Poll: Majority says Obama will lose in 2012

[avaistheone1]

Two years into his presidency, Americans remained largely split on whether President Barack Obama deserved a second term in office, according to a poll published Tuesday morning.

The survey, by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation, found that 51 percent of Americans (PDF) believed Obama would not win a second term, while 47 percent said that he likely would.
The results were largely the same as a similar poll published nearly one year ago, where CNN found that 52 percent felt Obama did not deserve a second term.

Both figures seemed closely moored to the president's approval ratings, which CNN gauged as 51 percent at the end of Jan. 2010 and Gallup placed at 46 percent at the start of Feb. 2011.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/americans-divided-term-obama-poll-shows/

[Skittles]

1. we better hope Palin is the nominee

[vaberella]

2. ah okay...so what you're saying is that all other Repub. nominees have a better chance than Obama.

n/t

[Skittles]

3. if he keeps losing his base with shit like this

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/target-india-china-obama-tells-corporate-america/articleshow/7457616.cms

YES YES YES

[ProSense]

5. His base reads the Economic Times of India? More likely

they heard the President's speech:

<...>

But we also know that with the march of technology over the last few decades, the competition for jobs and businesses has grown fierce. The globalization of our economy means that businesses can now open up a shop, employ workers and produce their goods wherever an Internet connection exists. Tasks that were once done by 1,000 workers can now be done by 100 or in some cases even 10. And the truth is, as countries like China and India and Brazil grow and develop larger middle classes, it’s profitable for global companies to aggressively pursue these markets and, at times, to set up facilities in these countries.

These forces are as unstoppable as they are powerful. But combined with a brutal and devastating recession, these forces have also shaken the faith of the American people -- in the institutions of business and government. They see a widening chasm of wealth and opportunity in this country, and they wonder if the American Dream is slipping away.

link

[woo me with science]

19. So he is counting on Americans' not reading any news other than prepacked, American MSM?

Interesting, that he would think so little of us.

That's quite an insight.

[ProSense]

42. American MSM?

Spin and propaganda isn't limited to the American MSM. Is that what you thought?

[woo me with science]

48. Why would he assume the base wouldn't read a foreign paper?

That's quite an insulting view of his supporters, and of Americans, don't you think?

[ProSense]

50. Who assumed that?

The comment was about a specific paper.

"That's quite an insulting view of his supporters, and of Americans, don't you think?"

That question is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who recognizes spin.

But hey, feel free to lap it up.

[woo me with science]

51. "That question is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who recognizes spin."

:rofl: I fucking love irony.

[ProSense]

56. "I fucking love irony. "

And I love watching the attempts to make spin from the Economic Times of India a deciding factor for Obama's "base."

[vaberella]

24. It's not clicking. What is the problem with what he said?!

We live in the global economy. Are you speaking of what would be considered "outsourcing"? The same could be said when Toyota opens a company in the US and hires US workers. Outsourcing. Basically, outsourcing is not bad. It's been for a long a time. However there are abuses. What Obama is suggesting is more Friedman economics but in the less developed world. The other thing is... what most people don't get is that half these countries that outsource would never survive 100% in the United States. The high pay in comparison to the change people outside of the US get, the extreme long slave hours with which we would never accept and so on.

Now the question is...how do we build up the economy by creating skilled workers who are not working in almost industrial revolution era slave shops?!

The key is to set up an innovative economy in our own nation. We're talking about establishing new and functional markets that compete effectively on more advanced stuff. Friedman economics creates this sort of hierarchy of development. We're at the top tier of sorts. Investing in education that promotes a push in engineering, skilled workers in renewable energy...economists, business men and the such is what we have.

We're more so the innovators. As an economist I get what he said. As a worker I sort of hate it too. However, I must say I left America to get a job. Because I was finding it difficult to get a job with my skills.

Can you just point to me where it's bad? I'm trying to see how this would upset his base.

[karynnj]

32. Serious question - would any activist (including only on message boards) answer

probably not or definitely not if called by a pollster?

