 3 nationally.  Since Friday Romney has been up anywhere from 2 to 5 percentage points.  That's bad news for the incumbent.

The electoral college looks better for Obama than Romney, but 7 key states that Obama took in the last election (100 electoral votes) are now listed as toss ups.  If Romney takes Florida (and he must), there's a number of different combinations that will put him over the top.

Quite frankly, I think the pollsters are going to be shocked come election day.  There's a block of 42% firmly opposed to Obama, and they are probably as motivated to vote against him as they are reticent to talk with pollsters.

Let not your heart be troubled. 

Edited on August 1, 2012 at 5:03pm
Gus Marvinson
Joined
Mar '11
Gus Marvinson

Why is Romney struggling?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Edited on August 1, 2012 at 4:29pm
Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

He is cautious.  Too cautious.  That worked in Bain Capital but won't here.

He should have realized in advance that the Israel-Palestine Quandry is one where you cannot say anything without setting one side or the other (or the onlookers) on you ("How dare he?!?").

ZionLutheranBaltoTile

Nor can you say nothing ("How dare he remain silent?!?")

Romney stepped in the quicksand, felt its tug, and tried to pull back.  To his credit, he took the proper course of action and reiterated his statement.

He did not call himself a friend of Israel, then act more like a friend of the Palestinians, until it was politically expedient to trumpet giving military aid to Israel.

Mitt Romney probably has learned that he needs to lead more from the front than he used to have to.  And that a lot more people are paying attention to him than did in the past.

Still, it is August, and Barack Obama and his team show no signs of shifting the the gun away from their oft-shot feet gangrenous from  self-inflicted wounds. 

Do they understand the armed forces definition of Gross Misconduct, and the implications of a Dishonorable Discharge?

Edited on August 1, 2012 at 4:29pm

Joined
Mar '11
Jager

The main reason Obama is still competitive is spending. Obama is dumping more money that he is raising into the swing states. Romeny can't spend most of his own money until he is the actual Republican Nominee. 

The specific poll in question is less than useless. You have outlined above smarter people than me picking apart the sample, the Florida sampling is the most unusable. On June 25 Quinipiac released this same poll only of Registered Voters.  At that time the sample was R28, D 31 I 35 or D+3, Obama was up by 4 points. Quinnipiac expects us to accept that in only month (with the change from Registered to Likely) Florida went from a D+3 state to a D+9 State. There is no consistency between the polls or explanation for this large change. 

July 17 PPP polling was D+2 and showed Obama +1 in Florida. Similarly in Ohio a June 24 PPP Poll was D+2 and Obama + 3. All of this is within the margin of error.

Large leads in swing states right now have all been bad samples not real results. 

Look Away
Joined
Nov '10
Look Away

Good post on "The Future of Capitalism Blog" about how this particular poll has been, and remains slanted to Obama.  Media has to keep the race close for ratings.

Mister D
Joined
Dec '11
Mister D

I wouldn't be shocked if people are... not afraid or embarassed... uneasy?... about saying they want to kick the first black president out of office. The latest iteration of the Bradley Effect.

 We're also in very new territory with projections. In 2008 Obama's turnout went against expectations. No one knows if he will be able to duplicate that success, but I suspect most polling firms are modelling the 2008 turnout more than the 2000 or 2004 outcome.

Edited on August 1, 2012 at 4:34pm
James Of England
Joined
Apr '11
James Of England

Romney's chief message is about the deficit. It's a clarion call that has frequently been voiced, and generally in bad faith, by both sides of the aisle.

Republicans have gotten much better; Bush's second term had a pronounced emphasis on deficit cutting, and was pretty successful at it, but received no credit for this. 3/4 of the Young Guns podcast have voiced their agreement with a: the flatly false claim that Portman was OMB director for three years and b: the claim that his term of office was not one of fiscal responsibility. It was the lowest period of declining deficits under a Republican President in their lifetimes.

We're so keen to disclaim Bush that we persuade people that Republicans and Tea Partiers running on a deficit platform are doing so in bad faith. If no Republican with federal executive branch experience can be considered fiscally responsible, then how can we ask people to vote for us on the basis of fiscal responsibility?

There are other reasons to vote Romney (defense, trade, judges), but we undermine our chief resource terribly when we attack Bush and Republicans indiscriminately.