Skittles, I am not trying to put you on the spot - but think this might be a place to gain insight as to whether people definitely to the left would answer this way. So, if you - or others feeling the same way - could respond, it would be interesting. (Personally, I was polled once in 1996- and said that I would definitely vote for Clinton, though I was as annoyed with his actions as many are with Obama's. When push came to shove, I knew I would vote and I knew it would not be for a Republican. )

The reason is that it changes the interpretation of the results on the question of personally voting for Obama. ( This because I assume that the alternative is not voting at all - not voting for the opponent. This means that rather than the results translating to 47% Obama - 53% Republican, it is better for Obama than that. )

[WI_DEM]

41. DU is not his base

[Honeycombe8]

108. I'm one of his base. Who else would most likely pass laws I like? Romney? Huckabee?

Ha.

It's the Independents who elected Obama. The ones who vote for either party.

BTW, I'm both. I'm one of his base, AND an independent. (Note: Independent does not mean moderate; Independent just means you don't belong to one of the two major parties.)

[AndyTiedye]

6. Nooooo! Even She Might "Win" With the Repig Machine and Billions in Corporate Cash Backing Her

They still have all those Diebold Republican Electing Machinez so they only need to get within 10% or so.

Whomever they run will have billions of dollars, rupees, and yuan backing them.

People thought dubya couldn't be elected President. He couldn't, but he got close enough to steal it twice.

Assuming that the Democratic Presidential primary next year will be largely a formality,
those living in crossover primary states should consider voting for Romney in the Republican primary.
Obama should be able to beat Romney, and if he doesn't, it wouldn't be the end of the world.
A Palin or Huckabee pResidency might very well be.

[Skittles]

10. dubya very much lowered the bar for the presidency

in my mind if he could be prez, so could ANYONE

[Golden Raisin]

15. Be very careful what you wish for.

[Skittles]

20. I hear you

:(

[WI_DEM]

40. Why does every poll show Obama winning each of the GOP nominees?

Clinton faced even worse than Obama is at this point in his presidency--people tend to forget that, and he went on to win convincingly.

[RichGirl]

43. You can underestimate Sarah Palin....

But don't underestimate the stupity of the american people. Don't wish for her to run unless you are okay with her winning. I'm not. I'd have to leave the country.

[Arkana]

83. Polls are showing that Obama has a legit shot at winning states

like Tennessee and Georgia if Palin is the nominee.

That is how grossly unpopular she is.

[ProSense]

4. There is this:

CNN

<...>

According to the poll, four out of five Democrats would like to see their party re-nominate Obama for president in 2012, up five points from early November. One in five say they would prefer another Democrat as their party's presidential nominee.

And what about the general election?

The survey indicates that roughly a quarter of all Americans would definitely vote for Obama, a little more than a third say they would definitely vote against him. That leaves approximately four in ten swing voters in the middle - 23 percent who would probably vote for Obama right now, 16 percent who would probably vote against him - but most of whom would be considered "persuadable" by political pros.

<..>

[napi21]

7. It depends on two things. Who his opponent is & how the

unemployment picture looks. Right now, it's way too early to guess.

[Hardrada]

8. I can believe this. The intellectuals are tired of being lectured by a corporate tool

And the more mentally sedentary Amerikans want someone who looks like he has come from the people and maybe once worked in a fast food joint or delivered pizzas sometime.

[JoePhilly]

55. Go to the PDF and compare Obama's number and those for Clinton

The PDF includes the numbers for both Obama and Clinton.

Same poll questions at same point have Clinton getting CRUSHED if he ran for re-election.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/07/rel2e.pdf

[Hardrada]

87. Tempi passati!

[JoePhilly]

88. What's old, is new. Yes?

I was not very familiar with that phrase ... but I think I get its essence ...

History comes back, over, and over.

Let me know if you think I am off base.

[Hardrada]

99. No, what's past is past.

Bringing up stats from a previous century doesn't prove much because it is really remote at this point. Thus: tempi passati.

[LeftyAndProud60]

9. Obama is black. He was never going to win re-election in my opinion. Some whites

voted for him expecting some kind of miracle after he was elected. Some blacks did it too. But most of those blacks will vote for him again. He's losing a lot of white support and no matter what he does, I doubt he'll get them back. People still underestimate race w/ Obama. This country is still one of the most racist countries in the world.


I saw Joan Rivers complain about how Obama doesn't work hard. And she's suppose to be a liberal. The standard that Obama is held to, just isn't realistic.

[Skittles]

11. apparently America is more sexist than racist

we've never had a female president and females are OVER HALF THE POPULATION. Chew on THAT for a while.

[Beacool]

44. Hear, hear!!!!!!!

Let's just ignore how in 2008 the party leadership almost broke into a sprint in their rush to condemn any perceived racial comment, but chose to ignore every sexist and outrageous remark until Hillary was safely out of the primaries. Yes, I mean Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean, et al.

Let them chew on that too.

:mad:

[AtomicKitten]

66. pfft

"Hillary Struggles Against Sexism But Regularly Plays the Race Card"
----> http://www.alternet.org/election08/84150/

[DevonRex]

71. ...

[Number23]

109. Thank you. As someone on the receiving end of BOTH -isms, I've been beaten over the head

by racism a hell of alot more than sexism. Some of the most racist people I've ever come across have been white women. Maybe some folks here need to chew on THAT.

[Fruittree]

17. I absolutely agree - except...

I really hope he does win. Can you imagine if Sarah P. had been president during the current Egypt situation?

[Exilednight]

21. The standard that Obama is held to was set by Obama.

When you run on a platform of change and hope, then there has to be change. When you yell about the halls of Washington being filled by the same faces, then you need to bring in new faces and not recycle the same ones from the last Democratic administration.

When you cry about the fat cats of Wall Street, you better be able to put them on a diet and help them shed some weight instead of allowing the wealth gap to grow even wider.

[emilyg]

69. +1

[butterfly77]

37. Doesn't work hard?

Where in the hell was she while Bush was hiding out on the ranch and afraid to speak to the public after Katrina I remember when he came out with Clinton and his daddy because he was afraid he tried to leave as reporters were taking questions.

The President's never takes a break and when he tries to take a vacation he stalked wherever he goes. Thr media wants him to make a statement or a speech on the most simple things they never would push bush to answer and if he started going into his bipolarness they would stop asking a question change the subject and let whatever he said stand,no matter how stupid it sounded..

[TheKentuckian]

110. No, that "criticism" was unadulterated bullshit. I don't like Obama's work generally

but he is at it on a level I have never seen.

He busts ass to maintain the status quo, enhance corporate profits, converting Democrats into corporate enablers, and deforming education like Bush on a steroids, acid, and cocaine cocktail.

[slackmaster]

38. If you want to pre-emptively load a rationalization for the loss, which hasn't happened yet...

...that's one way to do it.

[Arugula Latte]

70. Joan Rivers is no liberal. She's a Republican & was a big Steve Forbes supporter

[opihimoimoi]

12. The Chess Meister will prevail in the end...GOPer PysOps will FAIL

[namahage]

13. A poll where sampled Republicans outnumber Democrats,

479-441, and no 18-34 year olds polled, results in a poll unfavorable to Obama (though still close to the MOE). Quelle surprise.

But I thought that polls this far out are meaningless, and only people nervous about Obama being elected would post such? Or does that only apply to polls where Obama crushes the GOP opposition?

[Jennicut]

31. No 18 to 34 year olds?! I voted for Obama at the age of 33. I guess people that

age don't count to CNN. That block made up a lot of Obama voters. And of course, Repubs outnumber Dems in the poll. Thanks CNN, for your clear bias. Utter nonsense.

[JohnnyRingo]

14. It won't matter until we see who he's running against

Ask the poll posed as "anybody but Obama?", and the result will be different.

Let's face it, among the current top 3 GOP contenders there isn't one that can make it through the first debate. Their number one choice wants to be America's first Pope. Lookin' at you Huckabee.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. This is a stupid poll...

I know, I know - it's only stupid because it's negative toward Obama!

No. That ain't it at all.

It's stupid because it's not an actual poll asking if people want Obama to be reelected or even if they plan on voting for Obama in 2012.

There is a huge difference between thinking Obama will lose and still supporting his campaign in 2012.

And comparing it to a poll where 52% of Americans last year said Obama didn't deserve a second term is bunk. Again - they are not the same!

Think of it this way: Most in the media have spent an entire year and a half telling us how unpopular Obama is. They've been fixated on his sinking popularity (which, in reality, saw only margin decline for much of 2010 and is now on the upswing) and it's probably feeding results like this.

"Do you think Pres. Obama will be reelected?"

"Hm, well, let's see - I keep hearing how unpopular he is, and even though I support him personally and probably would vote for him over the dreck the Republicans have to offer, he doesn't seem too popular, so he'll probably lose, unfortunately."