Majestyk
Joined
Jul '12
Majestyk

The weighted party identification numbers show it all.  They oversample Democrats obscenely in Florida AND Ohio.  The numbers they're not trumpeting  are buried in there and bad for the President - well over 60% of repsondents (unfair Democrat representation and all) in each of these states say that the economy is the same or worse since Obama took office and similar numbers say that it won't get better.  That is more telling, given today's dreadful retail sales numbers.

These are push polls.  The numbers will inevitably tighten as the election approaches because these "news" organizations have to maintain a thin veneer of credibility if their guy loses.

Obama is already running the "Women's right to choose will be stripped (even in cases of rape or incest!)" Card here in Colorado already - that play worked against Ken Buck in 2010 for Sen. Bennett, but I don't think it's going to be effective this time (ironically) because of Romney's muddled past on that issue.
Notorious, wishy-washy ticket-splitters here in CO will see a guy that reflects their own internal struggle, not a hard-core idealogue, like Ken Buck was easily caricatured as.

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil
Mister D: I wouldn't be shocked if people are... not afraid or embarassed... uneasy?... about saying they want to kick the first black president out of office. The latest iteration of the Bradley Effect.

And since Bradley, I think it's only gotten worse. If you disagree with Obama, the NAACP, or Jay-Z, you're probably racist, and don't even know it. That's what a lot of kids learn (and internalize) in school.

Spin
Joined
Nov '10
Ken Owsley

I think everyone here has it right to one degree or another.  I think David Brooks also hits the nail on the head.  The race is boring.  This is like a fight between two heavy weights, where the two lumbering giants just sort of mosey around each other throwing punches but never really getting in that big, bone jarring haymaker.   I think it is exactly because neither side is trying to win the other side, they are trying to win the undecided.  Neither Romney nor Obama are going to say anything that will make me want to vote for them, because if they do, they risk losing that middle undecided vote.  Remember, these are those uninformed voters who probably don't know the name of the current vice-president.  So there is no telling what they think about either candidate.

Kofola
Joined
May '10
Kofola

Gus Marvinson:Why is Romney struggling?

This is a rhetorical question, right? · 14 minutes ago

Edited 12 minutes ago

I was thinking the same thing. Isn't this this just the normal reverberation from every political campaign Romney's ran?

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

Can you imagine where Obama would be in the polls if he wasn't getting that boost from the lick-spittle™ media?

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer
DrewInWisconsin: Can you imagine where Obama would be in the polls if he wasn't getting that boost from the lick-spittle™ media? · 0 minutes ago

Didn't someone in a previous election boast that the media was worth 15 points?

Add that to the D oversample in this poll and do the math.

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

Look Away:

Media has to keep the race close for ratings.

Ratings? Or is it because they want to make it look like Obama's got it in the bag so as to depress the Romney vote? I suspect the latter.

Charles Rapp
Joined
Aug '11
Charles Rapp

Since when does CBS News and the NY Times have anything to do with reality? When they say Romney is struggling and Obama is competitive, they are relating their fantasies, not fact.


Joined
Apr '11
wmartin
~Paules: Just for starters we can dismiss anything coming out of CBS and the New York Times.  Rasmussen is the most respected  polling organization, and they have Romney up by 3 nationally.  Since Friday Romney has been up anywhere from 2 to 5 percentage points.  That's bad news for the incumbent.

Rasmussen is not the most respected polling organization, not by a long shot. Rasmussen's samples are ridiculous, and their "issue polling" borders on being a push poll. Don't take any comfort from Rasmussen polls.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer
Charles Rapp: Since when does CBS News and the NY Times have anything to do with reality? When they say Romney is struggling and Obama is competitive, they are relating their fantasies, not fact. · 20 minutes ago

True.

If the NYT wrote a story that stone is hard, I'd try out a rock as a pillow.

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
Charles Rapp: Since when does CBS News and the NY Times have anything to do with reality? When they say Romney is struggling and Obama is competitive, they are relating their fantasies, not fact. · 22 minutes ago

I agree that this sample is insane. But even if you correct for that, it seems to me Romney is not on the best footing. Do you think Romney should not be worried at all? Do you think this will be a runaway in November or what, exactly?


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In