It's a pointless poll geared against Obama. You know it's interesting they didn't run an actual ELECTION poll.

[rasputin1952]

18. This is a bogus poll...

as are most polls.

First, there is a long time to go, and any one of a myriad of things could easily topple the GOP and place it in a situation that is extremely tenuous. Two months in, and the Boehner led House has already messed up so bad that, they cut the # of days in session to 3 per week w/ a week off between two weeks off.

They said nothing about jobs, it's all been about garbage, and they have no plan to bring up anything but anti-abortion legislature

There is no viable opponent at this time. How can anyone make even a semi-informed decision w/o any information? Rand Paul is the only one that has shown interest, and that was pure speculation, and a joke.

[kiranon]

78. Agree. n/t

[impik]

22. Keep dreaming

[impik]

23. Keep dreaming

[jefferson_dem]

25. They'll be proven wrong.

Sorry.

[livetohike]

26. Really? Who is going to beat him? The Republicans are

scraping the bottom of the barrel to find someone willing to announce that they are running.

[JoePhilly]

27. The same poll predicted Clinton would get CRUSHED if he ran for reelection in 1996!!

The data is right there in the PDF file of the actual poll if anyone wanted to see it. But no one, including the authors of the article seems to have noticed that.

On the question (#8) "Please tell me which of the following best describes how you would vote in 2012, if Barack Obama
runs for re-election. Would you definitely vote for Obama, probably vote for Obama, probably not
vote for Obama, or definitely not vote for Obama?"

Bill Clinton only got 39% of the vote verses 54% who said they would not vote for him.

And then question (#9) "Please give me your best guess -- if Barack Obama decides to run for re-election, do you think he
will win the presidential election in 2012, or do you think he will lose?"

Clinton gets destroyed in that question ... with only 24% thinking he would win, and 65% thinking he would lose.

Apparently Clinton got no second term .... and Obama is doomed!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Democat]

45. Please don't let facts get in the way of Obama bashing!

Thank you.

[AndyTiedye]

62. We Still Don't Know How Much $$$$$$$$ the Repigs will Raise With "Citizens United"

The "Citizens United" ruling changed everything.
It has given the Repuglicans access to billions of dollars, rupees and yuan.

They will probably have enough money to buy ALL of the advertising time.
With a few billion from the Koch brothers, and a few more from the insurance companies,
they can saturate the airwaves and shut us out. That has never been possible before.

As President, Obama can request airtime, but the stations are under no obligation to give it to him.

We have never been so vastly out-spent as we will be next year.

Maybe Obama can win it anyway. He is a really good campaigner. I will certainly vote for him.
I want him to win.

[JoePhilly]

86. True, but that is an unrelated area of concern to the OP.

[BlueIris]

28. I don't see any way for him to be legally reelected at this point. nt

[GoCubsGo]

29. Never mind.

Not worth it.

[dionysus]

36. .

:spray:

[CakeGrrl]

74. WHO is going to beat him?

From what I've read, it sounds like he's lost YOUR vote for sure, but are you just hoping you'll be proven right, or do you actually have some thoughts on a viable challenger from either party?

[Arkana]

81. Steady now. I just laughed my spleen out.

[BzaDem]

102. ROFL

[Starbucks Anarchist]

107. Bitter, party of one.

[karynnj]

30. These numbers are troubling and even more so the question

that was asked of how the respondent would vote. (polling report.com has the all the questions and the responses. - http://pollingreport.com/wh12gen.htm ) On that, it was - 26% definitely for, 21% probably for, 14% probably not, 37% definitively not. The 37% are likely lost causes - they are probably as likely to change their minds as we were in 2004 on Bush. This means that we need to gain at least 3 or 4 % more - and that means winning slightly more than a fourth of the "probably nots". (This result when the two halves are summed is within the confidence interval - but it does mean a loss is more likely than a win.)

This result might put additional pressure on the Republicans to NOT pick one of their more radical candidates. Extreme candidates are more likely when it is seen as a sacrificial year - ie 1964.

[JoePhilly]

53. Not troubling in the least. You may want to take a look at the PDF

that was referenced with the rawstory article.

In particular, take a look at Bill Clinton's numbers for the same questions at the same point in his first term. The PDF includes them yet no one responding to this OP, or at rawstory, seems to have noticed.

Only 39% said they would vote for Bill Clinton in 1996, and 54% said they would not (question 8)

Only 35% thought he'd be re-elected, 65% did not (question 9).

Basically, according to the same questions asked at the same point in Clinton's first term, he was going to get CRUSHED.

Yet somehow, Clinton cruised to victory in 96.

:rofl:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/07/rel2e.pdf

[karynnj]

73. Thanks for the good points - it makes me real more sure that Obama will win

- which makes sense as he easily has won the head to head polls and the Republicans seem slow to enter the race.

[bornskeptic]

68. Notice that this is a poll of adult Americans.

It is not a poll orf registered voters or likely voters. Even in presidential elections 40% of adult Americans do not vote. If 48% of adult Americans actually voted for President Obama he would be getting about 80% of the vote(48%/60%=80%). Of course that's not going to happen, but there's really no point in trying to deduce something about likely election results from a poll like this. 800 of the people polled won't vote at all, and probably some of them were honest and said they wouldn't vote for Obama. Nobody said they would vote against him, because that wasn't in the question.

[karynnj]

72. Good points

Thanks for making me less worried.

[BlueMTexpat]

33. Ho-hum! Nice try. nt

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dennis4868]

39. This poll is not clear...

Is the poll asking if they think Obama will win in 2012 or is it asking whether or not they want him to win in 2012? Big difference.

[JoePhilly]

54. Same poll had Clinton getting crushed ... the comparison data is in the PDF ...

Here ...

Obama's numbers are much better than Clinton's and Clinton cruised to an easy victory in 96.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/07/rel2e.pdf

[Beacool]

46. It's too soon to tell.

Polls go up and down, they are just a barometer of how people feel at a determinate time and place. Who knows how these same people will feel by November 2012?

Having said that, Obama's reelection will depend in the state of the economy, specifically the job market, and on who the Republicans nominate as their presidential candidate.

:shrug:

[dionysus]

52. .

:hi:

[Beacool]

59. Banky!!!!

Thank you!!!

:hug:

[BluegrassDem]

58. Beacool, do you plan on voting for Pres. Obama in 2012?

Should he be the Democratic nominee? Just curious...

[Beacool]

60. Honestly?

I don't know yet. Let's see who else is out there (other than the Republicans, of course). I just wish that this country had a viable third party. Both dominant parties are a mirror image of each other. Too many years of too much power and money. Who is able to run anymore for any office unless they are independently wealthy or have the capacity to raise astronomical amounts of money?

Maybe we should be the ones rioting, not just the Egyptians.

:-(

[jenmito]

89. You DO realize that Hillary is part of the "dominant parties " that "are a mirror image of

each other," don't you? By the logic in your post, your answer would be exactly the same if Hillary were president now, right?

[Beacool]

90. Right now I'm pretty much done with both parties.

It's been a process that didn't happen overnight. Hillary is a great person, regardless of whether she ever runs for office again, I will always like and respect her.

:-)

[jenmito]

91. Of course you are "right now." Can you honestly say you'd feel the same way

if Hillary were president right now? Somehow I doubt it.

[Beacool]

92. I don't know.

Like she would say, I don't deal in hypotheticals. LOL!!

:D

[jenmito]

93. Every politician says that...

and I don't believe any of them. I'm 100% sure you DO know.

;)

[Autumn]

61. I think it also depends on how much he

reaches out to work with the republicans and just what budget cuts he makes in the next two years.:hi:

[Beacool]

64. Yep, that too.

:hi:

[zulchzulu]

47. To who?

The Onion's Area Man?

[HughBeaumont]

49. Er, to what Republican ace-in-the-hole, ONCE again?

And don't tell me "it doesn't matter" because it DOES.

Just because economic results have been mediocre at best (what did you expect from Reaganomics? We tried to tell you people it's all bullshit . . .) doesn't mean a bunch of whitey theocrat no-names and SarUh even have a ghost of a chance of continuing what Bewsh II started.

[harun]

67. I agree. GOP can't get anyone crazy enough to placate the T-Bagger's

yet sane enough to pull Independent votes.

I do think they will go with sane and it will be very close.

[robcon]

57. Using the voters as political pundits - predicting elections - is ludicrous.

Obama will win by a greater majority than in '08. He has a greater percent of the independent (neither Dem nor Repug) voters than he had then.

[BklnDem75]

63. Meaningless poll

Guess they didn't like actual polls so they're asking people, mainly conservatives, their opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

65. Don't get your hopes up; this polling is an outlier.

[CakeGrrl]

75. Can ANYONE answer the question "Who will beat him?" n/t

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[woo me with science]

84. The electorate is angry.

and increasingly economically desperate. Who knows who could beat him, depending on how the economy is doing by then.

Polls showed that voters had very little confidence in the Republicans who won in 2010, yet they went out anyway to cast a vote against the status quo.

There is no reason to believe that couldn't happen again.

[jenmito]

76. Why didn't you just use the title of the article: "Americans divided on second term for Obama, poll"

[jenmito]

77. And at the same time in Clinton's presidency, 61% felt the same. n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

79. Are they assuming there is a better choice?

Because frankly I see no one. Then again, I don't watch Fox News, or believe the Republican lies. Seriously, what Republican has a chance?

[Arkana]

80. Yawn.

Wake me in November 2012.

[polmaven]

85. And at this point

in President Clinton's term a full 65% thought he would lose reelection. Comparatively, looks like a shoe-in to me!

[Cartoonist]

94. Beware the Naderites

They will let Sarah become president because Obama is not FDR.

[RBInMaine]

95. Pro-GOP corporate polling shit, and way too early to mean anything.

[Safetykitten]

96. Gee. What a surprise.

[quaker bill]

97. I am pretty sure at this point,

they were calling it for Hillary in 2008.

[krabigirl]

98. Whether he wins or a corporate neocon wins is really no difference.

[bhikkhu]

100. Standard worthless POS reporting

I have to say I am sick and tired of seeing the results of polls breathlessly reported on, while we are not told the questions that the results are the answer to. I can't count the number of times poll results have been trumped up as astonishing "news" of the flow and mood of the country, only to find after substantial digging that the questions were skewed, and so the results don't imply anything like what the reporting claims they imply.

Deliberate misreporting of fake and biased polls is one the most obnoxious forms of invented news there is, imho.

[quiller4]

101. did you happen to notice that they used a voter screen based upon the 2010 election?

[craigmatic]

103. He's got alot going against him money, the repubs have their own channel, and they're going to be

united against him more so than last time. Not to mention his own record which has pissed off extremists on both sides.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

104. Aside from it being so far out that it's essentially meaningless

the article makes it a little unclear about whether people are saying that he doesn't deserve a second term or whether they believe- for some reason- that the odds are good that he won't win a second term. The article mentions a earlier CNN poll that asked about whether or not he deserves a second term but this article seems to be talking about people not believing he will win a second term. That's a pretty crucial distinction IMHO. I'm of the opinion that Republicans, despite all of their bravado, are actually really uncertain about their ability to beat President Obama in 2012. I mean, why else would so many candidates be undeclared at this point? And who would be the most likely candidate to beat him and why? I know that President Obama's fortunes are tied to the state of the economy but he won and assumed office when it was MUCH worse and the Republicans haven't done anything to make things better and continually reveal themselves to have no substantive ideas or course of action other than to assail President Obama. This isn't to mention the existence and toxic influence of the Tea Party on the Republicans.

[namahage]

105. The poll cited presents an interesting statistic.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/02/07/rel2e.pdf#page=6

BASED ON 479 REPUBLICANS -- SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 % PTS.

If you had to choose, would you rather see the Republican party nominate a presidential candidate
who agrees with you on every issue that matters to you but may not be able to beat Barack Obama,
or a presidential candidate who can beat Barack Obama but does not agree with you on every issue
that matters to you?

Agrees with you on issues 29%
Can beat Barack Obama 68%
No opinion 2%

[Proud Liberal Dem]

106. Yeah they don't care if the candidate has any principles

just, can they do and say the right things that will get him/her elected? The problem, of course, is, what CAN they do or say that will present themselves as being better than President Obama? I can't think of much at this point other than "I'm not Obama (or black/muslim/Kenyan/socialist/communist/fascist)." :shrug:

[mikekohr]

111. Lose to Whom?, The President Is Leading EVERY Republican Contender

by 7-25% points.

President Obama will easily win re-election, and I am predicting his coattails will be long, wide, and deep.


25 in '12